First, I am no scientist, so forgive my ignorance. Nevertheless, I am fascinated with the Creation – Evolution debate and have been following it for some time and read everything I can on the subject. Recently I came to a strange conclusion and hope someone might help.
Evolution Camp – There are still some gaps in the theory and the largest seem to be the lack of transitional fossils to show literal evolution evidence. New creatures seem to pop up and vanish very abruptly on the fossil record. Given, the percentage of creatures fossilised are very low and probably not representing the broad spectrum.
Creation Camp – For literal creation, as per Bible account (I think this is the main concern creationist has with evolution, since it would make God a liar?), all creatures had to be made at once or over a very short period. How does this account for the creatures popping on the fossil record much later than the anticipated “beginning”?
This popping onto the record from seemingly now
2006-08-05 21:50:57 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
nowhere poses problems for both camps. Both camps have strong arguments for and against but seem to be unable to come up with concrete proof. The question therefore is; are we not barking up the wrong tree? Isn’t there a third theory, based on science, we should be considering to explain it all. Even if it is wrong, we might learn from it?
2006-08-05 21:51:54 · update #1
TaoBarbie - Maybe is not an answer.
2006-08-05 21:58:18 · update #2
Pagan143 - I agree with you, but the answer to the question is the answer to what we should do with the time between living and dying. Respectfully, your answer only is the easy way out and doesn’t deal with the issue.
2006-08-05 22:04:20 · update #3
The problem with your third theory is it supposes a false problem with the evolutionary theory. There are plenty of transitional fossils about. We may not have found all of them yet and there will be instances where they simply don't exist -not everything is preserved in fossils.
To pretend there aren't questions about the evolutionary history of this planet is absurd. But to say that since we don't know everything, we can't be certain of anything is just as absurd. Unlike religion, holes in science are OKAY. Debate is GOOD.
Evolution and Religion are not at war except to those who want them to be at war. I've come to peace with it several years ago and now they occupy two very separate parts of my brain. There is no conflict between the two. Evolution is how creatures came to be. Religion tells me what life means. I have no problem with either one.
2006-08-05 22:00:48 · answer #1 · answered by John H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
John H is right.
Evolution is a fact - we see HIV and flu viruses evolve gradually, and the fossil record shows gradual evolution as well.
Theologists may have something to discuss. Should theology go for a metaphoric interpretation of the book of genesis? Or should they say that the book of Genesis is not perfect? Maybe they have a problem, maybe they don't, maybe it's already settled. I'm not a theologists. So the only thing I can say is that at least science does not have a problem with the theory of evolution as such.
There are plenty of mysteries that we would like the theory of evolution to give an answer to. For example, how did the first fatty cell membranes evolve. It would be interesting to see some more theories that could explain this. But creationism or "intelligent design" probably can't help us. Because those are not scientific theories, just fundamentalist science-bashing put forward by people who know nothing about science and probably not much about theology either.
2006-08-06 05:16:17 · answer #2 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're really interested in the Creation/evolution debate then I recommend Answers in Genesis.
They almost certainly have answers to every question you have and plenty more.
As for your question above - in the Creation model Creation was followeed by the global flood which created almost all of the fossils.
After all, why else would the world be covered in sedimentary, water deposited rock containing billons of dead things? You don't fossilise anything except by rapid burial.
But check it out for yourself. Evolution does not just have gaps, it is easily refuted.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/index.asp
2006-08-06 05:24:26 · answer #3 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe the god-ites could claim the fossils are god's previous (failed/abandoned) attempts. maybey the god-ites denounce the fossils' existence - kinda like the black knight in monty python's holy grail refusing to acknowledge his limbs were cut off.
on the flipside, maybe the creation-ites might say we just aint digged enuff yer - eg, not much archeology done in antarctica huh?
2006-08-06 05:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by hornbag1970 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a third. Those who know speak not (of it). Those who speak know not (of it)
"Maybe" was not the answer. The answer is "yes", there is a third. However, those who know of it usually do not argue or debate it. They are at peace, confident, at ease. This is not the proper forum to discuss it. I am tao.barbie on Yahoo Messenger.
2006-08-06 04:56:17 · answer #5 · answered by Tao Barbie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow, your question is intense.
honestly, i don't really care anymore about the beginning of mankind because if i think about it too much, i would definitely go crazy.
science and religion have loopholes so i just believe in my theory that we live and we die.
2006-08-06 04:58:50 · answer #6 · answered by mysterious 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋