Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[Keaton64]

Just wanted to clarify something about the creationist stance on speciation, since I didn't see where thelordsgym denied it, unless I overlooked it or he had one of his posts deleted.  The erroneous belief that all species of every animal in modern times were created on days 5 & 6 of the creation week as outlined in genesis is in no way supported by the Bible. 

Rather, the Hebrew word for "kind" (referencing God's creation of every animal after its kind) is the word "min", which has a broader range compared to the restrictive nature of the modern day word "species".  Each of the original created kinds would have much in-built variety within their genomes, which would allow for speciation within their respective kinds.  For example, the original wolf kind would diversify over time into the various species of wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingos, etc.  This common ancestry is supported by the hybridization between many of these canines.  Examples of other kinds would be the cat kind, elephant kind, & ceratopsian kind.

Speciation is largely an event that filters genes out of a population, where nature selects against certain traits by having creatures with better traits reproduce more until those with the undesirable traits are no more.  The type of changes that drive speciation today are the opposite of what evolution needs.  Going from a fish to an amphibian would require an enormous increase in genetic information that did not exist previously, but many examples of speciation today have the new species resulting not from anything new being added, but from having something in the genetic code getting shuffled around, copied, deleted (either through natural selection or mutations), etc. 

That isn't to say that new traits can't arise.  Albinism is caused by a lack of melanin production, and a poodle's unique fur is the result of a mutation that causes it to grow continuously without shedding.  A snake may develop two heads, which is just copying something that already existed within the snake's genome.  Less extreme examples include different skin / fur colors or limb lengths (like the really long legs of the maned wolf).  Once these new traits arise, the environment will test them to see if they live on in the population or perish.  It isn't that creationists were forced to admit that speciation is real, but that speciation as we observe it today doesn't contradict anything said in the Bible.

All this being said, I wish thelordsgym had not responded in such a way.  This type of reaction makes what few creationists are here look bad through association.  The best thing to do is respect the other person and present the evidence for your argument.  I am not a scientist, but I do enjoy studying biology & reading articles from scientists who show how science supports the historical account of the Bible. 

[Loon]

Just wanted to clarify something about the creationist stance on speciation, since I didn't see where thelordsgym denied it, unless I overlooked it or he had one of his posts deleted.  The erroneous belief that all species of every animal in modern times were created on days 5 & 6 of the creation week as outlined in genesis is in no way supported by the Bible. 

Rather, the Hebrew word for "kind" (referencing God's creation of every animal after its kind) is the word "min", which has a broader range compared to the restrictive nature of the modern day word "species".  Each of the original created kinds would have much in-built variety within their genomes, which would allow for speciation within their respective kinds.  For example, the original wolf kind would diversify over time into the various species of wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingos, etc.  This common ancestry is supported by the hybridization between many of these canines.  Examples of other kinds would be the cat kind, elephant kind, & ceratopsian kind.

Speciation is largely an event that filters genes out of a population, where nature selects against certain traits by having creatures with better traits reproduce more until those with the undesirable traits are no more.  The type of changes that drive speciation today are the opposite of what evolution needs.  Going from a fish to an amphibian would require an enormous increase in genetic information that did not exist previously, but many examples of speciation today have the new species resulting not from anything new being added, but from having something in the genetic code getting shuffled around, copied, deleted (either through natural selection or mutations), etc. 

That isn't to say that new traits can't arise.  Albinism is caused by a lack of melanin production, and a poodle's unique fur is the result of a mutation that causes it to grow continuously without shedding.  A snake may develop two heads, which is just copying something that already existed within the snake's genome.  Less extreme examples include different skin / fur colors or limb lengths (like the really long legs of the maned wolf).  Once these new traits arise, the environment will test them to see if they live on in the population or perish.  It isn't that creationists were forced to admit that speciation is real, but that speciation as we observe it today doesn't contradict anything said in the Bible.

All this being said, I wish thelordsgym had not responded in such a way.  This type of reaction makes what few creationists are here look bad through association.  The best thing to do is respect the other person and present the evidence for your argument.  I am not a scientist, but I do enjoy studying biology & reading articles from scientists who show how science supports the historical account of the Bible.

I hate to be that guy, but modern science does not support the "historical" account of the Bible. The account in Genesis is, like you said, not  to be taken literally. You do however seem to not understand how information theory would apply to evolution (link below). You seem to be using the common "evolution can't add information" trope, which just like all of thelordsgym's claims has been disproven. Please, do a bit of research before making a claim.

I'm also interested to see how far your definition of "kinds" goes, it has no biological or scientific meaning, like the weird "race." Considering you deem wolf's and dogs as a dog "kind". What do you view hyenas as? They are not dogs, nor cats, but very closely related. How about humans? A human is an app, and we have a fossil record showing several clear transitions. So are we part of ape kind, and by extension are apes part of monkey kind? I'm genuinely interested to here your stance.

Btw, you guys, as much as I'm enjoying this conversation, I'm not sure how it will fair under the forum rules of no religion talk. Mayhaps we suggest a thread for a friendly discussion about creationism, to inform each other in a civil manner. Obviously, both sides of the conversation are very passionate, and I think it could be an interesting experience.

Here's a good link to read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[Keaton64]

If the mods have any issue with this, they only have to let me know, and I will refrain from further comments.  I would like to add that I enjoy sharing the creationist view, even amongst those who don't agree, so you shouldn't expect any hostility from me.  Feel free to ask anything.

I never said that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, I was actually trying to say that it should.  If Genesis isn't true, then you can safely ignore the rest of the Bible as it provides the foundations for several biblical doctrines.

Of course, there is no way to prove which kind every species today fits into.  The only thing you can do is see which animals hybridize together, and this will let you know that these animals belong to the same created kind.  Hyenas, I couldn't tell you.  My personal belief is that they belong to their own kind.  I doubt anyone has tried to breed a hyena with anything else.  One of my favorite examples is the wholphin, a hybrid between a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin.  The parents are not only classified as different species but genera as well.  The hybrid went on to have its own baby with another bottlenose.

Because of this example, you can't really limit the created kind to just genus or family.  Sometimes genetic barriers get in the way, as is the case with alligators and crocodiles.  Man, being a special creation, is not part of the ape or monkey kind.  Which transitions are you referring to specifically?  I imagine Lucy is one of them.  I also agree with the term "race" having no basis in science.

[Simon]

*Sigh*  Its always sad to see the emotions surrounding these types of discussions.  Otherwise fine people drawing lines in the sand, friendships (or more accurately, acquaintanceships) strained or broken.

Quite unnecessary.  As I've said elsewhere, mixing discussions of two different disciplines is never a good idea.  There are plenty of boards where religious topics can be discussed ad nauseam (ditto with political topics).  This isn't one of them, however, as this is the Dinosaur Toy Forum.

Evolution is relevant to dinosaurs.  Religion (or politics) rarely (if ever) is. 

[Loon]

*Sigh*  Its always sad to see the emotions surrounding these types of discussions.  Otherwise fine people drawing lines in the sand, friendships (or more accurately, acquaintanceships) strained or broken.

Quite unnecessary.  As I've said elsewhere, mixing discussions of two different disciplines is never a good idea.  There are plenty of boards where religious topics can be discussed ad nauseam (ditto with political topics).  This isn't one of them, however, as this is the Dinosaur Toy Forum.

Evolution is relevant to dinosaurs.  Religion (or politics) rarely (if ever) is.

I would usually agree with you, in the sense that I mostly view science and religion as NOMA, but in the case of creationism, especially as presented here, it is in the context of a scientific hypothesis. And as much as I would love to be nice and tolerant of beliefs all the time, I cannot just blow off a claim made to sound like scientific truth, when the evidence does not support it. I'm not here to be mean to either of the creationist posters so far, I'm sure they're fine people, but when I see someone making a false statement that I am able to (hopefully) counter, I will, that's what fair science is.

[Neosodon]

That BANDit claims have changed from "birds aren't dinosaurs" to "maniraptorans or potentially coelurosaurs aren't dinosaurs" just goes to show how desperate the concept is for any vaguely plausible evidence they can grasp.

At this point "birds are not dinosaurs" is sounding more like "dinosaurs aren't ornithodirans".


There is a big difference between creationism and young earth belief. Most formal creationist organizations acknowledge and recognize evolution as correct while questioning the initial origins of life. Even Darwin acknowledged the plausibility of an initial intelligent origin for life, but the concept of the earth and all life being designed individually in a period of days is generally considered metaphorical by most formal religious organizations.

Isn't young earth belief a form of creationism? I think you mean Intelligent Design, which likes to pretend it isn't creationism, despite its roots. The age of the earth plays little into the broader definition of creationism, which is "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."  Creationism, as Darwin put it, is simply a rejection of evolution, for a belief in the biblical account of the divine creation of the current form of any given animal. Of course, there are outliers, like Michael Behe, who believes humans and the other apes share ancestry, yet does not go further than that; but, they mostly believe in the creation of organisms in their current state. I doubt any "Creationist" organizations accept evolution, it's kind of the reason they are a Creationist organization. Most more "progressive" religious organizations(The Vatican, some religious universities, etc.) take the Genesis 1 account of the creation to be metaphorical and do believe in evolution, and the big bang, etc. However, I think you may be confusing creationism/intelligent design as believing in a god when most modern Christians would be insulted by being compared to the actions of these fundamentalists.

Note: This is not here to bash anyone's religious beliefs, I honestly don't care, just felt like I should clarify.

Well said Stargatedalek and Loon. Religion is mostly a mix of philosophy and history so I don't see something strictly scientific like evolution as any sort of hindrance to my faith. I think most of us have religious views to some extent but we can still discuss science without having it cloud our judgement or turn into a religious war. My thinking is in between a deist like god and some degree of intelligent design.

Now about evolution. Thelordsgym only mentioned the eye which isn't that great of an example. But there are a couple things about evolution not counting the first life form that seem like holes or gaps that would be interesting for someone to try to explain. The big one is the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. For that to be possible two separate reproductive systems would have to evolve in two members of the same species at the same time in the same place which sure seems impossible. I don't see how there could be any sort of transitional phase between the two opposite extremes but maybe one of you evolutionary biology phd's know the answer.

I never said that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, I was actually trying to say that it should.  If Genesis isn't true, then you can safely ignore the rest of the Bible as it provides the foundations for several biblical doctrines.

The bible is full of metaphors and symbolic language. Jesus taught in parables. What if the creation story has another meaning other than the traditional English interpretation? If you want to take it literally the ancient Hebrew word that made was derived from could also mean showed. It has been proposed that the creation story is a spiritual revelation to Moses that happened in stages over a 6 day period where he saw the actual history of the universe and planet as a vision. There is more to it than that but I don't want to drag religion into the forum too much but I hope this helps.

[Loon]

Well said Stargatedalek and Loon. Religion is mostly a mix of philosophy and history so I don't see something strictly scientific like evolution as any sort of hindrance to my faith. I think most of us have religious views to some extent but we can still discuss science without having it cloud our judgement or turn into a religious war. My thinking is in between a deist like god and some degree of intelligent design.

Now about evolution. Thelordsgym only mentioned the eye which isn't that great of an example. But there are a couple things about evolution not counting the first life form that seem like holes or gaps that would be interesting for someone to try to explain. The big one is the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. For that to be possible two separate reproductive systems would have to evolve in two members of the same species at the same time in the same place which sure seems impossible. I don't see how there could be any sort of transitional phase between the two opposite extremes but maybe one of you evolutionary biology phd's know the answer.

Thanks neosodon, despite myself not being religious, or even believing in a traditional creator, bit of a pantheistic Atheist, if that makes sense, I do really enjoy talking about this, especially with someone of greater faith than I. I don't see evolution or the big bang, etc. as any kind of detriment to one's faith, unless of course, it is a fundamentalist faith in a literal interpretation. I'm interested by what you mean by intelligent design, is it a god designed life to evolve or god designed life within kinds, because if it's the former, "intelligent design" is not really the term, as much as theistic evolution is. Also, on the origin of sex and early life, that's what I love about science, the questions, I personally do not have an evolutionary PhD, so my answer is that of a layman. Haliocheres does, mayhaps he could help you, and there's plenty of great online resources to search as well. As far as I can tell it's still a great mystery, but not one that should discredit your understanding of evolutions basis. Again, science doesn't have all the answers, so we should never stop searching.

[HD-man]

Here are a few links:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMpdyn8cPXAhWKgVQKHZ_xC-UQFgguMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2F15-answers-to-creationist%2F&usg=AOvVaw2F1VHcOR0c4rlwSScrJqKs

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMpdyn8cPXAhWKgVQKHZ_xC-UQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnalc.org%2Fview%2F16982-The-Eye-and-Irreducible-Complexity-Creationism-Debunked.html&usg=AOvVaw1v8brcSciXiYDwNZ9yp-A0

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

To add to what Loon said, I really like how Attenborough discusses the evolution of the eye: https://www.wimp.com/david-attenborough-the-evolution-of-the-eye/

There is a big difference between creationism and young earth belief. Most formal creationist organizations acknowledge and recognize evolution as correct while questioning the initial origins of life. Even Darwin acknowledged the plausibility of an initial intelligent origin for life, but the concept of the earth and all life being designed individually in a period of days is generally considered metaphorical by most formal religious organizations.

To add to what Stargatedalek said, Dobzhansky said that "it is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way" ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/l_102_01.html ).

Actually I don't buy that theory for one second...but that's me, I've done a lot more research on this topic than I care to discuss. I will never buy into that whole deal of one species evolving into another, regardless of how people interpret evidence.

I recommend reading 1) Kane et al.'s God's Word or Human Reason?: An Inside Perspective on Creationism (which "comes from the perspective of former young-Earth creationists who explain why and what it was that caused them to change their views": https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Human-Reason-Perspective/dp/1629013722 ), & 2) Chapter 6 of Sampson's Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life (especially the Sampson quote below, which is from this page: https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/predators/the-river-of-life.html ) ( https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/predators/figure-hwf.html ) ( https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/predators/figure-qfg.html ) AWA its references ( https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/predators/chapter-the-river-of-life.html ). 1 more thing of note: To quote Dobzhansky (who, as quoted above, was both "a creationist and an evolutionist": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/l_102_01.html ), "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"; Thus, you can't understand dino biology if you don't understand dino evolution (which is unfortunate given that you're obviously a dino fan).

Quoting Sampson:

Why are scientists so confident about the evolutionary ties that link all life on Earth? Because over the past one and a half centuries, biologists have amassed a veritable mountain of evidence in support of Darwin's "dangerous idea." In brief, this evidence includes the following:

Biological structures, from genes to gross morphology, support the same major evolutionary groupings. With few exceptions, organisms thought to be close relatives on the basis of gross anatomy are also closely similar in their genes (DNA sequences)—for example, horses and zebras, or lions and tigers. Sometimes these genetic similarities are even closer than first anticipated; for example, chimpanzees and humans share about 95 percent of their genes, which means that we are more closely related to each other than either of us is to gorillas! The reverse pattern is typically true, too; the more dissimilar the body types and presumed relationships, the more dissimilar their DNA (genomes). Occasional exceptions to this genetics-anatomy linkage do not disprove evolution; on the contrary, they point out interesting and unexpected relationships that further our understanding.

Organisms within a given group have been modified from a single ancestral form. All bodily structures represent the culmination of deep time interactions between organisms and environment. Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share features derived from common ancestors. Such shared characteristics passed on from an ancestor to multiple descendants are known as homologies. For example, frogs, birds, rabbits, and lizards all have different forelimbs, each reflective of a unique lifestyle. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of elements—a single upper arm bone (the humerus) and a pair of lower arm bones (radius and ulna)—inherited from a common ancestor.2 This same trio of arm bones is present in the vast majority of all living and extinct land-living vertebrates, providing further evidence of common ancestry. The few exceptions are groups like snakes that secondarily lost their limbs.

Organisms have numerous features that make no sense in terms of independent creation or functional design. Because evolution proceeds by modifying preexisting forms, adult organisms possess traits that reflect their evolutionary history. These include vestigial structures, or evolutionary "leftovers," such as hip bones in whales, nonfunctioning eyes in cave-dwelling creatures, and the appendix in humans. The history of life is replete with examples of evolutionary jury-rigging, in which evolution made the best of a bad situation by transforming raw materials present in ancestral organisms. A classic example is the panda's thumb. These Asian bears lack a true thumb, which is found only in a few primates. However, in response to a need for stripping shoots from bamboo stalks, evolution modified one of the panda's wrist bones into a thumb substitute.

Geographic distributions of organisms are best explained through a combination of evolution and physical events, such as continental movements. Perhaps the best known example of this pattern is the distribution of marsupials, with the bulk of modern forms restricted to Australia. The island of Madagascar, featured in chapter 1, is another example, with a largely unique flora and fauna resulting from its ancient isolation in the southern

Indian Ocean. In groups of creatures with distributions that encompass two or more continents, such as the primate and deer families, the isolated subgroupings possess many unique, shared features, indicating that ancestral forms migrated long ago and the descendants then evolved along independent paths. On the flip side, comparable ecosystems in different parts of the world often include ecologically similar species that appear physically alike, suggesting that evolution has occurred in parallel within entirely distinct evolutionary lineages. A classic fossil example of such convergent evolution relates to a pair of distantly related saber-toothed carnivores among mammals—a placental saber-toothed cat from North America and a saber-toothed marsupial from Australia.

Key processes of evolution have been extensively documented by experiment and observation. These processes include mutation, natural selection, and even the origin of new species. Substantial evolutionary changes have now been documented in a variety of organisms. One of the best studies of natural selection in action relates to Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands. Within a given finch species, there is considerable variation in beak sizes. When a drought alters the availability of certain kinds of seeds, individuals with beaks best able to feed on the remaining seeds are able to outcompete and outrepro-duce their peers in a single generation. In times of plenty, the fortunes of beak types can be reversed. In both instances, the result is a significant shift in average beak size within the population. Equivalent kinds of changes have been observed in a variety of groups, including bacteria, moths, fruit flies, and fishes.

Transitional forms abound in the fossil record. Antievolutionists often decry the lack of transitional fossils. Yet the truth of the matter is that many sequences of transitional, or intermediate, fossils are known, among them the dino-birds described earlier. As noted, although very few of these fossils contributed to the direct line of descent leading to modern forms (remember, the history of life is a bush, not a ladder), they do record key stages in the evolution of their particular groups. Finely preserved examples of such transitional creatures have multiplied rapidly in the past two decades and are now scattered throughout the range of life's diversity, from plankton and clams to horses and horned dinosaurs. Key exemplars among vertebrates include intermediate forms linking fishes to amphibians, land-dwelling ungulates to whales, and apelike ancestors to upright human bipeds. Not surprisingly, it is this last transition that most troubles antievolutionists, despite the fact that we now have on the order of two dozen species of bipedal hominids that include a wonderful array of forms intermediate between chimpanzee-type apes and modern humans. Today our planet is home to only one species of upright hominid, Homo sapiens. Over most of the past 5 million years, however, at least two, and sometimes four or five, bipedal, humanlike forms existed at any one time. Like the dino-bird example, the human family tree is surprisingly bushy.

The order of appearance of fossils in the geologic record is comprehensible only from an evolutionary perspective. The fossil record reveals a progression from simple to complex—from single-celled bacteria all the way to whales, redwoods, and humans. This pattern cannot be explained by a single creation event or catastrophe, such as a flood. Instead, the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record supports the idea of ongoing origins and extinctions. That is, only the simplest organisms are found in the oldest rocks and the most complex life-forms occur only in much younger rocks. Yet simpler forms have not simply disappeared. Instead, representatives of all of life's major groupings (bacteria, protists, fungi, plants, and animals) have persisted to contribute to the present-day biosphere.

In short, overwhelming evidence confirms that all organisms on Earth—starfish, dinosaurs, mushrooms, petunias, and humans alike—trace their origins to a humble single-celled bacterium perhaps one ten-millionth of a meter in diameter. This fact is astounding and difficult to grasp. Recall, however, that you and I began our lives as a single cell. If nine months is sufficient to transform one cell into a highly complex 7-pound baby, surely it's conceivable that life's diversity could arise from a single cell in several billion years!

[Loon]

HD-Man, great post, but something that keeps perplexing me is people's use of the terms Creationists' and creatonism. It seems to me that many people associate creationism with god creating the universe. When in reality, would that not just be an ordinary theist? I did a bit of searching, and found this on Wikipedia: "Creationism covers a spectrum of views including evolutionary creationism, a theological variant of theistic evolution which asserts that both evolutionary science and a belief in creation are true, but the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote pseudoscientific beliefs."
I would guess that makes sense, I think, however the term creationist has become synonymous with "anti-evolutionist". If this conversation goes further, for the sake of terminology, would people who believe in a creator god, as well as evolution, refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists?

[Neosodon]

Thanks neosodon, despite myself not being religious, or even believing in a traditional creator, bit of a pantheistic Atheist, if that makes sense, I do really enjoy talking about this, especially with someone of greater faith than I. I don't see evolution or the big bang, etc. as any kind of detriment to one's faith, unless of course, it is a fundamentalist faith in a literal interpretation. I'm interested by what you mean by intelligent design, is it a god designed life to evolve or god designed life within kinds, because if it's the former, "intelligent design" is not really the term, as much as theistic evolution is.

By some degree of intelligent design I think god may sometimes interfere in the world of random gene mutations so some of the major steps of evolution may not just be a coincidence. The other half of of me leans towards more of a deist like god that just created the laws and principles of science with the intention of it eventually leading to intelligent life. The fact that there are processes and logical reasons that actions and consequences occur, yet illogical process also occur, is proof enough to me that the universe isn't some random and weird happenstance. Many things in Quantum physics only operate correctly if they are not observed. I don't see the universe as just some sort of mishap. It is comprised of a multitude of complex laws, principles and processes that we do not yet fully understand that work together to maintain order and balance. Well that's the rational basis for my beliefs. It's nice to discuss this topic with thoughtful and respectful people instead of the usual comment section rabble. It's pretty cool to see what the other forum members believe too.

[Loon]

Yeah, I don't view it as random either, maybe not guided, but not random. I see the universe as a large system, everything is connected, all processes occur in accordance with other processes, kinda like the largest Rube Goldberg machine. Well, unless it's a machine in a multiverse of machines, but....hey, Dinosaurs!

[Keaton64]

I never said that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, I was actually trying to say that it should.  If Genesis isn't true, then you can safely ignore the rest of the Bible as it provides the foundations for several biblical doctrines.

The bible is full of metaphors and symbolic language. Jesus taught in parables. What if the creation story has another meaning other than the traditional English interpretation? If you want to take it literally the ancient Hebrew word that made was derived from could also mean showed. It has been proposed that the creation story is a spiritual revelation to Moses that happened in stages over a 6 day period where he saw the actual history of the universe and planet as a vision. There is more to it than that but I don't want to drag religion into the forum too much but I hope this helps.

From a biblical standpoint, Genesis has to be taken literally.  Without an original perfect world that was ruined by Adam & Eve's sin, the events of the New Testament are rendered obsolete.  If evolution really was God's mechanism for creation, it means that death and suffering have existed since the very beginning, which destroys the reason for Jesus's death & resurrection.  The apostles and Jesus spoke of the events in Genesis as having actually occurred, and Genesis itself was originally written in a style called Hebrew historical narrative, unlike the poetic style of psalms. 

I always wondered why evolution and the Bible were so incompatible, but I ended up settling for one of the many compromising positions christians take, until a few years after college when I discovered that there are creation organizations who work with scientists who do not agree with evolution.  I was highly skeptical at first, but after reading articles for weeks showing both the biblical & scientific evidence for the Bible, I couldn't deny what they were saying. 

Of course, I would never say that any of the evidence proves creation, just that it supports it.  You can't prove an event that happened so far in the past, but only base your interpretation of the observable evidence around what you believe has already happened (creation or evolution). 

For me personally, you don't know how liberating it is knowing I can trust the whole book.

[suspsy]

There's really no scientific evidence whatsoever to support a literal interpretation of Genesis. Organizations like AIG, CMI, and ICR write very smooth, very passionate, very intelligent-sounding articles that can be convincing and sound to many people, but careful scrutiny and independent research always show them to be flawed, dishonest, or both (usually the case). One of their most insidious tactics is to claim that scientific evidence is all a matter of "personal interpretation" when in fact it can always be shown that their interpretation is straight up wrong. There is no "personal interpretation" of the fossil record, or strata, or astronomy, or modern genetics.

Another insidious tactic of these creationist organisations is to accuse any Christians who disagree with them of being "compromised." This is in spite of the fact that these YECs have to twist and turn and jump through hoops constantly in order for their claims to make any sense. AIG's current dogma of "hyperevolution" (not the term they use, but that's what it is) to explain modern biodiversity after the (nonexistent) Flood is a prime example.

And a third insidious creationist tactic is to falsely claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis was always the widely held belief when in fact there have many many prevailing interpretations throughout history. The modern YEC movement is only about a century old; it began in the 1920s with George McCready Price, then died for awhile, then was resurrected by Henry Morris in the 1960s. But if you read the teachings of various prominent theologians, you find that many of them disdained the notion of a literal interpretation. St. Augustine of Hippo is probably the most famous example:

http://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/augustine-genesis-and-%E2%80%9Cremoving-the-mystical-veil%E2%80%9D-part-1

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/augustine-genesis-and-removing-the-mystical-veil-part-2

I highly recommend BioLogos for anyone seeking to reconcile religion and science. I also recommend The Natural Historian website. Joel Duff is both a devout Christian and a brilliant biologist. He has written a number of essays to which I've never seen any creationist come up with a viable response to. This one is my favourite:

https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/01/13/the-lost-world-of-south-american-ungulates-a-yec-ungulate-problem/

[amargasaurus cazaui]

My only question in any of this would be then...if you propose creationism as a valid method or as the original brush used for the canvas, how do you then justify the more than 7,000 fossil specimens that are in museums all around the world, that occur in the correct depositonal order, and within the correct basal to derived sequence within the formations they are found? For me the existence of such overwhelming proof of the existence of a force at work we have come to describe as evolution is undeniable. I am just at odds with how that evidence could possibly be stated as supporting anything other than the evolution of species as we understand it.
     We know and can visually verify evolution occurring repeatedly throughout the fossil record, in every lineage of animal known, from ceratopsians to sauropods and from basal to derived. How does one deny that evidence in favor of any other .....method?

[suspsy]

My only question in any of this would be then...if you propose creationism as a valid method or as the original brush used for the canvas, how do you then justify the more than 7,000 fossil specimens that are in museums all around the world, that occur in the correct depositonal order, and within the correct basal to derived sequence within the formations they are found? For me the existence of such overwhelming proof of the existence of a force at work we have come to describe as evolution is undeniable. I am just at odds with how that evidence could possibly be stated as supporting anything other than the evolution of species as we understand it.
     We know and can visually verify evolution occurring repeatedly throughout the fossil record, in every lineage of animal known, from ceratopsians to sauropods and from basal to derived. How does one deny that evidence in favor of any other .....method?

Great point, amargasaurus. I've yet to see any creationist provide a plausible response to this question. Why don't we ever find Precambrian rabbits? Or Devonian gorillas? Or Triassic pigs? Or Cretaceous cows? Or Pleistocene ichthyosaurs? Or Holocene pterosaurs? Heck, even a Stegosaurus and Brontosaurus found alongside a Triceratops and a Tyrannosaurus rex would throw our current interpretation of the fossil record into question.

But we don't find anything of the sort. Nor will we ever.

[stargatedalek]

Sorry to be skipping backwards a bit, but someone inquired as to the origin of sexual evolution and the answer is actually pretty simple. As life became more complex reproductive processes (the giving and receiving of genetic code) were separated and delegated to individual organs, we still see this in animals like snails, and it's generally referred to as hermaphroditic. From there it isn't nearly so much of a stretch that animals with easy access to partners would save themselves resources by not developing and maintaining two sets of reproductive organs and instead distribute them throughout the population, and clearly that gamble worked out pretty well.

Most of my family are religious to varying extent, but I was never one for it, driven away very young. Not sure if I just had trouble taking the concepts literally or if it was the hard-line conservative members and their subtle bigotry that eventually made me outright refuse to attend. I toyed with the idea of attempting to adopt an alternate faith for a few months before deciding it was a waste of time trying to find an organization that fit my philosophies when I hated organized faith and the actual religion was going to be metaphorical anyway.

We know and can visually verify evolution occurring repeatedly throughout the fossil record, in every lineage of animal known, from ceratopsians to sauropods and from basal to derived. How does one deny that evidence in favor of any other .....method?

We can even see examples within recorded history. One of the most famous would be when moths in Europe changed colour during the industrial revolution to blend in with soot.

[Keaton64]

To stargatedalek:  I wouldn't use the peppered moth example as evidence for evolution, since that involved only a change in gene frequency.  Both color morphs already existed, and the environment selected against one color.

To amargasaurus:  in order to answer your question, I'm going to have to explain the creationist view on how the vast majority of these fossils came about.  Some of you are probably already familiar with it:  it's Noah's flood from Gen. 7.  Some people believe that the flood was only caused by rain, but the Bible also mentions that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.  The great deep is taken to mean the depths of the ocean, and the breaking up of these undersea fountains (either through volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc.) would generate tsunamis large enough to wash over the continent.  The flood is also when some creationists believe Pangea was split and the continents migrated to their current day positions (explains why we find dinosaur fossils in Antarctica).

The flood waters rushing from the ocean would carry tons of sediment with it and rapidly bury anything in its way.  For a creature to fossilize, it must be rapidly buried or the carcass (including bones) will disappear through scavenging, weathering, or some other method.  We have fossils of an ichthyosaur in the middle of giving birth, and others of fish in the middle of eating another fish.  Such fossils could not have arisen from laying on the ground slowly getting covered in sediment for millions of years (which is true for any fossil of a once living thing).

We wouldn't expect to find a rabbit in the Cambrian because we believe that the majority of the fossil record is a record of the order of burial of creatures that died during Noah's flood.  The floodwaters would have carried the creatures from the ocean that got caught up in them and buried them first, making sense of why the lowest layers consist mostly of marine organisms.  Due to the random nature of the floodwaters, out of place fossils would not be a problem for creationists, so even if a rabbit was found in the Cambrian, it would only be a problem for evolution. 

The fossil record is not a clean representation of evolution that I once believed.  There are out of place fossils, but whenever one is found, the evolutionary history of the creature (or plant) is re-written to accommodate this new fossil.  Examples include the diversity of smaller mammals & modern birds found in dinosaur layer rock (Cretaceous I think, not sure if any were found in the Jurassic), dinosaur fossil dung containing grass when grass was originally believed to have evolved after the dinosaur extinction, a dog-sized mammal with a small dinosaur in its stomach (which went against the belief that only small shrew-like mammals had evolved at this point), a sinocalliopteryx fossil with up to three confuciusornis (beaked flying bird) in its stomach.  This fossil forces you to push back bird evolution and believe that it has occurred multiple times, since this theropod is one that is said to have evolved into birds over time.

Whale evolution has also had to have been restricted to a very short time span (even in terms of evolution) of only 5-10 million years due to the discovery of a fully aquatic whale jawbone dated to around the time ambulocetus is dated at.  In the meantime horseshoe crabs, coelacanth, and many other living fossils have supposedly sat around for millions of years with virtually no change while the rest of the world was constantly changing.

There are other examples, but I hope this information is enough to answer your question as to why those who adhere to the Bible do not associate the fossil record with evolution. 

[stargatedalek]

How does genetic selection not prove evolution? It may not have any direct correlation to the origins of life itself but it proves that traits in animals can change because of external stimuli. This is evolution, and it's irrefutable. There is no process in play to stop an animals traits from being changed to the point where it's no longer recognizable, if there was we would be able to observe it just as we observe change in animals.

Many of the groups that perpetuate these falsehoods would say "well god would stop the changes if they became to different" and that is not an argument, that is a fallacy. By that logic I could say "yah but the super intelligent wasps that I believe in would stop god from preventing evolution with their mega deathrays!". Once you start saying "yah but what I believe in is all-powerful and can do anything!" you've already lost and are nothing more than a pathetic child bashing toys together to try and be the coolest.

If the order in which things were buried during a single giant flood were somehow responsible for all geological layering than we wouldn't see different plants on different layers in the same place. And if as you said all marine animals were buried first than ALL marine animals would have been buried first, in equally distributed amounts. We wouldn't see periods of different marine life, we'd see mosasaurs and whales as far back as we see trilobites.

That you cited Ambulocetus coexisting with true whales as evidence against evolution shows me that you don't actually understand what evolution is. Evolution isn't linear, transitional forms aren't going to arbitrarily turn into new animals. A species and its parent species are automatically going to coexist, and in most cases both will then continue along their separate paths. Sometimes a "transitional" species will continue to evolve and spread all on its own and the descendants will go extinct, sometimes a species will out-compete its ancestor species and drive it extinct.

There are dinosaur fossils in Antarctica because Antarctica wasn't always at its current position or temperature. When the world as a whole was warmer the poles were warmer, so naturally they would have more diverse ecosystems.

[suspsy]

To stargatedalek:  I wouldn't use the peppered moth example as evidence for evolution, since that involved only a change in gene frequency.

Which is precisely what evolution is.

To amargasaurus:  in order to answer your question, I'm going to have to explain the creationist view on how the vast majority of these fossils came about.  Some of you are probably already familiar with it:  it's Noah's flood from Gen. 7.  Some people believe that the flood was only caused by rain, but the Bible also mentions that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.  The great deep is taken to mean the depths of the ocean, and the breaking up of these undersea fountains (either through volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc.) would generate tsunamis large enough to wash over the continent.  The flood is also when some creationists believe Pangea was split and the continents migrated to their current day positions (explains why we find dinosaur fossils in Antarctica).

Again, there was never any global flood, and YECs inadvertently proved that when they carried out their disastrous RATE Project between 1997 and 2005. The study is woefully flawed overall and has been unanimously rejected by all non-creationist scientists, but the best part is that the authors were forced to conclude that the amount of heat energy caused by a global flood would result in raising the temperature of the planet's surface to a whopping 22,000 degrees Celsius! Neither conduction, nor convection, nor radiation could remove this heat fast enough for ANY life to survive! Moreover, the excessive radiation generation would have killed all life as well, be it anything on a giant wooden boat or not. Look up the RATE Project for yourself; it's all laid out there in the conclusions. There was never any global flood. There can't have been. Plain and simple.

The flood waters rushing from the ocean would carry tons of sediment with it and rapidly bury anything in its way.  For a creature to fossilize, it must be rapidly buried or the carcass (including bones) will disappear through scavenging, weathering, or some other method.

Hence why the fossil record does not contain say, millions or thousands or even hundreds of T. rexes and Triceratops, despite the fact that they would have had to number at least in the thousands in order for a viable breeding population to exist. The fact that the fossil record yields relatively few numbers of individual specimens, and the fact that those specimens are never found out of order, effectively demolishes your flood claim.

We have fossils of an ichthyosaur in the middle of giving birth, and others of fish in the middle of eating another fish.  Such fossils could not have arisen from laying on the ground slowly getting covered in sediment for millions of years (which is true for any fossil of a once living thing).

Incorrect. Those ichthyosaurs did not die giving birth; they died while pregnant and then the fetus was partially born as a result of the mother's body expelling gases. This occurance is rare, but it has been documented. Similarly, it is possible, albeit rare for two animals to become fossilised in the midst of eating or fighting.

We wouldn't expect to find a rabbit in the Cambrian because we believe that the majority of the fossil record is a record of the order of burial of creatures that died during Noah's flood. 

Which fails to explain why no one ever finds bison alongside stegosaurs and ceratopsians, or mammoths alongside sauropods, or dire wolves alongside dromaeosaurs.

The floodwaters would have carried the creatures from the ocean that got caught up in them and buried them first, making sense of why the lowest layers consist mostly of marine organisms.

Which also fails to explain why dolphins and whales and pinnipeds are never found alongside mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs.

Due to the random nature of the floodwaters, out of place fossils would not be a problem for creationists, so even if a rabbit was found in the Cambrian, it would only be a problem for evolution. 

Uh, yeah, that was precisely my point when I said that.

The fossil record is not a clean representation of evolution that I once believed.  There are out of place fossils, but whenever one is found, the evolutionary history of the creature (or plant) is re-written to accommodate this new fossil.  Examples include the diversity of smaller mammals & modern birds found in dinosaur layer rock

Mammals have long been known to have first arisen during the Triassic period, so they cannot be considered out of place alongside dinosaurs. And the birds found alongside dinosaurs are not modern in any sense of the term. That's just straight up creationist nonsense right there.

dinosaur fossil dung containing grass when grass was originally believed to have evolved after the dinosaur extinction

No one ever claimed that grass only appeared after the Cretaceous.

a dog-sized mammal with a small dinosaur in its stomach (which went against the belief that only small shrew-like mammals had evolved at this point)

No one ever claimed that only shrew-like mammals lived alongside dinosaurs either. And a dog-sized mammal is not considered large.

a sinocalliopteryx fossil with up to three confuciusornis (beaked flying bird) in its stomach.  This fossil forces you to push back bird evolution and believe that it has occurred multiple times, since this theropod is one that is said to have evolved into birds over time.

I'm afraid you're only demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of evolution with all these claims. Evolution is not like a ladder or a linear equation where A evolves into B, then immediately goes extinct. Sinocalliopteryx was not ancestral to Confuciusornis, and even if it was, it doesn't follow that the two could not have coexisted. You might as well be trying to argue that wolves should no longer exist because domestic dogs are around. Or asking why apes are still around if humans evolved from apes. I know exactly which website you got this argument from (CMI), and it actually contradicts another argument of theirs in which they urge their followers NOT to use that argument because it's so easy to debunk! Self-contradiction is a major problem for creationists that way!

Whale evolution has also had to have been restricted to a very short time span (even in terms of evolution) of only 5-10 million years due to the discovery of a fully aquatic whale jawbone dated to around the time ambulocetus is dated at.

See what I wrote above.

In the meantime horseshoe crabs, coelacanth, and many other living fossils have supposedly sat around for millions of years with virtually no change while the rest of the world was constantly changing.

Again you reveal your lack of understanding, sadly. Evolution does not require all organisms to undergo radical physical change. Any organism that is well-suited to its climate and lifestyle will remain more or less the same. Although it bears noting that the species of coelacanth that are alive today are clearly not the same as the ones that existed during the Mesozoic. Are you really going to try and claim that Latimeria is identical to Mawsonia?

There are other examples, but I hope this information is enough to answer your question as to why those who adhere to the Bible do not associate the fossil record with evolution.

I hope this information is enough to show you that you're wrong. That's not meant as a personal attack, just a statement of cold, hard fact.

[Halichoeres]

This thread is so depressing.