Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Sheeana - that's why I wrote "fish-type" Isn't life supposed to start in a body of water? So I think "fish-type" is sufficient, and that's why I wrote it that way. Yes, I'll start my next post on evidence now - I actually have a bit of time today But I keep trying to answer points. I'll just have to take MM's advice and ignore some points.

sickle cell anemia - you mean where you can't get some other disease (I forget the name) if you have sickle cell anemia? Since sickle cell anemia is LETHAL, I don't consider that a beneficial mutation! If you have one deadly disease, you can't get another? If that's the best example that's available, that's pretty poor evidence, wouldn't you say?

JD - the creationist model is "in the beginning", not "in the beginning, and then once again in a few thousand years on JD's lawn"

OK, I'm going to refresh my Dr. Pepper and start typing the next evidence post

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
JD - the creationist model is "in the beginning", not "in the beginning, and then once again in a few thousand years on JD's lawn"

Then why is there proof of new animals through the course of time? If everything was created at once - then wouldn't there be evidence of modern horses, elephants or whales even at the times of the dinosaurs?

[Rían]

(JD - no, there's variation involved)


(I'll repeat my intial evidence post, which was actually on the other thread, just for the sake of convenience and coherency.)

(would you guys let me post a few posts together for the sake of coherency? I'll post a note on the final post to show when I'm done. )



Fossil Evidence for Creationism
I think there's several areas that can be covered first - according to the creationist model, you should find variation among type, not changes from type to type. Also, extinction is evident, just as it is today. Also, the same types of classification should work for complete-enough fossil remains as well as today's specimens. Also, constructs should be tied to use, not evolutionary development.

The simplest bunch of plants and animals to leave lots of fossil remains is in the age/zone of Trilobites, or the Cambrian system. And what is found in this zone? A wide variety of things, including very complex invertebrates, nautiloids, and highly complex trilobites. Already in one of the earliest layers, acc'd to evolutionists, there exist very complex creations.

Another interesting thing is that, as Parker puts it,

from What is Creation Science?, Gary Parker and Henry Morris
Extinction, not evolution, is the rule when we compare fossil sea life with the sort of marine invertebrates we find living today. In fact, all major groups, except perhaps the groups including clams and snails, are represented by greater variety and more complex forms as fossils than today.

I think this is a very important point, and consistent with creationism.

The point is that you can search back for how these sea creatures originated, and you find them originating from .... the same type!

And this is why punctuated equilibrium came about (I guess it would now be called "modified neo-Darwinism) - because the expected transitional forms were NOT found in the fossil record.

As Parker notes,

ibid.
In fact, few scientists, if any, are still looking for fossil links between the major invertebrate groups. The reason is simple. All the groups appear as separate, distinct, diversified lines in the deepest fossil-rich deposits.

And this seems to be an excellent support for creationism.

[Rían]

As I've said many times before, scientific data is neutral! It's out there for both sides to evaluate, and it will either (1)support, (2) not support, or (3) have no bearing on a particular part of a hypothesis. As it stands, I believe that the impartial fossil record more strongly supports creationism than evolutionism.

Here's what we should expect to see in the impartial fossil record that would support creationism:

from Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane Gish, PhD
On the basis of the creation model, we would predict an explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex forms of life without evidence of ancestral forms. We would predict that all major types of life, that is, the basic plant and animal forms, would appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms linking one basic kind to another.

And further on,

ibid
Sudden appearance of each created type with characteristics complete. Sharp boundaries separating major taxonomic groups. No transitional forms between higher categories.

And what is in the fossil record? Life appears abruptly in highly diverse forms!

Now please read the above sentence again, being careful to start from ground zero with no preconceptions, and to evaluate impartially. Is this true, or not?

The first really abundant record is in what is called the Cambrian Period. In this layer are found fossils of: trilobites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, swimming crustaceans, sea lillies, and other complex invertebrates. The amount and variety and suddenness present in this layer give rise to the phrase "Cambrian explosion". Complex and well-defined - this supports creationism.

As far as plants - I think the first thought that comes into our heads when thinking of fossils is animals, esp. dinosaurs, but there is a vast plant record, too. And the flowering plants appear suddenly and in great diversity. And there's many of the same ones we have today! - oak, willow, magnolia, palms, and other common flowering plants. Many of the flowering plants are so easily recognizable that they are classified using the SAME SCIENTIFIC NAMES we use today! Even the simple algae are recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record - greens, blue-greens, reds, browns, and yellow-browns - the same groups we have today. Complex, sudden, sharply-defined, many the same as we have today - this supports creationism.

[Rían]

As I said previously, the Cambrian layer is where the first abundant fossil record is. But there have also been some finds that are believed to be pre-Cambrian. But what is included in these? Complex invertebrates. This supports creationism.

As far as insects and commonly-called-insect-things like spiders, same thing - sudden appearance in vast numbers and clearly-defined varieties. Dragonflies, cockroaches, flying insects, non-flying insects, mites, centipedes, etc. They appear fully-formed in the fossil record, clearly defined, and not much changed at all from today. Thousands and thousands of fossils of both flying and non-flying insects are around. Flying insects have clearly defined and functional wings. Flying insects also have 2 different types of wings - at rest, they are either held aloft or at the side. Not only are there no transitionals between non-flying and flying, there are no transitionals between these 2 types of wings. They are ... just suddenly there. This supports creationism.

(As an arachnophobe, I sure wish the spiders went the same way as the trilobites..... )

About fish - when they "first" show up, they are not generalized; they are sharply defined. The major fish classes are clear and distinct. They are well-designed, with nice design concepts like paired fins. This supports creationism.

Remember, evolutionism says that life came from a common ancestor, then branched out and diversified and became more complex and more distinct. Modern classification systems should be difficult to apply, because things were much more similar in their early development. However, what we see in the fossil record are representatives of species, genus, family, order, and on up; sharply distinct groups; sudden and voluminous appearance of species; lots of well-designed features designed to fit the animal's/plant's environment; plants and animals that are present as fossils that are still around today in the same form; plants and animals showing variation within species; modern classification systems still able to be used, even with extinct plants/animals.

The fossil record supports creationism.

Now please take a breath, reset back to "no preconceptions", and re-read the 3 posts - it won't take more than a few minutes. And think about this - does the fossil record support creationism? I'm not asking for a final conclusion right now, but does the fossil record, as it appears, in its neutral scientific status, support creationism?

That's it for now - I think 3 posts is enough to start - thanks so much for your patience, everyone - you've been very patient with me. I wish I could post faster. But even more, I wish we could all get together somewhere and chat - aren't there any millionaires among us that could arrange that?

[afro-elf]

sickle cell anemia - you mean where you can't get some other disease (I forget the name) if you have sickle cell anemia? Since sickle cell anemia is LETHAL, I don't consider that a beneficial mutation! If you have one deadly disease, you can't get another? If that's the best example that's available, that's pretty poor evidence, wouldn't you say?

BASICALLY

The situation is this. If you have one gene that is a sickle cell you do not get anemia or malaria.

If you have no genes for sickle cell you get malaria

If you have two genes for sickle cell you get anemia.

So a single inheretence of a sickle cell IS beneficial.[

[afro-elf]

So how do you explain transition fossils?

Also, why do fossils appear at different times in the time scale?

[afro-elf]

Rian,I do give you Kudos for being die hard.

[Rían]

(You're die-hard too, AE, about things you believe to be right. Good for us People should be willing to defend things that they think are the truth.)

But I won't respond to other things until I get some direct responses to the evidence I presented in my 3-part evidence post, since I've been requested over and over to give some evidence. (by "direct response", I mean please respond to the things I listed in my post)

[afro-elf]

But I won't respond to other things until I get some direct responses to the evidence I presented in my 3-part evidence post, since I've been requested over and over to give some evidence. (by "direct response", I mean please respond to the things I listed in my post)

No problem, I will leave it to those who are more directly involved in the debates to answer.

I am heading back to Rivendell for a long siesta.

[Rían]

Namarie, AE and sleep well!

[Lizra]

Where are the large mammals, and say...oh...homo sapiens in the pre cambrian then? Shouldn't they be there too? It seems there's more missing in those examples than is there. I wouldn't call that proof of creationism. It's just more proof of how far back and complex the process of evolution is. Repeated again....there will never be a complete record of how life began, except fictionalized versions, such as the bible. You actually think there are enough scientists, lucky enough to discover fossilized records of a complete "story", especially when much is burried, soft bodied and perishable, or submerged. Very convenient excuse for creation theory, ( There's no record! ) but not really convincing for creation theory. A few other questions....OT....Where's heaven? Where do all the dead people live (gee how many would there be by now! ) I'd like to see a fossilized angel maybe? Oops! Silly me! Immortal right? There's a lot of immortal creatures floating around somewhere....where's the evidence!

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
sickle cell anemia - you mean where you can't get some other disease (I forget the name) if you have sickle cell anemia? Since sickle cell anemia is LETHAL, I don't consider that a beneficial mutation!

The sickle haemoglobin gene has deleterious health effects in people who are homozygous. However, it does confer protection against malaria and has concentrated, with other protective haemoglobinopathies, in areas of the world where malaria is endemic. It is found widely in Africa, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and parts of India, and in communities of African descent in countries such as the United States and the Caribbean.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...v10478_fm.html

YES, I would consider that to be a beneficial development in the heterozygous carriers - malaria can be far more deadly than sickle cell anaemia - especially in third world countries.

[Cirdan]

The distortion of the fossil record in significant here. First of all,. The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the appearance and dominance, fossil-wise, of hard bodied organisms. Mollusks, worms, etc occur in the Pre-Cambrian.

Second, the Cambrian is quite an long period of time (35 million years). Foraminifera, Bryozoans don't appear until the Ordovician. Where are the corals? Well, there are tabulate corals in the Ordovician but the humble little Zoantharians don't show until the Silurian. Insects don't show until the Devonian, but they don't get wings until the Pennsylvanian.. The fossil record, far from looking like all species appear at once, really appears as a very long and drawn out process of increasing complexity and diversity.

You need to get a real Paleontology book if you are going to make broad statements about the fossil record. I can tell your quoting from a unreliable source as no Paleontology book makes any such absurd claims.

The fossil record completely invalidates all the known forms of creationism. It in no way supports a single or even several creation events. The bit about ther fish is just not true. I've already pointed out that there are plenty of intermediates (ah, but they are in a different group). It sounds like you are just admiring the classification scheme here.

That recycled quote about no looking for intermediates is just not true. How does this guy Parker know what every paleontolgist is doing? Or is it sohpistry since they are looking for any fossil and not "intermediates" alone.

The bit about winged insect "just suddenly there"... what does that even mean? Are you claiming that there were no insects and then suddenly they are all there? The different wings don't neccessarily evolve from one another but may have a common ancestor. You are converging types without even looking at morphology , let alone genotype.

Everything you have presented is a broad mischaracterizations of the fossil record without a shread of supporting examples of fact. No matter how many times you say "They just appeared" doesn't make it true and it is not supported by the fossil record. There were complex invertebrates before the Cambrian and many appeared afterwards as well.

If you want to disprove Phylogeny then just given me one example of a fossil older that the oldest precursor.

Besides, the YEC theory is still lying on the ground with at least one giant hole from the sedimentary rock problem I pointed out earlier. I really feel you aren't reading all the posts as GM clearly gave examples of transitions an the relationship to Punc Eq. The theory of Evolution never states that you will find all the various steps between sub-species, spiecies, groups.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The first really abundant record is in what is called the Cambrian Period. In this layer are found fossils of: trilobites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, swimming crustaceans, sea lillies, and other complex invertebrates. The amount and variety and suddenness present in this layer give rise to the phrase "Cambrian explosion". Complex and well-defined - this supports creationism.

I will respond to this. So you claimed that everything was created at one time. You have just named simple invertbrates - but where are the elephants, horses, man, whales, sharks. Are you telling me that evidence of a jellyfish was able to survive but no fossils of man or elephants? Or do you change your statement and see my point in asking - why do I not see animals being created now? There are many tranisitional fossils whihc have been found that share characteristics of two different species - several live today still - such as the lung fish. If you can't see the lungfish as being a living "tranistional" animal - then I have no idea what would make you believe that evolution can happen.

Lungfish

Paleontologists agree that the amphibians must have evolved from one of the 3 groups of lobe-finned fishes (lungfish, coelacanths, or extinct rhipidistians). However, there is disagreement on which group is the most likely ancestor. Most paleontologists consider that amphibians evolved from the rhipidistian fishes, based on the remarkable similarity in the pattern of bones in their skulls and fins/limbs. Other paleontologists, however, believe that the lungfish were ancestral to the amphibians, since the development of the lungs, nostrils and limbs of living lungfish is strikingly similar to those of living amphibians.

Devonian Period--Lobefins, Lungfish, Amphibians, and Tetrapod Evolution

[Cirdan]

JD, where did you get that link about transitional species? I thought no one is looking for transitional species anymore.

[Cirdan]

Pre-Cambrian Evolution

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
JD, where did you get that link about transitional species? I thought no one is looking for transitional species anymore.

Don't you mean CREATIONISTS don't look for transitional species? Or is it that they just want to ignore them and act like they don't exist?

[wahine]

I personally find it VERY difficult to believe we originated as pond scum, but anyway...

Since there is no general topic about which parts of creationism we can give or retract information to...how about creation?!


Okay, first, the BIG BANG is highly imporbable because in a simplified version of the theory, cosmic particles and gasses whirled around in around till the energy produced from the blob in space exploded and made the stars and planets.

Now, if these particles are moving at the exact same speed and all the other particles then every planet should be the same as the other--in theory.

But, the truth is, although the planets could be shaped different because of the cluster of gasses etc. It is impossible for one planet to have it's axis at a different place, say...at it's side!

Also, how would the things that eventually made the cosmos have gotten there?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Or is it that they just want to ignore them and act like they don't exist?

Nah, they are just a different group.