Heated debate on evolution with brother

[Esquilax]

Fossils support Biblical Creation. An example with be the Trilobites. They appeared suddenly without evidence of transitional forms. Naturalism propounds something like this:  "Trilobite Origins and Extinction: Trilobites probably arose from a soft bodied ancestor in the Pre-Cambrian. The first actual trilobites fossils found are from the Cambrian"*

Wrong: not only do we have pre-cambrian trilobyte fossils- redlichiids, for one- we also have fossils detailing the emergence of distinct morphological features that do not exist within the earliest specimens, as close to a transitional record as one can reasonably expect for such an ancient classification.

Mind you, even if you hadn't begun with a complete falsehood, restricting your argument to a single order of creatures and ignoring all the other ones would still not be good logic. But then, that's what we expect from you by now.

The Cambrian period corresponds to the 5'th day ('day' here is a long but definite period of time'). Some 500 mya, the number of Earth’s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared.

Pretty convenient that a "day" can just mean whatever stretch of time you want it to. I wonder what possible justification you might have for using the term that way?

But if you want to go that way, then you've now got to reckon with all the many, many ways that the "day" order in genesis is simply dead wrong. Because, see, if you're pegging the Cambrian period as the fifth day, you've fucked up: god is all like "hey, here's seeded plants now, woo!" on the third day, yet the earliest known precursor of modern seeds- not even actual seeds but the things seeds evolved from- is a Devonian era fossil, and the Devonian era is about a hundred million years after the Cambrian. So now you've got day three happening before day five, good for you. You also have vegetation existing before the stars, including the sun, which... no. You have birds coming into existence on day five along with the water-borne creatures, which is not even close to true, because the first birds arose long after the Cambrian era and there are no avian fossils in Cambrian strata, since you place so very much importance on fossil evidence.

So is the Cambrian the fifth day or not? Because if it is, then your genesis account literally cannot be true: the third day precedes the fifth in the bible, yet it happens after it in the evidence. Which is it?

So what's being proposed here is 'probably' a soft-bodied ancestor evolved to a fossil exoskeleton arthropod; however, there is no soft-bodied specimen, nor any somewhat fossilized specimen that can be presented. Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.

So you're just going to arbitrarily hone in on an area where we have fossils, but not the particular ones you've arbitrarily assigned importance to, while ignoring all the rest?

Okay, whatever helps you sleep at night.