If the creation story in the bible is an accurate account of how god created life on this earth why doesn't it match the fossil record? [Spirituality & Religion]

@GodSpeed63

No.
It doesn't.
For instance, the bible says that god created birds on the fifth day and all land animals in the sixth.
This account is directly contradicted by the fossil record.
Debate me on that point. I dare you.

Evolution scientists have not accurately determined the age of the fossils.

@GodSpeed63

Actually in this case it doesn't even matter how old the fossils are because this is a question of the ORDER of creation, not the age.
However old they actually are, bird fossils do not appear until later (or higher) levels in the rock. That is to say that insects and lizards and amphibians all appear before birds do even though they were ostensibly created after.

DIRECT CONTRADCTION

That still not evidence for evolution.

@GodSpeed63

It IS evidence which is better explained by the theory of evolution than it is by creation.
If you wish to contest this fact then you may now posit a creation-based explanation for the data which is superior to that provided by evolution.
I'll also require that you account for the obvious contradiction between the biblical account and the fossil evidence...

There are no transitional forms in the fossil record which indicates that no animal changed into another. What God said for animals to be, they became. Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, recommended the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It states that a species remain the same for a period of time then, bang, it transforms within the blink of an eye leaving no trace of transition form. This kind of quick change would make one expect an act of design rather than an accident.
The Cambrian explosion is a more accurate description of the fossil record. This is when the complex life just appears suddenly and remains the same though out time with no change at all. Again this signifies that the Genesis account is true. Just because you find fossils of different animals on top of each other does not mean any of them evolved.

@GodSpeed63


This is simply not true and i don't know why creationists still teach each other this. It only weakens their argument.

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

Or for a more comprehensive list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



Wow. No dude. I've heard Gould quote mined before but never like that!
No, Gould did not say that "bang, it transforms in the blink of an eye leaving no trace".
Punctuated equilibrium states simply that there is not one steady pace of evolution and speciation but periods of slow change interspersed with more dramatic change. Remember, we're talking large time scales here. A blink of the eye in geologic terms can be tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.

But in the interest of ensuring that you personally don't misuse Gould's work again, allow me to share a quote from his 1981 essay Evolution as Fact and Theory:

"Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim."



Again, to be clear: this "quick" change is measured in the tens of thousands of years and there are many examples of these transitional forms left behind.


I'm glad you brought this up. This is another favourite creationist misrepresentation of the data.
The Cambrian Explosion is generally considered to be the appearance of trilobites and other complex life forms roughly 530 million years ago. However, far from this being a sudden appearance there are diverse fossil forms as far back as 550 million years ago and fossil traces of amoeba over 700 million years ago.
I admit that i'm confused by your claim that there was no change over the cambrian period because in fact there are transitional forms present in those records like lobopods which are intermediate between worms and arthropods.

It seems that the evidence you feel indicates a genesis account relies on misinformation.

And again, the fossil record directly contradicts the ORDER of the creation account in genesis while corresponding to the theory of evolution.

@GodSpeed63

Every fossil is transitional... almost always the species is transitioning towards extinction


One species doesn’t change into another species. That’s a laughable notion, the sort of nonsense commonly found in creationist pamphlets, and nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. All species have common ancestry… if you cannot understand that simple reality, then you will struggle to understand evolution.


It is reprehensible that you would so casually misrepresent Gould’s suggestion. Pikachu has already pointed out the falsity of your claim, so I won’t belabour it here.


The Cambrian Radiation lasted for 30 million years. Think about that. Thirty million years… during which time species continuously evolved. The gradual increase in complexity over that span of time is exactly what we would expect to see. It is initially only marginally complex, and then the complexity swings sharply upwards over the next 25 million years on a predictable exponential curve (initial complexity allows for greater complexity which in turn introduces even greater complexity which in turn allows for much greater complexity which in turn allows for…. well, you get the picture (or perhaps you don’t).

@newjaninev2 That wasn't my idea it was one of your own people who said that. You don't understand creation because your misguided disbelief in God, the Creator, has you guessing how things came about. Whoever said the Cambrian Radiation last 30,000,000 years? Where did you dig that up? It took 25,000,000 years for complexity to spiral upward? Where did you dig that up? Has it occurred to that who ever taught you this stuff is wrong? Unless you've done the testing yourself, don't tell me about them, okay? So, you're finally admitting that Darwin was wrong about one species turning into another. Well, I have to admit, your making progress. Two laws of science: Life comes from life and like comes from like. Remember those.

@GodSpeed63
My people? Who on Earth are 'my people'?


Where does Darwin say that one species turns into another?

You really must try to grasp the reality of common ancestry. Until you manage to do that, you'll continue to struggle when trying to understand evolution.

Perhaps we should discuss the various pathways to species formation: (allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation). At the very least, that might help to disabuse you of any creationist pap about crocodiles giving birth to ducks, etc.

Shall we do that?

@GodSpeed63 what garbage

@newjaninev2 I guess you hadn't read Darwin's book or seen those drawings of apes supposedly turning into men, that were created by your own scientists? The only common ancestry we have are Adam and Eve. You may know science, NJ, but you don't it's interpretation. I'm no scientist but even I know the difference between pseudo science and true science. You're still trying to prove evolution but you can't do it because science will never prove it. You can cross breed dogs but you can't cross breed a dog and a cat due to the separation of the species. You can cross breed horses and mules and donkeys but you can't cross breed a horse and a cow, again, because of separation of species created by God from the very beginning. You're mind is limited by this physical realm and therefore you can't interpret science the way it was meant to be interpreted.

@GodSpeed63
Depending on which particular book you're referring to, you're likely wrong


Do you mean those silly depictions one finds in creationist pamphlets?


Really? What about the common ancestries of all primate species (great apes, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans)? Would you like some evidence of that?


Science never tries to prove anything. That's not how science works. Science tries to disprove its own Theories.

Why are you suddenly talking about cross-breeding? It's completely irrelevant to common ancestry.

@newjaninev2 Does this sound familiar? Allopatric: Occurring in separate non-overlapping geographic areas, esp. when unable to crossbreed because of the separation. This includes men and apes being that they have different types of flesh. Well then, it's doing a terrific job at disproving evolution. No, the ones that are in those science books in public schools, Those drawings you see in Christian pamphlets are the copies of them. Nice try but no candy bar.

@Ozdharma The garbage they're feeding our children on the so called 'theory of evolution.'

@GodSpeed63

So far you've yet to actually provide any evidence of this creation account. The best you've supplied so far has been misrepresented or flat out wrong information.
I'm waiting on those sources you assure me are out there.

And you still have not been able to explain why the fossil record contradicts the order of creation.

@Pikachu I've shown all the evidence that need to accept. If you disagree with it, then don't blame me for not showing you any.

@GodSpeed63

Well leaving aside the parts where you presented factually incorrect information (eg misrepresenting gould's theory, claiming there were no transitional fossils etc) could you remind me what you thought was your best evidence?

And please show me the respect of actually answering my question this time.
If Genesis is an accurate account of creation, why is it directly contradicted by the fossil record?
Remember: "I don't know" is an still an answer.

I do know but don't take my word for it look it up. The fossil record doesn't contradict the Genesis account. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record as you propose. The fossil record is not billions of years old as scientists once thought. It's not even close to that. Again, don't take my for it, look it up. Have you seen videos I put on here?

@GodSpeed63


Yup. We've been over this. Birds on day 5. Land animals on day 6.
The fossil record shows land animals before birds.


Yes. There are. Did you follow the link i sent you that cataloged many of them?
Or are those lies by people pretending evolution is true so that they don't have to believe in god?


lol well it's damn sure not 6000 years old. That idea is contradicted by SEVERAL fields of scientific research, not just evolution.

@Pikachu I'm sorry I didn't. There are so many people on here that I don't get to everyone's postings. Did you ever see the videos I put on here?

@GodSpeed63

Yup. I'm watching the case for christ right now.

Here's the link again.

Quick version:

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

More comprehensive:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

@Pikachu I'm going to have another go at this. Hypothesis: Life evolved over time. Can it be disproved from the available evidence? The fossil record would suggest that there has been a progression of complexity over time. Additionally, genetic information indicates common ancestors for different species, eg., humans and the other great apes, Pantera genus etc. Other evidence of more recent evolution can be seen in some species of moth and water dragons in Queensland.

Given the available evidence, can evolution be disproved? Apparently not as there is evidence that it has occurred and is still occurring.

Hypothesis: Life was created by God who created all species in their current form. Can it be disproved from the available evidence? There are more genes shared between humans and the other great apes than between humans and, for example, cattle. If all life was created as it currently exists, there would be the expectation that there would be no similarity between any species. Contrary to some people's statements, the fossil record does contain so called transitional fossils.

Given the available evidence, it would appear that creation has some flaws and, as a result, would appear to be at least partially disproved.

Ok, this has been a bit of fun, but I it provides a partial explanation of how someone might go about presenting the information necessary to prove a point. So far, the responses from the atheist camp seem to provide some degree of scientific proof for their statements. Unfortunately, the Christian side has only presented faith based comments. Saying that something is true because God told me it is, is not a valid response.

@Bushranger

That's a pretty clear and concise example of an area where common descent makes more sense than creation

@Pikachu Just had a quick look at the first link you put up. Very interesting and informative. Of course, some people will say that it's all fake and only made up in order to fool people or test one's faith in God.