The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
F100
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence for Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
F100
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 119871
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Pro

When searching for information about the earth's past, Perhaps the best place to look would be the geologic column. The geologic column is a column of layers of rocks on top of each other and in them are contained almost all of the species of life we see today. Now from an evolution point of view complex life forms evolved from simple ones. Thus, This is exactly what the geologic column should reflect, And for a while, That's what it looked like. At the bottom, You see simpler life forms such as the triiobites and nautiloids and as you go up they get more and more complex and you see things like horses and dinosaurs. But then something unexpected was found and today it is the biggest problem facing evolutionists today. At the very bottom of the geologic column were found species from every single major phylum in biological classification. This is known as the cambrian explosion and it reveals that at the beginning, There was the sudden emergence of all species at once.

From a creation point of view, This makes perfect sense. After all, For Christians, We believe God created the world and all of the species in it in 6 days and if this were true, We should be finding all of these species in the very bottom of the geologic column and it is exactly what we found.

From an evolution point of view however, It leaves you scratching your head. You see, Evolution believes that every transition from species to species takes millions of years. However, The geologic column reveals the sudden emergence of all species at once. Not only does this not makes sense transition wise, But is also inconsistent with the idea that life started out extremely simple.

Scientists have developed crazy phenomenon's to attempt to explain this theory and there are a few things I would like to point out. One, All of the theories attempted to explain the cambrian explosion are only what could have happened against all odds. However, They have no real evidence to back them up. Second, Whenever you are searching for evidence about anything scientific, You should always see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. If you are trying to develop crazy scenarios to make the evidence consistent with evolution, It is likely that anything you come up with will be wrong. It is a much better practice to just see what makes sense according to the evidence. Creationism is a logical conclusion to make from the evidence, Evolution is not.

It only makes sense to see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. The evidence points to an intelligent creator, Not evolution.

Sources:

1. Https://www. Usna. Edu/Users/oceano/pguth/md_help/geology_course/geologic_column. Htm
F100

Con

The Cambrian explosion, As you quoted, Did not actually indicate the true start of metazoans. You see, We consider the Cambrian explosion as having started 541 million years ago, Itself lasting 20-25 million years. But before that, 610 million years ago, We have evidences of Aspidella disks. Hence, It is not right to expect that all species started off with such a relatively short phenomenon.

You see, Your argument focusses on what occurred during the Cambrian explosion - it doesn't really focus on diversification. This ground fact is what leads to the evolutionary theory's accuracy. The Cambrian explosion has been explained - I thank you for bringing up this topic which has no doubt educated me as well, But it is not like this has not been asked before.

Anyhow, With such a preface, Allow me to start.

The first ever Cambrian fossils were trilobites, After which many speculated as to how this possibly could have occurred. The first, As I pointed out was the question as to whether this was all a product of diversification. All the while, Although scientists were puzzled, They did not think this pointed to creationism, For this boom could be traced, As I stated before, To organisms before. The beauty in evolution is that it enables organisms to undergo variations, And in surprising ways. Further there were geochemical observations, Yet these were easier to deal with. You see, It is believed that the drastic changes that had taken place were due to chemical markers, Which could be explained due to a mass extinction, Or methane ice contributing to massive warming.

I shall give this to my opponent - scientists still are relatively puzzled by the rather surprising rate of species' fossils from the Cambrian explosion. What I negate is the reason he/she points this out to - creationism. Of all the theories that have been put forth, Some by renowned scientists like Stephen J Gould and Alexander Markov, None of these closely resemble the idea that some intelligence might have contributed. I shall explain these in detail, For sake of educated debate.

1. Ozone: Given the amount of Ozone (O3) that appeared to have been around during the era of the explosion would have contributed to the appearance of complex organisms.

2. The increase in Calcium in Cambrian seas. It is possible in all sense that the volcanically active midocean ridges would have caused calcium levels to rise, Which can perfectly be the reason for development of skeletons for organisms around this period.

3. According to a study (de Rosa, R. ; Grenier, J. K. ; Andreeva, T. ; Cook, C. E. ; Adoutte, A. ; Akam, M. ; Carroll, S. B. ; Balavoine, G. (June 1999). "Hox genes in brachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution". Nature) one can pinpoint the boom in organism development due to Hox genes. Hox genes, In a nutshell, Regulate what parts of the body the corresponding parts in the embryo develop into. This explains the large range of disparity to appear from a limited set of genes, But such theories linking this with the explosion struggle to explain why the origin of such a development system should by itself lead to increased diversity or disparity. This paradox is answered to by Physics. That's right, Physics of development. It is proposed that the emergence of simple multicellular forms provided a changed context and spatial scale in which novel physical processes and effects were mobilized by the products of genes that had previously evolved to serve unicellular functions.

This debate seeks to establish that evolution cannot explain all this. Yet these scientific theories all find their base in the concept of organisms having to adapt in troubling circumstances, And gradually develop into better variations. Also, Unlike my opponent's claim that the explosion was short, 25 million years, While not being considerably long, Is perfectly compatible with all theories. In fact this explosion need not be such a huge evolutionary feat - the establishment of a "complexity threshold" - the maximum variation that an evolutionary process can lead to in such a short time - points to the explainable obscurity of this phenomenon from the purview of general science.

The underlying fact in my argument is that there is no need for a Creator as such. I do not seek to offend religion, For I believe in a God, But only for my spiritual purposes. In reality, Evolution is our God.

The floor is yours.
Debate Round No. 1
F100

Con

I yield the floor to you for Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
F100

Con

Yield the floor yet again to you for Round 4.

Please stop forfeiting rounds.
Debate Round No. 3

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

As I stated before, When analyzing scientific evidence, See where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it.

Before I explain how the cambrian explosion supports creationism, Let me explain how it is evidence against evolution.

"The Cambrian explosion, As you quoted, Did not actually indicate the true start of metazoans. You see, We consider the Cambrian explosion as having started 541 million years ago, Itself lasting 20-25 million years. But before that, 610 million years ago, We have evidences of Aspidella disks. "

What your showing if you can prove that is that a great amount of complexity still arised in such a short amount of time, Just not at the beginning. That doesn't explain how the complexity arised in such a short amount of time.
F100

Con

My sole point here is to argue that complexity DID exist before the Cambrian explosion, At least, In the making. Aspidella disks, For instance, Evolved into more complex types. That said, Your argument might have been correct had Aspidella disks not been observed before.

The fact is, Your argument will only hold true IF the Cambrian explosion contributed to COMPLETELY NEW ORGANISMS in such a short time. If that had been the case, The evolution theory would not have been able to explain it by a long shot. However as my evidence suggests, The explosion period merely witnessed VARIATIONS and genetic modifications of ALREADY EXISTENT organisms.

For the sake of debate, I'd like to quote a line from your Round 4 argument -
"That doesn't explain how the complexity arose in such a short time" (I must make the grammatical correction)
The complexity never arises, Yet is accumulated, And in this case in a surprisingly short time. Evolution can cover the explosion concept in that nothing arose, Apart from FURTHER VARIATIONS and EVOLUTIONARY FINE-TUNINGS.

I'd also to question your use of the statement -
"See where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead the evidence. "
Let's analyze the evidence. We have evidence of organisms existing before the Cambrian explosion, And that of organisms that lived during the explosion period. Fair enough, These organisms were more evolutionarily developed, But still bore similarities to the previous organisms.
Where does the evidence lead us? It tells us that the Cambrian explosion was a rather surprising time in the midst of evolutionary history. Organisms became highly specialized. Invariably, It also assures us that the explosion did not, In any way, Create a highly advanced organism in 20 million years. Evolution lies at the bottom of the evidence. As I have demonstrated, All evidence I presented are free from arbitrary will - I follow where the evidence leads me, For the evidence certainly does not point to creationism.

You have the floor.
Debate Round No. 4
F100

Con

I believe that closes the debate for us. I thank Jackgilbert for the amazing topic, One that could be debated about excellently. Not to mention, I had great fun debating myself.

On behalf of us both, I'd like to accept votes for pro or con on this debate. May the better orator win!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by F100 3 years ago
F100
jackgilbert, I understand. I am, However, Indebted to you for bringing up the topic - one that certainly increased my knowledge.

Like I said, May the better debater win!
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I admit I forfeit. My opponent was right. The Cambrian explosion is not evidence for creationism.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Another forfeited debate from jackiebaby. Typical. Don't tell ANYONE that you are not KING of forfeitures jackiebaby, K?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
My fault man, You win
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Why did it only post a small part of my argument?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
So sorry I forfeited. I lost track of time
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@jackgilbert

In the creational sense, Wasn't it *all* *modern* day species created in those 6 days?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
AnonymousF100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did forfeit and did admit defeat against Con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.