Again, the potentially flawed method of comparing differences in various groups of mammals they believe to be along the same lineage for tens of millions of years. And again, if that method is flawed because it assumes that all change is “natural” and “random” processes when in fact nature got some Divine input here and there then my case is stronger than my calculations would indicate, not weaker. And I ask for the third time, what other number would you use there and why?
They could. There could be some natural explanation that we simply have not detected yet- unlike the ebb and flow rate of temperature for which we have long detected the natural processes. We should look for natural explanations for ebbs and flows, and test for them- but right now we have no such explanation for their cause, just evidence that they exist. This ties right into a beef I have about how philosophical naturalism is now impeding science. It may have helped in the past, when the biases were in one direction, but there is such a thing as balance. Now I think there are some questions scientists are hesitant to ask and ideas they are unwilling to test for simply because of the implications undermining philosophical naturalism.
Let’s test for what things should be like when taking into account all known natural processes. And when we find things are different, sure continue to search for undiscovered natural processes, But the more we look without finding one, the more likely it becomes that what we have discovered are the Finger Prints of God.
And one must also be willing to adapt, if truth is the goal, to what reality is really like instead of proclaiming something to be natural even when it doesn’t meet your expectations of how nature works- but to even get to that place one must be willing to recognize when that is.
I don’t know how old you are or how long you have been an atheist. I have been a believer since I was a youth, but my understanding of who God is and how He has operated has changed immensely over the decades. I changed my views in accordance with the evidence.
Or mostly so. With regard to creation and my understanding of early Genesis on my final go-around it was not the evidence which changed, but my understanding of what the scriptures said happened. For 40 years I looked at the same words and struggled with the same apparent contradictions. And then, in my mid-fifties, I opened up the Book on an unexceptional day and I started seeing everything differently. I have no way to “prove” it scientifically, but the change was so abrupt and of such magnitude, and confirmed as true the more I studied it through, that I now believe I got a Divine touch as regards to being able to understand early Genesis. So I suppose I am “biased” as regards to whether the finger of God can cause subtly, perhaps barely detectable, but profound change on Genomes. That same kind of process occurred in me in another area.
At any rate, regardless of what you think of all that, the math is math, the truth is the truth, and we should keep looking, and follow where it leads.