Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Thanks, everyone, for your patience. I’m sorry it took so long – the 2nd law of thermodynamics often operates too much in my life for me to post any faster, as I have some health issues that slow me down in addition to 3 active kids to take care of!

I’m more than willing to discuss these posts with anyone that’s interested, as long as they are willing to be considerate and polite, as well as scientific and logical, and if they don’t mind that it will take a long time to get through the questions, as they involve some complex issues. Also, I like to have at least some time to post on the Tolkien threads, as I really love his works!

As I’ve said before, I’m SO glad I discovered Entmoot and all the thoughtful and intelligent people that post here, and I sure hope I can meet some of you some day and sit down for a non-typed chat! Please let me know if you’re ever in California.


THE END - you may start your comments!

[cassiopeia]

Hi Rian!

In regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy decreases can occur spontaneously, if enough energy is available. And since the Earth is not a closed system, (enegy comes from the Sun), then I don't see how this can be used against evolution.

And also re: mutations, I know this has been mentioned, but people with sickle-shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria. And what about people with immunitity to HIV because of a mutant allele or antibiotic resistance to bacteria? Is this not obeservable evidence?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
In fact, because of the lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms, the theory of evolution has been modified from steady, small, evenly-spaced changes to “punctuated equilibrium�, which basically says that changes occurred in bunches and thus didn’t show up in the fossil record in the expected number. But that is a premise based on a LACK of evidence, not what is ACTUALLY OBSERVABLE in the fossil record. I think that there is some evidence for simple-to-more-complex in some ways, but it's not consistent.

The data for punctuated equllibrium does appear in the fossil record. Mass extinctions are well documented in the fossil record. These are followed be periods of rapid diversification among surviving species. These separate events showing the end of 90% of species followed by a rise in a diversity of new types is totally incompatible with a single creation event AND a global flood. There is lots of evidence for simple to complex.

To recap the post on fossil evidence – the first really abundant fossil layer is known as the Cambrian. It is currently believed to represent a time period many, many millions of years ago. (But please remember that different dating methods (1) are ALL based on extrapolation, which is a dangerous technique that can be highly inaccurate; (2) can give greatly different time values, which doesn’t say much for their accuracy, and (3) are based on the assumption that the time periods involved are large. These dates assigned to the different layers are not as hard and fast as popularly believed.)

You have made some serious charges without any proof. Geological dating methods agree quite well with one another. Statigraphy, observed rates of deposition, superposition, etc were used for years to estimate the ages of sedimentary formations. These turned out to correlate well with radiometric dating and the other methods used. Nothing anyway in the geologic record reflects the short time table given by a literal reading of the creation event.

And what is actually SEEN in the Cambrian layer?... And we see complexity in this lowest fossil layer.

The Cambrian is not the lowest fossil layer.

Snails come from snails; sponges come from sponges, sea urchins come from sea urchins. This strongly supports creationism. And it also strongly speaks against evolutionism.

I'm pretty sure evolution does not exclude the idea that snails come from snails, soooo?

[HOBBIT]

snails and sponges did not magically appear in the world, sorry rian.

they evolved from weaker things too.

it is pretty hard for fossils to form, especially in the water.

if there is no fossil it didn't exist? ooooookaaay.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
As far as the very good question about fossil layering which
I found the following common-sense answer - creationists believe that the layering reflects (1) different habitat zones (deep ocean, shallower ocean, tidal zone, shore, lowlands, uplands, etc.), laid down via (2) catastrophic means (a world-wide flood and associated catastrophic activity), also reflecting (3) the sorting processes of water. And because of the different geographic features on the earth, this ordering will be roughly uniform, but does not need to be entirely uniform.[/i]

This is very silly! While it makes an attempt to address increasing fossil complexity it fails miserably on sedimentation and depositional enviroments. Are you saying that sedimentary rocks were deposited, lithified, uplifted, eroded, new layers deposited, etc all during one flood? Coral reefs growing at millions of time their observed rate? Evaporites forming during a flood? Land animals making tracks on the bootom of the ocean? So animals never sank out of order? What are the odds of that? This TOC idea fails miserably.

However, there are also many problems with out-of-order fossils, only SOME of which can be explained by earth movements, and this is very much against evolutionism.

Facts and evidence. Name just one "out of order" fossil.

Also, another problem for evolutionism is that very often entire LAYERS of the geologic column are missing - where did those millions of years go?

You misunderstand. Deposition doesn't occur everywhere all the time. There aren't periods were sedimentary rocks aren't deposited. It means the geologic column is just not fully represented all in one place. Many sedimentary rock formations of the past have since mostly eroded away to form new sedimentary rocks.

I don't believe that a complete geologic column has ever been found anywhere in the world (correct me if I'm wrong )

Wouldn't this be something you *would* find under the ToC/great flood model? Certainly it is not predicted anywhere else.

So again, a special term is made to explain something that doesn't fit the theory - "paraconfirmity".

Paraconformity
When an unconformity is simply due to non-deposition, it is termed as a paraconformity. Beds above and below a paraconformity are parallel and the unconformity is identified by some evidence such as lack of certain diagnostic zone fossils in some horizon.

A small relative change in sea level can account for this. It fits the theory just fine.

belonging to layer 2, and layer 3 consisting of millions of years is just mysteriously missing, then I'll give it a name of "paraconformity" and leave it at that and not explain it.

A paraconformity has nothing to do with the order of fossils. It is strictly a sedimentary structural description. A gap in depositon of fossils just might mean the creatures weren't there.

[Cirdan]

I'm not going to bother with a point by point refutation of this "changes" post. Simple examples like this... (...and whales came from big dogs...) occur time and time again. Fossils are observable evidence( and repeatable if one continues to look for them where one expects to find them). If one of the most complex mammals can undergo such a dramatic change in a fraction of the time of the geologic record, why is it so hard to perceive the "mind-boggling" possibilities of what could happen with simpler creatures over the period of a billion years?

Many examples of positive genetic mutation, however small, have been given, so that arguement fails as well. One small step means a million small steps are possible, given time.

Oservation, eh? Have you seen a meteor? Little ones, right? Have you seen a meteor the size of Mt. Everest? No. But the dinosaurs did. Does the fact that the scale is bigger and the time interval longer mean it doesn't happen? No.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The view of a creationist is so incredibly obvious this is really common sense! – good designers use proven designs for similar functions!

Good designers don't usually have a 99% failure rate (and certainly not the omnipotent ones) Why not use the four chambered heart for all the species with circulatory sytems? Why not make them all warm blooded? Why are marsupials stuck half way between laying eggs and complete gestation? Why make twenty three versions of the horse and then kill of most of them?

It seems this designers' success is very... RANDOM!

One trait says we’re most closely related to chickens (lysozume), another says that we’re most closely
related to insects (hemoglobin). They can’t both be right.

About the chicken lysozyme: Three times in three days, Gish was challenged to produce references for chicken proteins closer to human proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins. Three times, he responded with his chicken lysozyme apologetic. Few of his creationist listeners know what lysozyme is, and perhaps none of them knew that human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical, and chicken lysozyme differs from both by 51 out of 130 amino acids.

Full text on why "chicken lysozyme theory" is nonsense.

[Cirdan]

Interesting article on the evolution of hemoglobin.

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Hi Rian!

Hey Cass! Nice to see you again! I was hoping you'd join in

In regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy decreases can occur spontaneously, if enough energy is available. And since the Earth is not a closed system, (enegy comes from the Sun), then I don't see how this can be used against evolution.

There's enough energy in a waterfall to keep an airplane running continuously, right? Well, why are we pouring jet fuel into airplanes, then? Because there isn't a mechanism to use this energy. It's not enough to claim that there's tons of energy from the sun - you must show how the energy made the changes come about, don't you think? Until then, it remains just another hypothesis without evidence

And also re: mutations, I know this has been mentioned, but people with sickle-shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria.

The sickle-cell thing is closer to a beneficial mutation, but the following facts remain - (1) sickle-cell anemia is a terrible disease caused by the sickle-cell mutation - I don't call the appearance of sickle-cell anemia beneficial! and (2) even for the carriers, altho they are resistant to malaria, their blood cells are NOT improved - they're damaged. So I would say it's NOT a beneficial mutation, but rather a mutation that allowed a terrible disease to come into being, but had a trade-off type effect of letting a carrier be resistant to malaria at the cost of damaged blood cells and very possibly passing on sickle cell anemia to his/her kids.

And what about people with immunitity to HIV because of a mutant allele or antibiotic resistance to bacteria? Is this not obeservable evidence?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here - do you have any more info?

[Rían]

I'll just comment on a few here ...

Originally posted by Cirdan
The Cambrian is not the lowest fossil layer.

I slipped in that particular sentence, but since I had previously clearly referred to the Cambrian several times as the lowest abundant fossil layer, which it IS, I think it's pretty obvious to see that I don't claim the Cambrian is the lowest layer, period. However, I'll go back and edit the sentence and add "abundant", so it won't be misunderstood if someone didn't read the entire section.

*goes back and checks* Yes, it's clearly stated in both the opening statement and the closing statement on the subject that the Cambrian is the lowest abundant fossil-bearing layer. Didn't you notice this? If so, could you at least have given me the benefit of the doubt, or pointed out my omission in that one single area, instead of quoting it and saying it's incorrect? I hope you guys will allow me at least a few slip-ups of this nature, considering how much I typed in.

I'm pretty sure evolution does not exclude the idea that snails come from snails, soooo?

But it DOES claim that snails came from a simple one-celled thingy first, right? Soooo, where are all the steps from one-celled thingy to snail? Again, you can claim that they somehow didn't end up in the fossil record, but that's a claim that is not supported by evidence. What IS observed is that there are SNAILS in the lowest abundant fossil layer, the Cambrian.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
snails and sponges did not magically appear in the world, sorry rian.

I agree

they evolved from weaker things too.

Where is your evidence for this? Snails appear in the lowest abundant fossil-bearing layer. Therefore, if evolution is correct, their ancestors must be BEFORE this period. Again, you can claim they existed, but it must remain a hypothesis, because there is no EVIDENCE, is there?

it is pretty hard for fossils to form, especially in the water.

Considering the vast majority of fossils are in sedimentary rock - what is your point here?

Also, if snails are found in one layer, then all their ancestors can't be in the same layer, can they?

if there is no fossil it didn't exist? ooooookaaay.

Did I say that? NO! Please re-read my post. ALL I'm pointing out is that one cannot claim a hypothesis to be true if there is no evidence for it. It must remain a hypothesis. That's ALL I'm claiming, but it's an extrememly important point. Do you agree?

People - Please remember that I'm NOT saying evolutionism is proven to be wrong! I'm saying that I think neither one may be proven, and the existing observable evidence supports creationism better, IMO.

And please read my posts carefully without assuming I believe things that you THINK I believe.

Thanks

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Many examples of positive genetic mutation, however small, have been given, so that arguement fails as well. One small step means a million small steps are possible, given time.

There's not enough time for all the mutations required by evolutionism. Remember, a series of related mutations are required. The odds of just ONE mutation in ONE species that is BENEFICIAL are pretty slim; but evolutionism requires millions of mutations. And even worse, millions of related mutations to get a certain feature to change. And that's just for ONE characteristic of ONE animal! And the animals that DIDN'T have the mutation need to die out first to get the old trait out of the population, don't they? That adds even more time. More time than even the oldest estimated age of the earth.

Wasn't it Gould's opinion, at least at one point, that evollution couldn't happen by single-step mutations anymore, but rather whole sets of DNA had to change at once?

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm not quite sure what you mean here - do you have any more info?

I got the information here

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B](I covered this earlier, but I’ll summarize it again here, so it will be a part of the whole picture.)

Evaluation: In the area of the fossil record, as far as observable scientific evidence – I give creationism a very good grade, and evolutionism a two-part grade: a very bad grade on one part and a good grade on another.

In this particular area, the aspect of a theory’s ability to accurately predict is VERY relevant, IMO. Creationism, from the start, has predicted that in the fossil record, we will see (1) variations in complexity and (2) similarity to forms existing today. And this is exactly what we see.

Well, YECs may see elephants in the Jurassic and dinosoaurs in the Cambrian, but nobody else does.

On the other hand, evolutionism, from the start, predicted that in the fossil record, we will see (1) many intermediate forms between types, (2) a progression from extremely simple to more complex, and (3) a move from a group of extremely similar types (remember, all life came from a single-celled organism, and the first branches off this organism must necessarily look similar) to groups of more diverse types. And we do NOT see strong evidence at all of any of these 3, IMO.

Actually, that is exactly what we do see.

In fact, because of the lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms, the theory of evolution has been modified from steady, small, evenly-spaced changes to “punctuated equilibrium�, which basically says that changes occurred in bunches and thus didn’t show up in the fossil record in the expected number. But that is a premise based on a LACK of evidence, not what is ACTUALLY OBSERVABLE in the fossil record. I think that there is some evidence for simple-to-more-complex in some ways, but it's not consistent.

I've posted this before, but I guess you can't repeat things too often

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

[GrayMouser]

The YEC model of the fossil record should show

a) no gradation in time- all organisms which have existed on Earth were alive at the same time, therefore there should be no distinct stratigraphic layers corresponding to time-zones. The terms Cambrian, Silurian, Pliocene etc. are mislabelling of different environments which existed contemporaneously.

This gives rise to some problems when marine fossils, wet-climate fossils, arid-zone fossils, ice age fossils etc are all found in the same area- the climate must have varied from ocean to desert to swamp to ocean to steppe all in a few hundred years with totally different eco-systems replacing each other without any mixing- i.e. no dry-land mammals with dry-land dinosaurs.

Since fossil layers simply reflect ecological zones, they should be found in any order- if we find an apatosaurus, we have equal chances of finding a hippo above it or below it.

Life in deeper layers of the fossil record should not vary from life in more shallow layers - there should be no increase in difference- fossils from the Jurassic shoukd be the same as fossils from the modern era, if they are from the same environment.

A quick glance at the actual fossil record gives the YEC model a grade of zero- it totally fails to correspond with the rocks.

[Cirdan]

Not to mention:

The extremely large population of species alive simultaneously.

The lack of mega-faunal fossils prior to the flood.

The diversity of "types" through the column would have "micro-evolution" occuring at phenominal rates. This assumes a similar "floatation" within types.

Fish, marine organisms and aquatic air breathers should not have drowned during the flood.

The impossibility of forming shallow water carbonate structures such as ooids in a deep marine environment.

The difficulty explaining the prepoderance of shallow water and terrestrial strata.

As if several gaping hoes weren't enough.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B](I covered this earlier, but I’ll summarize it again here, so it will be a part of the whole picture.)


To recap the post on fossil evidence – the first really abundant fossil layer is known as the Cambrian. It is currently believed to represent a time period many, many millions of years ago

<snip>
And what is actually SEEN in the Cambrian layer? (Remember, we’re talking about OBSERVABLE scientific evidence!) Many, many types of creatures, some with extreme complexity, and of the same types that we have today. Remember – this is important – small size does NOT automatically mean something is simple! Evolutionism says that the very early life forms CANNOT be complex; creationism says they CAN. And we see complexity in this lowest abundant fossil layer

Now again, evolutionism can back off and say “well, the really simple creatures came BEFORE any fossils were preserved,� but again, that is arguing from LACK of evidence – we’re looking at OBSERVABLE evidence.

Yes, the Cambrian is the lowest abundant fossil layer, as the theory of Evolution would predict, but there is plenty of OBSERVABLE evidence of pre-Cambrian fossils of increasing complexity.

You could try Google for "preCambrian fossils" .

An analogy: the model-T Ford is the first automobile of which we have abundant antiques, because it is the first automobile produced in abundant numbers; therefore we can ignore earlier autombiles and pretend Henry Ford produced it totally out of the blue.

What is OBSERVABLE in the Cambrian layer? Well … sea urchins, sea lilies, snails, sponges, lampshells, nautiloids, and of course the famous trilobites, with their EXTREMELY complex eye structure.

On the famous trilobite eye:

* I use the term "design" as a lead-in to the parallels between the optic designs of humans and the remarkably evolved morphology of trilobites. Trilobites provide some superb examples of evolution in action (see "loss of eyes" below). Trilobites make it quite clear that evolution of eyes occurs, and that one does not need to evoke "intelligent design" by a creator to explain them. To do so detracts from the idea of an omniscient being. It would have God tinkering with many flawed and suboptimal "designs" and never developing a perfect one. Who would want to worship a god like that? I mention this because this page has been used (without my permission) by people espousing "intelligent design" to the public, and I want it to be clear that I do not share those opinions, nor need that flawed argument to underpin my faith. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and breakthroughs in our understanding of its intricacies occur every year. Evolution is not in conflict with religious belief, ratherit is ignorance and intolerance that destroys the benefits of faith.

http://www.aloha.net/%7Esmgon/eyes.htm

from a guy who will tell you more about trilobites than you ever want to know

What’s notable about that list? (1) there are some extremely complex creatures in there, and (2) the creatures in that list are in groups that are present TODAY (or are now extinct). IOW, there are squids and snails and trilobite fossils – NOT “snids� and “squails� and “squailobites� or other in-between forms. Snails come from snails; sponges come from sponges, sea urchins come from sea urchins. This strongly supports creationism. And it also strongly speaks against evolutionism.

Please, if you HAVE looked at the theory of evolution do not keep referring to "in-between" forms that evolution denies can exist- this is a bizarre formulation that exists nowhere except in the minds of Creationists- if you want to attack Darwinism, don't just make something up and call it evolution; deal with the theory as it stands.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]As far as the very good question about fossil layering which several people asked (roughly, if creationism and the flood story are true, why isn't everything mixed up and distributed evenly?), I really didn’t know much about it, so I looked into it.

I found the following common-sense answer - creationists believe that the layering reflects (1) different habitat zones (deep ocean, shallower ocean, tidal zone, shore, lowlands, uplands, etc.), laid down via (2) catastrophic means (a world-wide flood and associated catastrophic activity), also reflecting (3) the sorting processes of water. And because of the different geographic features on the earth, this ordering will be roughly uniform, but does not need to be entirely uniform. IOW, trilobites are on the bottom layer … because they are deep-sea critters!

Wrong.

Trilobites were among the most prominent of the Paleozoic marine arthropods, and they have only been found in oceanic fossil beds. No freshwater forms have ever been found. They occupied many different ocean environments, from shallow flats and reefs, to deeper ocean bottoms, and even the water column, as floating plankton or free-swimming forms. While a few were wide-ranging pelagic species, most were regional, and their global paleogeography is a fascinating study of how living forms track their changing environments over geological time. Trilobites from different habitats often had specialized forms that were presumably adaptations to their environment.

And to be a little gross, but it’s true – mammals “bloat and float�. I remember reading about some tragic ethnic mass murders, and how the local river was just filled with floating corpses of murdered people. So the suggestion that someone made here about throwing fossils/bones into water and seeing that they sank to the bottom disproves creationism/flood just doesn’t … float, if you’ll excuse the pun, because humans, for example, were not fossils/bones when they died. They would bloat and float, and be eaten by scavengers in the ocean, etc. And bones that DID survive would have been laid down later in the process, so they would be nearer the top.

Dead frogs don't float? Okay, throw dead lizards, dead rats, dead turtles, dead birds etc. into the water and see which ones float.

(Actually, this brought back romantic memories of sitting with my girlfriend on a houseboat on the river in Srinagar, Kashmir, guessing what kind of bloated animal -donkey, goat, cow- would be the next to float past)

How long did the survivors from the Titanic float? And why would the bones of proto-camels, shoveled-tooth mastodons and titanotheres (all mammals) sink faster than modern camels, elephants and rhinos?

Also, the differing properties, such as density, of different types of bones (hollow avian vs. denser human for example) would cause different types to be sorted by water differently and end up in different layers.

So birds should generally be found higher than other animals- how do you explain the fact that that is simply not true? As well, the hollow bones of Pterosaurs- some of which were the lightest animals for their size EVER to exist- should therefore be found together with modern birds.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]

The layering of fossils is an important question, since an easy first guess at what creationism with a cataclysmic flood soon after would predict would be as someone here said – everything all mixed up. But when you take a closer look, and realize that the fossils didn’t start as fossils, or even bones – they started as living creatures with different properties, such as densities and habitats – then the layering we see makes sense.

So a summary on the different fossil “layers� – evolutionists believe the different layers to represent vast amounts of time (in the millions and millions of years) and reflecting a connected movement from extremely simple to extremely complex; creationists believe the different layers to reflect different habitats (deep ocean, shallower ocean, tidal zone, shore, lowlands, uplands, etc.) buried through catastrophism (a world-wide flood and associated catastrophic activity) and ordered by the sorting properties of water, over a relatively small amount of time.

So all you have to do is explain why fossils of animals from totally different environments are found in the same place, why fossils of similar environments and densities but different geologic strata are never found together (i.e. elephants and sauropods) why armored fish, modern fish, trilobites , itchyosaurs, and whales which dwell in the same depth of water are never found together, why humans- who in prehistoric times covered pretty well the entire world (and in huge numbers according to YECs)are never found together with pre- Tertiary animals (this could be called the "How did Abel keep the Spinosaurus away from his sheep" problem- Spinies (of Jurassic Park III fame) have been found in the Middle East), and so on ad nauseum

(Unless of course you believe in the Paluxy man-tracks)

[HOBBIT]

ouch