The only fact is that there are fossils there. How they got there, and how old they are is a matter of opinion, and are not scientific facts.
I would argue that there are a large host of facts - many thousands. For paleontologists, we have facts like 1.
The distribution of animal types in the Cambrian layers. 2.
The differences between these types and the types found in different Cambrian sites around the world. 3.
The kinds of fossils that have NEVER been found. e.g., no bones, no teeth, no fish, no pollen, no land plants, no land animals etc. 4.
The kinds of fossils found in the layers immediately below the Cambrian (the Ediacaran fossils I showed above). 5.
The changes in these fossils between the lower layers and the upper layers of the Cambrian. 6.
The fact that for almost all the layers below the Ediacaran layers (often thousands of feet),we find only single cell life.
The list of course is much longer than this. Such facts are verfiable by anyone with a rock hammer and a microscope. Any scientific theory that one proposes regarding the origins of these fossils must be consistent with these facts.
There are no answers.... If there were answers, there would not be a controversy.
I can't say I agree with this. Controversy almost always occurs when there is more than one answer (Just ask my wife!). It almost never occurs when there are no answers. I certainly don't think you would say that the current debate regarding creationism in America is because creationists have no answers. Would you?
But yes, there remains debate in the scientific community regarding the Cambrian animals - and this is primarily because there are several answers championed by different scientists. Scientists are busy looking looking for fossils that might help to discriminate these different answers.
1. The Cambrian animals evolved quickly (e.g., in a brief 20 million years) from a single Metazoan animal. If so, can we find fossils that show this?
2. The Cambrian animals evolved from the Ediacaran animals. If so, can we find animals that are a mix of these two types (e.g., between Spriggia and the trilobites).
3. Before the Cambrian, these animals were microscopic and the availability of both minerals and oxygen allowed for an increase in size and shell structure in the Cambrian.
4. Did the Cambrian animals evolve in a relatively small area on the earth that has not yet been found, then spread around the earth after they became successful? Several lines of research support this.
5. Can the genetic differences between modern phyla point to a date when the phyla first diverged? Some say that this line argues that the phyla diverged 600 million to 900 million years ago. Others disagree.
So overall, there are a number of answers, but the fact that there are several answers does not mean that that we have no answers. If you asked me whether LSU or Kansas will win the National Championship I would say I don't know (I am actually cheering for West Virgina). But the fact that I don't know does not imply that Syracuse has a chance (with 2 wins and 9 losses).
A debate between two views does not imply that all views have an equal chance.
As it is noted, I believe in creation so this may sound odd. I really don't want to debate you because you provide very good information which I learn a lot from. So my questions are not for debate reasons, but hoping you will continue to post.
I think debates can be fun, if both sides are willing to learn and respect the other side. You show both respect and kindness. But I also understand that such debates can be frustrating for either side when the other side does understand or accept your point of view. But certainly don't hesitate asking tough questions.
This fossil being precambrian, Ediacaran biota, changes everything I have been told.
The other thing I was told is that the Chinese Cambrian lair has many soft tissue fossils. In other words, Cambrian still looks like an explosion of life starting mostly at the phyla level.
Fifty years ago, Ediacaran fossils were virtually unknown. Now this era has its own name and there are various sites around the planet (one in Newfoundland that I hope to visit someday). A couple sites (Siberia and China) are said to have exquisite detail enough to determine some of their inner structure. So we should know a bit more in the next few years as to whether these are true precursors. Also, if the percursors were microscopic then the paleontologists need to explore the lower Cambrian with microscopes. This makes finding these fossils much more difficult since very very few Cambrian rocks around the world contain any fossils at all.