are you curious about the most recent creationist claims and how science responds?

Question

though the debate is moot, maybe some are interested in what the following resource has to say:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

i'm only asking because the recent barrage of idiot statements along the lines of "i am not related to the apes" and such has taken over this section. maybe the creationist argument would be able to gain at least a little more backbone if it was actually educated on what it claimed, and kept up with what is actually continuing to be pieced together in evolution.

Answer 1

The so-called missing link argument does not carry much weight and crumbles when examined closely. Evolutionists are well aware of the existence of missing links. In order for there not to be any missing links, you would have to find the remains of every single descendant in one line of hominids up to a modern man. This is, of course, impossible. We do know, however, that animal A) and animal C) are very similar and that animal B) comes somewhere in between them. All three have disappeared a long time ago - we can deduce that animal B) Has evolved from animal A, and that its descendants eventually became animal C). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - the fact that you have an appendix and a coccyx become impossible to explain without evolution - unless you posit a perfect God that has created you with useless organs that just happen to remind you of organs some of your ancestors have.
Or take the Pharaohs of Egypt - the mummy of every single Pharaoh has never been found. What would you think of an historian that stated this was proof enough modern Egypt came to being as it is, and that ancient Egypt never became modern Egypt through a gradual process?

Answer 2

Well, I am a Creationist. I don't think the story of Adam and Eve is a mere parable, or a 'rough idea' of what happened; I believe that happened EXACTLY as it says, because THE BIBLE DOESN'T LIE. Period. The Holy Bible is the word of God, and God wouldn't lie/have his word corrupted, so I believe the Bible is spot on. Now I do believe in science to a certain extent. Things like cells, atoms, gravity, the solar system, thats all fine and dandy. When you start trying to say the world is 9.4 billion years old (you found that out how?) and that men evolved from monkeys and the universe was created by a magical explosion that happened 'for no reason' and you don't have a lick of evidence for any of it, thats where I draw the line. 9/10ths of that stuff is THEORETICAL anyways, but lots of Atheists will treat them as facts because its at least an explaination (however poor) for how we got here. Carbon dating is a bunch of balogna, if your data tells me the earth is 9 billion years old (which has changed several times, mind you) and God tells me thats a bunch of crap, I'm sorry but I'm going with what God says. Humans are wrong about stuff all the time. "Oh, Jerusalem is the center of the universe!" or "The world is flat!" are perfect examples, and those things were very wrong but treated as facts for so long. A lot of science is the same way, its only theories that are assumed true but will eventually be proven wrong. Also, back to the Bible being right... I just read the book of Ezra in the Old Testament, and it mentions Persian Kings Artaxerxes, Xerxes, Darius, etc. and those were real kings. It has a part where King Darius is searching Babylon for an important document, and it unexpectedly turns up in Ecbatana to the northeast. Official history records that King Cyrus (the previous king) had vacationed there during the summer in the first year of his rein and the document is traced back to him. You can look that up, thats 100% historical fact. That was in B.C years, too. Hundreds of years before Christ. Things like that suggest that the Bible was written to parrallel history, and if you fact check everything, it really does. It goes all the way back to the beginning of 'official history', following it very closely, and then it keeps going back to the beginning of time with Adam and Eve.

Answer 3

Martin S is correct that species of fossil snake with legs was found in a limestone quarry north of Jerusalem. Not even the first one found, apparently, but wait... what is this? It was a sea snake that lived an estimated 95 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, the area that includes the Middle East was a shallow sea with patches of reef and limestone deposition.

There goes that 6,000-year-old estimate again.

So does that mean the Garden of Eden was actually underwater?

Answer 4

Did you see the site where Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Kwayzie.

mainworry: You are saying that like it happened in 1 instant....if you think about it in terms of a large time line then its not so hard to conceive over billions of years. Think about that for a second. 1 Billion years.........that is a long time for very complex things to work themselves out. I find it takes more faith to believe a 2000 year old book than to believe the brightest people on our planet.

Answer 5

Talkorigins.org defines transitional fossils in this way:

"What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."

Isn't this assuming the truth of what it is supposed to prove? A fossil with mosaic features is not a transitional fossil, unless you already defined such fossils as transitional fossil in keeping with the theory of evolution. That's circular reasoning! A fossil with mosaic features is simply a fossil with mosaic features. It does not necessarily need to be interpreted as a transitional fossil.

Answer 6

Just wanted to respond to mainworry up there.
A million animal species. That's pretty amazing. But more than a third of them are beetles. I haven't yet heard any creationist explain why the Intelligent Designer was so fond of having lots of different beetles.

Answer 7

Thanks for the link. I found this entry somewhat amusing.

Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Answer 8

It's amazing then even with the evidence for evolution all around them, in the abundent life on this planet, they still don't believe. How does that say to you about most people's state of mind?

Answer 9

I'll bet you're right, I just saw one of my kids hanging from the Christmas tree, eating a banana. this monkey thing must be true.

What does that do for this Christmas thing?????

How could a man born 2000 years ago still be changing the world we live in?????

Hey, I'm watching the President Ford funeral that they are talking about Jesus and God and stuff, don't then know about the monkey and how we came from the monkey???

Everyone bow down now to chita and offer up banana's as a sacrifice for your sins against man and monkey!

Answer 10

Creationists get educated? Give me a break. They have God in their convenient theological box and that's the way they like it.