Matt Slick: Of course, if you're an atheist, if you're committed to materialistic naturalism, then the evidence is not allowed to speak for itself.
Matt Slick: Sock, really? How do you explain the Cambrian explosion?
Sock Puppet: I thought that evolution was true while I was still Christian.
Matt Slick: How does evolution work with that?
Sock Puppet: The earth was coming out of a very long global cold period, and oxygen levels were increasing. This allowed organisms that were already around to diversify into new niches. The "explosion" took place over millions of years.
Matt Slick: Have you studied the mathematical improbability of abiogenesis and DNA modifications with dissemination of new information in a gene will in a large population over a geological short period of time which produces numerous new body phyla?
Matt Slick: Oxygen levels cause DNA mutation?
Matt Slick: there's something you're forgetting. A mutation is absolutely meaningless and useless if there is not already in existence information sent to which and in which it can be applied.
Sock Puppet: I'm not sure what you mean, Mr. Slick. The Cambrian explosion is consistent with evolutionary theory. No, rising oxygen levels allow larger and more active organisms than those present before.
Nocterro: we're talking about evolution now?
Matt Slick: Sock, seriously, I think you need to study the Cambrian explosion.
Matt Slick: It is not explainable in the current evolutionary system.
Sock Puppet: Mr. Slick, there were already organisms around in the Precambrian, so any objection to DNA's origin cannot possibly apply to the Cambrian.
Matt Slick: Sock, seriously, I mean no offense, but I don't believe you study the issue sufficiently
Sock Puppet: I think you need to study the Cambrian explosion! lol
Nocterro: umm...how is the Cambrian explosion not explainable with evolution?
Matt Slick: the Cambrian explosion is, essentially, a blink of the eye geologically. But in that blink of the eye that are incredibly new complex phyla appear.
Sock Puppet: How about you describe the types of organisms that were present then, Mr. Slick? What was life on the land like in the Cambrian, for instance?
Nocterro: it lasted 80 million years..
Matt Slick: sock, diversion is to help you. I simply ask that you study the issue. It is a problem.
Nocterro: I'm pretty sure Sock HAS studied the issue quite extensively.
Matt Slick: Then, you need to study information theory and the problem of information inside of DNA. It is humongously problematic
Sock Puppet: Yes, the Cambrian explosion occurred over millions of years, the early portion over 10 million. There's a paper on the evolution of the eye that estimates you can evolve an eye from scratch in a few hundred thousand, conservatively. There was plenty of time.
Sock Puppet: Mr. Slick, DNA was already around in the Cambrian.
Matt Slick: sock, can you believe it?
Nocterro: what problem of information?
Matt Slick: You believe the evolution of the I can happen in 10 million years?
Sock Puppet: That DNA was around? Easily. Unless you think Precambrian organisms were entirely unrelated. . .
Matt Slick: noct, information is a huge problem for evolution.
Matt Slick: noct, I don't remember. Are you a Christian or atheist or what?
Nocterro: Does it matter?
Matt Slick: It will help me to know how to cater the answers
Nocterro: Wouldn't the answers be the same regardless?
Sock Puppet: I'm still interested in the types of organisms that evolved during the Cambrian and what land life was like.
Matt Slick: well let's just say that when I ask a polite question and people avoid the answer, I generally stop talking to them.
Sock Puppet: I find when people think that the Cambrian explosion is a problem for the theory of evolution, they usually have a misunderstanding of what the world was like then and what organisms were present.
Nocterro: ok, I'm an atheist. Can we continue discussing this "information problem" now?
Matt Slick: ty
Matt Slick: let me give you an illustration. Are you willing to follow it quickly with me?
Sock Puppet: rdd2 Are you saying you understand the Cambrian explosion?
Nocterro: Icon color?
Matt Slick: If you and I were discussing this as were walking through a forest, along the path, and we came across a pile of stones that had three stones in it, and then 1 foot later a pile of stones with five, then seven, then 11, and so on
Matt Slick: and what we find is a series of stones stacked in prime numbers at one foot intervals up to 101. Are you with me so far?
Sock Puppet: Ok, can you describe the land life in the Cambrian?
Matt Slick: We stopped and we look at this. And we asked the question. Was it developed by random chance or is there an intelligence involved? Which would you say is most logical.
Sock Puppet: If you understand the Cambrian explosion it should be a snap.
Nocterro: I would probably say someone stacked them up.
Sock Puppet: Yes, it does not say anything specific about this question, rdd2. Can you answer it?
Matt Slick: that sounds fair to me.
Matt Slick: 10 years later you and I are astronauts walking on the moon. We get out of our lunar rover he walked behind a large boulder. And to our surprise we see the exact same stack of stones
Matt Slick: there are no footprints there there are no signs whatsoever of any disturbance of the material of the surrounding area.
Sock Puppet: rdd2 Please describe the types of organisms living on the land during the Cambrian.
Matt Slick: We know there have been no lunar landings from any other country, etc.
Matt Slick: What would be your conclusion? Was the stones arranged my intelligence or by random chance?
Sock Puppet: I don't know how I can make this more clear, rdd2. Perhaps if I say please name *one* type of organism living on land during the Cambrian? That should be simple.
Nocterro: I would have to say that probably some sort of intelligence did it.
Matt Slick: I think that's reasonable.
Matt Slick: Let's take this thought experiment a little further.
Matt Slick: In our world you and I somehow know that there are no other intelligent life forms in the universe.
Matt Slick: That is, there are no aliens out there with spaceships.... Remember, this is just a thought exercise.
Matt Slick: Now when we look at the stones, are we allowed to draw the same conclusion that the stones were arranged by an intelligence?
Occam: In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a series of stones lined up in piles including every prime number from 1 to 101...
Nocterro: that would depend on how certain we are on whether supernatural intelligences exist.
Matt Slick: how that is a good issue to raise.
Matt Slick: but let's put that aside for now.
Matt Slick: If, somehow, it could be proven that there was no God and that there was no intelligence anywhere in the universe, the only logical conclusion would be that stones arranged themselves through some naturalistic phenomena. Isn't that right?
Matt Slick: Or, is our hypothetical situation now impossible?
Nocterro: not impossible, no.
Sock Puppet: rdd2 I'm trying to determine whether you really know anything at all about the way the world was during the Cambrian. Apparently you do not know, because you can't answer an extremely simple question. There was *NOTHING* living on land during the Cambrian. Perhaps bacterial colonized near shorelines in some places, but otherwise the land was just bare rock and dirt. The Cambrian "explosion" was not at all like creationists seem to think it was, when all of a sudden all the modern organisms appeared. Modern organisms evolved over hundreds of millions of years following the Cambrian explosion.
Matt Slick: We would have to postulate a mechanism by which the stones would arrange themselves in an information context using the material at hand in the natural environment. Remember, there are no drag marks of any sort, no footprints, nothing. Just a series of stones stacked in prime number in a manner relevant to a measuring system (feet and inches) that is relevant only to our culture, i.e., not metric.
Nocterro: right. with no known mechanism, it's extremely unlikely.
Matt Slick: What we're seeing is different kinds of information. We are seeing prime number stacks which necessitates an understanding of mathematics and distance arrangement which necessitates a familiarity with our measuring system.
Matt Slick: So the question is, where did the information come from? Now, I know this is just an exercise, but you and I are staring at this set of stones and when we get back to our lunar module, we spend time producing hypotheses.
Nocterro: hold on.
Sock Puppet: Why does that seem to you a problem, rdd2? There were Precambrian organisms, some survived into the Cambrian, and some of these managed to diversify. The fact that the earth became relatively stable enabled the diversifying lineages to continue evolving into the present day. The Cambrian organisms looked nothing like modern organisms. They don't fit neatly into modern categories. In fact, many of them we don't even know which phylum they belong in. That's because they were evolving when the phyla were diverging and were still extremely closely related. Graham Budd has done a lot of work on this, discussing stem group and crown group organisms.
Nocterro: are you saying that it's impossible for things like prime numbers to be generated naturally?
Matt Slick: No.... but what would that mean to generate? I am sure that we could observe a set of leaves in a forest at all and I pile that happened to be prime number. I wouldn't have a problem with that whatsoever.
Sock Puppet: The Cambrian explosion was an event that will likely never be replicated, because it requires a nearly empty world and new niches just beginning to be exploited for the first time. We'd have to re-run evolution from the beginning to see a similar scenario.
Matt Slick: but to see a set of prime number stacks in a certain sequence of distance in a straight line, that would be a totally different matter.
Matt Slick: The reason is because we would then be recognizing an information pattern.
Nocterro: right, but we see such patterns in nature all the time.
Matt Slick: Leaves falling in the forest have what is called complexity. There's a complex pattern of arrangement. But they have no specificity. Specificity occurs when there's a pattern and "information" that is evident... Such as prime number stacks in equidistant arrangements.
Nocterro: for example, snowflakes.
Sock Puppet: Oh, there's stuff below them, the Precambrian organisms. Those are whack, some are classified in some of the modern groups but most you just look at and go what the heck is this? That is completely consistent with an evolutionary process, of course, but a little puzzling for a creationist.
Matt Slick: Information is difficult to define but we recognize it when we see it.
Matt Slick: What would be the mechanism that you would postulate for our prime number stacks on the moon that scenario?
Matt Slick: I know I'm asking the devil will question and I don't really expect you to answer it. But do you see the problem?
Matt Slick: We discover we are deceived when one or both of two scenarios arises.
Matt Slick: First, if we have a belief system that is internally inconsistent, and we know that our belief system is not correct.
Nocterro: well, there could be many possible mechanisms.
Matt Slick: Second, if our belief system is contradicted by an external factor, then we can know that our belief system is not correct.
Matt Slick: If we postulated that we knew that there were no other intelligences out there in the universe other than ours, and we looked at such a prime number stack sequence on the moon, then is that an evidence that we have a belief system that is not correct?
Nocterro: slow down for a second
Matt Slick: Would it not be rational to question our Presuppositions because when we look at the evidence, or theories can't account for them.
Nocterro: here's how I would investigate this
Matt Slick: ok, I'll slow down..
Sock Puppet: In the Cambrian we have organisms that can't be classified clearly as molluscs or arthropods, because they came from a common ancestor with traits of both of those groups. As they diverged, the lineages picked up some traits and lost others. We can find arthropods in the Cambrian, but not members of the modern groups, and molluscs, some of those in modern groups, sponges, and corals. There are organisms that appear to be chordates, but not any of the modern chordates (and that is *the* type of animal most people think of when they think of animals). The modern groups appeared over the next 100-400 million years.
Nocterro: first, I would look at the composition of the rocks to see if their origin was the moon itself, or some other body in space.
Matt Slick: everything is from the moon.
Sock Puppet: Precambrian organisms are almost all "what the heck is this?", Cambrian organisms are "is this this or that? or the other? *head scratch*"
Nocterro: ok, so....
Matt Slick: Everything is natural to its own environment.... The same as DNA is natural to its own environment; that is, the physical properties are.
Sock Puppet: HE, if you'd been paying attention you'd notice I've been completely disagreeing with you. lol
Nocterro: what do we know about how rocks would form on the moon?
Matt Slick: the same as what we know how the form on the earth.
Nocterro: well im no geologist, so I have little expertise on how rocks form
Sock Puppet: I'm not sure what your question is, rdd2. I explained to you that Cambrian organisms do not fit neatly into one group or another, which is expected for species beginning to diverge, and that modern groups evolved over hundreds of millions of years following.
Nocterro: but anyway
Matt Slick: Same here. But let's just assume for the sake of argument, that is the same as it is on earth. After all, we really can't go beyond that assumption right now.
Sock Puppet: Modern groups *were not* present in the Cambrian.
Nocterro: ok. so then, the only problem isn't the existence of the rocks. it's just the pattern.
Matt Slick: Yes. It's the information.
Sock Puppet: What's that about moon rocks, Nocterro?
Matt Slick: Information is the key. Information is the main issue. It is not the existence of rocks and dirt sand, etc.
Sock Puppet: "second or third change in man"???
Matt Slick: it's the existence of information. Where does this information come?
Matt Slick: Correction, where does this information come from?
His_Elect: “One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7)
Matt Slick: And here's something else to think about. The pattern of rocks that we see on the moon is meaningless if there is not a mind to comprehend the arrangement.
Sock Puppet: HE, you know people have been doing research since 19-frickin'-58??
Nocterro: well, now we're playing with epistemic certainties: how certain am I of the probability of this happening by chance vs how certain am I that there is no mechanism that could do this vs how certain I am that no supernatural intelligence exists
Matt Slick: Essentially, for information to exist, there has to be a sender and a receiver. But, we don't have to get into that right now.
Matt Slick: Exactly.
Matt Slick: So in our scenario, if our presuppositions say that there is no intelligence other than ourselves, yet the evidence seems to contradict it, then isn't that evidence that our presuppositions are incorrect?
Nocterro: so, if I was very certain that no supernatural intelligence existed, but not very certain that there is no possible mechanism, then I would conclude that there is likely to be some unknown mechanism
Matt Slick: If information exists in our moon rock scenario in her doesn't seem to be any other explanation other than an intelligent author, then that is what we should go west.
Matt Slick: "in her" - and there
Nocterro: why should this not destroy the presupposition "there is no natural mechanism that could produce this"?
Matt Slick: doh! west=with
Sock Puppet: Here is some more up-to-date research on the Cambrian explosion: "It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally have their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable. A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later: very few bilaterian phyla sensu stricto have demonstrable representatives in the earliest Cambrian. Given that the early branching points of major clades is an inevitable result of the geometry of clade diversification, the alleged phenomenon of phyla appearing early and remaining morphologically static is seen not to require particular explanation."
Matt Slick: because the facts and the evidence contradict the presuppositions.
Sock Puppet: "Confusion in the definition of a phylum has thus led to attempts to explain (especially from a developmental perspective) a feature that is partly inevitable, partly illusory. We critically discuss models for Proterozoic diversification based on small body size, limited developmental capacity and poor preservation and cryptic habits, and show that the prospect of lineage diversification occurring early in the Proterozoic can be seen to be unlikely on grounds of both parsimony and functional morphology. Indeed, the combination of the body and trace fossil record demonstrates a progressive diversification through the end of the Proterozoic well into the Cambrian and beyond, a picture consistent with body plans being assembled during this time. Body-plan characters are likely to have been acquired monophyletically in the history of the bilaterians, and a model explaining the diversity in just one of them, the coelom, is presented."
Sock Puppet: Graham Budd, I ? him.
Matt Slick: The overall point I'm trying to make is that the development of information requires an intelligence
Nocterro: yes, but we have two presuppositions possibly being affected here: 1) there is no supernatural intelligence 2) there is no natural mechanism
Sock Puppet: That's from "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla", good paper.
Matt Slick: information cannot exist unless there is a sender and a receiver.
Matt Slick: Information is an arrangement of natural components in a specified manner
Matt Slick: the question I would ask of evolutionists, is where does the information come from?
Nocterro: right, and under naturalism, no information would exist until we observed these rocks, under your definition of information.
Matt Slick: is mutation and copying errors in DNA sufficient to account for information development?
Sock Puppet: Let me repeat part of that which should answer everyone's concerns: "A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later: very few bilaterian phyla sensu stricto have demonstrable representatives in the earliest Cambrian. Given that the early branching points of major clades is an inevitable result of the geometry of clade diversification, the alleged phenomenon of phyla appearing early and remaining morphologically static is seen not to require particular explanation."
Matt Slick: Of course, in mutation in existing DNA it might be beneficial in natural selection, could only be of value if existing information can house an alteration of information.
Matt Slick: The complexity of information structures in DNA is stunningly immense
Nocterro: I think mutation + selection is more than sufficient to account for the information development, given the amount of time it's had.
Matt Slick: noct... About what you said above. "No information would exist until we observe these rocks."
Sock Puppet: You would be mistaken, HE. If creationism is true, there should be no Cambrian explosion. It's kind of puzzling the creationists even bring it up as a dilemma for evolution, actually, because in order to do that they must acknowledge it was to some extent *true*, and if that is the case then creation did not happen the way YEC think it did.
Sock Puppet: Cambrian explosion can only be of use to theistic evolutionists or ID people, who have no problem with an ancient earth and diversifying life. YEC should deny that it even happened.
Matt Slick: Technically I wouldn't agree with that. You could be in a locked room by yourself and write a sentence on the page. You would be the sender and the receiver and information would exist. But, I think that you're on the right track. There needs to be some sort of observation, some sort of reception, some sort of "something" upon which the "information" has an effect.
Nocterro: right. but I don't see how this is a problem for naturalism.
Matt Slick: Evolution, of course, can't explain the origin of information.
Matt Slick: Evolution cannot explain this super complexity of information structures found on the genetic level.
Nocterro: It doesn't attempt to, if we use your sender/receiver definition.
Nocterro: under your definition, information is created when we observe a pattern.
Matt Slick: It doesn't attempt to, in my opinion, because evolutionists are very aware of the difficulty. If there was a naturalistic mechanism by which information could be developed and modified, evolutionists would be promoting that theory. From the
Matt Slick: rooftops
Nocterro: because under your definition, information just IS observation of a pattern.
Matt Slick: no, it's not just observation of a pattern. Is more to it. And this is where I am deficient. I need to study what information really is in more depth so I can describe it more accurately. As it stands, right now, I'm not very good at it.
Nocterro: fair enough.
Matt Slick: From what I've studied of information theory and structures in DNA, there is no naturalistic mechanism by which information can be formed
Sock Puppet: Are you requiring video recording of the entire evolutionary process, rdd2? Doesn't that seem a little unreasonable to you? Do you only convict a person of a crime if you have full audio and video recording of the crime, with a shot of their face?
Nocterro: I recommend reading the work of Claude E. Shannon, to start.
Matt Slick: that is, in the context of DNA development. The complexity of information structures to great.
Matt Slick: Plus, there are other issues of DNA forming in a hostile environment without repertory abilities
Sock Puppet: His_Elect If you'd been reading my messages, you would know that the Precambrian did have living organisms, and that the Cambrian organisms were not "fully formed".
Matt Slick: the amino acids, the nucleotide bond peers, would have to form along the internal access of the helix in a specific sequence
Sock Puppet: Matt Slick DNA does not have amino acids. . .
Nocterro: I think you might need to expand your definition of "information" for your argument to work.
rdd2: Sock Puppet no not at all there must be some provable trail of 'one ' ansestor trail that is clear and undisputable ' but there is none
Matt Slick: the sequence of nucleotide bond pairs in order for it to become information, must be extremely long
Matt Slick: sock, you are correct. It does not.
Matt Slick: If I said that above, I misspoke.
Nocterro: yeah. you said information requires a sender and receiver. so, if there's no one looking at something, then there's just no information there.
Sock Puppet: Why do you think that there "must" be something like this? You are aware that such a record is physically impossible?
Matt Slick: noct, yes, but we could also get into the issue of the sender and receiver has to be conscious, if it has to be a mind.
Nocterro: even then, there's no information if there's no receiver.
Matt Slick: The ultimate question is, in the DNA molecule, is information evidence of design or randomness?
Matt Slick: if we are on the moon looking at the super simple arrangement of prime numbers, the logical conclusion is that there is intelligence involved.
Sock Puppet: His_Elect There are fossils below the Cambrian. Ediacaran biota, google it.
Matt Slick: When we look down into the DNA molecule and we see the super complex arrangement of the bond peers, the logical conclusion is that there's an intelligence involved.
Nocterro: but under your view, the information doesn't even exist unless there is a mind. so, to go from information to God, you would have to beg the question.
Matt Slick: As I said, my studies have shown me that information formation in DNA cannot be accounted for with naturalistic explanations. Sure, it doesn't mean that evolutionists haven't offered some ideas. But the establishment verification of those ideas seem to be impossible.
Matt Slick: I don't think to say from information you give to God is begging the question. You see, if the evidence were to support an intelligence, then it is a conclusion, not begging the question.
Matt Slick: and, I didn't bring up God as the author of the information. I said it seems to be that it would be evidence of an intelligent designer.
Nocterro: but, the evidence you are presenting, as it stands now, requires an intelligence to exist.
Sock Puppet: rdd2 Considering in order to have the type of fossil record you want we must have every parent-offspring pair die and be fossilized while fossilization is a rare outcome, it is conveniently impossible for anyone to ever demonstrate the accuracy of evolution to you.
Matt Slick: Admittedly, ultimately, I would say that God did it.
Matt Slick: Yes, I believe that it does require an intelligence to exist.
Sock Puppet: His_Elect I'm confused, are they "absent" or are they just "all soft-bodied"? And if they are soft-bodied, why is that a problem to you?
Matt Slick: anyway, noct, those are some of the thoughts I've been having about this issue.
Sock Puppet: Why, rdd2? Do you see organisms getting fossilized constantly today?
Nocterro: but yeah. if it doesnt exist without an intelligence, I dont think you can present it as evidence for said intelligence.
Sock Puppet: Ok, I'm glad we solved that, HE.
Matt Slick: noct, could you rephrase that? sometimes I have trouble with double negatives in sentences.
Nocterro: you're saying: information exists, therefore an intelligence exists
Sock Puppet: rdd2 Fossilization is a very rare outcome. Most carcasses get dismantled and eaten before there's a chance for them to be fossilized.
Matt Slick: I'm saying that the best explanation for information is intelligence.
Matt Slick: And I'm also saying that the naturalistic explanations cannot account for the complexity of information in the DNA molecule.
Sock Puppet: His_Elect So why are they fossilized separate from everything else?
Nocterro: under your view, to even say "information exists" requires one to have an intelligence existing.
Matt Slick: there is no known mechanism by which it can form
Matt Slick: yes, that is my conclusion.
Matt Slick: notice, I did not say presupposition. I said conclusion.
Nocterro: but, the naturalist will just say "information as you define it *doesn't* exist.
Sock Puppet: rdd2 Oh, there are plenty of trails! We have excellent fossil records for bird evolution, whale evolution, and even human evolution's pretty clear. Of course if you want snapshots of every single stage in the evolutionary transition, you're forever doomed to disappointment.
Sock Puppet: We have a really excellent trail stretching over hundreds of millions of years showing the gradual evolution of the mammalian inner ear.
Matt Slick: lol.... they can say it. Then they are responsible for defining how the information that exists in the DNA, doesn't exist.
Sock Puppet: And the fish->tetrapod transition is also nicely laid out.
Nocterro: again, they will just say it doesn't exist in DNA at all, and perhaps posit another definition of information.
Matt Slick: noct, but it does.
Nocterro: not if God does not exist.
Nocterro: (the problem is with saying information requires a sender and receiver)
Matt Slick: noct, the DNA molecule has information in it. That is a fact.
Nocterro: oh, I agree it does, but not under your definiition of information.
Sock Puppet: Just looking at birds, evolutionists noticed that bird skeletons were a lot like some dinosaur skeletons. Then we found Archaeopteryx, with a tail, no beak but toothed jaws. Then we found dinosaurs with feathers--*lots* of them! Then we found dinosaurs with air sacs similar to birds. Then we found fragments of collagen in a T. rex skeleton that are recognized by anti-chicken antibodies and most closely match chicken collagen sequences. It's really remarkable, the way all of the evidence keeps piling up showing that birds really are derived dinosaurs.
Matt Slick: my information definition also included a sender and receiver. I also mentioned the issue with not such a sender and receiver need to be conscious, needed to have a mind.
Matt Slick: So, according to my definition, it still stands.
Nocterro: anyway, I gotta go. get back to me when you've completed your study of information theory and we'll discuss this further.
Sock Puppet: His_Elect That makes no sense whatsover. The fossil record has layers deposited under stormy water, layers under placid water, and layers deposited under air. It has layers that were clearly undisturbed sea bed covered with bacterial mats with Cambrian organisms browsing on those, on top of other layers with the exact same scenario. It has layers showing tunnels dug by organisms buried under other layers with more tunnels dug by other organisms. We have tunnels of animals the size of ground hogs dug in the middle of what you'd have us think was hundreds of feet of mud. How'd they burrow in that, and how did they not drown? We have lava flows, which were deposited under air, because lava under water forms pillow lava with a characteristic appearance. These also are buried by other layers. The geological record is enough to make an honest creationist geologist cry--or become old earth, like that famous guy did.
Sock Puppet: It's amazing how the Flood apparently took a breather every once in a while to let the mud settle and bacterial mats regrow so the trilobites could have a snack before getting buried by the Flood again. . .
Sock Puppet: Lemme go google, brb
Sock Puppet: Glenn Morton. He wrote up an explanation why as a geologist he couldn't accept young earth ideas. You should google it.
Sock Puppet: True, Bahama, that is another of the problems.
Sock Puppet: Here's Glenn Morton: "In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things."
Sock Puppet: Yep.
Sock Puppet: I think he ended up going old earth creationist
Sock Puppet: Not a bad position, though TE is more accurate. ;)
Sock Puppet: So how do you think things happened?
Sock Puppet: Yes, Labcoat
Sock Puppet: So like YEC but just longer ago? I know there are versions that differ.
Matt Slick: Of course, if you're an atheist, if you're committed to materialistic naturalism, then the evidence is not allowed to speak for itself.