creationists, how can you use the cambrian explosion argument anymore, in the face of new science?

Question

http://genome6.cu-genome.org/andrey/GouldComment.pdf


i do not expect you all to read the whole thing, but if you argue for creationism by way of "cambrian explosion" i would suggest you look at all of the facts and not just those that are antiquated and by virtue of that fact, supportive to the "creationist" argument. in the face of human endeavor to learn, all things may be discovered, in the face of complacency and intellectual depravity, not much will be discovered.

why is "god not bound by science?" because YOU say so? god IS science.
how can you be so dismissive of discussion, it makes you sound like drones. would god not want you to use the head that you were "given" to think about the myriad possibilities?
really, isn't it thought that sets "us" apart?
reason? no?

that is not a "Fact." millions of years of fossil record are seen in perfect line. that is evidenced everywhere. "cambrian" organisms are not "mollusks" alone, in fact most of what has been found has been more insect like and not something "pushed down" in a flood. i have heard the arguments of creationists. never have a heard a good one. not yet. but i would love to find one.
the thing is, you can tell me that you were an "evolutionist" and an athiest and i wonder what that means, why is that significant, because YOU changed it should matter? i was bound by religion once, I changed...does that matter to you? or is the creationist/religious experience the only one of value?

Answer 1

Creationists cannot argue with scientific evidence...They argue using beliefs and faith....

Answer 2

an honest way of putting it incredibly is: 50% - 80% of all accepted phyla ever accepted appeared on the *initiate* of the Cambrian explosion, arguably interior a three million twelve months era. So jointly because it incredibly is actual the Cambrian lasted some 50 million years, the 'explosion' section wasn't even on the component of fifty million years. And jointly because it incredibly is actual that some multicellular varieties existed in the past the Cambrian - such because of the fact the Ediacaran - the recent varieties that appeared have been the 1st complicated multicellular varieties, and the recent phlya have been disconnected from previous Ediacaran varieties. 'And different extensive adaptations (like the Ordovician)' What with regards to the Avalon Explosion? The surprising mass extinction events and mass speciation events suits with Genesis a million and Psalm 104 (a creation Psalm). Your argument is probably good against the extra youthful Earth Creationists - the weakest interpretation of the Bible's creation money owed.

Answer 3

I don't think so. I used to be an atheist and evolutionist for 20 years; I used to be arguing from your stance. I was wrong. Your view of creationism is very simplistic; the fact is that animals are not found in the fossil record in the order in which they evolved, but rather the order in which they were buried by the Flood. Mollusks and other "Cambrian" fossils are at the bottom because they were already at the bottom when they were buried. Burial in a Flood allows for occasional exceptions, whereas evolution does not allow for exceptions. Evolutionists cannot explain why a "younger" fossil is located beneath "older" fossils without concocting illogical and unscientific "overthrust" theories.
You would be more open-minded if you actually tried to listen to a creation science seminar versus only listening to an evolutionist's interpretation of creationism.

Answer 4

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.

I don't know when the beginning was, and I don't care.

I don't know how God created the Heavens and the Earth, and I don't care.

I'm not ignorant, and I'm not frightened by knowledge or science, I just don't care. I have better things to think about than issues of which I have absolutely no control.

Answer 5

Because they don't care about science, they only care about the bible, and here is good example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6549595.stm
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS0103/704150358
Creationists cherry pick science to fit their own and enforce their own point of views, I guess instead of helping the poor, sheltering the single mothers, the feeding and clothing of children isn't important as a museum for creationists which tells only lies about science, and enforce the brainwash teachings among believers and trying to get the bible into the pubic school system as well, why because they don't care.

Answer 6

young earth creationists should not ever use the cambrian argument considering the time period of the Cambrian is 542 ± 1.0 Ma - 488.3 ± 1.7 Ma, and not wednesday last week as the young earth theory would have (or 6000 years ago, or whatever)

Answer 7

I don't care about explaining creation because it is unexplainable. God is all powerful, the Bible says he just have to speak to making something happen. God is not bound by Science.

Answer 8

I believe in creation. God spoke this world into existence.

Answer 9

I am not interested in arguments. I believe in the Bible record, simple as that. : )