sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,826
- 7,845
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
No, evidence like I just challenged you to respond to. Evidence I'd like to see any creationist, anywhere, address meaningfully. The "evidence" you're talking about concerns developments we have very little data about, since most of it involved soft-bodied creatures that left no fossils. Why are creationists so afraid to deal with the evidence that we do have, but prefer always to go looking for places where we don't have evidence?Evidence like this where even evolutionist admits there is no signs of evolution.
And if you do want to deal with the Cambrian explosion, what's your argument, anyway? It's not like creationism predicted the appearance of many animal body plans 540 million years ago, right? Nor did it predict the appearance of those body plans tens of millions of years before land animals appeared.
Exactly. Based on very limited information, scientists came up with an educated guess about what early animals were like, and they were wrong. So they took the radical step, when they found out they were wrong, of changing their ideas. Shocking, I know."No one expected such an advanced brain would have evolved so early in the history of multicellular animals."
In another words, "Look at that. That evidence surely went against our theory so time to make up another story."
Upvote
0