Creation vs. Evolution

[bwerb]

As far as the discussion of what the Bible says on Evolution etc. I think it's important to take a look at what the "message" of the Bible is, what is it's overall theme from Genesis to Revelation?

Basically the theme/message is that God created "man" as unique within creation to have a relationship with, this relationship was broken, God set about a way to heal this relationship and looks forward to a time when it will be set right again.

Once you realize what the "goal" of the book is, you can (to paraphrase Greg Laurie) realize that it isn't a book telling you how the heavens (and earth) came to be but rather a book which tells you how to get to heaven.

The Bible isn't a science textbook nor does it set out to be.

I have really enjoyed books by Gearald Schroder (Jewish physisist) who does quite a good job of aligning Genesis with modern astro physics however.

 

[Snowbear]

where did those mammals come from? from non-mammals that lived before them

There is no proof of this. It's just extrapolation based on the evolution theory.

 

[H2Andy]

There is no proof of this. It's just extrapolation based on the evolution theory.

the other way around

it's evolution theory extrapolated from observed data. that's how the theory of evolution came about. science was looking for a mechanism that would explain what they were observing. evolution was that mechanism. so far, it has not been seriously challenged.

you are certainly welcome to posit a theory that also explains the observable data

 

[Snowbear]

There is no 'observed data' proof that mammals were once fish. Or lizards. Or clams. Or insects. Or birds. Or single celled organisms. It's extrapolation. It's what the evolution theory is built on.

 

[H2Andy]

certainly, it is a theory that explains observed data

basically:

you start with no life

then you see only one-celled life-forms

then you see more complex, multi-cell life forms

then you see life-forms with backbones.

then those lifeforms get progressively more complex, from cold-bloded to warm-blooded animals, then from smaller brains to larger brains

and the entire time the fossil record is progressing, life is getting more and more complex, with more and more variation, over a span of millions of years, with new waves of species coming on board, relentlessly, as if though this is the normal course of business ... nothing odd or strange about it... over and over and over

they are either appearing out of nowhere (this could include multiple creations by a deity; a single creation will be much harder to explain) or they are the result of evolution

draw your own conclusions

 

[Snowbear]

you are certainly welcome to posit a theory that also explains the observable data

Nah - it's already been posted by others much more knowledgable than I

 

[H2Andy]

i said "observable" data

 

[Snowbear]

I observe Creation every day

 

[H2Andy]

lol

nice one

 

[MikeFerrara]

for millions of years, there are no mammal fossils. nowhere in the world do you find mammal fossils.

I haven't got into the dating of rock yet so for now let's leave the "millions of years" in there. ok, we don't find fossils of mammals there. Does that mean there were NONE there? I thought the reason that the fossil record has these big holes is because fossils are hard to make...especially those of soft "stuff". Maybe there were just far fewer of them and thus far fewer fossils. Maybe the fossils didn't survive.

suddently, you start finding mammal fossils on the shallower layers.

"Suddenly". Is that really what we would expect to see?

where did those mammals come from?

The $64 question

from non-mammals that lived before them

Lacking any other ideas, that would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis. Maybe it should be stated as a question though. It could also mean that they "suddenly" came from someplace else. Now we can try to prove or disprove it.

then, for millions of years, you find primates for the first time. where did those primates come from? from non-primates that came before them.

then, after millions and millions and millions of years with nothing human-like, suddenly we get a series of species that are more and more human-like as they progress.

More "suddenly".

over a period of about five million years, we can trace how from a non-humanlike species, several more human-like species evolved, until finally, about 200,000 years ago, we find humans at last.

Is that really what we see? I'm not so sure.

if evolution was not true, that is not what you would find. if you can find a mammal fossil in the earliest layers, you've debunked evolution.

The burden of proof is on the theory. If the failure to find mammal fossils in early rocks means that they weren't there then maybe the lack of a clear fossil record connecting non-mammals with mammals means that there is no connection. That seems like consistant logic.

On the other hand to say that the failure to find mammals in older rock means that they weren't there but the failure to find a clear fossil record of a transition from non-mammal to mammal is due to an understandable incompleteness of the fossil record seem like inconsistant logic.

Does a failure to find something in the fossil record prove that it wasn't there or not? based on this logic alone, I would say that the fossil record itself is a strong indication that one "kind" did not evolve into another "kind" exactly because these "kinds" seem to suddenly appear.