Why I don't believe in evolution...

[The Barbarian]

I will not speak for Sapphire, but evolution is supposedly the undirected natural process by which life originated.

Nope. That's one major misconception. Evolution is the process of changing allele frequencies in a population of living things. Nothing at all to do with how life came to be. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.

There was a great, vast ocean. Inside this ocean, amino acids supposedly formed. The amino acids somehow magically arranged themselves into peptides, polypeptides, and eventually proteins.

Since God says that the non-living world produced living things, that's a sure thing, but magic has nothing whatever to do about it. And since all sorts of amino acids form abiotically (we have even found them in the interior of meteorites, including forms that don't exist in living things on Earth) that's no surprise, either.

And yes, the amino acids can link up abiotically for form poly peptides (short proteins).

But of course, that's not evolution, either. Evolution is merely a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Humans are becoming taller because women prefer taller men.

Actually modern humans are somewhat smaller than the oldest anatomically modern humans. It's farming that did that to us. Would you like to learn why?

All of this is completely undirected.

If you think God didn't build creation to do His will, I suppose. But Christians believe that He did.

There is no need for a God. It is completely natural. From gravity causing the Big Bang, to the formation of planet earth and the chemical beginnings of life, to the biological evolution of the great diversity of life, it has been completely undirected and natural. There is no need to invoke a creator.

Even Darwin supposed God did it:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

Also, the Cambrian explosion spanned some 40 million years. It wasn't particularly short at all.

And of course, complex animals were already in existence long before the Cambrian. The "Ediacaran biota" were once thought to be another sort of life, apart from animals, but now, biochemical data shows that they were metazoans. Many forms of later living things are found in the Ediacaran fauna.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nope. That's one major misconception. Evolution is the process of changing allele frequencies in a population of living things. Nothing at all to do with how life came to be. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.



Since God says that the non-living world produced living things, that's a sure thing, but magic has nothing whatever to do about it. And since all sorts of amino acids form abiotically (we have even found them in the interior of meteorites,l including forms that don't exist in living things on Earth) that's no surprise, either.

And yes, the amino acids can link up abiotically for form poly peptides (short proteins).

But of course, that's not evolution, either. Evolution is merely a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.



Actually modern humans are somewhat smaller than the oldest anatomically modern humans. It's farming that did that to us. Would you like to learn why?



If you think God didn't build creation to do His will, I suppose. But Christians believe that He did.



Even Darwin supposed God did it:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872



And of course, complex animals were already in existence long before the Cambrian. The "Ediacaran biota" were once thought to be another sort of life, apart from animals, but now, biochemical data shows that they were metazoans. Many forms of later living things are found in the Ediacaran fauna.

I did an analysis some time ago. I'll find my spreadsheet and will post when I have time, but even excluding the ediacaran biota, the majority of genera observed in the Cambrian explosion predated the explosion as observed both in fossils and biochemical analysis.

Things like microshellies contain fossils of sponges, bivalves, cephalopods and more. Let me see if I can find a prior post of mine.

 

[Job 33:6]

I did an analysis some time ago. I'll find my spreadsheet and will post when I have time, but even excluding the ediacaran biota, the majority of genera observed in the Cambrian explosion predated the explosion as observed both in fossils and biochemical analysis.

Things like microshellies contain fossils of sponges, bivalves, cephalopods and more. Let me see if I can find a prior post of mine.

Here we go. Doesn't include my spreadsheet but this one has links @Sam Saved by Grace

Is Genesis history?

No Stone Age or Bronze Age in Genesis

Is evolution a fact or theory?

 

[The Barbarian]

Things like microshellies contain fossils of sponges, bivalves, cephalopods and more. Let me see if I can find a prior post of mine.

Are you speaking of the "small shelly fauna" that straddle the Ediacaran and early Cambrian? I need to learn more about that.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Also, the Cambrian explosion spanned some 40 million years. It wasn't particularly short at all.

Are you being willfully dense? I said it was a relatively short period of time.

And considering the Earth is considered to be over 4.5 billion years old, and that for the vast majority of that time, all that existed were simple organisms, I would indeed consider the Cambrian period rather brief. Relatively speaking. 50 million years is nothing. A good analogy would be a 24 hour day. That's like, 16 minutes. Out of 24 hours. Accounting for the vast majority of the diversity found in life. That is a very short time. Again, relatively speaking.

 

[The Barbarian]

And considering the Earth is considered to be over 4.5 billion years old, and that for the vast majority of that time, all that existed were simple organisms, I would indeed consider the Cambrian period rather brief.

The "explosion" seems to have been the evolution of full-body exoskeletons, which immediately preceded a huge radiation of arthropods and related phyla.

But there was a very long period of partially covered organisms. The final step allowed a sudden diversity of lifestyles that was the Cambrian explosion. But as you've seen, many of those body plans existed before the Cambrian.

This look familiar?

Precambrian. Spriggina.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you being willfully dense? I said it was a relatively short period of time.

And considering the Earth is considered to be over 4.5 billion years old, and that for the vast majority of that time, all that existed were simple organisms, I would indeed consider the Cambrian period rather brief. Relatively speaking. 50 million years is nothing. A good analogy would be a 24 hour day. That's like, 16 minutes. Out of 24 hours. Accounting for the vast majority of the diversity found in life. That is a very short time. Again, relatively speaking.

It's deceptive to consider any radiation "relatively short" when in reference to the entire age of the planet. It's like saying that a 200 mile jog is relatively short in comparison to the circumference of planet earth. Why even bother wording it this way? With respect to other geologic radiations, it wasn't particularly short at all, and that would be a more honest approach, to compare a radiation with other radiations, not to compare a radiation with things like the history of earth or the age of the universe. And the fact that you've focused in on the Cambrian radiation and not others, is telling of what you really mean but aren't openly saying, that you think there is something uniquely short about the Cambrian explosion. So let's take a closer look.

And no, as noted above, it did not account for the "vast majority" of diversity found in life. Majority of genera/phylum actually either predated or post dated the Cambrian explosion. And if you'd like, we can go through the list of them.

And now I'll do this in my next post:

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

The "explosion" seems to have been the evolution of full-body exoskeletons, which immediately preceded a huge radiation of arthropods and related phyla.

But there was a very long period of partially covered organisms. The final step allowed a sudden diversity of lifestyles that was the Cambrian explosion. But as you've seen, many of those body plans existed before the Cambrian.

This look familiar?

Precambrian. Spriggina.

And what is your point? I said that for the majority of Earth's history, all that existed were relatively simple organisms. In fact, there was a very long period where all that existed were single-celled organisms. Sure, more complex organisms preceded the Cambrian - I never said otherwise. But it all pales in comparison to the diversity of life produced during the Cambrian.

I still don't understand why I am having this discussion. I wasn't trying to make a specific point or anything. Are you just dying to correct someone or appear intelligent? Nothing I said was wrong or the least bit controversial from an evolutionary standpoint. Perhaps you are subconsciously aware of how the "explosion", which was equivalent to a 16 minute window in a 24 hour day, runs counter to the idea of a long, slow, branching tree of life.

That is, of course, if you even accept the current model on the origin of all species. I am not even close to being convinced. When you really try to imagine how such a system could account for the great diversity of life, it is impossible to not come away with serious doubts. And it's not like it doesn't have it's loose ends.

I guess if you want to throw God into the mix, making evolution a directed plan rather than an undirected one, turning random mutation into divinely caused mutation, and turning natural selection into divine selection, then ok, I guess I can see how it could work. But I don't think God did things that way at all. I think it's far-fetched, unbiblical, and foolish.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's deceptive to consider any radiation "relatively short" when in reference to the entire age of the planet. It's like saying that my walk to the store is relatively short in comparison to the circumference of planet earth. Why even bother?

And no, as noted above, it did not account for the "vast majority" of diversity found in life. Majority of genera/phylum actually either predated or post dated the Cambrian explosion. And if you'd like, we can go through the list of them.

I went ahead and made a spreadsheet. And the spreadsheet is quite generous to critics of paleontology who think that life instantaneously appeared during the Cambrian explosion. It's generous in that it focuses on fossils, which are more prone to appear during the Cambrian, and not genetic studies which typically suggest the majority of phyla having precambrian origins.

What we see is that in actuality, even in just the fossil record alone, not including biological studies, most phyla of the animal kingdom either have no fossil record, have been observed in pre-cambrian explosion strata or are known from the precambrian, or post-date the Cambrian all together. Only about 9 of 31 are observed, currently uncontested, as having been observed to first appear in the Cambrian (again, not including genetics and molecular studies that oftentimes suggest precambrian origins anyway). And all are welcome to contest any of these phyla listed or to add to the list. What this table is essentially saying is that the majority of phyla predate the Cambrian explosion. Those contested in large part are already known to have predated the explosion via molecular studies and paleontologists are just playing catch-up at this point. And historically there we no known precambrian fossils at all. But that is gradually changing with time and more discoveries.


And in fact, if we look at the crown phyla or the major groups of the above table, all have origins in the precambrian.

Even rusophycus, known as arthropod trackways, predate the Cambrian explosion dating back to the nemakit daldinian. Sponges, annelids, anabarites, conodonts, mollusks etc. Have all been found in the geologic succession predating the Cambrian explosion (more nemakit daldinian small Shelly fossils). Then beyond that we have those notes in my next paragraph:

@The Barbarian I am in part referring to small Shelly fossils. Though even still, as you know, things like sinotubulites, Claudina, the ediacaran fuana/metazoans (which encompass a wide array of species) and more, even aside from the small Shellies (annelids, conodonts, anabarites, arthropods etc.), predated the explosion.

Collectively, it actually paints a very different picture than what we thought we knew 50 years ago. What once seemed anomalous to Darwin, gradually with discovery, became quite understandable, and when placed in combination with things like the evolution of skeletons and shells and teeth and other hard parts that fossilize more readily, we have our "explosion" (in addition to things like rifting of rodinia and warming of shallow marine environments in rift zone habitats).

 

[The Barbarian]

And what is your point?

That the "Cambrian Explosion" isn't a discontinous event, but a continuation of evolutionary trends already in existence before the Cambrian began.

I said that for the majority of Earth's history, all that existed were relatively simple organisms.

Indeed. The most difficult step in the evolution of complex organisms was one of the first; the eukaryotic cell. For most of Earth's history, everything was prokaryotic.

Perhaps you are subconsciously aware of how the "explosion", which was equivalent to a 16 minute window in a 24 hour day, runs counter to the idea of a long, slow, branching tree of life.

Both are accommodated in evolutionary theory. Darwin pointed that out. In fact, long before Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory, Darwin showed how a number of factors would affect the pacing of evolution.

That is, of course, if you even accept the current model on the origin of all species. I am not even close to being convinced. When you really try to imagine how such a system could account for the great diversity of life, it is impossible to not come away with serious doubts

Let's take a closer look at that idea. What step from the first prokaryotic cell, to a complex animal, do you think is too unlikely to consider?

I guess if you want to throw God into the mix, making evolution a directed plan rather than an undirected one, turning random mutation into divinely caused mutation, and turning natural selection into divine selection, then ok, I guess I can see how it could work.

You don't need that, any more than you need a god riding a solar chariot across the sky, or angels moving planets around. Why is it hard to suppose that God is powerful enough to make a universe that works by natural processes to do what He intended?

But I don't think God did things that way at all. I think it's far-fetched, unbiblical, and foolish.

You're right. He does almost everything in this world by natural means. That's what He created it for.

 

[Job 33:6]

I went ahead and made a spreadsheet. And the spreadsheet is quite generous to critics of paleontology who think that life instantaneously appeared during the Cambrian explosion. It's generous in that it focuses on fossils, which are more prone to appear during the Cambrian, and not genetic studies which typically suggest the majority of phyla having precambrian origins.

View attachment 305517

What we see is that in actuality, even in just the fossil record alone, not including biological studies, most phyla of the animal kingdom either have no fossil record, have been observed in pre-cambrian explosion strata or are known from the precambrian, or post-date the Cambrian all together. Only about 9 of 31 are observed, currently uncontested, as having been observed to first appear in the Cambrian (again, not including genetics and molecular studies that oftentimes suggest precambrian origins anyway). And all are welcome to contest any of these phyla listed or to add to the list.

And in fact, if we look at the crown phyla or the major groups of the above table, all have origins in the precambrian.

Even rusophycus, known as arthropod trackways, predate the Cambrian explosion dating back to the nemakit daldinian. Sponges, annelids, anabarites, conodonts, mollusks etc. Have all been found in the geologic succession predating the Cambrian explosion (more nemakit daldinian small Shelly fossils). Then beyond that we have those notes in my next paragraph:

@The Barbarian I am in part referring to small Shelly fossils. Though even still, as you know, things like sinotubulites, Claudina, the ediacaran fuana/metazoans (which encompass a wide array of species) and more, even aside from the small Shellies (annelids, conodonts, anabarites, arthropods etc.), predated the explosion.

Collectively, it actually paints a very different picture than what we thought we knew 50 years ago. What once seemed anomalous to Darwin, gradually with discovery, became quite understandable, and when placed in combination with things like the evolution of skeletons and shells and teeth and other hard parts that fossilize more readily, we have our "explosion" (in addition to things like rifting of rodinia and warming of shallow marine environments in rift zone habitats).

And even my table is continuing to be updated day after day.

Xenoceolomorpha could be moved to the bilatarian section. But even still further, we could just look at modern articles and can see major groups such as deuterostomes appearing prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Earliest Deuterostome Fossils Described

Here we have deuterostomia predating the explosion of the Cambrian by some 15 million years, or at least 10 million depending on where you prefer to draw the line at the start of the radiation. We could throw all those phyla right into the precambrian bin.

 

[Job 33:6]

And even my table is continuing to be updated day after day.

Xenoceolomorpha could be moved to the bilatarian section. But even still further, we could just look at modern articles and can see major groups such as deuterostomes appearing prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Earliest Deuterostome Fossils Described

Here we have deuterostomia predating the explosion of the Cambrian by some 15 million years, or at least 10 million depending on where you prefer to draw the line at the start of the radiation. We could throw all those phyla right into the precambrian bin.

And because I like beating a dead horse, I'm going to add one more consideration in. Just because earth existed, and just because some prokaryotic life existed, doesn't mean earth was hospitable for macro eukaryotic life. There were prokaryotes around in the Archean, but we certainly could not have lived prior to earth even having oxygen in the air or even in the seas, so it should be of no surprise that macro sized life didn't arrive until later on. Then even further we have things like snow ball earth and Ice ages of the neo Proterozoic further impeding life's advance.

 

[The Barbarian]

Have you read this?

I'm not a geologist or geochemist, so a lot of it was news to me. Fascinating read. I'd be interested in your take on it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Have you read this?

I'm not a geologist or geochemist, so a lot of it was news to me. Fascinating read. I'd be interested in your take on it.

I haven't read this, but I'm always gathering books if they're a cheap price. I'll take a look on Amazon and will let ya know. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

And even my table is continuing to be updated day after day.

Xenoceolomorpha could be moved to the bilatarian section. But even still further, we could just look at modern articles and can see major groups such as deuterostomes appearing prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Earliest Deuterostome Fossils Described

Here we have deuterostomia predating the explosion of the Cambrian by some 15 million years, or at least 10 million depending on where you prefer to draw the line at the start of the radiation. We could throw all those phyla right into the precambrian bin.

Predating the Cambrian by 10 to 15 million years? So going back to the 24 hour day analogy, that is like saying it predated the 16 minute window by...4 to 6 minutes. Out of a 24 hour day. In that short window, all major animal phyla appear, many of which are now extinct.

Besides trying to mischaracterize evolution as a slowly branching tree, what is your motivation to oppose how most view the Cambrian? Are you bothered by the clear implications?

He does almost everything in this world by natural means. That's what He created it for.

How is this not doublethink? Do you know how you sound?

You are saying that "He does almost everything in this world by natural means. That's what He created it for."

So God created a world that naturally arose, and now, God does everything naturally. Or almost.

First of all, if God is the one doing it, it's not natural. Naturalism, by definition, precludes any divine causation. Otherwise, it is God doing it, and not nature.

Secondly, supposing we overlook the contradiction, who is to say what the "almost" amounts to? So God was incapable of creating a world that was perfectly natural - He still had to step in. Somethings came about without His assistance. And somethings, well, they had no chance of happening unless Goddidit. Sounds an awful lot like god-of-the-gaps to me.

The Bible paints a different picture. The truth is that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And not even a sparrow falls to the ground without it being ordained by God. In Him we move and have our being. The "natural" world is entirely supernatural. And nothing happens that He doesn't directly ordain and allow. Everything happens according to His eternal plan and purpose. He directly controls everything. Every last hair on our head is numbered, and has purpose. All things are by Him, through Him, and for Him.

Naturalism is the great delusion of our time. It is the "God delusion". A delusion sent by God in order to damn those who love the darkness and hate the light.

The foolishness of God is greater than the truth of man. And the Lord is God even over apparent facts and evidence - all things are subject to Him. All things work for His purpose. We are to believe His Word above all things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Besides trying to mischaracterize evolution as a slowly branching tree, what is your motivation to oppose how most view the Cambrian? Are you bothered by the clear implications?

As you know, evolution varies a great deal in pace. For example, the evolution of a cell nucleus took over a billion years. Evolution of full-body exoskeletons took many millions of years, starting in the Ediacaran and ending in the Cambrian. Evolution of H. sapiens from other species of Homo took perhaps 2 million years. Evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of Italian wall lizards took about 20 years. You're trying to shoehorn evolution into a time schedule.

He does almost everything in this world by natural means. That's what He created it for.

How is this not doublethink?

It's just an observation. Your physical self, for example, was created by natural means.

Do you know how you sound?

Yep. I think we can get to the reason you're having trouble with this, shortly...

So God created a world that naturally arose, and now, God does everything naturally. Or almost.

Hereabouts, yes. Most of it is done through nature. That's what He made it for.

First of all, if God is the one doing it, it's not natural.

It is, if he's using nature. You might as well say that if He painted a picture, that's not painting.

Naturalism, by definition, precludes any divine causation.

No,that's wrong. For example, methodological naturalism doesn't preclude divine causation. You're thinking of ontological naturalism. And you're also confusing nature, which is merely a tool for God to do things He intends in our world, with ontological naturalism, which is something quite different.

If a mechanic fixes your car using tools, it would seem rather odd for you to insist that your car wasn't fixed with tools, if a mechanic used them.

Secondly, supposing we overlook the contradiction, who is to say what the "almost" amounts to

For example, Christians see transubstantiation as miraculous. Non-theists would scoff. Christians see the direct gift of a living soul to each of us from God as miraculous. And so on. None of these are contrary to science, which is methodologically naturalistic.

Do you not see that God is intimately involved with every particle of this universe, and we would not even exist apart from Him? Nature is just something He made for His purposes.

Naturalism is the great delusion of our time. It is the "God delusion". A delusion sent by God in order to damn those who love the darkness and hate the light.

Since God is unwilling that any be lost, you really can't blame God for those who don't see. Not His decision. The great delusion is to confuse nature, which is God's creation and tool in this world, with ontological naturalism, which is the conviction that there is nothing but nature.

The foolishness of God is greater than the truth of man.

You are misapplying Paul's comment. God is not foolish. What appears to man to be foolish, i.e. using nature to do His will, is God's wisdom.

 

[Job 33:6]

Predating the Cambrian by 10 to 15 million years? So going back to the 24 hour day analogy, that is like saying it predated the 16 minute window by...4 to 6 minutes. Out of a 24 hour day. In that short window, all major animal phyla appear, many of which are now extinct.

Besides trying to mischaracterize evolution as a slowly branching tree, what is your motivation to oppose how most view the Cambrian? Are you bothered by the clear implications?



How is this not doublethink? Do you know how you sound?

You are saying that "He does almost everything in this world by natural means. That's what He created it for."

So God created a world that naturally arose, and now, God does everything naturally. Or almost.

First of all, if God is the one doing it, it's not natural. Naturalism, by definition, precludes any divine causation. Otherwise, it is God doing it, and not nature.

Secondly, supposing we overlook the contradiction, who is to say what the "almost" amounts to? So God was incapable of creating a world that was perfectly natural - He still had to step in. Somethings came about without His assistance. And somethings, well, they had no chance of happening unless Goddidit. Sounds an awful lot like god-of-the-gaps to me.

The Bible paints a different picture. The truth is that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And not even a sparrow falls to the ground without it being ordained by God. In Him we move and have our being. The "natural" world is entirely supernatural. And nothing happens that He doesn't directly ordain and allow. Everything happens according to His eternal plan and purpose. He directly controls everything. Every last hair on our head is numbered, and has purpose. All things are by Him, through Him, and for Him.

Naturalism is the great delusion of our time. It is the "God delusion". A delusion sent by God in order to damn those who love the darkness and hate the light.

The foolishness of God is greater than the truth of man. And the Lord is God even over apparent facts and evidence - all things are subject to Him. All things work for His purpose. We are to believe His Word above all things.

I think you misread my posts. Some small Shellies appeared within 15 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion, but others much longer going into the depths of the precambrian, such as the ediacaran metazoans or Claudina. In fact, majority of phyla predate the cambrian all together.

It's unfortunate that most people who speak of the Cambrian explosion aren't particularly familiar with paleontology.

And I'm only correcting misconceptions. That's all.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

No, I am not misapplying Paul's comment. My point stands. The world considers the truth of God to be foolishness - such as the creation account, the fall of man, 900 year old men, fire from out of heaven, a worldwide flood, Abraham and Isaac, the story of Job, the Exodus, the story of Elijah, David and Goliath, Jonah and the great fish, the virgin birth, Christ's miracles, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the day of Pentecost, the Atonement, salvation by faith, the miracles of the apostles, the assumption of Mary (just kidding - that one really is foolishness ), the conversion of Paul, the preaching of the cross, the Second Coming of Christ, and the great Judgment, among other things. But the truth of man (science) will pass away into nothingness, whereas the Truth of God, that to man is foolishness, abides forever.

Based on a naturalistic worldview, as well as scientific "fact", one would have perfectly valid reasons to reject every last supernatural event in the Bible, labeling it "magical thinking". Yet, you are adamant that you can be a naturalist while at the same time being what amounts to a sometimes-God-interventionist.

Whereas I am fully convinced that the Word of God is 100% true in all things.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, I am not misapplying Paul's comment. My point stands. The world considers the truth of God to be foolishness

Speak for yourself. I think He's never foolish.

Based on a naturalistic worldview, as well as scientific "fact", one would have perfectly valid reasons to reject every last supernatural event in the Bible,

No. As you learned earlier, there's an important difference between the ontological naturalism of an atheist and the methodological naturalism of scientists and plumbers (among others). Methodological naturalism does not deny miracles.

Yet, you are adamant that you can be a naturalist while at the same time being what amounts to a sometimes-God-interventionist.

You're still confused. Methodological naturalism doesn't rule out miracles. And as I pointed out to you, we wouldn't even exist without God's attention:

Do you not see that God is intimately involved with every particle of this universe, and we would not even exist apart from Him? Nature is just something He made for His purposes

Whereas I am fully convinced that the Word of God is 100% true in all things.

Odd that you would describe it as foolishness, then.

 

[Job 33:6]

Besides trying to mischaracterize evolution as a slowly branching tree, what is your motivation to oppose how most view the Cambrian? Are you bothered by the clear implications?

You should leave the characterization of the fossil record to scientists. If the fossil record and molecular studies depict majority of phyla having origins in the precambrian or later Paleozoic to cenozoic, you shouldn't try to re-write that.

And you ask what my motivation is. As a scientist, I'm motivated to clarify on misinformation about the science that we do. And also as a Christian, I think it's important to set the record straight when it comes to understanding how God created. Especially in this age of Christians who seem to think the planet is 6000 years old, it's good to address misinformation upon arrival.

Too many YECs are making thousands or perhaps millions off of pseudoscience books. It's not only for God, but it's for protection of the church that these issues be addressed by people who are able to address them.

And of course, it's also just entertaining to talk about. Every geologist likes talking about rocks. Every paleontologist likes talking about fossils etc. No real in depth motivation needed in this sense, just compassion for what we do.

And lastly, most geologists view fossils of the Cambrian and precambrian exactly as I'm describing. In fact, I'm simply referencing our collective research. We shouldn't confuse main stream media with science. Usually the media lags behind scientific research by a good decade or more, and YECs further tend to lag another decade beyond that (sometimes intentionally).

The earliest Cambrian record of animals and ocean geochemical change | GSA Bulletin | GeoScienceWorld

AAAS