Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion

Creation "science" wins again, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Perhaps to creation "scientists" this might be the case, but not to real scientists.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You've been into the creationist kool-aid again.There is nothing wrong with the use of index fossils, in spite of what the creationist websites and literature imply.If you look at an early postcard of a street scene, you can identify the approximate year by the style of the vehicles. That is using "index cars" in the same way index fossils are used.You know the date for the various car styles already, so you can apply that knowledge to an unknown scene and infer a date.If particular fossils which form a unique grouping are dated in one area, then the age of that particular grouping can be inferred in other areas where it is found.The more accurately a particular fossil is dated, the more reliable it is as an index fossil. This is particularly true if it has a wide distribution and a narrow time span.A great index, or "time stratigraphic marker" is the old pull tab from soda and been cans. Those pull tabs are everywhere, were only used for a short time, and being aluminum are very durable. These will be an important "index fossil" for historical archaeologists.So where is the circular reasoning in all of this?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Wrong. That is a standard creationist talking point, and it is wrong. It shows a deliberate misunderstanding of how these things work.Study the matter a little more closely, avoiding the creationist websites, and perhaps with reference to the examples I gave above. Then get back to me.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Here is a definition of faith that may help this discussion:

​

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

​

So you are using faith in place of evidence, eh?And you are using faith to argue against evidence, eh?No problem! But just don't confuse it with science. It is religious apologetics: creation "science" if you will. Unfortunately for your argument, that is the exact opposite of science.And you are posting in the Science Forum. You really should use scientific evidence here, and leave faith for the other forums on this website.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I have never understood why creationists make such a big deal of the Cambrian "explosion."There is nothing there that supports their claims for creationism.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Are you still harping on that global flood nonsense? With all of the evidence showing that it is a tribal myth, and never happened--indeed could not happen--as described?Even the early geologists, virtually all creationists trying to prove the flood, gave up by the early 1800s.Since then the case against the flood has only become stronger and more definitive.Face it: the "global" flood is a tribal myth.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, not a red herring.Science has examined the flood story and it has been falsified.To turn that around you have to battle all of science, not just promote some minor claim about the Cambrian--an epoch which doesn't have anything to do with creationism in the first place!Face it: you are arguing from religious belief, and refuse to accept the broad conclusions of science no matter what the evidence shows.And the evidence shows that the global flood is a tribal myth. It is probably based on the earlier account which probably originated with the Black Sea expansion.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are right, we could do that.But it is more my style to present evidence; that is why I am getting the "fingers in the ears" treatment.This whole long thread on the Cambrian is meaningless as there is nothing there that supports creationism or a global flood. To debate the issue is futile unless creationists can come up with evidence tying the Cambrian to either creationism or a global flood.And that evidence can't be some small picky point; it has to be enough to overturn pretty much all of science. Arguing about the shells of molluscs may be interesting, but it leads nowhere for creationists.If creationists want to argue that the Cambrian represents Noah's flood, they have a huge burden of proof to assemble. Just for starters, they need to explain a slight difference of somewhere near 550 million years in the dates shown by science and the dates proposed by creationists. And that is just for starters.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, didn't mean to knock your thread.But I do find it interesting that creationists who normally express no interest in science, or are generally anti-science*, take great interest in a very few topics, one of which is the Cambrian "explosion." This is only spurred on by the creationist websites, now nearly ubiquitous, that are among the largest purveyors of untruth ever when it comes to science.--------------------------* When I say "anti-science" I mean that many creationists feel they can pick and choose among the results of scientific endeavors, and reject the ones which, for religious reasons, they don't like while accepting the rest--all of which were obtained using the exact same scientific methods. Sorry, you can't just pick the results you like and reject the rest and then claim you are pro-science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.