In Six Days? (continued)
January 30, 2008
(Mike Purrington's response to my previous argument can be found at In Defense of Creation. I respond to him here.)
Mike,
Thanks for writing with your comments on evolution. You write in a professional manner that is refreshing. However, I believe you are mistaken in your denial of evolution. I hope you do not mind if I take some time to show you why I disagree. Your words are shown in yellow highlight below.
|
So it’s my contention that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was devastation, to the point that all life was destroyed and that in Genesis 1:2 God recreated. |
Okay, you support what is known as the "gap theory". In this view, the meaning of the first 3 verses of Genesis is something like this:
1 In the beginning [perhaps billions of years ago] God created the heaven and the earth. [And then, after a long period of time Satan rebelled and the earth was destroyed.] 2And the earth [then became] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. 3And the Spirit of God [then] moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light [thus beginning a 6-day reconstruction of the earth.]
If you take the chronologies of Genesis literally, this 6-day reconstruction occurred about 6000 years ago. And if you don't take the chronologies literally, then this reconstruction still could have occurred no earlier than the first humans, which would mean it occurred in the last 200,000 years. The problem, is we have an abundant fossil record during that time period, and nowhere can we find a gap where the world was destroyed and re-created. So how can you believe that such a fantastic event occurred, if it left no trace in the fossil record?
Furthermore, the fossil record shows that members of all living species (or close relatives to them) existed by the time of this supposed re-creation. So we would find that God is allowing the animal kingdom to be destroyed, only to be re-created just as it was before the destruction. And all of this occurred without evidence in the fossil record, and the barest of hints about it in the Bible. Can you see how many people would think this destruction and re-construction never happened?
|
Scripture was not written as a science or a history book, but as a plan to redeem man, therefore God left out a lot that we must take by faith. |
Well, yeah, if you believe the "gap theory", then scripture left out quite a bit, including all of the time between the initial creation of the earth (which is known from science to have occurred 4,500 million years ago) to the supposed 6-day reconstruction of earth (which supposedly happened sometime in the last 0.2 million years). We would find that the Bible skips the vast time period in which, according to mainstream science, most of evolution occurred. So you have completely eliminated the argument that Genesis is opposed to the account of evolution! For almost all of the evolutionary timeframe would have occurred in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which Genesis doesn't detail..
So by trying to insert a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, you have almost completely eliminated your Biblical case against evolution. Evolution could have happened in the supposed "gap", only to find that all of those evolved creatures were destroyed and earth was remade several thousand years ago. So your gap theory does nothing to refute the bulk of evolution. It only inserts on top of the past ages an event that has absolutely no external evidence at all, that the earth was completely destroyed and rebuilt in the last 200,000 years.
|
In order for me to fully explain my position let me first add a quote from an
article taken from a blog that supports evolution.
(http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/) |
Uh, sorry, but these quotes in no way refute evolution. Let me explain what these quotes are all about. It had long been thought that the Cambrian era, in which multicellular life first becomes abundant in the fossil record, was the result of a "Cambrian explosion" that evolved all these forms in 70-80 million years time. We now have evidence that multicellular life actually began much earlier, but since the earliest forms did not have hard body parts, they did not record well in the fossil record. Thus the "explosion" did not necessarily occur in an 80 million year span as originally thought, but could have taken place over a much longer period. There is still some debate on the rate at which life diversified at the beginning of the Cambrian period, and whether the term "explosion" is a good description of that period. But both sides of the debate agree that these Cambrian forms evolved from single-celled creatures. And both agree that this evolution did not occur overnight. Even the shortest estimate says the "explosion" took many millions of years.
|
The first argues against your point of: "First, how can you deny
evolution? What about the overwhelming evidence for it? For instance, there is a
well established series of fossils that show that the horse, zebra, and donkey
evolved from a fox-sized creature that lived 50 million years ago. The best
explanation for that evidence is that the horse and zebra evolved from earlier
creatures"
|
Can you now see that your quote in no way refutes the evidence of horse evolution? The quote you offered refers to the Cambrian explosion (about 580 mya), whereas horses have evolved in the last 50 million years. Further, the problem with soft body parts not fossilizing well is not relevant to the discussion of horse evolution. For horse bones do fossilize well, and we have many skeletal remains which show us a progression of horse species leading up to modern horses. So can you see that your quote is irrelevant to the horse discussion?
|
he dispels the myth that the evolution of the horse was a linear process ending
up with what we see today. So your argument for the evolution of the horse seems
to have gone by the wayside by one of your own.
|
Uh, excuse me, but we all know that the fossils of horses do not represent a linear process. Rather, they show a branching process, in which different species branched in different directions from previous ones. There was no linear movement toward modern horses, but rather, a series of zig-zags in which the horse ancestors became progressively more like modern horses. See, for instance, "Horse Evolution", for a good description of this evidence.
Okay, now let's get back to the question that you side-stepped. Seeing the abundance of fossils leading up to the modern horse, zebra, and donkey, what is your interpretation of this? I think this is clear evidence that the modern horse evolved. How about you? Do you have any explanation at all?
|
Here again we come up with a problem such as was stated above, that the fossil record can be misleading as a true history of life on Earth |
Well, yeah the fossil record can be misleading, but all visual information can be misleading. For instance, last week I was at the Grand Canyon. It was pointed out to me that a large formation in the distance appears to be a part of the far side of the canyon, but it is actually a mesa the size of a football field that sits 2 miles in front of the far side. The canyon is so big that the distances across it can be deceiving. Since our eyes sometimes are not good at judging distance, does this mean they are never good at judging distance? No! Of course not! Similarly, the fact that the fossil record may not be clear as to exactly when multi-cellular life began, in no way proves that we cannot determine what kinds of horses lived in the past.
|
And what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles, that become increasingly
more mammal-like as time progressed? There were no mammals living before or
during the time when those mammal-like reptiles lived, but after the fossil
record passes through a long series of intermediates, mammals are then found in
more recent layers. The most likely explanation for this is that mammals evolved
from earlier creatures. Do you have any explanation for this at all?
To answer your question we have to review data that the evolutionary processes use and how it is interrelated and compare it to data from several models that are in use today. |
I'm sorry, but you go completely off track here, discussing the weather and how it is difficult to predict far in advance. Excuse me, but the fact that we cannot know much about the weather weeks in advance in no way proves that we cannot know things about other fields of science.
Instead of using the weather, you could have used planetary motions as an analogy. We can know the location of the planets decades from now with a high degree of precision. Okay, does that prove we know everything in science with high precision? No! The fact that we know little about future weather does not prove we know little about other branches of science, and neither does the fact that we know much about planetary motions prove we know much about other branches of science. The knowledge that is found in each branch of science needs to be taken on it own merits.
So to evaluate the evidence for evolution, shouldn't we actually be discussing the evidence for evolution, such as that found at 29+ Evidences? How can revealing the inaccuracy of 7-day weather forecasts--which we all know are inaccurate--have any bearing at all on the subject at hand?
|
Lets first look at an abbreviated model for evolution...."The first life is believed to be the Eubacteria (i.e., bacteria), single-celled prokaryotic organisms with no DNA -containing Nucleus", etc.... it simply states, It is believed, The most prevalent theory, are believed, everything is based on supposition. |
Uh, excuse me, but please do not misrepresent science. Mainstream science in no way teaches that evolution is simply a most prevalent theory, or that it is simply based on supposition. Mainstream science teaches that evolution is a fact. When there is overwhelming evidence for something, then scientists call it a scientific fact. Thus, they say it is a fact that the earth is round, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that we breathe oxygen, that evolution occurred, and that electrons have a negative electric charge. Mainstream science treats evolution as a fact, just like it treats those other scientific facts. You don't believe me? See Science, Evolution, and Creationism and Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, for instance, to learn what scientists are actually saying..
Now you may disagree with them when they say that evolution is a fact, but please do not misrepresent what mainstream science says.
|
To answer your question about the fossil records and the appearance of mammals, evolution has used data they think is correct. Unlike today where we have documented data verified through history, they use data that I believe is inconclusive, so the initialization of their models is incorrect based on what was said above and other data not covered here. |
Okay, see Evolution of Mammals for some details of the intermediate fossils leading to mammals. Please tell me why you think this data is not conclusive.
|
So how do we predict global warming or the evolutionary process? Here again we’re in the infancy of two new sciences. |
I'm not sure what you are getting at about global warming, but, for the record, mainstream science has found evidence that we as humans are likely accelerating global temperatures to dangerous levels. Yes, the science is in infancy, but we now know enough that every prudent person should heed the warnings.
Okay, now lets return to the discussion of evolution.
|
Example, at the time that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, science firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, it was discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years old… What happened? Data changed. Was the data correct? For the most part yes, but you see my point |
Uh, why are you turning to the past in an effort to judge the accuracy of our knowledge today? Shouldn't you be asking what we know today, not what we knew in the past?
We have come a long way since the 1800s. If you want to describe what we now know about computers, you do not quote what we knew of computers in 1850, do you? If you want to show what we now know about electricity, you do not turn to a 19th century textbook, do you? So why would anybody turn to our 19th century knowledge of geology in an effort to discredit current knowledge?
We now know the age of the earth to an accuracy of less than +/- 1% at 4.55 billion years. See Age of the Earth. The fact that we once did not know that is irrelevant to the issue of what we currently know, isn't it?
|
I’m not going to go into radiometric dating techniques, to do so would add to
the article and most would not read it. What I will say is this, just as there
are flaws in the models used so are there flaws in the dating process. What I
will do is add a website address if you care to check out the dating
process.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html |
Ah, but you cannot simply bypass radiometric dating, for it is known to be very accurate. See, for instance, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
The article you refer to is filled with errors. In particular, it fails to recognize the strength of isochron dating techniques. For instance, the article dismisses whole rock isochrons, apparently because it suspects contamination of the samples. Mainstream science does not dismiss whole rock isochrons. Scientists check if the sample are legitimate before they test then. If they do isochron analysis, and the sample is contaminated, the isochron will make this clear, and the data will be invalidated. So isochrons are self-checking. Besides, if isochrons are not accurate, as your link suggests, wouldn't they be yielding random results? Why do isochrons consistently match up with data from other samples and from other methods if they are not reliable? See details at Isochron dating.
|
We’re 149 years later now and the fossil record is complete with billions of fossils and multiple museums and we still have no definitive species in transition, we have only fully formed fossils in the fossil records. There are not any fossils that show bumps, little appendages, or slight changes as Darwin suggested. If evolution is to be considered correct we should find thousands of fossils in definitive transition along with fully formed fossils based on statistics. But we don’t! |
It appears that you may be uniformed about the findings of science. Scientists have found many transitional fossils. For instance, you can read about many such fossils at Transitional Vertebrate Fossils.
|
So to counter this the Neo-Darwinian theorists have said you’re right, the
fossil records don’t match traditional Darwinism which is a slight change over
time, so now we have huge punctuated events in history that are not seen in the
fossil records. So now instead of slight change over time you have an event
every million years or so that makes drastic changes in the evolutionary cycle.
For example, a super nova occurred or some other catastrophic event took place
and a creature in the water gave birth to a species that could live on land as
well as water. Now the problem is they don’t know why it happened it just did
because they believe it did. Sound fantastic, this is main stream theory not
fringe stuff. This is what the top Darwinian thinkers of the day believe.
Instead of slight change over long periods of time they believe in punctuated
equilibrium or macro evolution, change from kind to kind.
|
Once more, you appear to be uniformed about what these scientists are saying. Would it be too much to ask for you to read what scientists say before you try to represent what they say? You can read about this at Punctuated Equilibria.
|
Now, this brings us to another question, could the destruction we see in the fossil records be from the flood of Noah? |
The short answer is no. For one thing, we see things such as sand dunes, animal tracks and animal burrows scattered throughout the fossil record. Such things would not happen if those layers had been deposited in a flood. See Was There a Worldwide Flood?
|
we can say that the human body is full of complex systems, namely the skeletal,
control (nervous), cardiovascular, lymphatic, respiratory, digestive, urinary,
reproductive, just to name a few.
The question is not - name even one irreducibly complex system for which it can be proven that it could not possibly have come about by evolution, but which one did. |
Uh, I asked you to name one system that could be proven to be irreducibly complex. All you did was repeat the claim. Once more, can you prove that any of these systems are irreducibly complex?
Simply stating the same claim twice does not constitute proof.
And besides, aren't you a Theist? Can you explain to me how it is that the method of creating by evolution is so difficult that even God himself finds it impossible? How limited is your God, if he can't even guide evolution and make it work?
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that your God cannot create through evolution, because the supposed "irreducible complexities" make it too hard for him. Can you think of another method he could use, that might be easier for him? For so far evolution is the only method on the table. Do you care to present us with a different method that you think God might have used? Can you explain to us how it is one might think God is capable of creating by that method, but not by evolution?
|
[Merle:]"Why does much of your email dwell on abiogenesis, about which we know little,
and ignore the overwhelming evidence that all existing creatures on earth
evolved from early one-celled creatures?"
You just lost your argument. If we have very little evidence of what actually happened and abiogenesis is still being tested without a specific answer |
Huh? I had just asked you why you ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and you concentrate on abiogenesis. And your response? You ignore the evidence for evolution and go right back to abiogenesis! Excuse me, but isn't this a debate about evolution? Why do you keep changing the subject?
The fact that we do not understand abiogenesis does not prove that biological evolution did not happen. They are two different subjects.
Let me illustrate. You do not know the names of all of your ancestors for the previous 20 generations, do you? Does that prove that you do not exist? No, of course not! The fact that something is so far in the remote past that you cannot know the details does not disprove that which you do know. It is as if I were discussing my grandfather and somebody kept saying, "Ah, but you don't know the name of your ancestors 20 generations back, so your grandfather doesn't even exist!" Can you see the folly in this argument? The fact that I know little about my ancestors 20 generations back does not prove that my grandfather did not exist. Similarly, the fact that we know little about cells that lived 3 billion years ago does nothing to prove that intermediates such as Morganucodon did not exist.
That's all for now. I'll look forward to your response.
|
|
|