A leading scientist accuses creationists of peddling the lie that there is no fossil evidence of evolution.Some Christians claim there is a lack of "missing link" fossils, halfway between two major groups of creatures.
They say this proves Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a fallacy and that God created each living species from nothing.
But, in an essay published in the magazine
New Scientist today, geologist
Donald Prothero claims that reports of "huge gaps" in the fossil records have been greatly exaggerated.
Dr Prothero, a professor of geology at
Occidental College in
Los Angeles, said: "Life does not progress up a hierarchical ladder from 'low' to 'high' but is a branching bush with numerous lineages splitting apart and coexisting simultaneously.
"For example, apes and humans split from a common ancestor seven million years ago and both lineages are still around.
"For this reason the concept of 'missing link' is a misleading one. A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another.
"It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another."
When Darwin first proposed the idea of evolution by natural selection in 1859, the fossil record offered little support. He even devoted two entire chapters of the Origin of Species to the imperfection of the geological record, but predicted that it would eventually support his theories.
Dr Prothero said the creationists are ignoring a wealth of transitional fossils found since Darwin's era which provide proof of the evolutionary process.
He said: "The idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism.
"Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is 'there are no transitional fossils'.
"This is manifestly untrue. We now have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils."
Randall Hardy, the head of the British branch of Creation Research, said last night: "Any attempt to impose evolution stories onto these fossils is just speculation. It's all because of the mindset of these people [scientists], which is pre-disposed towards evolution."
Genetics professor Steve Jones on creationismCeri Radford: Essential reading for creationistsSTORY LINK
I don't know why I would ask
that question because we already know the answer.
They know they are wrong about all this, but refuse to accept these facts for fear of losing their faith and credibility. It must be tough to be that stupid.
Yes Chucky J, I remember learning about the evolution of the horse in 6th grade science class. I can also remember the same teacher rolling out a 100 foot piece of paper that represented the age of the earth. Of that 100 feet one quarter inch represented the time in which humans inhabited the planet. We had a long fucking time to evolve. My sixth grade teacher had her shit together back in 1975.
xrayman
About the universe being intelligently designed: think about that when you see a Down's syndrome child, or a child horribly deformed. Some designer, huh? Shit.
And if you could prove creation, you would still have to prove that your creator is indeed the judeo-christian god. Good luck and keep the faith.
Alexandra "Lexy" Ryan
I'm also glad to have found a place where other people think like me. I know I made a comment in an earlier post to a Christian who had posted here, and intended to start up an argument with him, only to find that Boomslang made half my arguments before I even got the chance.
I'm sure I've got a long way to go before I can feel like I've really moved on from indoctrination. Though intellectually I understand how flawed the Christian belief system is, I still find myself feeling guilty for actually enjoying things, snickering at false homosexual stereotypes, and waking up at night with dreams of an eternity in hell. Hopefully a community of people who have been through the same sort of thing will help me move through that faster.
It's nice to know that I'm not alone.
Sounds good to me.Our it-ness created from god by god......we are god, he in us.
We being creation happening. Evolving, ever learning.
thats a fine theology.
lets wrap it to go in a generic verse.
the jury is still out on wether or not TIME even exists. Mr Hawkings tells stories about another set of math and equasions having to do with what he calls "Pretend" Time.
Time is space as far as we know and only as far as Enstien was right. But the trouble with math is that all bets are off at the Big bang singularity.
But as for timeless.. it does not bother me, my god can be out side of time, and time will tell wether humans will find themselves outside of time as well.
What if there was a nothing or even what if what we precieve IS nothing. Since No-thing can hardly be described. What we see we interpret as ordered. What if an outsider veiwed in, If all things break down at the singularity, then a seer from the other side would see our order as chaos.
Perhaps our undefineable god is said veiwer, he can be my Pretend time/space keeper.
that implys in a constant state of becoming. This "change" is not actaully changing but it is becomming what it is.
All this "time " that has past, and all the "time" that is to come
are nothing but one long drawn out moment.
I agree with the theory, over all. And if the physical reality is truely expanding so far out, and then contracting or sucking back into itself. Then some how that is the nature of god. And we cannot define the "beginning point" or the "end point" merely some duration within that we clal our space time.
It can never comprise nor comprehend the reality of all forms of reality. We can only experence our personal time/space and peer out here and their with out reason. we are not done with the "becomming" of what we are. As the enirty of the which is, has not yet completed its outward expantion.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
I think the idea here is that it is practically necessary for EVERY professing christian to denounce evolution by whatever means to protect their own twisted view points, granted there may be a FEW nutjob scientists who are an exact mirror reflection of that concept, but it is not the norm. Another parallel to this is that there are more christians that deny evolution than there are scientisits that deny a creator. The reason is simple, even science has yet to disprove the existence of a creator, so in order to remain true to the scientific method itself one would have to keep that area open util there is empirical evidence to proof one way or another concerning the matter - however; on the flip side, the christian has already concluded that they are right in their beliefs without any proof, and as such they cut themselves off from truth when they choose to deny the facts by adhereing to their unproven beliefs.
Another lying liar. Thanks for supporting the basic thrust of the post.
I've never understood the motive. Tell me, what does it really mean, to assert that proponents of Evolution tell lies "too"? What?.. is this an admission that proponents of "Creation" are also willful deceivers? In other words, how does it help the Creationist' position? Supposing the world's leading scientists are all a bunch of liars who have a hidden agenda to deceive the public into thinking we progressed from lower life-forms. Okay, so then, what?... "magic" suddenly becomes plausible?
The same type of question arises when Theists claim that "Atheism is a religion", and it, "too", takes "faith". So again, is this an admission from Theists that when they accept their "Creator" on "faith", that to do so, is flimsy, unreliable reasoning?
'Any Creationist out there want to take a stab at explaining it?