You're really off to a bad start. "40 new animal phyla"? Time for you to publish your discoveries, because "science has found" only thirty or so animal phyla. Which rock did you find the other 8-10 under, and what are they?
As for "arose during the Cambrian", you might want to show your research on *that* one, too, since the time of the "rise" of many animal phyla is still a subject of debate. The earliest known fossil representation of each phyla certainly doesn't all fall in the Cambrian, for example:
Furthermore, you'll note that phyla Cnidaria most certainly arose *before* the Cambrian. So if you're aware of any evidence that *all* phyla demonstrably arose *during* the Cambrian, feel free to present it now. Or retract your bogus unsupported assertion.
in a matter of a few million years at most.
Wow, not only are you the only person on the planet who knows for sure *when* all the animal phyla arose, you know exactly *how quickly* they did so! You must be psychic! Or at least delusional.
I also note you carefully left ambiguous what timespan you're referring to when you say "a few million years". After all, half a billion years is "a few million years", if you want to be vague enough.
Hint for those who don't get all their "science knowledge" from creationist sources: Undeformed Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata which are reachable from the surface are far and few between. The older a rock strata, the more likely it is to be buried under thousands of feet of more rock, or eroded away at some point in the past to sand and dust, or so crushed and deformed or damaged by force and heat, or lost to subduction, that few fossils would remain intact (and fossilation is a rare enough process anyway, requiring special conditions to occur). And Cambrian (or older) strata are *VERY* old (540 million years and up). So there are only about a dozen known Cambrian or pre-Cambrian fossil beds of good quality anywhere in the world, period. To fill in the admittedly large gaps in our knowledge of this period in the Earth's history, we'll have to wait until we make more lucky finds of fossil beds of that great age.
What is known at this point is that by the early Cambrian period, there were many diverse life forms already in existence (although by today's standards they were all *extremely* primitive, and many downright "alien"). And that the few known fossil beds from 10-20 million years earlier show only considerably simpler life forms (gee, just as you'd expect from evolution, hmmm...) From this, some people have concluded that there was a large burst of evolution which took place within that relatively (but not unreasonably) short geological time period, dramatically changing the biological landscape in what would have been one of the more abrupt evolutionary diversifications in history.
As you'll note from his subsequent rantings, Gore3000 tries to claim that this was "impossibly" fast. Nowhere does he provide any *support* for his claim that this amount of evolution couldn't occur that quickly under the right conditions, you'll note. Actually, people who study evolution for a living generally agree that while the so-called "Cambrian explosion", if it actually occurred (and its occurrence is only implied) would likely rise only to the level of "surprisingly" fast, not "impossibly" so.
However, the Cambrian "explosion" may only be an apparent, and not a real, sudden proliferation. What Gore3000 "forgets" to mention (along with his creationist buddies who similarly like to sieze on the sudden Cambrian appearance of diverse life forms -- despite the fact that it causes far more problems for their *own* theory than for evolution) is the fact that there are certainly entirely other explanations for the apparent "explosion".
One of the more plausible, and in fact the one I personally think is extremely likely, is the idea that there were separate seas in those days, cut off from each other for many millions of years. Continental drift caused the continent(s) to be configured very differently in those days, and it's quite possible that for many tens or hundreds of millions of years, a portion of the ocean was landlocked with respect to the other oceans of the time. Evolution taking place in this isolated sea could have had a biological breakthrough of some sort which over, say, 100 million years led to the diversification we eventually see in the Cambrian period. And yet, fossil beds from the oceans *outside* the landlocked ocean would show relative evolutionary stagnation during this entire period.
Finally, when continental drift spread the landmasses apart and "broke open" the landlocked ocean, the "advanced" life forms it contained would quickly (geologically speaking) spread throughout the rest of the world's oceans, making for a "sudden" appearance in the fossil record from those regions of "new" lifeforms which appeared "suddenly", supplanting the more primitive life which had until recently lived in those oceans.
Arguments for this hypothesis:
1. The Cambrian period is *known* to be the time that most of the world's continents, until then all jammed together, began to move apart from each other and break up the "supercontinent". This would be the time you would *expect* any landlocked seas to "spill open".
2. In the fossil record there appears to be a wave of extinction, with most of the known pre-Cambrian life forms vanishing and being supplanted by the Cambrian life forms.
3. DNA analysis of modern phyla indicate a divergence point for most to be long before the Cambrian -- up to 400 million years earlier. Such "molecular clock" techniques are sometimes controversial (mostly with respect to the question of how "constant" the "clock" may run), but barring some better explanation, the best research currently indicates a much longer run of pre-Cambrian evolution than could justfiably be called a short-term "explosion".
If the above scenario is correct, then someday we ought to discover a pre-Cambrian fossil bed (i.e., from a region which was within the landlocked ocean) which contains a fossil history of life from at least 700MyA to 540Mya that is much richer than that currently discovered for the same period (which so far presumably are from outside the landlocked pre-Cambrian "cradle of life").
In short, creationists like Gore3000 presume that if a pre-Cambrian fossil bed from *one location* shows a certain collection of life forms at a certain point in time, then the *whole world* must have been like that at that time. Next, he'll likely be telling us that kangaroos can be found worldwide...
It has found no possible ancestors for the vast majority of these phyla.
Your wording reveals that you're aware that there *are* ancestors for *some* of the phyla. For example, there are pre-Cambrian fossils that are clearly soft-bodied ancestors to trilobites, despite the fact that all Cambrian-and-later trilobites are armored:
In addition, no new animal phyla have arisen since that time.
Again with the psychic pronouncements, eh? Prove it. For example, please demonstrate your evidence which shows that, say, the Nematoda phyla did not arise after The Cambrian. We'll wait.
This totally disproves Darwinian evolution
No, it doesn't. You are, however, invited to explain why you believe it does. Be sure to be specific and show all your work. Extra points for neatness.
and is why Gould and Eldredge, both inveterate atheists, broke off with Darwin and proposed a totally new materialistic/atheistic theory
You're delusional again. Gould and Eldredge did not "break with Darwin", as any examination of their writings will amply prove, nor is punctuacted equilibrium "a totally new" theory. It is, in fact, nothing more than Darwinian evolution with the realization that evolution is not always a steady progression, since varying conditions will cause it to speed up and slow down quite a bit -- just as, say, erosion sometimes happens at a snail's pace (in low moisture, low wind conditions), and sometimes proceeds with the speed of a flash flood which washes away millions of cubic feet of material literally overnight.
(based on nothing but wishful thinking).
Where *do* you get this goofiness? Oh, right, creationist sources. Try cracking open a science journal someday, son.
Far from being based on "nothing but wishful thinking", the theory of punctuated equilibrium was based on mathematical models of how evolutionary processes would vary in rate depending upon conditions, and was verified by field studies.
Your batting average isn't real good tonight, is it?
The scientific facts about the Cambrian are as I stated them to be.
*cough*. See above.
Not a single evolutionist has been able to come up with a legitimate evolutionary explanation that fits the facts.
For pete's sake -- just because *you're* blissfully ignorant of them, doesn't mean that there aren't "legitimate evolutionary explanations that fit the facts". There are, in fact, at least a dozen competing explanations (including the one given above, as well as many others which argue that even a 10-20 million year "explosion" of evolution would not be unreasonable at that point in the history of Earth and life as it existed at the time, based on rising oxygen levels, the first development of predation driving evolutionary pressures into high gear, the plasticity of a more simplistic DNA, etc. etc.)
If *you're* not aware of these "evolutionary explanations", it's just because you haven't bothered to look. And you're naive if you think your favorite creationist reading material is going to present them for your education.
What do you expect, for every new idea in evolutionary theory to be personally delivered to your door gift-wrapped? Get thee to a library, son.
The Cambrian disproves gradual evolution completely.
Really? How? You "forgot" to explain your reasoning.
My beliefs (and yours) are irrelevant as to the facts in this matter or any other scientific matter.
And yet, you just expressed your unsupported *belief* in the prior sentence. Contradict yourself much?
The facts speak for themselves.
Yes they do. And when you learn as many of them as the rest of us, you'll make a fool of yourself less often.
evolution is bunk and the only proof it can provide is: lies, doubletalk and insults.
I'm sorry, you seem to have us confused with your own posts.