Can EVOLUTION Explain THIS!? w/ Dr. John Bergsma

[@gonzalollach1189]

It's the Cambrian explosion! In case you don't know

[@davidgomez-perea3711]

How can you be so sure? 🤔

[@iguanobro9925]

The Cambrian Explosion allures the existence of a Cambrian Bomb

[@richtomlinson7090]

We need to stop that shipment of Cambriunium, or at least stop them from refining it from the raw stock.

[@bobbyy.7762]

@@davidgomez-perea3711 Maybe because scientists have figured it out. And they can explain EVERYTHING!!! And they have been working on it for about two thousand years or so. See how that works?? Here is a quote for ya "As early as the 6th century BC, the Greek philosopher Xenophanes of Colophon (570-480 BC) recognized that some fossil shells were remains of shellfish, which he used to argue that what was at the time dry land was once under the sea". Ok? Do you get it yet??

[@richtomlinson7090]

@iguanobro9925 Maybe that's why many fossils are incomplete. They just need to find the epicenter, and the bomb casing.

[@rebellb258]

I bounced between laughing and yelling at the Cambrian explosion 😂

[@jd3jefferson556]

Me too!

[@milaszczecina5553]

Sooooooo funny and. Annoying!

[@daniellove162]

@@rebellb258 - DONT SAY IT!!!! I thought the soundbite was gonna play.

[@sloanjackson8]

The Cambrian Explosion signifies the significance of the passage of time.

[@dovonovich]

What? Did not you pickup anything in the video?

[@seanbrittmusic]

😂 what could be unburdened by what has been

[@clayjones553]

I see what you did there

[@JW-sg7tt]

It also makes us all want to ride in a yellow school bus…

[@paulsimmonds2030]

Right, so I watched this video just before I settled down for sleep. Bad move! I ended up with a “It’s the Cambrian explosion” jingle, as an ear-worm for the next five hours!

[@SPQR2755]

I'm going to hear that jingle everytime I read Cambrian Explosion for the rest of my life...

[@nvj1963]

Playing that blurb every time he says “Cambrian” gets very tiring. It’s overplaying a joke. Twice or three times would have been enough.

[@crimpinainteasy2069]

Agreed

[@SolaPastora]

“You could make a religion out of this”, have you seen the original video? “History of the world, I guess”

[@七人の侍-b1q]

@@SolaPastora Bill Wurtz

[@frerfresh8373]

@@七人の侍-b1q disagree....got quite the kick out of it

[@Buckturrible]

I gotta say I respect the commitment to the bit.

[@kevinpilon11]

I unlike some others, laughed harder each time the Cambrian explosion jingle came on. I then started analyzing it musically as it is a fantastic chord progression! Whoever made it gets a Schrute Buck. Cheers from Duluth

[@LilyJael]

It's from the KZbin channel of Bill Wurtz. He also makes music, but he made a couple viral videos about history, which I believe is where the "Cambrian explosion" comes from.

[@Jafin16]

Thank you, Thursday. Your contributions to this conversation and the Cambrian Explosion are invaluable.

[@tomazito2038]

Taking a shot for each “It’s the Cambrian Explosion🎶🎶!” wish me luck 👍

[@edurado1996]

Tried it. Completely $hit faced now lol.

[@donthaveaname15]

@@tomazito2038 Aaannnd emergency room visit.

[@rushthezeppelin]

Do we need to call an ambulance for you? That's a lot of shots....

[@paulalcamo2255]

Well, the show is called “Pints With Aquinas.”😊

[@samuelcampos2642]

Nice man, awesome idea. 😊

[@ASL-cz9pj]

I think we can all agree that abstract symbolism, such as languages, maths, and digital information, can only be understood by intelligent beings, and be produced by even more intelligent minds. So an abstract symbol will never appear naturally. But when I look at DNA, the nucleotides are abstract symbols for amino acids. Also the biochemical mechanisms in one cell are very complex even for today computer expert. So it must be a very intelligent mind who did the programming of biological life.

[@rachellandry3116]

no it mustn't be... don't fill in the blanks with assumptions of skydaddy. that'd be greaaaatttt... mmmkaaay? thanx...

[@antonjoubert6980]

How is dna an abstract symbols? It's literally chemicals that react in a natural way with each other ? This is just the way creationists idiots try to make it seem like dna is actually a god code🤡

[@mrscience1409]

DNA is not a abstract symbol. It is a molecule that we describe with abstract symbols. When you look at DNA, you are looking at scientific nomenclature to describe that molecule. You are simply using your intuition to make sense of something you really don't understand.

[@markb3786]

This is an excellent example of an Argument from Incredulity. It's just so complicated it must be God. I know you will never understand this, but just in case, complexity is the opposite of design.

[@Catholicity-uw2yb]

POPE BENEDICT XVI: There “...is much scientific proof in favor of evolution which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life... In short, there is no necessary contradiction between scientific theories of evolution and Catholic belief. There is no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.”

[@enderwiggen3638]

He isn’t against evolution, he is putting to test the secular belief that a large amount of time with random chance leading to the creation of new species. Random chance evolution doesn’t explain the diversity of both plant and animal species that came forth from the big extinctions, it shouldn’t happen that fast.

[@benharvey8094]

Whew! Thank God I’m Protestant.

[@ludwigvanbeethoven8164]

@@benharvey8094 Cool but the idea that evolution does not exists comes from traditional catholicism, which I believe. Not to mention the philosphical and moral ideas contrary to Catholicism which the Church has been putting out for 2,000 year...and since Judaism since Catholicism is what Judaism looks like when you believe Jesus is the Messiah.

[@LorenzoGMP]

​@@benharvey8094Whew! Thank God that came from traditional Catholicism.

[@LorenzoGMP]

@JesusRulez-l3j Yeah, you have no idea how much I love "whew!"

[@hallieboy]

The Cambrian explosion thing was mildly amusing the first time. Annoying and embarrassingly bad subsequently.

[@Buckturrible]

The commitment to the Cambrian explosion bit is impressive. My compliments to the editor.

[@akak8299]

@@Buckturrible it became really annoying in fact. It disrupts ones mood in the discussion.

[@davidwestwood2457]

Super annoying, great conversation otherwise

[@roan2288]

I am a geologist trained in paleontology and to be honest Bergsma's argument about the ediacaran compared to cambrian fauna does just fall flat on it's face. Darwin's doubt is very selective in the evidence it puts forth and just handwaves away preservation biases like it's nothing. More and more we see examples of this "complex" life before the Cambrian, the existance of small shelly fossils for example show firmly that molluscs and brachipods were present in the Ediacharan. Further more this also puts the origin of Bilateria as well as the split between Protostomes and Deuterostomes firmly in the Precambrian, like molecular clock studies predict which ofc is a whole line of evidence completely ignored. You also see an already complex level of niece partitioning in the precambrian with nectonik, benthic and infaunal organisms. We also have precambrian fossils that show clear signs of predation. The Cambrian "explosion" is notable in that it is represented by two insanely high quality lagerstatte which show an incredible biodiversity, we just lack simmilar earlier locations. But in essence Darwin's doubt whole premise is built upon these 2 sites which is an insanely shakey foundation to build any argument on. For anyone who wants read up on this more I'd reccomend the overview article and book review of Darwins doubt " the Cambrian explosion: How Much Bang for the Buck?" By prof. Ralph Stearley.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Doesn't matter, there is no apparent phylogenetic tree of life with progression of species from one to another in the fossil record..

[@christopherneedham9584]

@@roan2288 if this is true. (And I am not saying it isn’t) than why is that not what the secular darwinists argue?

[@davidh1146]

Thank you for this comment. I was confirmed in the church this past Easter. As a student of zoology and evolutionary biology, no "refutation" of Darwinian evolution would have convinced me of Catholicism's truth. There is always another possible explanation for rapid onset of evolutionary change ( i.e. punctuated equilibrium). Catholicism's beauty is in being open to whatever science may reveal.

[@reinelantz3304]

@@roan2288 because you a geologist, you ought to be able to spell correctly.

[@reinelantz3304]

@@davidh1146 Gould’s concept of “punctuated equilibrium” is the very concept that in about 1979-80 precipitated my abrupt abandonment of support for and acceptance of the concept of evolution. The concept of “punctuated equilibrium”-an ad hoc excuse for the lack of transitional forms-is more absurd than is that of evolution.

[@rickfilmmaker3934]

Dr Bergsma is excellent. Great Stuff!

[@theautodidact7545]

That Cambrian Explosion jingle ruined this video.

[@mikkxfit]

I loved those edits. I found myself waiting to see if Dr. Bergsma was going to say it every time it fit into conversation.

[@johngeverett]

The little 'Cambrian Explosion' jingle popping in every time the expression is used made me chuckle. Nice touch!😄

[@mervcharles8365]

Man the “Cambrian explosion” interruptions made this video unwatchable

[@ChiknThighTatorPie]

@@mervcharles8365 I liked them

[@NornIronMan.]

So is he saying god created some animals. Then created some more later. Then some more and let the others ones die. And then created hums eventually? What was the process by which they were created? Did they just pop out of thin air? Poking holes in evolution can be interesting to an extent but it would be better to search for answers on the process by which they were created if not my an evolutionary process.

[@gedofgont1006]

I agree with you. We need a plausible explanation for how a divine agent (God) might have physically interposed itself on Earth, in order to create life initially and then guide its subsequent development through all the iterations that followed. I've not yet read or heard anything that attempts to cover this in detail, with scientifically tenable arguments. William Lane Craig does address the ludicrousness of suggesting that, one day on a small pond somewhere, a fully fledged duck magically appeared out of nowhere and started swimming about, but he only did so as a pretext for affirming evolution. And Craig is a Christian! So what are the potential mechanisms by which God, or an advanced super intelligence indistinguishable from God, could have achieved such wondrous biological diversity on our remarkable and possibly unique planet? I think very exciting work remains to be done, in this area.

[@KMFCenCal]

@@NornIronMan. If evolution were real man would have documented the changes. However it's made up so no history of evolution

[@andrewhard6139]

Guess since we can’t go back in time to observe what happened we can’t really even prove the timelines. So the whole thing will never be proven without a doubt. Too many unknown variables that may or may not be present. Science has added so many millions of years to the whole process. How can we prove anything past our own history. Everything seems to me to be speculative.

[@markb3786]

@@andrewhard6139@andrewhard6139 In Science, the word observation is not limited to your eyes.

[@climbingtheladder2720]

Was not ready for this level of humor for this video.

[@canchadhandlethat872]

The Cambrian explosion blurb is out of control Matt

[@rudya.hernandez7238]

"It's the Cambrian explosion!"

[@Misael-Hernandez]

@@rudya.hernandez7238 pow wow!

[@davidrojas6457]

I hope they know this now has to be a concrete tradition on this channel

[@frerfresh8373]

~~~~ it's the Cambrian explosionnnnn~~~~~ maybe I'm loopy, but it got funnier every time ='D

[@Charon58]

Simply more “god of the gaps”. We don’t fully understand this portion of evolution therefore god. Each time this has been used in the past more information has eventually closed the gap. The ludicrous part is that the god explanation is far more complicated than “we just don’t have enough data to explain why evolution was so accelerated during this period”. It is just way more likely than “the fossil record seems extreme during this period so there must be a magic sky man who can accelerate evolution or create new creatures by magic”.

[@minasoliman]

Using the Cambrian explosion to disprove evolution is like using the sudden explosion of icons in the fifth century to disprove iconodulism. I recommend Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller (a Catholic) and Language of God by Francis Collins (a Protestant who was formerly an atheist).

[@CallAnAudible]

This is 100% correct. There is a big difference between "I don't know how this fits into the theory yet" and "the theory is bunk." Not having an understanding of the Trinity is not necessarily an argument against the validity of Catholicism. Similarly not having a perfect explanation of the CE is not an reason to throw out the incredible evidence for evolution. And let's say for the sake of argument I cede all of this, the closest thing you could get then is what: God caused the Cambrian explosion? And the rest of evolution is true? Hardly evolutions kryptonite.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

If this man is making any distinction at all, it can only be the rejection of completely natural abiogenesis. In other words, when he says he rejects "Darwinian evolution", I think he means to reject nontheistic evolution. It's still entirely possible he might accept old-earth creationism or even theistic evolution. At least that's what I hope he is intending, because that's not such a radical claim.

[@thunderous-one]

@@CallAnAudible “incredible evidence for evolution…….” Have there been fossils found of both male/female fish……. Backbones evolving shoulders, arms, wrists and fingers? Backbones evolving pelvises, legs, ankles and toes? Complete muscle/tendon and nerve restructuring? Scales turning into amphibious skin? Transformation of the skull? Transformation of the breathing apparatus? Breeding habits? Dietary system? The fish is perfect for the sea, the amphibian likewise for local waters, but there would be many many intermediaries to get from fish to amphibian, so, how did male/female fish to amphibian survive the transitions as they would have useless limbs/body systems till fully evolved?🤔

[@minasoliman]

@@HolyKhaaaaan one can hope so, but his type is to make creationism science, by being anti-evolution as much as possible. It’s like someone being Orthodox because they’re anti-Catholic. It’s untenable. Intelligent design is just another way to try to hide their intentions.

[@CallAnAudible]

@@HolyKhaaaaan and maybe not even that, because as he mentioned there were already cells and organisms floating around at this time. Introducing God into the mix would just be sufficient to say that He was behind a rapid proliferation event long after life emerged. I would love so much to have a really cut and dried argument for God in nature, but evolution isn't it. Oddly enough I think the fact that evolution works so well is a better way to understand the mind of God then by arbitrarily putting acts of His in history.

[@chrisgibson5267]

The Cambrian Period lasted for more than 50 million years, and it ended some 500 million years ago with a mass extinction event. There are animals still alive today ( complex invertebrates) that look somewhat similar to their Cambrian ancestors.

[@bmercadal6805]

Dr. Bergsma we're praying for your son Francis Bergsma for fast recovery...the small black new Testament bible save me from a car accident March 19 feast of Saint Joseph...you visited my younger sister Margaret in the parish St. JOSEPH church in Vacaville....y sister bought me a few of your books.

[@brunobastos5533]

Science more specific medicine cure you

[@ungas024]

​@@brunobastos5533 the Catholic Church gave you the modern hospital because no other secular nor religious movement has done so in the history of mankind. You should thank the Church for building that foundation and continuously investing in medicine and health care.

[@brunobastos5533]

@@ungas024 and where you got that

[@ungas024]

@@brunobastos5533 History?

[@keeverw12]

The question brought up about the cambrian not only causing problems for evolutionists but for biblical creationists as well is interesting. My answer would've been a bit different than the one given in the video. For starters even using the word "explosion" with regard to the cambrian fossils implies that many presuppositions have already been made about the evidence in question. The facts are you have a lot of unique fossils in a particular layer of earth. There are many catastrophic ways for animals to be buried and become fossils and the idea that if they are in a particular layer of dirt that makes them a certain age is not considering all of the possibilities and it therefore filters out a lot of explanations from the start. The fact is we dont know how they got there. But death by natural causes very seldom produces fossils. We do know that much. And here is a question about the validity of the "fossil record" in general. How many different parts of the world were these types of cambrian fossils discovered at the same depth? If its not more than a few then its meaningless.

[@samsilk945]

It's the caaaambrian explooosion!

[@macgvrs]

Given that fossils, especially well preserved fossils, can only exist if the living thing was quickly buried, then Noah's flood surely must be considered as an explanation. If not that, what is?.

[@therick363]

But there is no scientific evidence for Noah’s flood

[@garycottreau8442]

Darwin's Doubt is a nice book. Really enjoyed it.

[@marciliocarneiro]

The cambrian explosion does not refute Inteligent Design because the transitions may be governed (according to the axiom of design) by planned reactions that vary according to some boundary conditions (like increase in oxygen) that trigger some mutations. The zoologist Richard Lewontin says (and I agree) that mutaions are not all random,but some are reactions to gradient changes in basic properties like ph,oxygen levels,pressure,temperature..etc

[@AMC2283]

don't have to refute what there's absolutely zero evidence for

[@Dattebayo04]

I'll explain. The Cambrian Explosion has an explosive appearance of new fossils due to the Earth going through a great chain of Oyxenagation events. That led to organisms getting more calcified and more likely to be fossilized. Before most life didn't have that and was harder to be fossilized

[@EdgarGarcia-zx7sy]

That jingle is *chef’s kiss* 10/10 🤌

[@worldnotworld]

I'm all in favor of pointing out the miraculous aspects of the natural world, but I wish ID proponents could see that it _doesn't matter_ whether we can explain evolution in "natural" terms. The origin and development of life both 1. are miraculous and 2. point to a higher and ultimate intelligence no matter how you look at it. Any "creator" is an "intervener," always and already.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Maybe, but try telling that you your average evolutionist believer. Most "evolution proponents" believe in abiogenesis.

[@worldnotworld]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Can you explain more what you mean? Not sure I follow.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@worldnotworld A). I don't believe in the phylogenetic tree of life paradigm, because the evidence for that evolutionary idea is not existent. B). Most ppl who believe in the phylogenetic tree of life paradigm (common ancestors for extant fauna) also believe in abiogenesis, and also are not theists. C). We don't have to concede anything to them, they have no good evidence for their creation myth.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

@@sliglusamelius8578 I can conceive of abiogenesis quite easily as the mechanics behind God creating the species. I am a Catholic and I accept theistic evolution. I accept it because I also accept that intelligent beings improve things they care about over time, and adapt them to their various needs and environments. For example, steam railway locomotives as we know them may have started with Stephenson's Rocket, but further needs and situations gave us duplex locomotives, Shay locos, articulated locos, double Fairlies, and so on. So, why shouldn't it please God to develop animals and even cultures which, to some degree, reflect their environments - on Earth, as well as their mental states - and which need grace in order to be made perfect and be freed from destructive biases and errors? Rome did not become some monolith reflecting Jewish culture. Ethiopia and Armenia retained their cultures; they did not become copies of Rome. In fact, Rome and Constantinople both reflected Roman Nicene Christian culture in different ways: one where the empire remained, and one where it collapsed and gave way to new rulers. I see evolution as a fact of biology, but also history. Just not the Darwinist "survival of the fittest" part - because fitness changes depending on ever-changing circumstances (which are not in human control).

[@Reclaimer77]

"The origin and development of life both 1. are miraculous and 2. point to a higher and ultimate intelligence no matter how you look at it." False and also a presupposition. There's no unidentified substance in life. Nothing miraculous at all there.

[@fortressmattimus3984]

Something that us Christians often fail to consider and bring up in conversation is that there was no death before sin. If the wage of sin is death, then how could anything have died and fossilized before Genesis 3?

[@SneakyEmu]

@@fortressmattimus3984 because "death" in context is spiritual death not physical. This is obvious because God told Adam "the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" yet they didn't die that day.

[@fortressmattimus3984]

@@SneakyEmu There's 3 different definitions of day: a 24 hour period, a set time period (like a season), and a generation/era. It's true that Adam didn't die on the day he ate the fruit, but that was the day he started to die and age. It was a time period, and sin started the path toward Adam's eventual death. It wasn't talking about a 24 hour period. It's the period when his body began to break down. Think about it. What is the result of sin? Pain, suffering, death, decay, work, etc. Why would Adam's body break down and fail him before sin entered into the world? Wouldn't he be in pain? Why would he kill animals and eat them when God told him he can be sustained by eating any fruit in the garden? God never told him to eat animals, only fruit. Why would an animal, say a lion, eat a lamb? How could they possibly do any of these things unless pain and suffering were introduced before sin? Only if there is not death, could there be no decay. Because the eventual state of decay is death, and that is a painful, sorrowful, and unpleasant process. God created the world and called it good, but none of that sounds good.

[@andrewsheek]

@@fortressmattimus3984 there is nothing in scripture that says there was no death. Only that there was no human death. Adam and Eve are fruit, which is made up of living cells. Obviously those cells died.

[@SneakyEmu]

@@fortressmattimus3984 everything you said about the day being when Adam's body began to break down is completely contrived and non-existent in the text.

[@fortressmattimus3984]

@@SneakyEmu You should read some biblical commentaries. The scholars are all in line with what I'm saying. Check out Matthew Henry or Albert Barnes

[@itsa-itsagames]

Bro, read the room lol That's enough of that cambrian explosion sample

[@chiaramaran3778]

I laughed so hard at the ‘Cambrian explosion’ bit, every single time 😂 Bravo! Thank you from Italy

[@richardgarcia1184]

The jingle got tired really quick

[@Swinefeld]

@@richardgarcia1184 After fourth time I was like “Basta!”

[@smokert5555]

The simple answer is yes. And if they don't have an explanation, it's because they haven't figured it out yet. It doesn't mean it's a problem for evolution as a whole. Change happened and that's evolution. Just because we may not be able to explain the changes doesn't mean the changes didn't happen.

[@BlackDotPatrick]

Ok your editor makes poor choices repeating that "Cambrian explosion" thing so many times.

[@BigAut1]

I think the because Moses lived in a time that they did not understand the numbers. We do that. The 6 days of creation were based on 6 periods of time instead of 6 days, even more so for God, a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years it's like a day. Apply that to where we want have to use It in all contacts. Because that's God's sense of time

[@jonathanmiller322]

Ecologist here: One of the major reasons for the rapid diversification of life during the Cambrian Explosion is that it was the beginning of complex multicellular life on our planet. This opened up an incomprehensible amount of ecological niches that were open to be filled, resulting in extremely rapid diversification to fill them. A very similar thing, to a lesser extent, happened during the Devonian and Carboniferous periods when vascular plants first came around, simultaneously massively raising atmospheric oxygen levels and providing a major autotrophic group on land, basically meaning there was finally food there. Both terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates very rapidly diversified once this came around as well. I don't know why this has escaped Dr. Bergsma's notice.

[@haydenwalton2766]

I do

[@BreakingMathPod]

@PintsWithAquinas

[@darthur2827]

Here is the problem I see in your thinking. Firstly, you claim a title as an ecologist as if it makes your argument infallible or more valid. This is a terrible logical error that many brilliant people have used throughout history. (I’m a doctor! Smoking is good for you. I’m a psychologist! Lobotomies are amazing. Etc.) If anyone is remotely self aware, they know we are making amazingly bad errors in the world of science right now, just as we have historically. Credentials only indicate that one has studied something to a degree, not that they aren’t prone to error. Here is where the other error lies. Most modern ecology and similar fields of study base what they deem as fact almost entirely on assumption. It’s no different than phrenology or palm reading. Here, we are assuming that an incomprehensible amount of niches became available. Why would other simpler multicellular life not also create complex niches? Why do we not see an incomprehensible amount of biodiversity? There doesn’t seem to be any reason for more complexity of life according to the evolutionary model. If life already successfully perpetuated, what is the purpose of competition? There seems to be none. I believe aspects of evolution may be right, but when we assume it is correct and build all of our conclusions around it, it’s not remotely scientific. I’d say it’s no different than phrenology correctly concluding localization of brain function. Yes, you may come to a correct conclusion on occasion, but it doesn’t mean the model is entirely or even remotely accurate. Excluding other possible reasons for the existence of life (ie. outside of the current evolutionary model) seems like the most unscientific thing we could do.

[@jonathanmiller322]

My intent with mentioning that I am an ecologist was not an appeal to authority, but an attempt to demonstrate that this is common knowledge within the fields of ecology and paleontology. I will concede that I should have phrased it better to make that more clear. Regarding your comments about science, it seems that you do not quite understand how modern science works. It is, quite simply, building off the scientific method and building off the current consensus. Scientists are very aware that we could be wrong, and any scientist will tell you that if incontrovertible evidence against any given theory or law arises, it must be reexamined. You also say that science can result in errors. Yes, it can, which is why a major principle of the scientific method is retesting hypotheses in different ways in order to see if a principle is true. Additionally, you provide no actual evidence for this claim that science is unscientific, making it seem much more like an ad hominem than an actual argument against modern science. Regarding your second paragraph, I don't really understand many the questions you pose. I ought to have been more precise when I used the word 'incomprehensible', but to answer that question, there is an incredible amount of biodiversity. There is estimated to be up to 100 million species of animals alone, not even considering any of the other kingdoms, so I would defend my statement regarding the volume of biodiversity. As for your question about competition, this question seems to most strongly betray your ignorance regarding this topic and I would encourage you to do research into it before engaging in arguments about it. Competition exists observably because there is a finite amount of resources, and all life is genetically programmed to reproduce as effectively as possible. As a result, competition exists because these organisms are all attempting to get resources for themselves and their offspring, which necessarily comes at the expense of others. This drives adaptation as a result of small genetic mutations. Competition really is a quite simple and extremely easily defensible and observable concept. Simply look at your garden to see weeds growing quickly in order to block light from another plant. As for your comment about assuming that many niches become available, it really is a simple logical progression from the increased complexity of life. Life grows more complex with larger bodies and greater carrying capacity for apparati, meaning that more things are possible, meaning that more life strategies are possible, meaning that more niches exist. In the same way, simpler life results in less available niches because it is simpler. There are less possible strategies, meaning that it is not possible to fill as many niches. In summary, you seem to make several errors and logical fallacies in your argument. The first is the obvious af hominem against modern science. The second, and far more consistent one, is simply asserting things without providing any evidence or considering counterarguments. For instance, at the end of your second paragraph, you simply assert that there is no reason for competition, which is outright false, as there are quite a few. You do not examine those potential reasons and point out flaws, you simply pretend they don't exist. In short, please do more research before making an argument, and take efforts to examine and improve your argumentative tactics. Thank you.

[@recoilrob324]

@@jonathanmiller322 Perhaps you can answer a question I've had for many years: since we now know about DNA....how can an organism 'evolve' into another with more chromosomes? I can see how difference in the chromosomes will make changes in the organism such as height, sex, hair color, ect.....but changing the total number seems like something that would take an external influence to happen. Call that external influence whatever name you like....I can't see evolution doing it alone. Also I've been reading about disease coming from space particles that rain down on the earth constantly and believe that life itself could have spawned in the same way. Things don't just appear.....everything must be created which takes energy and effort and it's far beyond my understanding just what, where or how this happened...but it seems that the evidence of external influence on earth is there and hard to ignore. Thoughts?

[@susannelson1355]

May ai suggest editing most of the Cambrian tune? it gets irritation after about the third repetition. Thanks. - From Stephen Nelson.

[@justinwalker5441]

That Cambrian explosion clip is a hilarious video by the way look up “ The history of the entire world.” Or type the sun is a deadly laser, then it should pop up.

[@paulalcamo2255]

Hey Matt, review Hugh Ross’ explanation of creation and his redefining the Jewish word of Yom where the day can be defined as any amount of lengthy time period. Where he explains it, there are only 3300 words in the Hebrew language so Yom takes on multiple meanings. Actually, Dr. Ross does a great job of marrying science and creation. Check it out if you haven’t already done so.

[@PeerAdder]

And how does he square away the two different accounts of creation in Genesis?

[@reactionaryopinions200]

I'd pay good money to listen to this video without that annoying "cambrian explosion" sound bite. Honestly I was going to send this to friends, but because of that sound bite, I'm not going to. Sorry, just some helpful criticism.

[@GSpotter63]

When talking on this subject I am far more interested in exposing and finding the truth than I am about winning the debate. What good does it do to win a debate but still be wrong?

[@tylermckee]

It gets funnier every time.

[@sloanjackson8]

Great edit!

[@AAbaya2024]

Matt, Prof. John Lennox (not a Catholic) argues that the 6 day of creation isn't about 24-hour days. Wonder if he's around for you to interview him and clarify this. Except for that annoying cartoon, this was informative. Thanks God Bless, wishing you from Sri Lanka

[@dutchmansmine9053]

@@AAbaya2024 I don't think Matt holds that position. He was asserting that by dismissing evolution that is the default position to hold, and trying to steel man it.

[@mrscience1409]

It doesn't matter, the bible got the order wrong. A longer day would just add more problems to the story.

[@leonardodavinci303]

First, the 'days' of Creation is misleading. In the Hebrew its the word yom which simply means a distinct period of time. In Torah text yom is used for days, weeks, months, years or indefinite length but a distinct beginning and ending. It can even be used to have multiple parallel meanings depending on context. Second, notice the 'gap' between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1:2 the earth is called 'empty and void' in English, but the Hebrew is really closer to devastated or in English 'rack and ruin'. Despite their best efforts the Cambrian Explosion is simply inexplicable by Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Crick (of Watson and Crick fame) realized tis and appealed to panspermia as the answer.

[@hglundahl]

5:30 Ediacran to Cambrian, "an increase in Oxygen" Going up somewhat in the sea levels prior to the Flood mud covering - "an increase in Oxygen" ...

[@johnlocke5382]

I laughed every time the cambrian explosion ad came up 😂

[@iankelley9704]

Ah, no one to better refute a theory than someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

[@levibarros149]

Me has a love-hate relationship with "ITS A CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION" insert clips So annoying Yet Soooooo, soooooooo good. 😎

[@davidrojas6457]

Lol, Thursday, stop, you're gonna ruffle the boomers ❤

[@TyronSmith-yo5tt]

Why were there simple lifeforms and then life became increasingly complex on a gradient? That alone,regardless of the purported timestamps and successive time scales between these epochs is problematic for the bible.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

📚💀🧐Evolution is nothing but a postmodern Creation Myth...

[@0i7PX72Nga]

@@anarchorepublican5954 Evoligion

[@johndill6594]

Science is supposed to be rationalism (a hypothesis formed from the mind) followed by empiricism (sense perception to validate the hypothesis), but evolution flips the order around where empiricism (morphological similarity of fossils in geological strata) is followed by rationalism (evolution) without a path back to empiricism to validate it and they call it "science". I call it sophisticated story telling based on a materialistic philosophy. There are things in history that cannot be empirically verified, but abiogenesis is within their empirical sandbox! The lack of effort in this area several decades after creating amino acids from natural forces, the theory of evolution is starting to show its hubris. There is a word for belief from rationalism without empiricism; it's not called science, it's called faith. That is one thing that humans are very good at, creating and believing our own mythos.

[@JeffStein-h5y]

Evolution doesn't try to explain creation. And it's not post modern or a myth.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

​@@JeffStein-h5y sez: "Evolution doesn't try to explain creation"... ...you know..I've been hearing that rather dull, Darwinist denial, quite frequently of late...but of course.. that wasn't always the case with enthusiastic origin of life theorists of the recent past...Have secularists suddenly, but now- forever, ceded, their beggarly front counter seats, at creation's primordial soup kitchen ? ...🌊⚡✨👾 ps:...there's no point in postulating as postmodern progressive progeny most Darwin an unfortunate and mistaken mythos... severely afflicting those who are thinking in repose... and in particular with those having minds fully closed...

[@BensWorkshop]

Great video. Did find "the cambrian explosion" started to grate after a while though.

[@Foreign0817]

I think the 6 day creation is metaphorical. Like the creation scene in Noah (2014). The movie was innacurate, took too many liberties, and was even accused of being gnostic, just putting it out there. But that one scene I mentioned... at least thought it was cool. A middle ground when it comes to depiction. Do believe Adam and Even were real. DNA proves that all modern humans share a common ancestor found in one man and one woman. What are the details of how they came to be? I won't know. But one day we will.

[@danlopez.3592]

lol. You think?

[@Foreign0817]

@@danlopez.3592 Yes.

[@axderka]

Genesis is mytho-history. True myth. Sacred history however you want to call it but yes it contains “real” events and people but isn’t giving an account as if a go-pro camera was present. It’s teaching something far deeper about humanity and our Creator. Genetic evidence doesn’t actually show one single ancestral pair but an ancestral community. Now, Adam and Eve could have been elect priests called out of that community but that’s impossible to prove.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

Notice he talks about the Ediacaran biota which predates the Cambrian then claims "the Cambrian life didn't come from the Ediacaran". Fine. *Then where did the Ediacaran biota come from?* 🤔

[@kzizzles8329]

Having the Kolbe center on might add a lot of flavor to discussions like this because as Humaneri Generis, there is an open question for debate amongst Catholics on this question

[@jamesc2226]

So I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. It is my opinion that evolution does happen, but to a limited degree. Life does not just start by itself, therefore either life was started by a god like being, or a really smart being going around starting life on multiple planets/moons and just observing for possibly hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years just where life took hold. Of the two options, if i were a god, i would create the proper environment and go directly to my main plan (creat humans) and skip the need to build an environment through life in different stages, like stromatolites to build atmosphere, which is exactly what would be needed if life were started by highly intelligent beings without godlike powers. You can decide for yourself between the two options what is the more likely answer. The answer to the above question can only be speculated on as the true answer is beyond our abilities to discover at this time. The real question for now is what are aliens doing here, how long have they been doing it and to what end? If you don’t believe aliens are real beings you should do a little research, please include the writings of Plato and likely older writers to have a little background as to the depth of this topic.

[@jD-je3ry]

I dont understand his approach. With God, all such things can be possible. We just have to follow the evidence how it worked out.

[@0i7PX72Nga]

@jD-je3ry Some nonbelievers just get stuck on their circular contradiction reasoning as soon as you mention the word God or supernatural. They want to dictate the rules that somehow you have to prove the supernatural, but already reject everything you say, before you even said it.

[@PeerAdder]

An entirely natural explanation for the origin of life is a problem for those of a religious inclination because (a) it does away with the concept of original sin, (b) it puts responsibility for morality firmly where it really belongs, in our own hands, and (c) at the very best it narrows the concept of god down to "lighting the blue touch paper" and then buggering off. Where does that leave organised religion? All that money, all that power, all that influence? All that feeling special, or sinful, I get confused as to which it is most of the time - self congratulation or self-flagellation? Probably both. At the same time.

[@mrscience1409]

"With God, all such things can be possible. We just have to follow the evidence how it worked out." If all things are possible with god, then you need not follow any evidence and simply stop all science. Science is the acknowledgement that we don't know everything, religion claims the opposite.

[@emilyashley4820]

I like the Cambrian song because I kept forgetting what it was called, but not now.

[@trevorduncan9434]

It's a pity that silly jingle ruined what would've been a very insightful video. It Almost seemed patronising or mocking so I'm not sure how you can expect skeptics to take your video seriously if you don't.

[@mrjackbagginz]

Let this sink in,. Half a million years is not very long

[@quentins8165]

How do you go from "We don't know" to "It's definitely God, but more specifically MY God"

[@BalthasarCarduelis]

You don't. You go, "this was the explanation passed down from time eternal." And he goes, "yeah, but maybe not." And you, "yeah, I guess. What do you think?" And he goes, "maybe this." And you go, "yeah maybe." And he goes, "oh, that's weird." And you go, "so much for this." And he goes, "yeah, I guess so. I don't know." And you go, "I guess we're back to what was handed down to us." And he goes, "How do you get from I don't know to it was definitely God and specifically my God." And you blink and just look at him and don't say anything.

[@quentins8165]

@@BalthasarCarduelis Age doesn't equal accuracy.

[@BalthasarCarduelis]

@@quentins8165 blinks twice.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

Interesting question. Generally I think the logic is that human believe, and have reasons to believe, there is an immutable, eternal, infinite power in charge of everything. Jews identified this power with the God they worshipped, and so do Christians, because the way He talks about Himself in the Old Testament and the prophets is as a power who created their entire world and claimed authority over it and demonstrated it by what He said - particularly, for Christians, by rising from the dead. Not all religions who acknowledge the existence of the Creator directly worship Him. Most pagan societies worship more immediate, local spirits and let these spirits address the Deity proper. The Chinese religion in particular is an interesting case, in having many gods, but only the Emperor addressed prayers to Tian, Heaven, directly. So it's not so much that this guy says his god he worships made everything. He's saying whatever made everything made us, and he worships that. Get the order, sploinky?

[@Reclaimer77]

@@HolyKhaaaaan"He's saying whatever made everything made us, and he worships that." Then he worships the quantum and Higgs fields I guess. Oh wait, those are actually real unlike Bible god.

[@IamnotJohnFord]

That's the difference between science and magic(religion). When something is unknown they say it's unknown. Further research is needed. With magic it's just magic. BTW, this is supposed to be evidence and science. Not strictly a debate because one side has some evidence and the other side has no evidence. The side with some evidence states more evidence is needed to further support what is already known.

[@mike-o5g]

we have to remember too that the percentage of earth thats been both dug up and also examined for fossils is probably .00000000000000000000001% or something extremely small

[@ikesteroma]

Dude. How many Cambrian Explosion cut scenes do we need?

[@dentellier]

The Cambrian explosion interruption joke was seriously annoying and not funny. Otherwise, love this interview.

[@mariorobles1196]

@@dentellier it was hilarious

[@baudrymetangmo2053]

😂

[@INRIVivatChristusRex]

Enough with the Cambrian explosion. One time is enough. It is annoying.

[@BreakingRadOfficial]

Young earth guy here. The Cambrian explosion, as well as the entirety of so-called “geological layers,” is so much better explained by a worldwide flood. If only there was some kind of historical account of such an event in the Bible. Then we’d really have a case 😛 Great discussion, btw!

[@craigster-q2y]

The Bible pre patriarchs is not a historical account. It is allegory, myth, poetry, cosmology, and stories that recall an ancient oral tradition of explanation told around campfires and in early communities. They have a basis in history but have been expanded in the retelling to grow beyond verifiable fact.

[@BreakingRadOfficial]

@@craigster-q2y oh? That’s a lot of wild speciation for someone who clearly has never studied hermeneutics, who has no grasp on biblical genres, and whose bias is clearly bigger than his intellect.

[@mrscience1409]

If you can explain how a world wide flood perfectly sorted the layers by age and not by density, I would love to hear it. Why are there no lobsters among the trilobites? They are the same basically. Why are there no elephants among the dinosaurs? The velociraptor shown in J. Park was actually the size of a turkey. But strangely enough, not found together in the "layers". 2 seconds of reflection and 5 minutes of research would demonstrate the ridiculousness of the flood myth.

[@DROPKICK500gaming]

Very good segment, please cool it with the bill wurtz clip lol

[@marianana7266]

This is my favorite episode ever because of the Cambrian explosion

[@theriveroffaith852]

The ability to make predictions, is far greater than just explanations. That's how we know Creation is true.

[@hipchik30]

So life appearing suddenly during the Cambrian Explosion doesn't necessarily go against the theory of Evolution. Scientifically, the origins of life is considered a hypothesis and is not a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is about genetic modifications within populations. Regarding the origins of life, I think it's safe to say that most of us watching this know this to be God.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Pedantic. Almost all "evolution promoters" believe in abiogenesis..

[@nathanc777]

What? The Cambrian Explosion isn't about the origin of life. The point is that new animals with completely novel bodyplans suddenly started showing up in the fossil record with apparently no transitional species before them. This would seemingly refute the most basic tenants of evolutionary theory such as gradual changes over time due to natural selection.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@nathanc777 Tenets. Yes, I agree. Apparently we are not understanding each other, I never said that the Cambrian was about the origin of life lol..

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

@@nathanc777 why? That is like saying that things cannot change because they start to exist. I don't see how the Cambrian explosion is any different from the Big Bang or the various technological revolutions in this: some new phenomenon suddenly begins to appear and remains in various forms, adapting and growing over time, but never completely reverting to nonexistence. Life began, and continues. Farming began, and continues even in technological countries. Technology began and continues. None of these things has existed eternally or from the beginning, and neither have they remained unchanged.

[@fr442]

@@hipchik30 what means suddenly? We still talking about 5-10 millions years. The challenge is more how to explain this accelerated approach of evolution. What was the catalyst. Still doesn't debunk the evolution theory

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

Unfortunately, the jingle here doesnt work at all in retaliation to Paulogia's "For the bible told me so" jingle" because there is a huge difference: The bible is a book written by ancient people who didn't know anything about life on earth, what life is or how we got here vs Evolution, which is a culmination of 100 years + of scientific research backed up with actual fossil findings, etc. One has evidence, one is poor intellectual slop.

[@Flounder10-r3c]

interesting but please reupload without that stupid cambrian extinction jingle,

[@Flounder10-r3c]

Once a crab/shrimp like creature evolved it would have had a very competitive advantage and may variations would have appeared very quickly like trilobites. clearly some of these early forms like trilobites had chemistries sensitive to some factor. Horse shoe crabs lasted the test of time.

[@ann5028]

Silly gripe. Take it or leave it. Can we stop with the click baity titles in all caps. It feels immature/gen z directed compared to the value of content you bring which is very interesting by itself

[@chazchoo99]

Unfortunately, that just how the KZbin algorithm works. If they want to keep expanding the channel and reaching new people, that's the way to do it.

[@ann5028]

@@chazchoo99 I see your point but have to disagree. Every other channel I follow is successful (some more successful than pints) and they don’t use childish titles.

[@HarryHound]

Insightful

[@benharvey8094]

To the editor of this video: the “Cambrian explosion” bit was funny every time. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

[@jesseparrish1993]

Ediacara? Anyways, I'll put myself through another argument about the Cambrian if someone will start with the admission that everything since is at least consistent with naturalistic evolution. If you think evolution can get from worms to tetrapods, but it can't produce the "explosion", I'd love to hear from you.

[@reecetudorowen1662]

STOP with the Cambrian explosion. Ruins a perfectly interesting interview

[@amonsterbeast2746]

@@reecetudorowen1662 it was funny once

[@Aurora-tp3dy]

The full interview doesn't have it.

[@SeaLifeCro]

Knock Knock.

[@ddoggall]

I quit watching after the third time.

[@l.jagilamplighterwright9211]

I have to disagree. I absolutely loved it!

[@FredHenry1850]

I believe the young earth explanation for the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record is that Noah's Flood barried a whole bunch of animals at once as the flood occurred. If someone knows how to explain it better, please join in.

[@mrscience1409]

I believe you are correct. Although a single second of reflection shows how ludicrous this is. Each layer is perfectly sorted by age and not by density. Show me a lobster among the trilobites and they may have something.

[@jkellyid]

There is also a whole problem of ought. Why ought something evolve? I mean this, evolution does not produce more effecient organisms. There is really not a notable justification for complexity of a organic system. The single celled organisms are better at rendering existance for inorganic matter. Try eating any cellular precursor ingredient and surviving, very few are digestible at all, some are radically toxic, very few are ingestible. People don't realize that a tree is eating earth, earth is not sand and rock it is other pre-exiting organic matter for the bulk of its nutrients, the same as us. Most complex life forms consume the products of simpler organisms (single cell or similarly simple) as the foundation of our calories when you regress an organic system. Things ought not evolve because they don't benefit the precursor organisms. More over there is no real "balance" as perscribed by biologists, rather an ever expanding chaos. Evolution as a system devolves away from order. Ecosystems are not normal in the scope of reality they are abnormal, and they appear to tend towards destruction with or without humanity. The issue with scientism is it is a conclusion in search of a justification not an honest intellectual pursuit.

[@Rl55322]

Creatures absolutely benefit from evolution. When there becomes an over abundance of a resource (including a population of organisms) that some members of a species can capitalize off of and others cannot, the ones that do will survive more often and produce more offspring passing on their traits. Furthermore genetic mutations just kinda happen, so overtime enough mutations might force some kind of evolution positive or negative; tho admittedly I don’t know if this second one really happens or not, but the first description I gave definitely has and does, and has even been recorded on a micro level

[@hdome79]

Enjoying the video....but why the repeated cute little musical ditty about the Cambrian Explosion ( we get the point).?

[@UncommonSense1776]

OK I’ve heard the “Cambrian explosion“ jingle about six times now I’m now turning the video off.

[@barryives4916]

Chapter 8.Excoriating the premise and function of science today in all fields. It's just like today most of the doctors specialize on a certain part of the body and at the same time profess you must treat the whole body as known science and just ignored every last bit, of what they just said afterwards. So often they wind up treating the symptom and not the problem and then tell you you must see someone else they did their part. Example: Your foot hurts You Keep On Walking on it soon your leg and your body start hurting. What and why is this happening. And even if you fix a foot your leg and the rest of the body is still in pain. Isn't it because we refuse to see the interconnection of the entire body or is it because we choose to ignore it because it's outside our field of expertise and only focusing on that. In which we know. This is a problem with science today. In all fields of science and then have enough guts and nerve, to present a small piece of the puzzle as a complete and accurate and all-encompassing fact. Remember just because the foot was hurting the most and you treated that. Doesn't mean it wasn't because it was compensating for a problem with the hip. In this case due to load-bearing on the foot. Which reminds me of a fable of a group of Blind Men that never had seen an elephant before. The groups were taken to an elephant and each group was introduced to a different part of the elephant. Those who made contact with the head describe the elephant as a water pot, those who felt the ears defined it as a fan, those who touched a leg said it was a tree, and those who felt the tusk thought it was a peg. This kind of behavior we see in all fields of science today. We're all too often they don't have the answer they use conjecture and hypothesis to fill in the gaps. This kind of science is called pseudoscience. And unfortunately commonly and openly used amongst these pseudoscientists Openly teaching and misleading the young impressionable minds today and has been going on in mass as early as the mid 18th century, but had gotten worse since the early 19th century when mass education was introduced. All in a rush to gain fame and fortune and since as early as the 1960s major money has become involved in all disciplines of science, which has completely corrupted science as a whole today. And anyone that speaks out about the mistakes and the out and out lies that are being told, presented as facts is labeled as a nut or someone who doesn't know what they're talking about And will be summarily held up ridiculed and have their personal reputation destroyed. Basically silencing them and anyone else that would even be willing to stand up and speak the truth. Here's a list of things taught in grades one through 12 and then goes on and continue to be taught in our schools of higher education. This is only a few examples. There are many more. 1. the COVID crisis and its vaccine gene therapy 2.climate change. 3. evolution 4. today's psychology 5. true social history 6.physics 7. all forms of carbon testing and dating methods. 8. actual carbon footprint 9. extreme example what is a man what is a woman? The definition of science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation with the testing of the observations and theories of the evidence obtained. If you would like to answer some of these questions that will be posed or all of them I'll be more than happy to respond to you. 1. What is irreducible complexity. And what did Charles Darwin have to say about it and his theory of evolution. 2. Where does Consciousness come from. Not what is consciousness. 3. Using quantum physics where does energy come from. Not what energy is. 4. Explain to me how a simple protein is formed just one protein. Then a protein strand. How the molecules are able to form and come together to make that strand with other molecules. That had to form and come together by communicating with each other without disruption. Using your primordial soup Theory. Understanding all the other variables involved that would have to happen over a consistent period of time. Or even at the time it was formed. 5. Explain to me why and how long it takes to form a rock and or a diamond. Knowing we can form a rock under pressure within 1 to 3. hours. And now can reproduce a fossil in 24 hours under pressure 6. Explain to me according to the climate change experts. .004 % of our atmosphere is carbon monoxide. And only 20% of that is produced by all human activity. And why it's colder in the winter than it is in the summer. Even though we are closer to the Sun during the winter. With extreme temperature changes. Butt on the bottom half of the planet it's summertime. 7. Explain to me why the covid vaccine is not a vaccine. But it is gene therapy. And what is the difference. 8. How do they do carbon testing. And how do they come up with the numbers. Arbitrarily or factual. 9. Understanding the process Of how pockets of how crude oil is formed. Through decayed organic material. And how it turns into crude oil and methane. is that the only way methane is formed. 10. What is the geomagnetic field. And how it has a symbiotic relationship with the geothermal Dynamics on Earth, and our environment. And at what rate is the geomagnetic field deteriorating. And what would happen if it becomes too strong. 11. What is paleoclimatology, and do they also use conjecture and hypothesis to come up with the figures. Or is it factual. 12. Through physics is the speed of light constant. And why or why not. 13. Knowing mathematics is nothing more than a precise form of language. Does that make time/ language nothing more than a social construct

[@krumplethemal8831]

No. He is 100% wrong about this explanation. The cambrian explosion is actually a fossil record. There is a reason it happened all at once instead of a gradual progression. Shells and bioepidemia~ Simple cells dont leave fossils. Soft body creatures dont leave fossils.. But hard exoskeleton and shells do!

[@vondoandantin6573]

The Cambrian explosion lasted 13-25 million years... That's only 'sudden' relative the history of life. It's PLENTY of time for complex dna.

[@Soril2010]

@@vondoandantin6573 That is too short of a time, said the member of a species that has existed for approx 350,000 years 😂

[@sethbracken]

Bro, there’s nothing to suggest earth solar days are the same as creation days.

[@dovonovich]

You mean besides the original language used in the Bible? Or Christ’s references to such?

[@ludwigvanbeethoven8164]

Yes. There's evidence as Catholic theologians such as Saint Augustine (i think its him) suggest that every day in Genesis is 1,000 years annually. This also makes sense considering that in the Roman Martyology (which Virgin Mary told Venerable Mary Agreda) hold that Jesus was born 5,199 years after Creation. I say it "make sense" because if you add up all of the ages that the people lives up to Jesus, you get ~4,000 years...but if we hold the Roman Martyology is correct, and I believe it's in some ancient Jewish text that Adam, after being created, was in ecstasy or at least roamed around the Earth for 1,000 years. Catholicism, as you know if you are one, is beautiful and has connections like this unlike anything. (Also...not sure it's related to the year 5,199 birth of Jesus after creation, but Jesus, as told by Virgin Mary to Mary Agreda had exactly 5,115 scourgings in the Scourging of the Pillar.

[@Renkinjutsushi]

The Cambrian Explosion gag would have been better if you sped it up every time it was said. :)

[@robertmysliwski7881]

The theory of evolution is built on assumptions. Assumptions have to used because no one has ever seen the entire process. So assumptions are made to account for what is believed to be billions of years. What if we adjust the assumptions to what the Bible says that in one day God spoke it all into existence. Even if you use a day as a 1000 years then we haven’t been here that long.

[@Rl55322]

Why do you say assumptions? Do you know there is no evidence, or are you assuming there is no evidence? Because when I’ve studied this, the evidence was abundance and clear

[@catalyst3713]

What assumptions? All the evidence points in one direction: evolution.

[@0i7PX72Nga]

@catalyst3713 Evolution is both Theory and Fact, google it. The part Robert is talking about is the theory part by having lots and lots of theories that all make sense and supports Evolution, but they are just theories only the physical fossil you see is empirical, what and how it happened is long gone and nobody witnessed it, it is all assumptions that can make sense but it will never be empirical, unless someone builds a time machine and Witness every detail.

[@PeerAdder]

Wrong. We have seen the entire process, in the lab. We can track it through the fossil record. We can trace it genetically. If you are unlucky enough to catch an MRSA infection you will experience the process for yourself. However, if you adjust physics (not assumptions) to fit the bible you invalidate vast swathes of scientific knowledge, including the very same science you are relying on to promulgate your ignorant speculations.

[@markjustin203]

@@robertmysliwski7881 the true assumption is I have this book that says that God created everything and I want to believe it so I assume it is true. No evidence nothing just storybook evolution is based on evidence.

[@keeperofthedomus7654]

If you think that the flood laid down all of the fossils at roughly the same time, that solves this problem. If you're a coral or something and a giant wave of sediment is coming your way, you're not escaping. Swimmers can try to escape but the little guys don't get far. Air breathing animals would be at the top of the layers of course- first running to higher ground before being overtaken by the debris and mud, and perhaps and most of those animals drowned rather than being buried. The raven doesn't come back to Noah because he's eating the corpses floating on the flood waters.

[@jsmith108]

As a genuine agnostic when Christians try to downplay the evidence for evolution I believe it hurts your case. It appears to be arguing for what you want to be true vs what is the best explanation of the evidence we have. It's especially odd when the catholic faith allows belief in evolution.

[@dovonovich]

What? Are you serious? Did you not watch the video?

[@christusenciaga]

Like you said Catholics are allowed to believe as we choose - I’m still skeptical of evolution though because of a (non-Christian) video I watched explaining the mathematical possibly of the Cambrian explosion. Scientists have models for how often a single gene mutates (and is not immediately corrected) and how often that one gene (note: single gene meaning one letter in the DNA) is not a detriment to the organism. But it takes more than one gene to change to code a single new protein and more than one protein (usually) to add any new functionality. Given the amount of time that is estimated to have passed during the Cambrian explosion - it just isn’t possible with our current understanding. So either the whole theory is wrong or we are missing something major - hence my skepticism.

[@nathanc777]

Cool, so please refute what he has said or some of the other work by prominent ID proponents like Stephen Meyer. I'm going to assume everything you "know" about evolution you learned in a high school biology class and you haven't actually looked any deeper into the debate. Maybe lots of very smart and much better credentialed people than you don't believe in the basic evolutionary hypothesis put forth because it doesn't actually stand up to robust scrutiny.

[@Rl55322]

@@christusenciagathe Cambrian explosion doesn’t disprove evolution in the rest of history tho. The theory holds pretty strong otherwise, so that would suggest that something is up with the Cambrian explosion rather than evolution itself (that something could just straight up be God)

[@CallAnAudible]

​@@christusenciagathe problem with this argument, I've realized is that in theory this should refute micro evolution as well, assuming they're operating by the same mathematical parameters. But we see micro evolution happening all the time. You and I could literally go to the lab and do it today. What this means is that the mathematics that you're working with is off. It's not about changing one gene at a time, or reshuffling the deck, or anything like that. It's about changes in the allele population that arise from mutation based on fitness. We see that continuously in micro evolution no problem. The question is based on that rate, how much diversity could we get, and it's an awful lot.

[@omy323]

Its the cambrian explosion 🎶 now i want a t shirt with that image