No, it doesn't say *that*, either. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. But speaking of "clearly stating", let's examinine another passage from THE SAME WEBSITE THAT YOU YOURSELF CHOSE AS AN AUTHORITY:
"Soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods, as well as trace fossils that were made by some arthropod-like organisms, appear in the Vendian."Now, how are you going to misread *that*? Arthropods are animals. They are neither worms nor sponges. They appear in the Vendian (which is pre-Cambrian).
Or let's go for a second opinion from another website:
The Ediacara are soft-bodied, multicellular animals that are similar jellyfish, coral, sponges, cnidarians, worms, and soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods.Now, would you care to revise your goofy claim that "Aside from sponges and perhaps worms there were no other multi-cellular animals before the Cambrian"? And would you care to retract your insult that I was "really going off the deep end" for stating the truth?
'Could be' is not a scientific term,
Funny, it was good enough for you when *you* gave that quote in support of *your* claim (although then you somehow managed to interpret "could be" as "certainly was not"...)