Why do creationists assert that there is no fossil evidence of evolution?

Question

When trying to refute evolution, many creationists cite that there is "no evidence in the fossil record," when there is indeed. There are literally dozens of "inbetween" organisms! The most famous example being archaeopteryx, an inbetween step from lizard to bird, of which there are complete fossils with feathers and skin impressions.

In April 6th Nature magazine reported a new sarcopterygian fish skeleton, a step from fish to amphibian/quadraped.

Then there is always the ever-cited evidence of moths in Britain during the Industrial Revolution evolving into a black color to match the soot deposits on everything.

I guess my question is... How do creationists/ID believers simply ignore this evidence, and continue citing that there is no fossil evidence?

I thought the religious craziness ended with the Inquisition. A thousand years later, blind obedience is still alive and well!

Im amused that I specifically quoted a fossil showing that life could indeed crawl from the sea (a fish with four legs) and yet there are people liek Eagle who say there is still no proof!

Also, nobody ever said that a lizard laid a chicken's egg. It doesn't happen like that. Its very very minute steps from one to the other. Lizard develops backward facing hips, like velociraptor. Develops small hairy feathers, like archaeopteryx. on and on in very small changes until the chicken.

Obviously alligators dont give birth to chickens... thats something religion would have you believe.

There is evidence of link from ape to man. There are over two dozen different species that show the transition from ape to man, changing posture from quadraped to biped; varying amounts of hair; various finger arrangements.

Creationists believe what they do because they are too lazy to research the truth!

Answer 1

They seem to think that every dead thing becomes a fossil, so we should be digging them up all the time. Fossils are extremely rare. I think they want an example of each and every tiny little change that led from single celled organisms to us.

Answer 2

The argument of the creationists would be that the evolutionists are superimposing a continuum in the fossil record where one doesn't exist. The would claim that while a creature (or creatures) that appears to be an intermediate between reptile and bird existed, they would propose that that species was created independently and subsequently went extinct.

They would also counter with arguments such as how the process of things like sexual reproduction evolved from non-sexual reproducing creatures. If it happened over a long period of time, numerous internal structures would have had to develop with nothing to do for millions of years....and both male and female would have had to evolve at exactly the same time in exactly the same place and would have to be hardy enough to survive.

Answer 3

I happen to believe in both creationism and evolution but I don't use the term evolve I prefer the term adapt.as far as the moths in britain what sense does it make for the moth to evolve into a diferent colored moth to match the soot deposite (not much reason there).Now ask the question what sense does it make for the moth to adapt it's color to match the soot deposite.(survival).
things don't really evolve they adapt to there enviroment what food is available and what eats them.you don't move to a bad side of town and evolve into a hoodlem do you no you adapt to the area so you don't get your butt killed.
As far as creationism why can't God have created everything (go ahead say to yourself "it throws millions of years of science data and fossils out the window" or does it.)
Everyone assumes you have to have it one way or the other either A or B. Why can't it be that God created the spark of life and through the process of evolution you get to where we are today. Just because the book of genises says " and God created man" doesn't ever once say how he did it.
Combining the two actually makes more sense not only scientificly but just in general stop looking at just one side and expand the mind.......

And besides math is a form of science and mathmaticly the odds of just life happening randomly are so far out there you have better odds of geting hit by the space shuttle while driving on the hiway it's not likely to have happened but you ad the creator into the mix just enough to get the ball rolling and the odds are actually acheiveable.

Answer 4

I don't know a lot about evolution, but from what I've picked up, the concentration is on human evolution and apparently, there's a huge gap between the cave-man fossils, immediately followed by fossils that represent what modern humans look like; since there are animal fossils that show evolution, I would think more focus should be on that

Answer 5

because there "is no evidence of evolution" on a grand scale.

there is no proof that life crawled from the sea;
there is no proof that a lizard layed a chicken egg;
there is no proof that of common ancestor of man and ape;
there is no proof that lizards lost scales and gained fur (dogs);

but there are undeniably things that are not explained by the bible. things such as the dinosaur bones i see in the museum.

where the bible has more credit than the theory of evolution is that we can trace the historical existence of people and societies throughout history.

even Jesus (as a person) can be found in the historical texts, his condemnation and his death by crucifixion. what we cannot prove by paper alone, is the divinity of Christ.

yes, i believe that Jesus is the Son of God by the virgin mary. evolutionists believe that chickens came from lizards. both require faith in you belief.

let's take for example:

the earth is a ball of molten rock from the big bang, it cools and somehow all of the oxygen and water and other inert gasses in this universe decide to move into the earth's gravity.

next we have life rising from the primordial ooze, growing gills, lungs, legs and finally hands with opposible thumbs, in the form of the "common ancestor" of apes and man.

the WHAM! a great asteroid comes out of nowhere and wipes out all of the lfe on earth, except for the microbes. once the polluted waters clear and the sediment sinks to the bottom of the lakes and oceans, then life appears from the next primordial ooze, grows gills, lungs, legs and finally hands with opposible thumbs in form of ape and man.

now really? do you think my faith takes so much statistical improbabilities to such a degree?

-eagle

Answer 6

I know. There is no point being logical with these kinds of people. I have had religious people justifying incest after a question about Adam and Eve I asked - I thought I'd heard it all from them but they get even crazier the more you question them - they make up their own rules as they go along. Just let them get on with it, and hope that their kind of craziness dies out, the same way that witch hunts, Spanish Inquisition etc etc has gradually faded into history. So will today's seemingly overwhelming religious fanatacism.

Answer 7

There biggest gripe seems to be that there has not been a step by step find for any one species.They argue that complex life forms cannot evolve and therefore must be created.

Answer 8

I know, I don't understand this argument either. I even saw someone write that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.

Answer 9

oh but this creationist says there is...check this out
http://www.creationevidence.org/