Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[hughfarey]

Hugh, for clarification, let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh - and that He was crucified for the world's sins and was raised from the dead - and that all Christians' salvation depends upon that being a historical fact? And what view do you have of the Bible - is it God's word; much of it uncertain; large portions only creative writing? What? I realize you only want to discuss the science, but some of the way you phrase things have me curious about your views on Jesus/God/Scripture. This is not to suggest that just because you have certain scientific views that you can't be of strong faith in God/Jesus - just wondered where you are on those crucial issues?

As a good Catholic, I mean what I say when I repeat the words of the Creed every time I attend Mass. My interpretation of those words varies from the utterly literal (was crucified) to the wholly figurative (is seated at the right hand of the father), and I think (I hope) is in line with current Catholic theology. I am not a theologian, and have to take some things on trust (that's faith, I guess), but where my scientific background appears relevant, I don't find it in conflict. I have been somewhat reassured on this by recent papal pronouncements, particularly by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who have wholly endorsed modern scientific discoveries. Coeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum emus annuntiat firmamentum, as I used to sing as a chorister.

I'm afraid I don't think I properly understand Silvertusk's point of view. All that was written in Genesis actually happened? Does that include the talking snake? The literal seven days? Fruit trees and grass preceding the appearance of the sun? Whales and birds before 'creeping things'?

[Silvertusk]

I disagree with you there neo. I believe that all that was written in Genesis actually happened and Adam was seen as a representative of the human race at the time. How we actually got to that moment in the first place is up for debate.

That may be so, ST. I wouldn't say you can not say that. Its more probable that it didn't happen. The story of genesis survived precisely because it was short, easy to remember for kids. My point is that its quite problematic and far away unnecessary for a snake to talk, snake just dont have that equipment to speak, and a tree which can produce fruit that has knowledge in it...plus which language was exactly being used in Gen story? When did Adam learnt that language, when did Eve learn it?

And many other problems in there...to me it makes more sense to think that the story is basically a way to convey a point by ancient people, in words and style which was easy for them to read and remember.

To be honest I see no problem with an actual garden of Eden and and actual Adam and Eve. Now these two could be two people given the spirit of God chosen from a group of neolithic farmers and asked to represent the human race - a sort of Homo Divinus. In Genesis, Adam is refered to as man a the beginning and only later does the name Adam become used as a name for an individual person - so like Abraham he was chosen and given the spirit (breathed) of God. It is from him we are descended. He was placed in Eden and then betrayed God. I see no problem with a talking snake as it appeared to Eve (this could have been a hulucination, a vision or a actual talking snake) because as it was the devil, he does have some power.

Hugh - I do not believe in a literal 6 days, as other interpretations are valid. I believe that the universe and earth was created in 6 stages governed by God over 13.7 billion years and which on earth probably involved guided evolution.

[Silvertusk]

The thing is Neo - if you don't mind me saying is that you believe in God but tend to deny a lot of the supernatural elements of his work, or those that was written in the Bible. I believe it is logical to conclude that if God does exist - someone who can create an entire universe out of nothing - then any other "miraclous" event that occurs in the bible is childs play.

Please correct me if I am wrong here of course.

[Silvertusk]

Hugh, for clarification, let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh - and that He was crucified for the world's sins and was raised from the dead - and that all Christians' salvation depends upon that being a historical fact? And what view do you have of the Bible - is it God's word; much of it uncertain; large portions only creative writing? What? I realize you only want to discuss the science, but some of the way you phrase things have me curious about your views on Jesus/God/Scripture. This is not to suggest that just because you have certain scientific views that you can't be of strong faith in God/Jesus - just wondered where you are on those crucial issues?

As a good Catholic, I mean what I say when I repeat the words of the Creed every time I attend Mass. My interpretation of those words varies from the utterly literal (was crucified) to the wholly figurative (is seated at the right hand of the father), and I think (I hope) is in line with current Catholic theology. I am not a theologian, and have to take some things on trust (that's faith, I guess), but where my scientific background appears relevant, I don't find it in conflict. I have been somewhat reassured on this by recent papal pronouncements, particularly by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who have wholly endorsed modern scientific discoveries. Coeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum emus annuntiat firmamentum, as I used to sing as a chorister.

I'm afraid I don't think I properly understand Silvertusk's point of view. All that was written in Genesis actually happened? Does that include the talking snake? The literal seven days? Fruit trees and grass preceding the appearance of the sun? Whales and birds before 'creeping things'?

The appearance of the sun I believe meant that the cloud cover disappated enough so you could actually see it from the surface of the earth - because remember this is all from the point of view from the earth's surface. This was down to photosynthesis - which you needed the vegetation first in order for it to occur. Of course the Sun was always there.

[PaulSacramento]

I am a TE, I believe that the evolutionary process was one of the means that God used ( or I should say, what WE call "evolution").
I believe that Adam and Eve were, quite possibly, real people ( I believe they were actually, though I have no way to prove it).
I believe that Genesis 2 is a unique part of the creation narrative, that it is about what happened in the Garden Of Eden with Two very special people and how that effected the rest of Mankind.

Through out history, many highly regarded theologians have NOT viewed Genesis as Literal AND concrete.

I think it is incorrect to say or insinuate that a believer must view Genesis a certain way or they are not correct in their belief in God ( or something to that affect).

The bible holds a special place in the hearts and minds of ALL believers ( at least it should) but we must still be open to the realization that though the bible was written FOR Us, it was NOT written TO Us.

[Philip]

HughFarey, your statement,

"I am not a theologian, and have to take some things on trust (that's faith, I guess), but where my scientific background appears relevant, I don't find it in conflict,"

is very telling. IF your theological understandings of Genesis' events, and especially of a literal Adam and Eve/The Fall/Satan's role, were much greater and comprehensively understood against the backdrop of the rest of Scripture, then you would likely understand why so many Christians - including many theistic evolutionists - have a problem with you dismissing Adam and Eve and their story as being merely allegorical/figurative. Until you understand Scripture on a deeper level, you will only see the science that you think is final and definitive. And so with your lack of theological understanding, of COURSE, it's not surprising that you currently see no great conflict.

And let me be clear, I don't even really care so much when people want to say Adam and Eve evolved from apes/were hominids God instantly infused with a soul/made man. Similarly, I really don't get too jacked up over the whole OEC vs. Yec thing - as long as - no one tries to question the authenticity of someone's Christianity over how they view Genesis in regards to the "days"/time issue. It's not HOW God created that is nearly as important as WHY - and subsequently, how one views what happened AFTER Adam and Eve were created/and that they were real/literal beings who sinned and fell, and God's response to that and of His eternal plans of restoration (and of a NEW heaven and a NEW earth merging at the end of time). These events and a literal Adam and Eve are absolutely foundational to the comprehensive whole of Scripture. So merely focusing on the science one THINKS they are certain of, while simultaneously dismissing the rest of Genesis as being merely figurative/allegorical, will cause one to miss the key building blocks of Scripture - blocks that are crucial to understanding the rest of it. If the Genesis events AFTER Adam and Even are created - and especially the Fall - are not literal events, then much of Scripture makes much sense (our inherited sin nature/need for redemption, etc.).

And so, every time there are miraculous events in Scripture, are you going to simply dismiss them as merely allegorical/metaphorical? Virgin birth? Water into wine? Raising Lazarus? Parting the Red Sea? Remember, God created and can thus supercede/interrupt His physical laws (that's why they call such events miracles). If one views much of Scripture as being allegorical/not really understandable, then it would seem rather worthless as to understandings or instructive as per what God wants us to know. That's rather dangerous. It allows one to easily dismiss something that doesn't seem rational or humanly understandable. Or to rationalize difficult teachings or passages in harmony of ones own human or personal understandings or sensibilities.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that you believe in and reduce Creation to a series of rational, scientifically discernible steps - but yet, also want to say that God miraculously guided even those. But it would appear that if God created without any long, traceable steps, THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY connected/that were instantaneous/miraculous, then you have a problem with that. And you would appear to be going much further than many theistic evolutionists would, by dismissing virtually ALL of the events of Adam and Eve as only being allegorical/figurative - as for many of them, the theological understandings about Genesis are incredibly important, even crucial. Yet these don't appear so important to you. You appear to put far greater faith in your understandings of science and of what you're told some institutional church teaches - and you appear quite comfortable with that. I would suggest you begin a comprehensive study of Scripture. And some here might suggest a place to start such an investigation/study.

And I'm certainly not saying one has to have his understandings of science or theology correct to be a Christian - as Scripturally - only a mere and sincere faith in and following of Christ is all that are required.

[hughfarey]

Well, as I say, theology isn't really my field. Macroevolution, however, is, and it's not a myth. All I'm asking in this thread is, what precisely do creationists believe happened? And, by corollary, does it make sense? So far this post has mainly shown how Genesis is best interpreted in such a way as to agree with every detail of evolution. So far so good. However, the recent post from Silvertusk is a little less scientifically submissive.

The appearance of the sun I believe meant that the cloud cover disappated enough so you could actually see it from the surface of the earth - because remember this is all from the point of view from the earth's surface. This was down to photosynthesis - which you needed the vegetation first in order for it to occur. Of course the Sun was always there.

I've heard that suggestion before, and think it quite ingenious. I dare say any of the "Let there be's" could be interpreted as from some theoretical point of view, where they were actually seen in that order, but I myself think that's too farfetched. All scientists agree that the sea was swarming with animal life before any plants of any kind, let alone grass or fruit trees, appeared on the earth, but it's true that, from the point of view of a theoretical person sitting on a rock, he may just have noticed the plants first. Biologists would argue I think that fruit trees involved very much alongside animals rather than before them (otherwise what was the point of a fruit?), but I suppose it possible that our theoretical scribe, recording what he saw, might not spot any insects until the sun finally came out, billions of years after most of evolution had already happened. Grass, for example, only appeared about 40 million years ago. It's even possible that he saw birds before any four-footed (or more) animal, even though they evolved billions of years after reptiles and most of the arthropod classes.

The writer of Genesis 1 clearly knew nothing about geology or evolution, and we must agree that to have come up with the idea of sequential creation at all was very clever - one might almost say inspired! - in terms of the gradual suitability of the world for the emergence of man. However, I think we should leave it at that, rather than trying to force any kind of detailed scientific truth onto it, and as such, one should certainly not treat it as an opposing theory to evolution.

There are also some interesting ideas about Adam and Eve being neolithic. Or even paleolithic. I fear that by then most of their contemporaries were wearing clothes as a matter of course, and were already sufficiently aware of the difference between good and evil not to need to eat of a revelatory fruit. The point about Genesis is that we are responsible for what we do, and so ought to do it right, and that the right way to do it is not something to be decided by individual conscience but has a catholic (small c) application.

Philip, I have a lot of respect for what you say, and perhaps could discuss it elsewhere to my great edification, but of the 17 forums on this site, this one is called God and Science, and of the 54 pages of topics in this forum, this one is called Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth. One way for Creationists to try to mythologise Science is to try to find logical inconsistencies in the Science, and one way for Scientists to respond is to show that the logical inconsistencies in Creationism are worse. Perhaps remarkably, the Young Earth Creationist point of view is much sounder logically than the old earth view, except in so far as the old earth view exactly coincides with recognised Science. I was sorry to see that you don't much care about the difference, as it suggests that really you'd like to take this topic away from its stated purpose and into territory which I would find much more difficult to contribute to!

[Silvertusk]

Well, as I say, theology isn't really my field. Macroevolution, however, is, and it's not a myth. All I'm asking in this thread is, what precisely do creationists believe happened? And, by corollary, does it make sense? So far this post has mainly shown how Genesis is best interpreted in such a way as to agree with every detail of evolution. So far so good. However, the recent post from Silvertusk is a little less scientifically submissive.

The appearance of the sun I believe meant that the cloud cover disappated enough so you could actually see it from the surface of the earth - because remember this is all from the point of view from the earth's surface. This was down to photosynthesis - which you needed the vegetation first in order for it to occur. Of course the Sun was always there.

I've heard that suggestion before, and think it quite ingenious. I dare say any of the "Let there be's" could be interpreted as from some theoretical point of view, where they were actually seen in that order, but I myself think that's too farfetched. All scientists agree that the sea was swarming with animal life before any plants of any kind, let alone grass or fruit trees, appeared on the earth, but it's true that, from the point of view of a theoretical person sitting on a rock, he may just have noticed the plants first. Biologists would argue I think that fruit trees involved very much alongside animals rather than before them (otherwise what was the point of a fruit?), but I suppose it possible that our theoretical scribe, recording what he saw, might not spot any insects until the sun finally came out, billions of years after most of evolution had already happened. Grass, for example, only appeared about 40 million years ago. It's even possible that he saw birds before any four-footed (or more) animal, even though they evolved billions of years after reptiles and most of the arthropod classes.

The writer of Genesis 1 clearly knew nothing about geology or evolution, and we must agree that to have come up with the idea of sequential creation at all was very clever - one might almost say inspired! - in terms of the gradual suitability of the world for the emergence of man. However, I think we should leave it at that, rather than trying to force any kind of detailed scientific truth onto it, and as such, one should certainly not treat it as an opposing theory to evolution.

There are also some interesting ideas about Adam and Eve being neolithic. Or even paleolithic. I fear that by then most of their contemporaries were wearing clothes as a matter of course, and were already sufficiently aware of the difference between good and evil not to need to eat of a revelatory fruit. The point about Genesis is that we are responsible for what we do, and so ought to do it right, and that the right way to do it is not something to be decided by individual conscience but has a catholic (small c) application.

Philip, I have a lot of respect for what you say, and perhaps could discuss it elsewhere to my great edification, but of the 17 forums on this site, this one is called God and Science, and of the 54 pages of topics in this forum, this one is called Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth. One way for Creationists to try to mythologise Science is to try to find logical inconsistencies in the Science, and one way for Scientists to respond is to show that the logical inconsistencies in Creationism are worse. Perhaps remarkably, the Young Earth Creationist point of view is much sounder logically than the old earth view, except in so far as the old earth view exactly coincides with recognised Science. I was sorry to see that you don't much care about the difference, as it suggests that really you'd like to take this topic away from its stated purpose and into territory which I would find much more difficult to contribute to!

You say that all scientist agree that animal life came first - but where I have looked it is plant life that came first.

[hughfarey]

You say that all scientist agree that animal life came first - but where I have looked it is plant life that came first.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Producers and consumers evolved more or less together in the oceans long before there was any life on land, so although plants were indeed the first easily visible living things on land (perhaps earth was a misleading term here) there was advanced animal life already at sea. This apparently contradicts Genesis, where life begins with land plants, specifically the kind of land plant that did not in fact evolve until relatively recently, before any marine animals.

[Philip]

The writer of Genesis 1 clearly knew nothing about geology or evolution, and we must agree that to have come up with the idea of sequential creation at all was very clever

Hugh, I realize you are trying to discuss science and I am trying to say that a Christian must also strongly consider the theology of Scripture. But your quote above would seem to suggest that you do not believe Scripture is the inspired word of God. The first five books of the Bible are thought by most theologians to have been WRITTEN DOWN by/for Moses/his assistants. But, ultimately, Scripture is God's inspired word. So the ultimate Writer is God Himself. Surely you don't believe God could create such an extraordinary universe of such magnitude and complexity, even life itself, untold numbers of animals/fish/birds, but yet that He couldn't inspire and control His word to be written down? And if God is the author, He undoubtedly didn't just have His world written for its original audience - as He well knew that, one day, that audience would also include you and I, and a generation raised in the modern, scientific era.

As an OEC, I certainly DO find the science to be extremely important - which is why I find the YEC view so disturbing. It simply can't be reconciled with things like the red shift of stars, geologic evidences, etc. of a very old earth and universe. Of course the seemingly insurmountable issues related to evolution are difficult to argue against if one merely asserts that, "It's no problem, as God guided the process." But the OEC view CAN be reconciled with both the fossil record and the data showing an ancient (14-billion-year-old) universe.

I'll bow out now. Hope I haven't been too off-putting - surely didn't mean to be - I'm just a bit direct, sometimes. I think we could have a more productive discussion after you read Hugh's book. But my focus is much more on the importance of WHAT God wants us to understand about how to live and how to die/achieve eternal life with Him. As HOWEVER He created, HOWEVER long it took, the precise sequences, the specifics about the creation of man - these things are what they are, and they came about however God went about creating. Sure, that's all very fascinating and incredibly interesting. But, really, it's what came after Adam and Eve's creation and what God wanted to communicate to all of mankind that is far more important. Notice the information contained in Genesis 1 and 2 is dwarfed by the enormity of the rest of Scripture. Those books are but a fraction of the entirety of what God wanted to say to us. As the rest of Scripture's progressive revelations include the very understandings of how to live as God wants us to, and what we must do to achieve salvation and to have eternal life with Him. And so, in the hierarchy of these other extremely important things, those "how" and "how long" questions of the universe, earth and man's beginnings, and their understandings, pale in comparison (at least for me). Genesis is like Scripture 101, but it is foundational to what comes afterward. And, by the way, there are more than a few Hebrew scholars that believe the Book of Job is even older than Genesis.

Hugh, unfortunately, it is clear to me that you don't understand what I believe about the science behind creation, nor know much about Progressive Creationism. I'm just trying to point out that no Christian should ever be just about understanding the science, or so cavalierly treat the theological understandings and underpinnings of Scripture. Because, truly, if you are a Christian and you believe God is the Reason behind the universe, do you really think a God who created on such a vast, unfathomable scale wouldn't also find it important to give us His word, or that He wouldn't - or more absurdly - COULDN'T protect and guide the documentation of what He wanted to communicate to mankind? Did He throw His word down to earth as a drunk throws a beer can out of a speeding car (doesn't care where it lands, who finds it, or what happens to it)? And would God give us His word in such a way that vast amounts of it - especially the fundamental/foundational elements of it - are virtually impossible to understand, and that only opinions and guesswork can come anywhere close to its actual meanings? If that was the case, it would be worthless to us, as it could be interpreted virtually anyway one wanted to. And their would be few absolutes that could be discerned, if that was the case.

Please weigh in with your impressions of Hugh Ross/RTB's book. I look forward to that!

Blessings,
Philip

[neo-x]

I disagree with you there neo. I believe that all that was written in Genesis actually happened and Adam was seen as a representative of the human race at the time. How we actually got to that moment in the first place is up for debate.

That may be so, ST. I wouldn't say you can not say that. Its more probable that it didn't happen. The story of genesis survived precisely because it was short, easy to remember for kids. My point is that its quite problematic and far away unnecessary for a snake to talk, snake just dont have that equipment to speak, and a tree which can produce fruit that has knowledge in it...plus which language was exactly being used in Gen story? When did Adam learnt that language, when did Eve learn it?

And many other problems in there...to me it makes more sense to think that the story is basically a way to convey a point by ancient people, in words and style which was easy for them to read and remember.

To be honest I see no problem with an actual garden of Eden and and actual Adam and Eve. Now these two could be two people given the spirit of God chosen from a group of neolithic farmers and asked to represent the human race - a sort of Homo Divinus. In Genesis, Adam is refered to as man a the beginning and only later does the name Adam become used as a name for an individual person - so like Abraham he was chosen and given the spirit (breathed) of God. It is from him we are descended. He was placed in Eden and then betrayed God. I see no problem with a talking snake as it appeared to Eve (this could have been a hulucination, a vision or a actual talking snake) because as it was the devil, he does have some power.

Hugh - I do not believe in a literal 6 days, as other interpretations are valid. I believe that the universe and earth was created in 6 stages governed by God over 13.7 billion years and which on earth probably involved guided evolution.

Actually that's the problem right there ST, you are trying to match scripture to science, although I don't have any problems with that generally, but right here I think its going too far. Its a good assumption but I think we can manage without that.

For example, if Adam and eve were neolithic farmers and were then given the spirit of God then, I think that is even more problematic...for once now you are taking the story of genesis as not literal but the breath of life, thing as literal?

Second, even if I grant that you use the breath of life thing as somewhat more literal than God making eve from the rib of Adam...the breath of God is nothing more than the idea that God gave life to Adam, as in "animated" him, in the passage, as it renders it. It is most certainly not the holy spirit.

third, unless "the breath of life" changed Adam physically (which I don't think is the case), I can not see why we are descended from him directly, because Adam was descended from other hominids before him. That really does not make us special.

I am not arguing with you ST, I just don't see the need to introduce such an amount of assumptions where a much simpler one exists and is more likely to be true.

Silvertusk » Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:37 pm

The thing is Neo - if you don't mind me saying is that you believe in God but tend to deny a lot of the supernatural elements of his work, or those that was written in the Bible. I believe it is logical to conclude that if God does exist - someone who can create an entire universe out of nothing - then any other "miraclous" event that occurs in the bible is childs play.

Please correct me if I am wrong here of course.

May be it is, I have very little faith in supernatural events anymore...as in direct interference I mean. But see the problem is even if I concede that supernatural elements are present more than I merit them to be, that does not necessarily mean that the story of Genesis is as what you are describing it to be. Because by your own logic, isn't is more convenient to then simply embrace YEC? I mean if we are not doubting God's miraculous power than YEC is THE MOST probable and likely. But you accept evolution, why? because you see evidence for it. You don't deny God's power and yet you are not a YEC. You are not a T.E because you deny God's power, you are a T.E because its logically more sound. And the same is with me, I don't deny God's power but to me the most logical thing is to accept things as they make sense, I don't want to add a standard ST, I am not bound by anything here to introduce being special or to say that Adam must be the first "man".

Is it more easy to think that the snake was the devil and somehow he could talk (rendering this as a hallucination, would also render the tree as a hallucination)...or is it more easy to think that its a made up story to convey the fallen nature of man.

[neo-x]

The bible holds a special place in the hearts and minds of ALL believers ( at least it should) but we must still be open to the realization that though the bible was written FOR Us, it was NOT written TO Us.

An excellent point, Paul.

[SonofAletheia]

Sonofaletheia, could you please explain how geographical patterns explain evolution? I'm not sure how geology is related at all. For the record, I do agree with modern geological science.

Sure! I'd be glad to share my thoughts there and where the evidence seems to point. I'm be at work in a bit so I'll try and write it out tonight or tomorrow morning.

Also, yes, there are transitional fossils (not very strong ones) but like I said, they are not as you'd expect from an evolutionary perspective. So we're back to what I originally said before your post about the low number of fossils.

In my opinion (and most scientists ) they are incredibly strong. Why Evolution Is True goes through some of them and they are truly amazing. One of the most groundbreaking fossils was found in 2004 which is incredible. The book goes though many of the transitional fossils we have which is great.

I've been meaning to read Why Evolution Is True. Maybe it's time

It's really one of the best contemporary books on the evidence for evolution

[hughfarey]

Sonofaletheia, could you please explain how geographical patterns explain evolution? I'm not sure how geology is related at all. For the record, I do agree with modern geological science.

As for DNA, vetiges, etc. I believe there are valid explanations from a creationist perspective.

Also, yes, there are transitional fossils (not very strong ones) but like I said, they are not as you'd expect from an evolutionary perspective. So we're back to what I originally said before your post about the low number of fossils.

I've been meaning to read Why Evolution Is True. Maybe it's time

Sonofaletheia may well do a better job than I, but until he's got more time...
Geography is of crucial importance to evolution. Organisms with no pressure to change tend to stay remarkably constant in appearance and behaviour, because they are so well adapted to their environment. Many marine organisms (sharks are often quoted) look almost identical to the way they looked millions of years ago. Evolutionary change occurs as a species is no longer so well adapted to its environment, and random genetic fluctuations confer a significant reproductive advantage, so that they begin to proliferate among the interbreeding group. Thus evolutionary change follows environmental, and thus geographical, change. The onset of an ice-age, the falling of a meteor, continental drift from one latitude to another and volcanic disturbance are all circumstances which can alter the environment sufficiently to provide the need for change.
Related to this is the geographical importance of population growth. A species perfectly adapted to its environment may undergo population growth to the extent that it spreads out into different environments. Although the different environments may not be changing in this case, nevertheless the group of organisms spreading from their original home, finding themselves in a new environment, are less well adapted than they could be, and again, there is pressure on their genetic makeup, giving rise to change. Expanding from one side of a mountain range to another, or from a soil of one acidity to anther, or over a river, all work to split a species into two.

The fossil record shows all this remarkably consistently. Species not as well adapted to their environment as they could be are in a constant state of change, while those as well as can be expected tend to remain fairly stable. This is why, other things being equal, the earliest forms of new species are found less commonly than the more stable forms.

[ryanbouma]

Oh I see. You guys are talking about environmental pressure to evolve.

I'll try and find time to read Why Evolution Is True, but the one quote already posted isn't very convincing. I understand it's not in context, but it uses circular logic and misses the fact that 1% of all the fossils should still represent evolution despite being a small sample. If scientists believe the fossil record is strong evidence, I gotta chuckle a bit. I'm not opposed to evidence for evolution, so I'm not just backhanding it to make a point. After all, I almost lost my faith at the age of 10 when my parents couldn't explain to me why dinos were millions of years old when the Bible says the earth was only 5000 years old. Well, of course I don't have a problem with that now thanks to a pastor who actually cared about science (quite rare for some reason). I've found fossils intriguing from a young age. And geology. It's why I'm a geotechnical engineer now. And I look at fossils and geology and think "this is where evolutionary science struggles". I'm not saying it can't be forced to work. I just don't think it's good evidence for evolution and if I took the evolution position, I'd shy away from it. I think evolutionists who have an agenda to make the theory work (those tied to the God doesn't exist way of thinking, unlike us), will talk like the evidence is more convincing than it actually is. A few transistional fossils is hardly convincing. One fossil from 2004? Got a link I can quickly check out? Is it transitional, deformed, different species? And if it is transitional, great, why not more. That's all I'm saying.