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.

[Diagoras]

And why are you relying on information from 150 years ago. Do you think evolution has not got more and better evidence in the intervening century and a half?

I certainly don’t speak for EarthScienceguy, but perhaps my signature (which quotes him exactly) would shed light on your question.

Cheers,
Diagoras

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 67 by DrNoGods]

They use the term "slab tracer" to represent the density anomaly their mathematical model injects below subduction zones (this is how they represent a section of subducted crustal plate material that then breaks off, with subsequent descent through the mantle). They don't claim that this density anomaly remains an intact crustal plate all the way to the CMB and that there are bunch of plate sections sitting at the lower mantle all stacked up as intact crustal plate sections as you seem to suggest.

But again, what in this paper has you thinking that it somehow supports a young Earth scenario? It does exactly the opposite, and you continue to employ the standard creationist's tactic of using millions or billion of years when it suits your argument, then claiming the universe was only created 6000 or so years ago and trying to twist science to be consistent with such a ridiculous age.

This one paper is not the only evidence. Here is another one.

“When I was a PhD student in the early 2000’s, we were still raised with the idea that there is a rapidly convecting upper mantle that doesn’t communicate with the lower mantle,� says Douwe van Hinsbergen, a professor of global plate tectonics at the University of Utrecht. Now, that seismic tomography shows “unequivocal evidence that subducted lithosphere [plate material] goes right down into the lower mantle.� This has settled decades of debate about how deep the heat-driven convection extends through the mantle.

van Hinsbergen and his colleagues have mapped many descending plates (dubbed “slabs�), scattered throughout the mantle, oozing and sagging inexorably toward the core-mantle boundary 2,900 kilometers (1,800 miles) below our feet, in an “Atlas of the Underworld.� Some slabs are so old they were tectonic plates on Earth’s surface long before the first dinosaurs evolved.https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10 ... e-thought/

Ok, if you do not like the fact that there are plates in the lower mantle, we can examine the conditions of plates in the upper mantle, unless you do not think there are plates in the upper mantle either.

The first question is how long do you think that it would take for plates to reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. if plates move an average of 4 cm per year that means it would take 2.5 million years for every 100 km, if they fall at the same rate at which they are being subducted.

Earth’s deepest earthquakes occur in subducting oceanic lithosphere, where temperatures are lower than in ambient mantle. On 24 May 2013, a magnitude 8.3 earthquake ruptured a 180-kilometer-long fault within the subducting Pacific plate about 609 kilometers below the Sea of Okhotsk. Global seismic P wave recordings indicate a radiated seismic energy of ~1.5 × 1017 joules
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... /1380.long

If plate movement in the mantle is the same as what it is on the surface, then for this plate to reach 600 km in the mantle would take 15 million years. Why has this plate not reached thermal equilibrium after at least 15 million years?

It is not even possible for one object to be in contact with another object for 15 million years and not reach thermal equilibrium. Especially, when basalt has a specific heat of .84 kj/kg C.

Another problem is water.

Called the “Mantle Transition Zone,� this layer is a natural consequence of the increasing weight of the rock above as you go deeper underground. At certain depths, the pressure forces atoms to huddle tighter together, forming new, more compact minerals. The biggest of these “phase transitions� occurs at a 660-kilometer-deep horizon, where seawater that was trapped in subducting slabs is squeezed out of minerals. The resulting dryer, ultra-dense, and ultra-viscous material sinks down into the lower mantle, moving more than 10 times slower than it did in the upper mantle.https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10 ... e-thought/

One of the key factors in making magma is water. Water lowers the melting point of the rock. Van Hinsbergen claims that the tectonic plates can transverse the over 600 km in the mantle without melting, even though the plates are filled with water. This would cause the plates to melt in the mantle.

Another problem with the slow descent of the tectonic plates is density difference between of mantle material and basalt. Basalt has a density of 2.8 g/cm3. The upper mantle has a density of 3.4 g/cm3 and the lower mantle has a density of 4.4 g/cm3. Planet evolutionary theory is based on the idea that the layers of the earth were separated during the earth's molten phase by the differences in density of the liquid rock. What would cause the rock to slowly sink now through higher density rock now?

So many questions so few answers. Although creationist have answers for it all.

No again. My position is that there is no evidence for gods of any kind, so attributing the creation of anything to these entities has no basis. There is no evidence that they exist outside of the minds of human beings who have created thousands of them in their heads. I'll BELIEVE in a god when one is ever demonstrated to exist, and so far that has not happened.

The idea that something has to exist outside this universe that is undetectable, is something that pretty much all cosmologist believe. Combine that with all of the problems associated with all of the probability problems associated with creating the universe and life. And God not only becomes possible but becomes the only possible solution to the universe and life.



Quote:
Naturalist have to believe that the UNIVERSE set the values of the natural constants to such values life.

No. Life arose in an environment that was suitable to support it. Oxygen breathing life forms do not exist on Venus or Mars because their atmospheres are primarily CO2, and O2 breathing animals couldn't survive. Earth has an atmosphere and environment suitable for the kind of life that evolved in it. So far it is the only planet (or moon) we know of with life, so if the entire universe was designed specifically to support life, your designer certainly did a very poor job of it!

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

I do believe that it is possible for other life forms to exist on other planets. I do not believe that it would be intelligent life. I look at all of the creatures in the deep ocean that we cannot possibly see but God created them nonetheless. I BELIEVE He could have made all kinds of life in the cosmos just waiting for man to discover if man would not have sinned in the garden of Eden.

Then why do you keep trying to support creationism when there is virtually no evidence to support it (certainly not from science)? Having no explanation for something does not mean that the answer is a god did it, but that is the entire basis for every one of your arguments.

God does intervene in the affairs of men. Many scientist have turned to creationism upon examining the evidence with an open mind. In fact the argument for creationism is stronger today than it ever has been and evidence continues to increase.

Take for example variable speed of light that creationist put forward in the 1990's. Now twenty years later and with the demise of inflation theory the varying speed of light seems to be on the comeback.

https://www.google.com/search?q=varying ... e&ie=UTF-8

Just wait I bet in a few years we will see some "New Theories" on catastrophic plate tectonics.

[Diagoras]

This one paper is not the only evidence. Here is another one.

<snip>

“Some slabs are so old they were tectonic plates on Earth’s surface long before the first dinosaurs evolved.�

You keep doing this - producing evidence that supports the exact opposite to a claim of a ‘young earth’. If you agree with the above statement about slabs, then you defeat your own argument. If you don’t agree with the slab statement, then you can’t honestly expect it to support your argument.

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

If the earth was a static system, you’d probably have a point. However, the three main sources of the earth’s internal heat all come from dynamic processes: the residual heat from the accretionary processes of planet formation (gradually lessening over time, and tectonic plates act as a very effective insulator), frictional heat derived from denser material sinking into the core, and radioactive decay of core material.

Heat loss is from both convective heat transport (in the more liquid outer core) and conductive heat through boundaries (e.g. surface plates - hence volcanoes), but the process takes a long time.

Another problem is water.

That’s a new one, so it fits very well with my prediction that you would keep coming up against things that don’t fit with your ‘young earth’ idea.

So many questions so few answers.

Sheesh - listening to you, anyone would get the impression that Science should just stop.

Although creationist have answers for it all.

Agreed. They certainly have answers. None have been shown to be correct as yet, but we mustn’t lazily jump to the conclusion that they’ll always be wrong in the future.

The idea that something has to exist outside this universe that is undetectable, is something that pretty much all cosmologist (sic) believe.

<bolding mine>

Perhaps you could back up this claim with a cite?

I look at all of the creatures in the deep ocean that we cannot possibly see but God created them nonetheless.

What are you looking at that is impossible to see? I confess to being rather curious about what you mean.

I BELIEVE He could have made all kinds of life in the cosmos just waiting for man to discover if man would not have sinned in the garden of Eden.

How extraordinary. Do you mean he did make life elsewhere in the universe, but is ‘hiding’ it from mankind because Eve ate a piece of fruit? Or, are you meaning he decided not to create life elsewhere for the same reasons? Either way, unless you know the mind of God, there’s even less biblical evidence for God’s ‘alien creation plans’ than there is for chromosomes.

God does intervene in the affairs of men.

Funny. “Men intervene in the affairs of their god(s)� would be closer to the truth.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 72 by EarthScienceguy]

Ok, if you do not like the fact that there are plates in the lower mantle, we can examine the conditions of plates in the upper mantle, unless you do not think there are plates in the upper mantle either.

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?

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.

So many questions so few answers. Although creationist have answers for it all.

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?

And God not only becomes possible but becomes the only possible solution to the universe and life.

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?

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.

Many scientist have turned to creationism upon examining the evidence with an open mind. In fact the argument for creationism is stronger today than it ever has been and evidence continues to increase.

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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 69 by Diagoras]

For the record, here you have declined a refutation of the fine-tuning argument. Instead, you simply claim that ‘others do it too, not just Creationists.’ You’ll observe that I never claimed that only Creationists used the fine-tuning argument.

You did not present an argument. I have neither the time nor the inclination to sort through some atheist propaganda piece and point out all of the mistakes in it. If you wish to present an argument I will respond in kind.

The FACT that the universe is fine tuned is really not up for debate. Fine tuning is a settled argument by both creationist and cosmologist.

Not quite. I’m sure you’ll agree that invisible pink unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, etc. are options which should rightly be discarded, yes? Why would we do that? Simply for lack of evidence. Same goes for any god, or aliens.

Do pink unicorns describe how they created the universe?
Do flying spaghetti monsters describe how the created the universe?
Does Thor describe how he created the universe?
Does naturalism describe how the universe created the universe?

Do any of the above claim to exist before the beginning? Do any of the above claim to have created all life? Do any of the above claim to have created everything out of nothing?

A theory must be evaluated on the claims that it makes. If your theory of pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, naturalism and Thor do not claim of the above questions then they cannot be considered. What makes the Bible so convincing is that the Bible claimed all of the above before modern science.

pantheism (noun):
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. the worship or tolerance of many gods.

Yes, and God is defined as: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Naturalist definitely believe that the universe created everything.

Naturalist believe that the universe has laws and that these laws determine everything that happens. These laws also led to the determination of morals that we see in society today.

Naturalist also do not see anything greater than the universe.

So to naturalist the universe would be god.

It was always interesting to me when I lived next to the Appalachian mountains and we went on the mountain to watch the sunset. On a clear night there were usually quite a few people there. And whenever there was a beautiful sunset everyone would clap. This happens when people gather together and watch the sunset over water water also.

Why would those who do not believe in God do this? What would they be clapping for? To any naturalist in the crowd the sunset would be nothing more than the bending of light around the curvature of the Earth. There would be no reason to clap unless they were praising the god of the universe which is the universe.




Re: chromosomes

Quote:
Are you trying to communicate that the Noah narrative in the Bible would not have produced a single Y chromosome in men?

No, I’m not. I’m trying to communicate that the word ‘chromosome’ is nowhere to be found in the bible, and that any ‘biblical evidence’ for predicting anything to do with genetics is only after retro-fitting modern knowledge to exaggerated interpretation of a select number of chosen verses.

Is your internet connection blocked? I would have thought that searching for “origin of the Y chromosome� might yield at least one or two scholarly articles. My search for the same phrase came up with over 41 million results, which seems rather optimistic - and probably includes a few duplicated links. Here’s an example. Note how the evidence evinced from the genetic study matches the evidence from unrelated archaeological studies. Also note how well it matches the hypothesis that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years old. So, not a problem for science, but a real problem for anyone self-constrained by a ‘Statement of Faith’.

From Rational Wiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... t_creation)
The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one man alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now — not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations — the only one left.

Really, why would that be? What is the benefit of the chromosomes that we have today that we did not have in the past. This is a belief not a fact. People can believe anything they want to believe but it does not make it true.

Quote:
The problem for naturalist (sic) with the snowball earth HYPOTHESIS, is what thawed the earth after it became a snowball?

Answer: increased volcanic activity at a time when tectonic movements shifted continental land masses from low to higher latitudes.

N.B. Only 482,000 search results came up.

Increase volcanic activity would cool the earth not warm it. At least that is what has been observed, we call this volcanic winter. Again people may believe that the earth was heated by volcanic eruptions but that is not what we observe today.

I think I’ve lost track of what your position is on this. Can you just simply point to the part(s) of the bible that support your claim that an Ice Age occurred after the supposed global flood?

What effect would the ice age have on men that lived in the middle east.

As you wish. To summarise for other readers (and stripped of my hyperbole), my claim was “Creationists are in denial (of a 4.5 billion year-old earth)�. Thus far, not contested.

Is that what you were trying to say. Sure I do not believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 73 by Diagoras]

This one paper is not the only evidence. Here is another one.

<snip>

“Some slabs are so old they were tectonic plates on Earth’s surface long before the first dinosaurs evolved.�

You keep doing this - producing evidence that supports the exact opposite to a claim of a ‘young earth’. If you agree with the above statement about slabs, then you defeat your own argument. If you don’t agree with the slab statement, then you can’t honestly expect it to support your argument.

No, this actually supports my point. What could keep the basalt from reaching thermal equilibrium with its surroundings for 65 million years?

If the earth was a static system, you’d probably have a point. However, the three main sources of the earth’s internal heat all come from dynamic processes: the residual heat from the accretionary processes of planet formation (gradually lessening over time, and tectonic plates act as a very effective insulator),

How the earth generates heat has nothing to do with whether or not, subducted tectonic plates reach thermal equilibrium.

frictional heat derived from denser material sinking into the core, and radioactive decay of core material.

Frictional heat would cause the plates to increase in temperature not cool.

Heat loss is from both convective heat transport (in the more liquid outer core) and conductive heat through boundaries (e.g. surface plates - hence volcanoes), but the process takes a long time.

What? What point are you trying to make here?

Quote:
Another problem is water.

That’s a new one, so it fits very well with my prediction that you would keep coming up against things that don’t fit with your ‘young earth’ idea.

Again don't get what you are trying to say. Water lowers the melting point of rock, so if there was water in the rock then the rock should melt.

Quote:
So many questions so few answers.

Sheesh - listening to you, anyone would get the impression that Science should just stop.

People's beliefs trying to passed off as science should.

Quote:
Although creationist have answers for it all.

Agreed. They certainly have answers. None have been shown to be correct as yet, but we mustn’t lazily jump to the conclusion that they’ll always be wrong in the future.

Did you forget petrification? They were correct about that.
Did you forget variable speed of light? They were correct about that also.
Did you forget about strength of magnetic fields?
Cold Material near the Earth’s Core
In the early 1980s, physicist John Baumgardner developed a creationist theory for the rapid motion 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.

Quote:
The idea that something has to exist outside this universe that is undetectable, is something that pretty much all cosmologist (sic) believe.

<bolding mine>

Perhaps you could back up this claim with a cite?

There are really only three theories.

Brian Green and others Multiverse
Suskins Black hole cosmology
Several peoples computer theory.

Quote:
I BELIEVE He could have made all kinds of life in the cosmos just waiting for man to discover if man would not have sinned in the garden of Eden.

How extraordinary. Do you mean he did make life elsewhere in the universe, but is ‘hiding’ it from mankind because Eve ate a piece of fruit? Or, are you meaning he decided not to create life elsewhere for the same reasons? Either way, unless you know the mind of God, there’s even less biblical evidence for God’s ‘alien creation plans’ than there is for chromosomes.

Sin always has consequences. Man was originally designed to live forever. So yes I believe that there could be other non intelligent life out in the cosmos. I would never be dogmatic on that one just a belief of mine or I do not even say it was a belief. I would say it could be possible.

Funny. “Men intervene in the affairs of their god(s)� would be closer to the truth.

Nope, God intervenes in the affairs of men and it is a good thing that he does.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 76 by EarthScienceguy]

You did not present an argument. I have neither the time nor the inclination to sort through some atheist propaganda piece and point out all of the mistakes in it. If you wish to present an argument I will respond in kind.

No wonder you’re muddled. You need to refer to Post 60, in which you stated:

Take for example when the topic turns to creation to the fine tuning of the universe. A common naturist response is if there constants were not what they are then we would not be here to debating this.

and then:

The universe does exist. We are all individual entities in this universe. The universe is fine tuned for life.

You claim that ‘fine tuning’ is a naturalist’s common response, but use the same argument yourself, both in Post 60, and just now:

The FACT that the universe is fine tuned is really not up for debate. Fine tuning is a settled argument by both creationist and cosmologist.

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.

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

Yes.

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

A rare point of agreement.

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.

So to naturalist the universe would be 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.

And whenever there was a beautiful sunset everyone would clap.
<snip>
There would be no reason to clap unless they were praising the god of the universe which is the universe.

No other reason? You’re sure about that? What’s interesting to me is that often when some audience member on a TV show answers some mundane question like where they’re from, the rest of the audience whoops and hollers and claps - whatever the answer is. Some people just like to make a noise. Others follow suit from peer pressure. If you’re presenting an ‘Argument from Praise’ here, then I’m not clapping.

Re: chromosomes

You quote Rational Wiki and question its claim, but conspicuously fail once again to present scriptural evidence to support your claim:

So the Bible predicts that all men should have the same Y chromosome

Still waiting on the biblical verses mentioning chromosomes.

People can believe anything they want to believe but it does not make it true.

Another point of agreement.

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.

When I asked:

I think I’ve lost track of what your position is on this. Can you just simply point to the part(s) of the bible that support your claim that an Ice Age occurred after the supposed global flood?

You said:

What effect would the ice age have on men that lived in the middle east.

I was hoping for either a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ response. You made a claim. Now back it up, or retract it.

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.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 73 by Diagoras]
No, this actually supports my point.

Then what’s your point relating to the two papers you quoted? Do you support their conclusions or not? (Yes/No) Do you agree with their methods or not? (Yes/No).

Re: “Water is a problem�

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:

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.

Score another one for my prediction, then.

In the early 1980s, physicist John Baumgardner developed a creationist theory for the rapid motion of the earth’s crust during the Flood.

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.

Moving on to “the idea that something has to exist outside this universe that is undetectable, is something that pretty much all cosmologist believe.� I asked for a cite, and you say:

There are really only three theories.

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

Man was originally designed to live forever.

Please show evidence of:
a) design
b) immortal design

Nope, God intervenes in the affairs of men and it is a good thing that he does.

Maybe talk to some children in a cancer ward or war zone before you ascribe some moral value to this divine ‘intervention’.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 70 by Tiberius47]

The Cambrian explosion happened over tens of millions of years.

And why are you relying on information from 150 years ago? Do you think evolution has not got more and better evidence in the intervening century and a half?

That is my point exactly. The evidence for evolution has not gotten any better. Especially concerning the Cambrian explosion.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 70 by Tiberius47]

The Cambrian explosion happened over tens of millions of years.

And why are you relying on information from 150 years ago? Do you think evolution has not got more and better evidence in the intervening century and a half?

That is my point exactly. The evidence for evolution has not gotten any better. Especially concerning the Cambrian explosion.

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
New Evidence from Molecular Biology
Creationism and the Evidence for Evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

Your exact point fails exactly.