My point is I don't see how a person can talk about an event that occurred over 500 million years ago when they believe that the entire universe is no more than about 10,000 years old.
Is there some sort of a requirement to accept a belief in order to understand it. Sounds like a recipe for evasion of falsification, if ever I saw one.
a: The moon is made of cheese
b: No it isn't. It's made of rock. Astronauts went there and...
a: You aren't qualified to say, since you don't accept the cheese theory. Obviously you don't understand it.
The Cambrian explosion (or slow fuse) occurred over many millions (or tens of millions) of years, we have transitional fossils both leading up to, and within, this time period. DNA tells us that animals existed long before the Cambrian, take something such as Trichoplax, its ancestors split from the main branch of animal evolution maybe as much as a billion years ago. We also know that various things were going on which might have prompted the evolutionary changes; such as an increase in atmospheric oxygen, evolution of Hox genes, development of hard parts in response to predation, and so on. So what are you claiming the problem is?
Why are you asking me? I'm not qualified to comment on beliefs I reject, remember? (Like to see that one applied a tad less selectively.)
The undeniable temporal stratification we observe in the fossil record is one of the main reasons I find the young-earth position so implausible.
Oh, it's mighty deniable. And this is just the kind of case where I don't think it's fair that you get to be selective. How come you get to talk about things you don't accept?
You guys want to talk about what has been falsified, well flood geology was falsified an awful long time ago when scientists realised that organisms simply aren't piled up as flood geology absolutely demands that they must be. These people, however, had the intellectual honesty and integrity to abandon this idea.
False false false. Polywrong. Name three scientists from "an awful long time ago" who understood flood geology and abandoned it. Your assertion is pure antihistory. I challenge it every time I see it. Will you be the first repeater of this disinformation to be man enough to retract the statement?
If you want to discuss the flood, there are threads available. The phony "flood models" published by evolutionist scoffers are junk. Are you familiar with the term 'straw man argument'?
Organisms all over the world are laid in precise layers, there is nowhere on the planet where all the organisms that ever lived are found in the same layers. Yet YECs persist in claiming that they all lived at the same time, and then a flood laid down the layers, a flood incidentally that was powerful enough to carve out the Grand Canyon and at the same time evenly distribute fossils all around the world in perfect sequential layers. The fact that palaeontologists, geologists, and geophysicists are able to precisely date layers by the uniform sequence of the fossilised remains of organisms makes a complete mockery of the idea that they all lived together at the same time. The oil and gas industries in fact rely on the ability of micropalaeontologists to do precisely that. How about the discovering of Tiktaalik (whether you accept it as transitional or not); Neil Shubin and his team were able to precisely predict the layers that they would discover a certain type of organism in, and they found it. This all makes absolutely no sense on the young-earth flood geology model. Shubin and his colleagues would have just been digging around in randomly assorted rocks containing randomly assorted organisms that all died some time in the last few thousand years. It would have made the task essentially impossible, and it would have been only with the most outrageous stroke of luck that these scientists would have found anything even slightly resembling what they were looking for. This discovery only if those rocks are as old as dating methods say they are.
And that mess has what to do with the topic?
Am I supposed to respond & contribute to further derailment? Why not post your opinions in the appropriate threads, at least? Oh - that's right - most of your bunk's already exposed before you even post it. And the rest soon would be - right there in the appropriate thread where people who want to read about that topic will be reading.
This is a sore-loser tactic. You see you have no chance to fool anyone about a given topic, but for emotional support & to keep spirits up among your fellow losers, you list a bunch of empty propaganda about other topics. Wow
I will take no rebukes from anyone who believes in such absurdities. Various prominent scientists have said it, and I agree with them; it would be far easier to believe in a flat earth than a young earth/universe.
I believe the kind you speak of'd rather
accept a flat earth than an earth subject to the Holy Living God. It'd be difficult to conclude otherwise. But if all your arguments are just going to boil down to "this is what the mainstream says", you're going to be one of the most boring members ever to register. Do you think this is news to anyone here? Where would you get such an idea?