After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

[EarthScienceguy]

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered the most basic questions of theist?

Charles Hodge Systematic theology copywrite 1870.

Although Strauss greatly exaggerates when he says that men of science in our day are unanimous
in supporting the doctrine of spontaneous generation, it is undoubtedly true that a large class of
naturalists, especially on the continent of Europe, are in favour of that doctrine. Professor Huxley,
in his discourse on the “Physical Basis of Life,� lends to it the whole weight of his authority. He
does not indeed expressly teach that dead matter becomes active without being subject to the
influence of previous living matter; but his whole paper is designed to show that life is the result
of the peculiar arrangement of the molecules of matter. His doctrine is that “the matter of life is
composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in which its atoms are
aggregated.�2 “If the properties of water,� he says, “may be properly said to result from the nature
and disposition of its component molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing to say
that the properties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.�3 In his
address before the British Association, he says that if he could look back far enough into the past
he should expect to see “the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.� And although
that address is devoted to showing that spontaneous generation, or Abiogenesis, as it is called, has
never been proved, he says, “I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to
suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place in the past or ever will take place
in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and
every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to
say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call ‘vital,’ may not some
day be artificially brought together.�4 All this supposes that life is the product of physical causes;
that all that is requisite for its production is “to bring together� the necessary conditions.

The theist argument has not changed in 150 years.

In 1870, the full problem in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion had still not been fully realized.

In 1870 an equation to calculate rate of beneficial mutations in organisms, which makes it impossible for the cambrian explosion to happen through naturalistic means.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 78 by Diagoras]

You claim that ‘fine-tuning’ is a naturalist’s common response, but use the same argument yourself, both in Post 60 and just now:
Quote:
The FACT that the universe is fine-tuned is really not up for debate. Fine-tuning is a settled argument by both creationists and cosmologists.

My position is that fine-tuning is not an accepted naturalist’s argument, and therefore I refute your claim. You don’t have to read the linked article if you don’t want to, but it’s presented in support of my position.

I am sorry I did not make myself clear. What I was not trying to communicate that naturalists use the fine-tuning argument. But when creationists mention that the universe is fine-tuned then naturalists usually make an anthropic pantheistic comment.

Quote:
Do flying spaghetti monsters describe how the (sic) created the universe?

Yes.

Really, where is it written down and when was it written?

Quote:
A theory must be evaluated on the claims that it makes.

A rare point of agreement.

If you are saying that the lying spaghetti monsters have claimed somewhere to have created the universe then it would be more believable than naturalism. Since the death of inflation theory because of the lack of gravity waves. Naturalism has no mechanism to produce a universe. So basically this means that the universe just popped into existence in pretty much the form it is in today with no evidence of a cause. This is why a scientist can seriously discuss our universe as a computer animation or that we are a hologram inside a black hole.

Naturalism proposes a universe without a cause except for the universe itself.

Quote:
What makes the Bible so convincing is that the Bible claimed all of the above before modern science.

And when we evaluate those claims, we find the evidence to support them is lacking.

Like what?

Quote:
So to a naturalist, the universe would be a god.

No, the universe is just ‘all that exists’. God is ‘an imagined omnipotent being’ that hasn’t been proven to exist. Two very different things. Naturalists don’t worship the universe. This attempt to define the universe as a god is similar to the “God is Love� discussion going on elsewhere on this forum, and reminds me of the famous Monty Python argument sketch (“That’s not an argument, it’s just contradiction�). Saying it doesn’t make it so.

God is not a "being" to a pantheist. God is the universe. Pantheist believes all that exists, is the universe the same as a naturalist. Pantheists believe the universe made life just like a naturalist. "We are all made of stardust so we need to thank the stars for our existence." Isn't that what naturalists believe?

Where naturalists would say that they differ from pantheist would be the pantheist belief a directed push towards life but this would be incorrect because naturalists do believe that life and the universe were directed.

How many times do naturalists have to resort to an anthropic argument? For example, the calculated value of the cosmological constant is over 100 orders of magnitude different than the observed value. How is this possible? A naturalist would simply invoke the anthropic principle. How many times can the anthropic principle be used for it becomes a belief that the universe caused these events?

Re: chromosomes

You quote Rational Wiki and question its claim, but conspicuously fail once again to present scriptural evidence to support your claim:
Quote:
So the Bible predicts that all men should have the same Y chromosome

Still waiting on the biblical verses mentioning chromosomes.

There existed one man at two points in history Adam and Noah. Again are you trying to say that if the human race was reduced to one man then there would be more than one Y chromosome?

Dinosaur is not in the Bible, but Behemoth is. The word dinosaur was not coined until 1841. The word chromosome was not coined until 1902. The Bible is not going to use current words to describe current scientific principles it is going to describe the events that are caused by these principles.

Quote:
Increase volcanic activity would cool the earth not warm it.

Once again, not as simplistic as you make out. Here’s an explanation of volcanoes’ effect on climate.

Give me an example of an observed eruption that warmed the earth.

Quote:
I do not believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old
That’s fine then. People can believe anything they want to believe but it does not make it true.

That is correct. Even if a lot of people believe something is true does not make it true.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 78 by Diagoras]

Then what’s your point relating to the two papers you quoted?

To document observations outside of creation scientists. Most people on this site do not like to accept creation scientist observations and most definitely not their conclusions.

Just because a scientist uses an others observations does mean they have to support their conclusions.

Do you support their conclusions or not? (Yes/No)

No, not at all.

Do you agree with their methods or not? (Yes/No).

I am not sure I assumed they were using seismic waves like everyone else.

Re: “Water is a problem�
Quote:
Again don't get what you are trying to say.

Oh, I’m sorry. Perhaps you forgot my list of problems that you had with science. In it, as you may recall, I said:
Quote:
I can confidently predict that as science continues to expand our knowledge in all spheres, your ‘problems’ will only increase in number if you remain on the sinking ship of scriptural relevance, rather than climbing into the lifeboat of scientific open-mindedness.

I agree with you as long as it is open-minded to the truth.

Score another one for my prediction, then.

Funnily enough, I found a link which suggests this theory (when its claims are examined - something you’d encourage, no doubt?) is not particularly credible. Don’t worry about the link being ‘atheist propaganda, by the way. The author is himself a committed Christian.

What? Here is the link. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... cientists/

Dr. Baumgardner works for Answers in Genesis and was part of the rate project. So I think he would know what he predicted.

Moving on to “the idea that something has to exist outside this universe that is undetectable, is something that pretty much all cosmologists believe.� I asked for a cite, and you say:
Quote:
There are really only three theories.

I had no idea that ‘pretty much all’ cosmologists believed these three theories. I’ll remain skeptical and put your original claim down as wild exaggeration.

Name another if I am wrong.

The cosmic egg theory has been discarded because of entropy issues and by the measurement of the cosmological constant.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 82 by EarthScienceguy]

What? Here is the link. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... reation-sc...

Dr. Baumgardner works for Answers in Genesis and was part of the rate project. So I think he would know what he predicted.

This article is a perfect example of why it is often difficult to decipher how low creationists will go in accepting something as evidence, and claim that a prediction has been verified. The very first item on the list is the complete and utter nonsense of Russell Humphreys relating to planetary magnetic fields, which has been discussed at length here previously. If that represents the bar for a successful prediction by a creationist, then it voids everything else on the list by default. If creationists are willing to accept something that laughable as a scientific prediction, then virtually anything goes, and any prediction can be "verified" by simply making up initial conditions no matter how ridiculous and unsupported they may be.

These examples aren't verification of predictions. They are pitiful attempts at trying (and failing) to show that biblical stories are compatible with modern science in order to convince the gullible and scientifically illiterate that they are not believing in something that is grossly out of date, and wrong. If any of this stuff was legitimate science it would be recognized as such. But it isn't. It is a joke that organizations like AIG continue to support despite it being completely rejected by modern science. And there is no sign that they are doing anything but becoming more irrelevant every day as people recognize the shams for what they are.

Edit: And after looking at the AIG article it is now clear why you brought up the earlier paper on slab subduction and want a pile of crustal plates down at the CMB. It is #4 on the AIG list which tries to claim this should happen because of Noah's flood, which is just another example of a ridiculous attempt to explain observations that don't actually exist. The paper you referenced (the actual science paper with the mathematical model) made no claims of a "pile of crustal plates" sitting around at the CMB, or that broken off plate sections would not thermally equilibrate at some point during their descent over millions of years. #4 on the AIG list is just another example of a creationist misrepresenting observations, and intentionally misinterpreting them to try and support a predetermined conclusion.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 78 by Diagoras]

Funnily enough, I found a link which suggests this theory (when its claims are examined - something you’d encourage, no doubt?) is not particularly credible. Don’t worry about the link being ‘atheist propaganda, by the way. The author is himself a committed Christian.

What? Here is the link. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... cientists/

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you cut and pasted the wrong link in error. The article I linked to was on this webpage:
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/john ... rdner.html

Nothing to do with Answers In Genesis. This site is run by a Christian who believes in the theory of evolution, and who takes issue with John Baumgardner and others like him.

I see that DrNoGods has already commented on the article you linked to, so I feel that’s adequately addressed.

Name another if I am wrong.

You misunderstood. I’m not claiming that naturalists believe many more than three theories of ‘before the universe began’. I’m stating that the percentage of naturalists who firmly believe in any ‘pre-creation’ theory is very small. Most would simply say, “I don’t know�.

Dinosaur is not in the Bible, but Behemoth is.

Another link for you to check out:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/behemoth.htm

Conclusion: Dinosaur does not equal Behemoth. Therefore, attempts to fit a dinosaur in retrospectively are intellectually dishonest. The same can be said about chromosomes and the bible.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 75 by DrNoGods]

I have no opinion on whether or not there are crustal plates anywhere in the mantle, but don't see why you referenced this paper, or how thermal equilibrium processes related to subducted plates has anything to do with earthquakes. Is there some connection you are trying to make with this paper and their model of crustal plates descending into the mantle, and a young Earth scenario, or some biblical myth?

The point is time. The plates could not have been there for millions of years otherwise they would have long ago reached thermal equilibrium.

Quote:
It is not even possible for one object to be in contact with another object for 15 million years and not reach thermal equilibrium.


Of course ... who is saying otherwise? But what has this got to do with whatever point it is that you are trying to make? Given your past posts, I assume it must have something to do with supporting a biblical story or a young Earth scenario, but it isn't clear what the connection is.

Those that believe that the earth is millions of years old have to believe that plates can exist in the mantle for that amount of time and not reach thermal equilibrium.

ROFL! You've now exited the freeway and switched to water and plate descent. Is this also somehow connected to a point about a young Earth or a biblical myth?

I added water to this idea because water would make it even more impossible for plates to exist.

Except for one big problem ... the god you are referring to (nor any of the thousands of other gods humans have invented), has never been shown to exist. Wouldn't you call that a fatal problem with the entire hypothesis?

But the God of the Bible did make Himself known to man in the person of Jesus. Jesus said He was God and others declared Jesus as God.

Here are the main religions in the world

Christianity: 2.1 billion.
Islam: 1.3 billion.
Hinduism: 900 million.
Buddhism: 376 million.
Sikhism: 23 million.
Judaism: 14 million.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the same beliefs about creation because they all believe in the Pentateuch.

Hinduism believes their God came from an egg and created the universe. So where did the egg come from?

Buddhism has no belief about creation.

Sikhism is pantheistic

So most religious people believe what the Bible says about creation.

Hinduism can be easily ruled out because it does not explain where the egg came from or why it hatched when it did.

Sikhism believes what naturalist believes that the universe is all there is.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the only monotheistic religions in the world. Out of all the religions in the world the Bible is the only religious document that describes the universe being created from one God or from one source of energy that exists eternally.

Are there any other gods in the world that claim to exist eternally? So your claim that any other god could have created the universe is incorrect. The only God that could have created the universe would be an eternal God so that immediately narrows the field down to one the God of the Bible.

Quote:
it is your belief that other forms of life could have evolved that has a different body chemistry.


Why wouldn't you believe that other life forms based on a different "body chemistry" (or different genetics) are possible? We don't know what life forms outside of Earth may look like, but there is no reason to believe that it would use the same genetics and chemistry as life on Earth, or that it wouldn't.

I have also looked up the stars and wondered what might be out there. While looking at the stars in Ursa Major and the stars in Orion's belt and wondered what might be found orbiting those stars.

Looking at the diversity of life here on Earth I have never been a fan of a sterile universe theory. But I do not understand why a naturalist would believe that the universe could have other forms of life in it. Life forming randomly on this planet is such an astronomical improbability believing this improbability could happen more than once makes belief in pantheism a necessity. Belief that life could happen once here on this planet with makes belief in pantheism a necessity.

I was actually reading in Revelation and it did seem to indicate that man may be on other planets when the Lord returns. I can remember the actually where it was and I would never be dogmatic about that but it was an interesting thought.

For the first sentence ... so what? Religious people don't need evidence to believe what they believe. Faith takes care of that little problem. There may be an "argument" for creationism, but there is certainly no evidence for it which is why it is no longer taught as science, or considered a viable mechanism in the modern world. When the evidence is zero, you can multiply that by whatever "continues to increase" factor you like and you still get zero.

I do not understand how you can say that there is zero evidence for creationism. As for creationism not being taught is not entirely correct. The discoveries that creationists have made or problems that creationists have pointed out had to be addressed by the science community.

Fossils being formed quickly.

Quantization of light or varying speed of light. https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed ... stant.html

Magnetic field of planets and stars.

Prediction 4: Cold Material near the Earth’s Core

In the early 1980s, physicist John Baumgardner developed a creationist theory for the rapid movement of the earth’s crust during the Flood. His theory suggested that the “cold� crust, located beneath the pre-Flood oceans, should have sunk the full 1,800 miles (2900 km) to the base of the earth’s hot mantle, where the temperatures are up to 7,232°F (4000°C). This crust would have melted if it had millions of years to reach the base of the mantle, sinking as slowly as today’s rates. On the other hand, if it sank quickly 4,350 years ago, as Baumgardner’s theory suggested, then piles of those plates should still be found at the base of the mantle, cooler than the mantle around them.

Test Result: Mantle Discovery
It took ten more years before scientists developed the technology capable of “seeing� something like that at the base of the mantle. When that technology was developed, the cold material was discovered, just as Baumgardner’s model had expected. This successful prediction suggests that Baumgardner’s model is true. It also suggests that continents moved rapidly during the Flood and that the Flood occurred only thousands of years ago, just as the Bible suggests.


Prediction 5: Reversal of Earth’s Magnetic Field

All magnetic fields have two distinct poles, a north, and south, and so it is with the earth’s. At various times in the past, however, the earth’s magnetic field has actually switched directions. In each case, the North Pole switched with the South Pole. Since volcanic lava, as it cools, records the direction of the magnetic field at the time of the cooling, the rocks of the earth have recorded these flips of the magnetic field. In 1986, however, D. Russell Humphreys suggested that the turmoil of the Flood caused the magnetic field of the earth to flip rapidly during the Flood. If so, the field must have flipped every couple of weeks or so.

Test Result: Steens Mountain Record
In 1988, a basalt flow was found at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon that did indeed record a flip in the earth’s magnetic field. So far, the only way to explain such a rapid reversal is by the disruption of the young earth’s magnetic field during a global Flood—just as the Bible claims.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 85 by EarthScienceguy]

The point is time. The plates could not have been there for millions of years otherwise they would have long ago reached thermal equilibrium.

And what makes you think subducted crustal plate sections do not reach thermal equilibrium? Who is making that claim other than you?

Those that believe that the earth is millions of years old have to believe that plates can exist in the mantle for that amount of time and not reach thermal equilibrium.

Ditto ... what makes you think subducted crustal plate sections do not eventually reach thermal equilibrium? Heat transfer between materials that are at different temperatures and in physical contact is a fundamental process that is well understood. Given enough time, things will equilibrate. The time required depends on the thermal conductivity of the materials involved, their masses, how well they are physically connected, the temperature difference between them, plus any dynamic processes that may upset any of these variables.

If you drop an ice cube into a cup of water that is in thermal equilibrium with its container and the surroundings (say, at 25C), heat will flow from the warmer liquid into the cooler solid and you'll end up with a cup of only liquid water that initially may be a little cooler than 25C (due to the effect of the ice) but will eventually equilibrate again with the cup and the surroundings given enough time. Why do you think this basic process would not happen with a section of subducted crustal plate descending into hot, viscous mantle? Is it not because you want cold crustal plate sections stacked up at the CMB because that suggests that Noah's flood could be viable, and for no other reason?

I added water to this idea because water would make it even more impossible for plates to exist.

But don't you want the plates to exist? Isn't that the whole idea for your Noah's flood scenario? Water, and an impossible amount of it, certainly would have existed if that myth were true. But the story has no legitimate source for the amount of water required for it to be true. That is just one of many reasons we know it isn't true, and that a global flood in 4300 BC could not possibly have happened.

But the God of the Bible did make Himself known to man in the person of Jesus. Jesus said He was God and others declared Jesus as God.

So says the bible. No gods have ever be demonstrated to exist in the real world. They are described in various holy books and stories, without a shred of evidence that these stories and descriptions are anything more than myth and make believe (and wishful thinking).

So most religious people believe what the Bible says about creation.

Which has absolutely zero to do with whether or not that story is correct. It just means that about 50-55% of the world's religious people worship the same god described in their holy books. But it is 2020 now and we've known for a long time now that a 6000 year old universe, and the creation story of the bible, are inconsistent with science, and wrong.

Hinduism can be easily ruled out because it does not explain where the egg came from or why it hatched when it did.

And a Hindu could say the same thing about a Christian or a Muslim. The bible does not explain how the god doing all the creating came about. It just pronounces this being as an all powerful god that somehow just appeared, then it proceeds to describe a fictional creation event that someone created in their head(s), just like all fiction. Hindu (or any other) god-based creation events have no more or less validity than the Christian version.

Are there any other gods in the world that claim to exist eternally? So your claim that any other god could have created the universe is incorrect. The only God that could have created the universe would be an eternal God so that immediately narrows the field down to one the God of the Bible.

Claims of gods and their characteristics in holy books have nothing to do with whether they actually exist or not. If you sat down with a Hindu you could both argue for the merits of your god(s), creation stories, etc. and it would all be based entirely on faith, myth, and interpretations of the different holy books. This is very different from demonstration that any god does, in fact exist. Wouldn't you think that if one of these beings did actually exist, it might make sense for it to demonstrate that in some way to its human subjects? Yet of the thousands of gods invented by humans, over millennia, this has not happened even once. Why do all these gods feel the need to hide themselves?

But I do not understand why a naturalist would believe that the universe could have other forms of life in it.

Then read up on statistics and probabilities. We have one planet with life clearly existing on it. We know there are many billions of other planets out there, with many of these being in the habitable zones of their stars. And this is from just a relatively short period of having the technology to find them. There could be hundreds of billions of such planets out there. So the probability that life formed on just one of them is very high. It is an argument that simple ... it happened once, there are many billions of opportunities for it to happen again, so there is a reasonable probability that it has. We just have no ability at the moment to get to any of these planets with probes, or to examine their atmospheres for any hints at possible biological activity. But to rule out extraterrestrial life entirely because some 2000+ year old holy book suggests that humans are special creations, doesn't make any sense.

I do not understand how you can say that there is zero evidence for creationism.

Because there isn't. But you're not just supporting creationism, you're supporting young earth creationism which we can say for certain is wrong. The idea that the universe is just 6000 (or so) years old has been proven, with 100% certainty, to be incorrect. As for all the other creationist attempts to make biblical stories compatible with modern science, as Humphreys has demonstrated repeatedly, they've yet to come up with anything scientifically valid. Making up initial conditions and assumptions by interpreting bible verses to suit the argument (sometimes wildly, as in Humphreys' planetary magnetic field attempt), is not science. And when this kind of garbage has been submitted to the scientific community, it as been roundly rejected as nonsense.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras]

You misunderstood. I’m not claiming that naturalists believe many more than three theories of ‘before the universe began’. I’m stating that the percentage of naturalists who firmly believe in any ‘pre-creation’ theory is very small. Most would simply say, “I don’t know�.

This is an untrue statement. A naturalist by definition has to believe that nature created everything, therefore, they are not saying they do not know. They are saying that nature somehow created everything. So whether they know the laws of physics or not they are claiming that something has to exist outside of what we see, because an expanding universe had to have a beginning there had to be a time when it did not exist.

Behemoth is a dinosaur.

Another link for you to check out.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... -dinosaur/

Conclusion: Dinosaur does not equal Behemoth. Therefore, attempts to fit a dinosaur in retrospectively are intellectually dishonest. The same can be said about chromosomes and the bible.

Inference is the cornerstone of science. If these events happen then this had to occur. This is called inference. If this happens, then this will happen because of this reason. If the human race was bottlenecked down to one male then all males after the bottleneck should have the same y chromosome. Because only males pass on the y chromosome. This is called the scientific method the cornerstone of science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 83 by DrNoGods]

This article is a perfect example of why it is often difficult to decipher how low creationists will go in accepting something as evidence and claim that a prediction has been verified. The very first item on the list is the complete and utter nonsense of Russell Humphreys relating to planetary magnetic fields, which has been discussed at length here previously. If that represents the bar for a successful prediction by a creationist, then it voids everything else on the list by default. If creationists are willing to accept something that laughable as a scientific prediction, then virtually anything goes, and any prediction can be "verified" by simply making up initial conditions no matter how ridiculous and unsupported they may be.

You never proved this prediction to be incorrect. You simply said that he had a lucky guess. How is a lucky guess even possible? You may not like the assumptions that he started with but you never explained how if those assumptions were false produced correct predictions.

Einstein said that Newton's equation F=ma was wrong. But before Einstein's theory was accepted he had to explain why Newton's equation could be used and produce such accurate results. If Humphreys is getting correct predictions, more than one, then there has to be a reason why he is getting correct predictions.

These examples aren't verification of predictions. They are pitiful attempts at trying (and failing) to show that biblical stories are compatible with modern science in order to convince the gullible and scientifically illiterate that they are not believing in something that is grossly out of date, and wrong. If any of this stuff was legitimate science it would be recognized as such. But it isn't. It is a joke that organizations like AIG continue to support despite it being completely rejected by modern science. And there is no sign that they are doing anything but becoming more irrelevant every day as people recognize the shams for what they are.

Do not confuse modern science with a belief in historical events. Modern science or any science is repeatable historical events are not. We can repeatably observe the uranium decay rate today. But how these elements diffused over time we cannot know or what were the original percentages in the mixture.

New data collected by secular researchers has confirmed what creation scientists discovered decades ago—geologists’ assumptions about radioactive decay are not always correct. https://www.icr.org/article/its-officia ... ope-dating

Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University and colleagues measured the relative amounts of Uranium 238 to Uranium 235 from several samples taken from the large Allende meteorite, named for the village in Mexico near where it landed in 1969. With the more sensitive instrument, they detected small differences in isotope ratios from different inclusions within the same meteorite.1 Isotopes are versions of an element with differing nuclear components. The full technical report appeared in the January 22, 2010, issue of the journal Science.

The differing amounts of material that were found in separate samplings of the same meteorite were unexpected. The current standard age assigned to the solar system of 4.6 billion years was determined by studying the Uranium-to-Lead decay systems in meteorites, which are assumed to have formed before the planets did. This age was based on the belief that the rate of decay has been constant, and that Uranium 238 will be present in a known ratio to Uranium 235. The varying quantities of these isotopes call into question the calculated age of the solar system, since “one of the equation’s assumptions — that certain kinds of uranium always appear in the same relative quantities in meteorites — is wrong.�2

Edit: And after looking at the AIG article it is now clear why you brought up the earlier paper on slab subduction and want a pile of crustal plates down at the CMB. It is #4 on the AIG list which tries to claim this should happen because of Noah's flood, which is just another example of a ridiculous attempt to explain observations that don't actually exist. The paper you referenced (the actual science paper with the mathematical model) made no claims of a "pile of crustal plates" sitting around at the CMB, or that broken off plate sections would not thermally equilibrate at some point during their descent over millions of years. #4 on the AIG list is just another example of a creationist misrepresenting observations, and intentionally misinterpreting them to try and support a predetermined conclusion.

Science is based on predetermined conclusions it is called a hypothesis.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 80 by Clownboat]

But it has, whether you choose to remain ignorant to it or not is on you.

Here are specific areas that have gotten better:
The Fossil Record
Common Structures

The Distribution of Species

Similarities During Development

Haeckel’s embryos: the images that would not go away
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features ... ot-go-away

New Evidence from Molecular Biology

Proteins commonly interact with other molecules through a "hand-in-glove" fit, but these interactions often require multiple amino acids to be 'just right' before they occur. In 2004, Behe, along with the University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke, simulated the Darwinian evolution of such protein-protein interactions. Behe and Snoke's calculations found that for multicellular organisms, evolving a simple protein-protein interaction that required two or more mutations in order to function would probably require more organisms and generations than would be available over the entire history of the Earth. They concluded that "the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective…because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes."

Michael Behe and David Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13: 2651-2664 (2004).


Four years later during an attempt to refute Behe's arguments, Cornell biologists Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt ended up begrudgingly confirming he was basically correct. After calculating the likelihood of two simultaneous mutations arising via Darwinian evolution in a population of humans, they found that such an event "would take > 100 million years." Given that humans diverged from their supposed common ancestor with chimpanzees only 6 million years ago, they granted that such mutational events are "very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale."

Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution," Genetics, 180:1501-1509 (2008). For a more detailed discussion of this argument, see Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, Casey Luskin, Science and Human Origins (Discovery Institute Press, 2012).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 86 by DrNoGods]

We know there are many billions of other planets out there, with many of these being in the habitable zones of their stars. And this is from just a relatively short period of having the technology to find them. There could be hundreds of billions of such planets out there.

And that is just a conservative estimate. There are around 200 billion stars in our galaxy and around 200 billion galaxies. Put a handful of planets around even just half of the stars in the universe and the total number is in the trillions.

So the probability that life formed on just one of them is very high. It is an argument that simple ... it happened once, there are many billions of opportunities for it to happen again, so there is a reasonable probability that it has.

Precisely. The building blocks of all planets are the same limited number of elements we have here on Earth. Their chemistry is the same everywhere. We have observed amino acids in interstellar gas clouds. If the chemical processes that occur in organisms are possible here, then they are equally likely to occur in similar environments elsewhere in the universe. Given the probable number of such environments existing, we can safely conclude that some form of living organisms will exist beyond Earth. No God necessary.