As Darwin’s Finch says, the two very often go hand in hand because:
a) They are both rooted in the same assumptions of literal veracity of scripture.
b) An alternative explanation for the geologic column is required (not that the flood is a plausible one) if you don’t accept the standard explanation.
stuffusbus specifically asked for convincing evidence, not mere potshots at Young Earthism. I propose starting with the simplest:
The fossil record is not random. Fossils of humans, birds, and large mammals are never, repeat never, found with or below those of dinosaurs. Fossils of dinosaurs are never, repeat never, found with or below those of early amphibians. Fossils of early amphibians are never, repeat never, found with or below those of early plants. It is **incontrovertible ** that these different types of creatures lived in **different ** ages **separated by millions of years **.
This is called “evolution”, and it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution proposes mechanisms for this speciation. You can choose to disbelieve this well-supported and rigorously tested Theory, but you cannot “not believe in evolution”.
stuffusbus,
I don’t think that creationism excludes evolution. God really didn’t give a lot of details, time didn’t have meaning yet or it looks that way and I’m guessing it was supposed to be kind of a symbolic story. Here is a verse from a book that used to be in the Bible before it was deemed as unworthy by the Catholic church in either 3 or 16 a.d.(I think).
On the fifth day I commanded the sea, that it should bring forth fishes and feathered birds of many varieties and all animals creeping over thee earth, going forth over the earth on four legs and soaring in the air, male sex and female and every soul breathing the spirit of life.
Goes on later to say he created man from seven consistancies. Keep in mind when he commanded the sea, it sounds like he was just putting the evolutionary process in motion and it could have been billions of our years before(if) he came back and it sounds like he did some finish work on Adam.
Anyway, I don’t know if there is any truth in this and I’m okay with not knowing. It’s pretty hard, no impossible to deny there was some sort of evolutionary process and for a book written a couple thousand years ago, the concept that everything came from the sea was too controversial. As the story has it, first the plants, then the fish, then birds, then four legged animals, then man. Even if you don’t believe in God, this writer seems to have thoughts that were ahead of his time. IWLN
Incidentally, even if the timescale on the “seven days” is flexible, the order is very definitely wrong: eg. grass did not come before the sun, moon and stars.
You got semi-answered on this, but it deserves more. Creation science is not science because it claims to have the answer already. At least one creationist institute requires members to sign an oath that they believe in the infallible Bible and creationism. Their goal is to “prove” creationism, not find the truth.
Two hundred years ago most scientists were creationists. However discoveries in geology showed that the Earth was a lot older than the Bible said, and these scientists abandoned belief in a literal Genesis. By Darwin’s time no reputable scientist believed in a flood or a 6,000 year old earth.
A cold fusion society, whose members believe in cold fusion as a matter of faith, and refused to accept evidence against it, would be just as unscientific as creationism. Pons and Fleisman’s sin was not being wrong, and not botching an experiment, and not even announcing outside of referreed journals, but in not accepting the evidence that they made a mistake.
True. but the functional distinction is that if you say Goddidit, the story is over, but if you say “We don’t know” you jolly well start figuring out what to do so that we do know.
But the best thing about science is that even if you do know, you are open to the possibility that you might find evidence that you really don’t. stuffusbus - ask a Creationist what it would take to convince him or her that creationsm is not true.
I would imagine an act of God.
But when the wind blows southerly, I can tell a hawk from a handsaw.
Just a quick nit to pick: true birds were, in fact, co-existent with non-avian dinosaurs during the Cretaceous. They generally don’t get much press because the press tends to focus more on the earliest birds, rather than those that came after.
Probably not. If god created the world, he created all the rocks and fossils therein, and thus the evidence for evolution. Creationists would rather believe the Bible, written by man, rather than the evidence they would say is directly written by god.
Hey, so I left them out, that was the fourth day. Didn’t want to quote the whole book. I just find it kind of ironic that the church has had some fairly specific information on evolution for a few thousand years, but still having a tough time with it. I never did particularly think God pulled a rabbit right out of his hat. It’s more likely than he just got the ball rolling and here we are. Evolution cannot be disputed, there are no pertinent parts missing that could affect its existence, only details. How Creationism fits in with it could be the only question, not the other way around. As a believer, I was never dismayed to think I came from dirt, so a little moisture added to the mix isn’t a big deal. I still wonder if the believers who have a problem with it just are uncomfortable with accepting GGGGGGGG, etc. Grandfather chimp. Relatives can be a little disconcerting at times. IWLN
[ hijack ]
I’d be really curious as to what book was removed from the bible by the Catholic Church 30 or 17 years before Jesus even sent his apostles out to preach to the world.
[ /hijack ]
True, as is the order in which the plants and animals occupy the sea/land/air.
For that matter, grass did not come before " fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
this is a quote from Diogenes the Cynic
:— “The central fact of common descent has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolution, as a whole theory, does not run into “unknown” snags or puzzles. There are some unanswered questions about some minor details but the gaps in current knowledge are not enough to threaten the theory as a whole.”
—End qoute… So if there are no unknown snags or puzzels, the fact that no fossils of animals in there transitional stages is only a minor detail? And lacking this evidence cannot threaten the evolutionary theory at all? It seems to me that most of the evolutionists here are very confident that the evolutionary thoery is a proven fact, and the way many of you make it sound is that there isnt a single questionable part of evolution. I would think that if there is anything at all questionable then it would not be referred to as fact. I know that there are loopholes and many unanswered questions in creation science, that is why I do not refer to it as a fact because it is not yet fully proven, and neither is evolution.
Sorry, it doesnt want to let me edit… It was supposed to be no fossils of animals in there transitional stages have been found yet is only a minor detail?
Sorry got my book facts wrong. 41 books including the Secrets of Enoch were removed from the original Bible scriptures in 364 A.D. by the Council of Laodicia. The book disappeared until 1200. There are two parts 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch (Secrets of Enoch). References to Enoch’s writing are made in Genisis. Very different writing than what was left in the Bible. Sounds like part of it was B.C. and part A.D. I don’t know much about it’s validity, but it has a lot more facts, right or wrong about creation, etc. Not trying to prove anything, but I always like to see the literature that was deemed inappropriate for religion. Curiousity killed the brat.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm
I was only off by three centuries. What is that in time. IWLN
It is an extraordinarily minor detail for several reasons.
First all fossils are transitional, since all species are subject to the same forces of selection.
Beyond that point, there are fossils of creatures that can be more narrowly defined according to some arbitrary criteria as “transitional.”
Most importantly, we have (yet) discovered very few fossils of any sort (relative to the number of species on earth) and the factors required to create a fossil indicate that we are blessedly lucky to have any of them. Setting up some arbitrary criterion to label one fossil or another “transitional” and then pouting when we do not have it is merely silly.
prisoner6655321
Read your bible again. The rain lasted 40 days the flood lasted quite a while longer.
You are making the mistake of thinking that evolution is moving along a path. Nothing is “transitional”. Every species that every existed was a bona fide species in its own right. It wasn’t “going” anywhere.
In retrespect, we look back and say species A evloved into species B which evolved into sepcies C. That doesn’t make species B “transitional”.
If you look at the fossil record of whales, you will clearly see what you would call “transitional” species. Heck, if you look at a fossil of an Australopithicine, do you not see something that is somewhat ap-like and some-what human like?