(merged) Creationism

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by panthro

skinsfan - you don't have to be a christian to believe in creationism. you may be muslim or another religion altogether.

panthro, welcome to the discussion. I agree with your statement above. As a matter of fact, most people groups in the world are probably creationists. I've never heard of a tribal people being atheists. They all believe some god created everything. It is probably not the God of the Bible, of course, but some supernatural being. But a supernatural being nonetheless.

It's built into every human breast to seek a power higher than himself. Atheism is foreign and contrary to the human psyche. The atheist must repress what's natural in order to cling to his belief system.

[panthro]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Good stuff and informative for all!

Panthro, what are your thoughts on theistic evolutional theories?

To me they capture the scientific and the faith based thoughts without undermining either.

the primary theistic evolutional theory is the gap theory - i.e., gap of unknown time between genesis 1:1 and 1:2. hermeneutically speaking, there are some issues with it. as a christian i always have to balance three things: logic, faith and the principles of hermeneutics when i'm reading scripture. if i can't be satisfied with at least two of three, then i know something's wrong.

with the research i've done, i've only come to a few conclusions by which i live my life:

1) there is a god

2) i'm not him

3) jesus died as the propitiation of my sins

4) god is responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it

5) i have many, many questions to ask when i meet god

pretty much everything else is up to speculation based on our limited knowledge of the past and future.

we'll all know the truth about everything one day. i know i'm ready to hear/see/experience it when it's my time to meet my creator.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by rebornempowered

Just getting in on this discussion.

People have been asking for one good piecie of conclusive evidence for "Goo to you via the Zoo" evolution for decades. I haven't seen one and I have read book upon book upon book in regards to this subject.

This whole thing started with a discussion on teaching the subject in school. Evolution is the basis for secular humanism which I would consider to be a religion. Therefore it shouldn't be in the schools if Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or anything religious is not allowed either.

Frankly, I will send my daughter to a private school next year for kindergarten because I don't think it's the governments job to educate my child anyway. I don't make much money but I will sacrifice what it takes for my child to get the proper education.

In addition, I do not want some "hack" evolutionist teaching Intelligent Design to my child either because they wouldn't do it right anyway.

WHen the creationists move the goalposts to essentially require videotapes of evolution OCCURRING real-time, it's kind of hard to come up with that "one conclusive piece of evidence." And do you ask that of other theories?

The biggest problem is that like people before you, your issue with the scientific method doesn't apply to the medicine that will save your behind, the glasses that you wear or the car you drive. It's just the fact that you've picked some redoubt in which to defend the faith and your own fragile conception of the universe.

You aren't likely even qualified to judge what WOULD BE a conclusive piece of evidence and again, do you ask for this 'conclusive piece of evidence' for any other scientific law or theory?

It is highly doubtful. The people who held to the geocentric model of the universe sounded very much like you. Even today, there are a few flat-Earthers. Science is but a tool to you and is to be silenced when it makes you uncomfortable or presents ideas or knowledge you find reprehensible or threatening.

So you can't judge science because you have already rejected it. NO evidence would convince you to believe something else.

My girlfriend is a CHristian and pre-med student and somehow she has not ignored the evidence for evolution which is all around. And there is a good fossil record, but if you keep redefining "transitional fossil" to the point where you have to get a fossil of a creature in mid-mutation you reveal your prejudiced mind.

Plus, do you think God would be so frigging boring as to just make species appear out of thin air? What a primitive belief system.

[rebornempowered]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

So you can't judge science because you have already rejected it. NO evidence would convince you to believe something else.

I simply ask which one of these two is science?

A dog pooping on my front porch and me making regular observations and recording them.

Making assumptions about the unobservable past.

At no point in my life have I ever rejected anything in the scientific method. What does "Goo to you via the Zoo" have to do with putting a man on the moon or the antibiotics that I am taking for the sinus and ear infection I currently have?

The problem is not what we each believe about science but what our presuppositions are to begin with. Start with evolutionary assumptions you get evolutionary interpretation. Start with Biblical assumptions and you get Biblical interpretations.

As for me I'll take the dog poop anyday!

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

WHen the creationists move the goalposts to essentially require videotapes of evolution OCCURRING real-time, it's kind of hard to come up with that "one conclusive piece of evidence." And do you ask that of other theories?

You've had since 1859 (Darwin's first edition). What, 145 years not long enough to show a transformation even starting for any living creature?

...

And there is a good fossil record, but if you keep redefining "transitional fossil" to the point where you have to get a fossil of a creature in mid-mutation you reveal your prejudiced mind.

It's too much to ask for a mid-mutation fossil? Untold MILLIONS of fossils have been found. Evolutionists have claimed that these mid-mutation creatures did exist (never mind that it IS a scientific fact that most mutations are bad). All we ask is that you prove it. Out of millions maybe you could show us, um...100? Too many? Ok, how about, let's say...10? How about 1? But it "still happened," right? LOL. If the Bible had such little evidence to prove its claims the skeptics would be even more vehement against it. But not against their own beliefs. Hypocrites!

There has been enough time and the evolutionary society is still found wanting. But it's taught as fact nonetheless. That's good science? No, that's faith.

Edit: One of my greatest desires regarding this issue would be to see the evolutionists hold themselves to the same standards they hold the creationists to. I doubt that there will ever be productive dialog between the two camps until that happens.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

It's built into every human breast to seek a power higher than himself. Atheism is foreign and contrary to the human psyche. The atheist must repress what's natural in order to cling to his belief system.

You can't criticise repressing what's natural, can you? It's important to repress what's natural; or at least, so you've claimed in other contexts.

"The atheist must repress what's natural in order to cling to his belief system." Since you say he's repressing "what's natural" and you defined searching for a higher power to be natural, it sounds like an atheist must be strong-hearted or confident to stand by his/her beliefs.

I may agree, to some extent with your first sentence. The possibility that you seem to reject is that the atheist did search, but he/she did not find the higher power. Instead you assume that the atheist never looked.

[panthro]

below are a few scientific issues with regard to the age of the earth that i believe help prove that evolution lacks scientific proof. evolution requires an old earth - billions of years old - i.e., most evolutionists assume the earth is somewhere between 2.5 and 6 billion years old).

1) radiometric dating - the age of the earth has been calculated using radiometric dating. however, radiometric dating cannot be verified as reliable and accurate as there is no way to be sure that the "clock" used began at zero, 30 seconds or a billion years.

for example, i coach track and field at a local high school. if i time one of my 400 meter runners, i should start my stopwatch when he/she begins running. what if i start my watch 10 seconds before he/she runs or 20 seconds after he/she runs? my time is no longer reliable.

i read about an experiment done using radiometric dating. an item (i believe it was a leather strap from a watch) was unearthed. using radiometric dating, the age was calculated to be over 1000 years old. in fact, the item was manufactured in the 1950's.

2) geologic record - the fossil record found in the geologic record (the layers of earth depicting generations of settling) indicates millions of years. scientists agree that the only possible explanation are the following: a) millions of years have occurred or a global catastrophic event occurred - e.g., noah's flood.

3) amount of helium in our atmosphere - helium is produced mostly by radioactive decay from rocks. 67 grams of helium decay into the atmosphere every second. if te earth was truly billions of years old, there would be much more helium in the atmosphere than is indeed present.

as far as the fossil record goes and the presence of intermediate fossils (transition species), even darwin himself addressed the obvious lack of evidence:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Darwin, The Origin of the Species

science is proving more and more that darwinian evolution is not a viable theory for the presence of mankind. recently, several scientists created and signed a petition demonstrating their lack of belief in darwinian theory. the document is now known as the "scientific dissent from darwanism." following is the statement included and the scientists who signed the petition:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U. • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. • Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

You can't criticise repressing what's natural, can you? It's important to repress what's natural; or at least, so you've claimed in other contexts.

"The atheist must repress what's natural in order to cling to his belief system." Since you say he's repressing "what's natural" and you defined searching for a higher power to be natural, it sounds like an atheist must be strong-hearted or confident to stand by his/her beliefs.

I may agree, to some extent with your first sentence. The possibility that you seem to reject is that the atheist did search, but he/she did not find the higher power. Instead you assume that the atheist never looked.

I didn't assume that at all. I am simply saying that the atheist goes against his God-given conscience to deny that God exists. That denial is not natural. It comes from a seared conscience.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I have two questions for the creationists:

(1) Say a scientist came up with a theory, supported by the laboratory and with fewer gaps than evolution, that explained all the available biological and historical evidence far better and more elegantly than evolution. What would be the reaction among the scientific community?

(2) Say a scientist came up with a theory, supported by the laboratory and with fewer gaps than evolution, that explained all the available biological and historical evidence far better and more elegantly than creation. What would be the reaction among the creationist community?

[Ancalagon the Black]

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Punctuated equilibrium.

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I have two questions for the creationists:

(1) Say a scientist came up with a theory, supported by the laboratory and with fewer gaps than evolution, that explained all the available biological and historical evidence far better and more elegantly than evolution. What would be the reaction among the scientific community?

(2) Say a scientist came up with a theory, supported by the laboratory and with fewer gaps than evolution, that explained all the available biological and historical evidence far better and more elegantly than creation. What would be the reaction among the creationist community?

your questions are ignorant of the fact that the laboratory couldn't possibly support such a theory in either case. your questions are irrelevant.

but, just to appease your curiosity, as a scientist, i'm always willing to listen to sound science. as a creationist, i believe that god created science and uses it for his glory and his will.

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Punctuated equilibrium.

sorry, punctuated equilibirum only addresses the consistent presence of fossils in each geologic layer - not the lack of presence all together.

futhermore, the absence of fossil evidence that really pushes any truth-seeking scientist away from evolution is summarized below:

-95% of all fossils discovered are marine invertebrates

-95% of the remaining 5% are plant fossils

-majority of the rest are fish and insects

-only a fraction of a percent of all fossils discovered are of land vertebrates and usually consist of one bone or less

if evolution did occur, there would be a much greater fossil record supporting it.

[panthro]

a few more tidbits of scientific information that discredits darwinian theory and its scientific basis:

1) mtDNA from a neanderthal fossil discovered in 1977 does *not* support the relationship to modern man proported by darwinian theory

2) in 2002, a homeschool group of children discovered in colorado a fossil from allosaur. evolution states that dinosaurs and man did not coexist. the fossil found was discovered on a stratum that indicates recent life - during the same time of man.

3) many "scientists" trying to prove darwinian theory have consistently been found to be liars - examples below:

hoax #1 - "scientists" tried to say that peppered moths in england changed from light to dark during the industrialization age. the changes are caused by natural selection due to predation as they tried to hide their bodies against the dark tree trunks, they said. pictures were published all over the world of the two different colored moths side by side.

it was discovered that the "scientists" glued dead moths to the tree trunk and took a picture. the natural habitat of the moths is in the canopy of trees, not along the tree trunks discolored by the industriliazation age. furthermore, in areas where there was more population (i.e., higher industrialization), the darker moths accounted for only 20% of the moth population and in areas where there was less populaton, the lighter moths accounted for 80% of the moth population. finally, after pollution control was introduced, the darker moth population continued to increase.

hoax #2 - in 1999 archaeoraptor was discovered. it supposedly was the link between dinosaurs and birds. upon further evaluation, it was discovered that an evolutionist had glued the tail of a dinosaur to the body of a bird.

hoax #3 - in 1861, archaeoptyrex was the first missing link supposedly found between dinosaurs and birds. unfortunately, the fossil was found in the wrong sedimentary layer to concur with the conclusions made about the fossil by the evolutionists.

hoax #4 - in 1992, nebraska man's fossil actually was discovered to be a pig's tooth.

hoax #5 - the piltdown man was actually a fraud created with a human skull and an orangutan jaw chemically treated to help with the appearance of age.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by panthro

your questions are ignorant of the fact that the laboratory couldn't possibly support such a theory in either case. your questions are irrelevant.

Like skinsfan51's original question, it was a pure hypothetical. I threw "laboratory-supported" in there regardless of the possibility because I wanted to reduce the margin for error.

[/b]

but, just to appease your curiosity, as a scientist, i'm always willing to listen to sound science. as a creationist, i believe that god created science and uses it for his glory and his will. [/b]

A good philosophy, but I'm not sure it answers the question.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by panthro

sorry, punctuated equilibirum only addresses the consistent presence of fossils in each geologic layer - not the lack of presence all together.

Actually, it does provide a theory as to why it would be very unlikely to find transitional fossils.

[smitity]

1.) Creationism requires that you prove god or some higher being exists. Since such a being is beyond human comprehension, you can never prove conclusivly that it exists. That would be contrary to the nature of the infinite.

3.) Evolution is too sound of a theory to just be thrown out. There are mountains of hard evidence favoring evolution, and just a reltaive handful that argues against it.

[panthro]

Originally posted by smitity

1.) Creationism requires that you prove god or some higher being exists. Since such a being is beyond human comprehension, you can never prove conclusivly that it exists. That would be contrary to the nature of the infinite.

3.) Evolution is too sound of a theory to just be thrown out. There are mountains of hard evidence favoring evolution, and just a reltaive handful that argues against it.

smitity, i'll overlook the fact that you have trouble counting.

i'm all ears to hear about your mountains of evidence. let's hear it.

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Actually, it does provide a theory as to why it would be very unlikely to find transitional fossils.

i'm afraid you need to go back and re-read the original theory proposed by niles eldridge and stephen jay gould who are credited with creating this theory. here's a link to a succinct explanation of the theory in case you'd like to update your information:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

the theory does not address the unlikelihood of finding fossils - only where you'll find them.

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

A good philosophy, but I'm not sure it answers the question.

of course it does. i said i'm always interested in evaulating sound science. that's what scientists do.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by panthro

of course it does. i said i'm always interested in evaulating sound science. that's what scientists do.

Again, I think your approach is good, but the question was about the wider communities involved.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by panthro

i'm afraid you need to go back and re-read the original theory proposed by niles eldridge and stephen jay gould who are credited with creating this theory. here's a link to a succinct explanation of the theory in case you'd like to update your information:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

the theory does not address the unlikelihood of finding fossils - only where you'll find them.

I studied evolution under Stephen Jay Gould, so I have at least a passing familiarity with the theory.

Think of it this way. In the fossil record, you're only going to get an extremely small handful of samples. Let's say you have a population of red frogs. Because of drastically changed environmental conditions, the red frogs become blue frogs. However, there is a brief transition stage during which the frogs are purple. The purple stage lasted for only two days.

Put two years' worth of frogs in a room (with the two years spanning the transition period). You'll have a large number of red frogs, a large number of blue frogs, and a tiny number of purple ones. Assign each frog a number, then pick twelve numbers out of a hat (to represent the act of finding a fossil of that frog). What are your chances of picking a purple frog?

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by smitity

1.) Creationism requires that you prove god or some higher being exists. Since such a being is beyond human comprehension, you can never prove conclusivly that it exists. That would be contrary to the nature of the infinite.

3.) Evolution is too sound of a theory to just be thrown out. There are mountains of hard evidence favoring evolution, and just a reltaive handful that argues against it.

smitity, you do realize that creationists are not asking the scientific establishment, or the public schools for that matter, to throw out evolution, right?. All creationists want is equal time for what they believe is also a mountain of evidence. Put 'em side by side and let the students actually make their own decisions. Right now it's just indoctrination. :2cents:

[Ancalagon the Black]

Skinsfan51, that cartoon reminds me of a quote by Lao Tzu: "Do you need proof of God? Do you need to light a torch to see the Sun?"

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Again, I think your approach is good, but the question was about the wider communities involved.

actually if you read your post again, it was addressed to "creationists" of whom I am one. why would you even post the questions you included if you didn't want an answer? did you really expect to receive answers from every creationist in the world? usa? your town? this message board?

you seem to be back tracking a little since i answered the question. was it not the answer you were looking for?

[panthro]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I studied evolution under Stephen Jay Gould, so I have at least a passing familiarity with the theory.

Think of it this way. In the fossil record, you're only going to get an extremely small handful of samples. Let's say you have a population of red frogs. Because of drastically changed environmental conditions, the red frogs become blue frogs. However, there is a brief transition stage during which the frogs are purple. The purple stage lasted for only two days.

Put two years' worth of frogs in a room (with the two years spanning the transition period). You'll have a large number of red frogs, a large number of blue frogs, and a tiny number of purple ones. Assign each frog a number, then pick twelve numbers out of a hat (to represent the act of finding a fossil of that frog). What are your chances of picking a purple frog?

you and gould are missing the point entirely. you've given an example for one species. given there are literally millions of species on this earth, there would billions (if not more) intermediate species. out of these billions, even if this theory is correct, there would be an overwhelming fossil record for support.

the fact is, there isn't. placing intermediates in small gaps of time doesn't account for a lack of presence altogether.