Issues with Creation

[United]

Notice the difference in your last sentence.

Evolution predicts, not only transitional fossils, but the time frame in which we will find them.

But, considering these to be fossils of special creation events, we can only say that they do not contradict gradual creation.

Do you know how scientists evaluate whether a theory is true or false?

By making predictions based on the theory. Since a true theory cannot make a false prediction, if the prediction fails, the theory is considered disproved.

Another way to put it, is that evolution explains why we see sequences of similiarities and differences such that more recent species appear to be descendants of more remote species. It is because they are.

But gradual creation does not predict the particular pattern of similarity and difference we see. The pattern could be very different, and not remotely suggestive of relationship, and it would still fit with gradual creation.

Now for a scientist, the whole point of a theory is to predict and explain actual observations.

A theory that doesn't do that is pretty useless to a scientist.

Can I just point this out – I am not trying to dismiss evolution. My use of the term “predicts” was an attempt to provide a fair assessment of your point. I understand the scientific process and I am familiar with the evidence for evolution. As I said in my previous email to Artybloke, creation is not straight forward to study in a scientific sense. But it doesn’t mean you can dismiss it.

Why? I have difficulty seeing how transitional fossils which were predicted by the theory and show up with the sort of characteristics one would expect, and in the places and time frames predicted would be any sort of stumbling block.

What did you find unsatisfactory about the explanations?

Perhaps we are missing each others points. I acknowledged your original point, and then went onto discuss the bigger picture of the whole fossil record. Also, I didn’t call the explanations “unsatisfactory” - I called them “unsatisfying”. I am keen to work through these with you – but it is probably best left for a separate topic (and when I have time to respond to the ongoing discussion). I will pull out some of these explanations from pro evolutionary books in a separate topic when I get the time.

 

[theFijian]

Whenever I have doubts about how the Universe was created or whatever, I think of this verse:

Proverbs 3:5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

That verse is set in the context of a chapter about Godly wisdom, not scientific knowledge.

peace
Andy

 

[gluadys]

Hi Gluadys,


Hope you had a good weekend. You make an interesting point with your definition of creation. Can you explain why so many TE's don't interpret the term "creation" in Genesis in this way? Why do a significant number see Genesis as purely poetic, or a fable?

Because it is.

I think you have missed my point here. I was talking about the "scientific method", not "scientists". A Christian "scientist" can see God being intimately involved in a "process", but the scientific method can only see the "process" itself.

Agreed. It takes faith to "see" God in the process. The scientific method will not reveal the working of God in a natural process, only the process itself.

 

[Bushido216]

Hi Guys,



Sorry for the delay in responding – just been busy! Dare I say it – you guys seem more passionate about your evolution than most of the fundamentalists are about their creation! Anyway, to respond one at a time:


Hi Bushido,

Why are you convinced that a common creator would not show commonality in His design?

Why would He? Infact, why would He create organisms with left over body parts from previous iterations of their species?

 

[Underdog77]

I used to be a staunch evolutionist but one issue I could not figure out was as mentioned above... "transition".
It's generally accepted in the scientific world that the strong survive. That being said if there was a transition from say a fin to a leg then there had to be some point where the apendage wasn't a fin or a leg. If not a fin then it's ability to swim is hampered. If not a leg then it's ability to walk is also degraded. Therefore the apendages would be a handicap to the animal and it could not survive since predators would take full advantage of such a handicap.

The slow formation or mutation of an animal or organism must at some point become a disadvantage where the mutation isn't quite fully formed or fully functional. Since evolution teaches survival of the fittest this was a big problem for me.

Well said.

This is one of the major problems with evolution: not only are there no solid transitionals but even if we assume they exist somewhere we must wonder how in the world did the transitionals survive? Biologically, many necessary transitionals are almost impossible to function. Also, how did two transitionals in the world meet, mate, and provide another transitional offspring? The chances of this happening are slim to none.

I wonder how many evolutionists gamble? The chances are better at hitting the jackpot on a slot machine than for evolution having to take place.

 

[Underdog77]

This is why major changes are fairly rare. They usually only happen when the environment changes or when the change allows an organism to access a new niche. For example, for a population of fish to aquire lungs is a difficult thing. However, if nothing has lungs, they ability to breathe just a little can be an advantage. This doesn't happen now because hybrids (amphibians, lungfish) already exist and can out perform any new comer.

In evolution, major changes must take place all the time. Maybe not instantly but even with slow changes you will eventually have an appendage that is no longer a fin and not yet a leg/foot/arm/whatever. You have to account for this lack of mobility. Predators must have a lot to eat back then because without being able to move, or at least move efficiantly, fish and birds and insect and mammels would be easy prey. And once that one transitional was eaten, the world had to wait for another one to appear.

That's a big problem with evolution, not only do the transitionals have to form, not only do two of them have to find each other in this big world (I mean my goodness, most thinking humans have a rough time finding their own mate and we have the internet, I wonder how hard it would be for a transitional) and produce tranistional offspring, but it must survive! Every transitional stage had to survive even when most of the time it was handicapped in one way or another!

 

[Underdog77]

Hi Gluadys,

Thanks for your input! My response to your first point is somewhat predictable - the creation theory explains the Acanthostega or Archeopteryx as a separate creation and not a transitional species. Your second point on their timing in the geologic strata is worthy of note as it is predicted by evolution - but it does not contradict gradual creation.

I personally consider that the "transitional" fossils argument to be more of a stumbling block for evolution than creation. I have read various pro-evolutionary books which attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil record, but no such explanations are required with gradual creation - instead significant gaps are predicted by creation.

I would like to hear how gradual creation explains these gaps and lack of transitionals.

Personallybut in all fairness I have only just started working through Lucaspa's compilation of papers on transitional species .

Watch out for Lucaspa, lots of what he says is tricky and false.

 

[Underdog77]

I wish you blessings in your quest. As long as you remember that science takes real work, you won't go far wrong. I think it was EL Mencken that said, "there is a simple, logical answer to every difficult question - and it's usually the wrong one."

The problem with creationism is that it provides lots of easy, simple answers to very difficult, complex questions. Distrust easy answers, answers that seem to fit neatly but which on closer inspection start to fall apart. If the answer is equivocal, open to new evidence and partial - it's more likely to be true, because it's more like the real world. In the real world, there are no simple answers to complex questions.

That goes for life as well as science.

That's a lot of philosophical crud. Creationism may have some 'easy' answers but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Distrust anything that counters the Bible; e.g. evolution.

 

[Underdog77]

The useless half-a-limb appears to be mythology, not fact.

How many fish do you flopping up on land? Very few.

 

[Underdog77]

I think the real problem with creation is that it is not easily studied, proven or disproven by science. In that sense creation is "easy". By it's very nature the scientific method generally assumes that God is not intimately involved in the processes that are being studied. But that doesn't mean creation didn't happen - only that it is not particularly fruitful for scientific study.

Unfortunatly for some people evolution is also not fruitful for scientific study since by definition science can be observed whereas evolution cannot.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

How many fish do you flopping up on land? Very few.

Of course. The fish that got to land hundreds of millions of years ago have such a head start that newcomers will have a hard time competing.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Unfortunatly for some people evolution is also not fruitful for scientific study since by definition science can be observed whereas evolution cannot.

Evolution can be observed.

 

[Underdog77]

May I second artybloke's answers to both your points. From the perspective of theistic evolution, neither evolution nor creation preclude each other. Evolution is a scientific name for creation and creation is a theological name for evolution.

It is creationism that conflicts with evolution, not creation. And some of us would go farther and say that creationism also conflicts with historic Christian belief as well.

Theistic Evolution is just a disgusting compromise of both evolution and creationism.

Creationism complies with not only science but also the Bible. The Bible says God created in 6 literal days.

Evolution was a theory thought up by MAN to explain the world without using God as an influence or as creator.

Theistic Evolution just adds God into the equation of evolution. When you do that anything is possible because you supernatural powers mixed in.

I hate TE and OEC more than I do the common atheistic evolution belief. I hate it more because all it did was make the impossible (evolution) possible by saying God did it. Once you say "God did it" anything that would normally be thought as folly can then be plausible.

It's like mixing a liberal with a conservative and getting a 'whatever'. When you mix those two you get someone who has morals (the conservative) but compromises them to appeal to all (the liberal). That's what TE/OEC are, compromises that appeal to lies to attract those not willing to believe in creationism.

God said one thing, OEC/TE/Evolution defy it but I believe it.

 

[Underdog77]

Of course. The fish that got to land hundreds of millions of years ago have such a head start that newcomers will have a hard time competing.

That's insane! The fish that have today are either the same fish that existed 'millions' of years ago or fish that have evolved further than those 'millions' of years ago.

There are better chances of fishing flopping today than millions of years because they have had all that time to evolve!

 

[Bushido216]

Well said.

This is one of the major problems with evolution: not only are there no solid transitionals but even if we assume they exist somewhere we must wonder how in the world did the transitionals survive? Biologically, many necessary transitionals are almost impossible to function. Also, how did two transitionals in the world meet, mate, and provide another transitional offspring? The chances of this happening are slim to none.

I wonder how many evolutionists gamble? The chances are better at hitting the jackpot on a slot machine than for evolution having to take place.

Populations, not individuals, evolve. An entire population would be a transitional. Every species today is a transitional since they are constantly evolving.

Evolution isn't a set of leaps from one species to the other, it is a gradual, never-ending process.

 

[Underdog77]

Evolution can be observed.

Give me a site, a book, an article, or point me in the right direction so that I may read about evolution being observed.

Seriously, if it has been observed then that would be something so miraculous that scientists would have published it somewhere.

 

[Bushido216]

In evolution, major changes must take place all the time. Maybe not instantly but even with slow changes you will eventually have an appendage that is no longer a fin and not yet a leg/foot/arm/whatever. You have to account for this lack of mobility. Predators must have a lot to eat back then because without being able to move, or at least move efficiantly, fish and birds and insect and mammels would be easy prey. And once that one transitional was eaten, the world had to wait for another one to appear.

That's a big problem with evolution, not only do the transitionals have to form, not only do two of them have to find each other in this big world (I mean my goodness, most thinking humans have a rough time finding their own mate and we have the internet, I wonder how hard it would be for a transitional) and produce tranistional offspring, but it must survive! Every transitional stage had to survive even when most of the time it was handicapped in one way or another!

Ert! Wrong-o, try again.

Evolution is about small changes, with each transition being beneficial to the population involved. This works with wings, eyes, and yes, even fins.

I've already debunked your wild notion that transitionals are individual organisms, not populations. How you ever came by that notion is beyond me.

 

[Bushido216]

Watch out for Lucaspa, lots of what he says is tricky and false.

Actually, lucaspa is one of the most intelligent and detail-oriented people I've ever met, much less on these forums. He can back up everything he says with links and references. Can you do that?

 

[Underdog77]

Populations, not individuals, evolve. An entire population would be a transitional. Every species today is a transitional since they are constantly evolving.

Evolution isn't a set of leaps from one species to the other, it is a gradual, never-ending process.

1) There must have been one that evolved first. Without the first one then the population could never have been produced. I understand your thinking in that the population changed but there must have been that first one that changed just little.

2) Even thinking the populations evolved, there still ought to be transitional forms. And if you believe the populations evolved, there ought to be millions and millions (and that's a conservative number...I'm proud to be a conservative Christian ) of transitional fossils.

Gradual or not there ought to be fossils, and many of them, where we can see intermediate bodies.

 

[Bushido216]

That's a lot of philosophical crud. Creationism may have some 'easy' answers but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Distrust anything that counters the Bible; e.g. evolution.

The Bible as you see it.