Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
The only thing that makes these fossils transitional is wishful thinking.
There is no genetic material in fossils, so there is no way to even begin to make the case that there is a genetic link between any of these fossils and any other fossils. That leaves us with similarities in physical appearance and in the case of "transitionals" there are physical similarities between these fossils and the fossils of the two life forms it's supposed to be the intermediate of. But that could be a case of the human ability to detect patterns--the same thing that lets us see a sailboat-shaped cloud. Just because three or more people can look at a cloud and see the sailboat does not mean the cloud is in objective reality in the exact shape of a sail boat.
The other reason these are considered transitional is because the fossils appears in strata between the two fossils it's supposed to be in transition. This is a logical fallacy. Just because George Custer lived and died before I did does not make him my ancestor.
I don't know for sure, haven't evolutionists found genetic material/dna on some of these fossils that actually match up with current living things that could be related to these fossils?
vickers_m wrote:Well yes, that's a good thing, that's what I wanted to do. I was curious do you all as creationists, like me, ever study any pro evolution material? You know, just to put your views to the acid test so to speak? I'm currently looking at a evolution wikipedia type site called evopedia, (there is also a creationpedia as well). But on the evopedia site it lists all the major creation arguments against evolution (like the ones presented on this site) as well as responses to the arguments. It's really neat how they have the site laid out. But I'd just thought I throw that in there.
Of course we study pro-evo material. Even attend classes and purchase pro books about it. That is why I'm losing my faith in it...
But then again, we have to know what you mean by evolution..
Well what kind of books do you all read then? And can you refute them? I saw someone trying to refute Dawkins God Delusion book somewhere on this site and he was only able to respond to three measly chapters. I don't know I'm under the inkling that you all do not read pro evolution material and avoid it like the plague.
The irony behind that statement is most evolutionists do not read pro-creationism material and tend to avoid it like the plague. You seem to be continually searching for new ways to disprove creationism based on all your posts; It's similar to saying "I can't talk to girls because I do not have a job and they will not like me", and having someone reply "actually, I met my current girlfriend when I didn't have a job" and responding with "Oh, well, I also lack confidence. No girl would date me because of that". My point being, if you constantly doubt something, you will never be able to accept reality; You are living inside your head. If you constantly doubt your ability to get a girlfriend, you will never get one. Likewise, if you constantly doubt creationism based off unproven theories, you will never be able to accept creationism. Evolution, even if true, can't prove how the everything was created; It needs a starting point. It can't prove how the Earth is set up perfectly in the universe to provide quality living conditions, how the laws of our universe came to be, or how DNA just 'randomly' happened.
Although most people believe the Bible teaches direct creation, I believe there is good reason to believe the Bible leaves the door open wide enough for a form of created evolution. A designed evolution. The problem with evolution is that high levels of complexity don’t come from randomness. There are good points against Darwinian evolution (evolution via random changes), such as:
- Cambrian Explosion (where most phyla came into existence relatively quickly)
- Common genetic designs among all animals (including common cell types)
- Complexity of cells and huge missing links between cell types
- Improbable and unnecessary complexity in life (like the ability of humpback whales to navigate in a perfectly straight line for hundreds of miles)
As for the Bible supporting a form of evolution, consider that the Bible says that the “earth” produced the plants and land animals (Gen. 1:11, 24). The actual Hebrew language is stronger, and indicates something to the effect of “the earth shall cause…” the plants/animals to be formed. Now, the Bible says that man and all the animals are from the “dust” or “ground” (Eccl. 3:20). We know that we are not directly from the ground, so it is not necessary to interpret Genesis 1-2 as saying the plants, animals or man were directly made from the ground. We could (and I think should) infer that plants/animals were indirectly formed through a process from the basic elements of the earth, since that is consistent across all passages that speak of man being from the dust and returning to it.
Also, mankind could easily have been both formed by evolution and also created supernaturally (by the creation of a spirit for him). I don’t think most people recognize that possibility. I believe Homo sapiens were prepared through a preprogrammed path of evolution to be suitable for receiving an immaterial spirit made in the image of God. Atheists can say nothing in opposition to that idea. They have a hard enough time explaining why man would have stood upright, not to mention how he came to speak language, have advanced intelligence, or have a religious nature.
So, for me, all of your arguments for evolution have no bearing on the existence of God or on an afterlife. Don’t discount God just on account of some form of evolution. Evolution doesn’t have to mean that God was uninvolved or that it all “just happened” by accident. The Bible got the order of events right in Genesis 1, so I think that’s way beyond coincidence and should dispel any question as to God’s existence and involvement.
---
EDIT: "phenotypes" isn't quite the same thing as "phyla"; I just wanted to clear that up.
