This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How do creationists explain the hierarchy formed by fossil and DNA evidence?

#1DarkContractorPosted 7/13/2013 6:52:32 PM
I'm using 'creationist' in the 'pure ID, non-evolutionary' sense.

the history of our DNA shows a certain progression. Like we can trace the genes back several generations.


Relevant quote
Thanks to the Human Genome Project and similar projects that have uncovered the gene sequences of other animals, such as the chimpanzee, scientists can now compare the code among different species. They can be textually compared, like a Biblical scholar might compare two scrolls containing the book of Genesis. When every letter of two gene sequences is compared, scientists find whole 'sentences' and 'paragraphs' of identical DNA 'text.'


Source: http://news.virginia.edu/content/richard-dawkins-universal-dna-code-knockdown-evidence-evolution


Examples: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf

Now our fossil evidence for evolution builds a hierarchy as well. In fact, it builds the same hierarchy.

Basically, when we look at the layers of the Earth, we find fossils in different layers. For example, the fossils of mammals do not appear at all until you get to a certain layer. Now, DNA evidence and the general complexity of mammals predicts this; If evolution is true then the mammal fossils must be in one of the more recently formed layers. Now this is where evolution is EXTREMELY falsifiable. If a single, and I mean a single fossil of a mammal was found in a layer too old for i to appear in, then evolution would be falsified. Just like that.

Now here's the killer: The fossils all appear in the layers that evolution predicts and build the very same hierarchy that our DNA evidence suggests, both giving us absolutely incredible evidence for evolution, which suggests this same sort of hierarchy, basically evolution would tell us this same general simplicity to complexity in theory alone, there can't be examples of irreducible complexity, you need to be able to see gradual changes and leftover features (such as the whale's, the only aquatic mammal, hindlegs. Not actual hindlegs, but the small snubs of hindlegs in its skeleton that serve no purpose to anything and is so random and useless)


http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/ Another source of mine was Richard Dawkin's "Greatest Show on Earth", which has been going on sale for like $5 at my local BAM, I don't know if that's a franchise wide sale or not.

Now, remember in intelligent design there is no reason for these hierarchies to appear as they do. The only reason they are necessitated in anyway is if evolution is true. And both hierarchies exist, in complete agreement with each other.

And this isn't something retroactively fitted into evolution, in fact Darwin predicted so many of our evidences to be true!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwins-predictions.html
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#2Faust_8Posted 7/13/2013 7:02:06 PM
Q:
How do creationists explain ____?

A:
"Goddidit"
or
"That doesn't prove anything!"

/thread
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#3OrangeWizardPosted 7/13/2013 7:11:24 PM
God created Jesus.
God, through Jesus, created everything else.

Jesus, being not that great at creating stuff yet, first created a single-celled organism.
Then he copied, modified, and pasted that creature into a more complex form.

He continued to copy and paste from each increasingly complex iteration that he had made.

That's why everything appears to have DNA links, as if one creature descended from another. They did, but just not in the manner that you'd expect.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#4lastheroPosted 7/13/2013 7:16:16 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
God created Jesus.
God, through Jesus, created everything else.

Jesus, being not that great at creating stuff yet, first created a single-celled organism.
Then he copied, modified, and pasted that creature into a more complex form.

He continued to copy and paste from each increasingly complex iteration that he had made.

That's why everything appears to have DNA links, as if one creature descended from another. They did, but just not in the manner that you'd expect.


And the fossils?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#5OrangeWizardPosted 7/13/2013 7:19:41 PM
From: lasthero | #004
And the fossils?


What about the fossils?
DC is using 'creationist' in the 'pure ID non-evolutionary sense'.

He never said anything about the age of the earth. He never said anything about dinosaurs co-existing with man, even though that is what usually comes to mind when someone says "creationist".

This is why I usually don't let people call me a creationist.

I don't think that "Intelligent Design" also means "Dinosaurs co-existed with man", but tell me if it does, so I'll know not to let people associate that term with me either.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#6lastheroPosted 7/13/2013 7:35:17 PM(edited)
He never said anything about the age of the earth


I know that, dude, don't be so presumptuous.

What I'm talking about is the order of the fossils. Your idea explains the links, fine. It doesn't explain why all the animals died and were buried in the exact order of those links. If they were all created at the exact same time, we would expect to find them buried in no particular order. But they are in order.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#7Faust_8Posted 7/13/2013 7:35:00 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
God created Jesus.
God, through Jesus, created everything else.

Jesus, being not that great at creating stuff yet, first created a single-celled organism.
Then he copied, modified, and pasted that creature into a more complex form.

He continued to copy and paste from each increasingly complex iteration that he had made.

That's why everything appears to have DNA links, as if one creature descended from another. They did, but just not in the manner that you'd expect.


Doesn't this completely contradict Genesis?

Also, this is the first "goddidit" so I wonder when the first "that doesn't prove anything!" will show up.
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#8OrangeWizardPosted 7/13/2013 7:51:19 PM
From: lasthero | #006
What I'm talking about is the order of the fossils. Your idea explains the links, fine. It doesn't explain why all the animals died and were buried in the exact order of those links.


Jesus created each animal in the time period that science says they came about. I never said they came about at the same exact time.

Hence my "age of the earth" comment.

From: Faust_8 | #007
Doesn't this completely contradict Genesis?


How so?

See, you could have just explained how it contradicts Genesis in your post, instead of waiting for me to ask you to go into detail.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#9lastheroPosted 7/13/2013 7:58:20 PM
Jesus created each animal in the time period that science says they came about.


So there wasn't one creation event, there were multiple creation events? Why? And where are you getting this from scripture?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#10OrangeWizardPosted 7/13/2013 8:03:03 PM
From: lasthero | #009
So there wasn't one creation event, there were multiple creation events?


There was one long progressive creation event.

And where are you getting this from scripture?


Nowhere. It's a logical reconciliation.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive