Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

I am a young earth creationist. [snip]

Many holes lie in the theory, the biggest of them being the time that it would have taken for evolution to take place.

no doubt, if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old

if, on the contrary, you actually look at the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is millions and millions and millions of years old, then evolution has plenty of time to do its thing

Study with an open mind.

does "study with an open mind" mean ignore the overwhelming evidence and believe what you want to belive anyway?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I've been trying to do some reading on evolution. Maybe I haven't found the best sources so If anyone has any suggestions I'd be happy to take a look.

So far, from everything I've found, the fossil record seems awfully thin. I don't see that the fossil record does a very complete job of supporting the theory. The reason I find given most is that fossils are hard to make but that doesn't seem to solve the problem. I won't go into specific questions concerning the fossil record until I see if anyone recommends other sources...I don't want to start too much if my sources are junk.

I'm also having trouble seeing how the theory is testable or falsifyable. Maybe someone, in the know, can just explain a little.

 

[The Chairman]

Mike,

Like history, once something has "evolved", you can't repeat it. But just as we have seen civilizations evolve and can draw some conclusions, so we can see species evolve and draw conclusions there too. Obviously, we can't repeat the American Revolution, but that does not negate it's reality or the continuing effects it has on our society.

Living in Florida, I am SURROUNDED by fossils. I have heard that Florida is the most fossil rich state in the union and we have all but Dinosaur fossils here. When I find the fossils from extinct mammals such as mammoths, camels, dear and such and can see how they have died completely out or morphed into something different, it helps me to understand how rich the fossil record is in spite of the odds against preservation. When I dive Paradise Springs and see the HUGE Sand Dollar in the ceiling, knowing that they just don't grow to that size any more, I see the results of evolution. I have to admit that when I hold a Meg tooth in my hand, that I am GLAD that they are gone. Same with the primitive crocodillians that roamed throughout Florida.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Yes, I've seen lots of those Florida fossils myself. It is more than clear that some spiecies have gone extinct. What I'm not seeing is much evidence that they actually "morphed" into or out of something else entirely.

 

[The Chairman]

I don't know Mike... Shells seem to do best for preservation. I have seen thousands of samples where you can see the progress of the morph. There is a little "Rock, gem and fossil" museum in Franklin NC and their chronology of one bivalve is simply amazing. They even have samples of the modern mollusk so we can see the current model. The Chambered Nautilus is another great example where the evolution of the species has been documented and where we have modern specimens to see that that extinction is not the only factor here.

Soft animals and those with fewer members tend to not provide reliable fossil records. Animals from the phylum mollusca are perfect candidates for this type of preservation as they are hard to begin with and are usually incredibly plentiful. Just check out http://palaeo-electronica.org/2005_2/mollusca/mollusca.pdf for some of the documented changes.

Again, since the scriptures don't come out and discount evolution is one reason why I refuse to discount it. I believe the real reason most reject evolution out of hand is simple pride. How many times have you seen the concept of man evolving from an ape absolutely ridiculed and then the caveat: "I surely didn't descend from no stinking ape!" This last is the most telling as it shows how vain we are as a species.

 

[redacted]

Again, since the scriptures don't come out and discount evolution is one reason why I refuse to discount it.

Are you suggesting that if one interprets the scriptures to discount evolution then it is reasonable to ignore the evidence you site and reject evolution?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm trying not to post any statements on evolution right now (I only have questions)but in the reading I've done on human evolution, for example, I see men and apes. Maybe some evidence that men may have been built a little different at one time but given the veriety that we see living today, I'm not sure even that would stand up to statistical evaluation. Maybe it does but I haven't yet seen that demonstrated. I don't see much at all that gives us any real reason to believe that either man or ape descended from a "rat like" mamal living at the time of the donosaurs.

No doubt, I haven't seen everything yet (which is why I asked for source recommendations) but unless we assume that there must be an evolutionary path I'm not sure that I even see an evidence base for a hypothesis let alone a theory.

My question about testability and falsifyability is in regard to what I read as the definition of a theory.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Again, since the scriptures don't come out and discount evolution is one reason why I refuse to discount it. I believe the real reason most reject evolution out of hand is simple pride. How many times have you seen the concept of man evolving from an ape absolutely ridiculed and then the caveat: "I surely didn't descend from no stinking ape!" This last is the most telling as it shows how vain we are as a species.

No, I don't think it does. It does list some things that God created each according to their kind. It doesn not say that each, or any, was unchangeable but from reading scripture I wouldn't expect to see a fish turn into a bird, a rat into a man or the millions of spieceies on earth evolving from just a few simple single celled (or less) forms of life.

 

[lamont]

_The Blind Watchmaker_ by Richard Dawkins is still pretty much required reading.

I don't know if it addresses the issues that you're most concerned about directly, though. What you'd probably need would be a statistical analysis of the number of "stable" organisms vs. the number of "transitional" organisms and the chances of them being discovered in the fossil record, along with an underlying statistical basis of genetic mutation which could predict time periods for species to evolve into other species. I don't know of any book that has that kind of information, short of just doing graduate work in genetics...

 

[MikeFerrara]

Are you suggesting that if one interprets the scriptures to discount evolution then it is reasonable to ignore the evidence you site and reject evolution?

I don't see any reason to ignore evidence at all. At this point I still see plenty of reason to reject or at least be very skeptical of some conclusions that people have drawn from the evidence though.

Even if we completely ignore the "creationaists" There seems to be a lot of disagreement so I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable that I'm not convinced.