Science Disproves Evolution

[ByFaithAlone]

Based on these definitions, would you still claim that evolution logically necessitates the person who believes evolution to be factual to also be a naturalist.

Ditto per my prior post to Dee9--no one here denies that biological evolution (variations in finch beak shape/size) is science—what some folks (yourself included) struggle with is the truth that evolutionism (e.g., man-chimp common ancestry, dinosaurs morphing into birds, etc) is based on metaphysical materialism. Is that slow enough for you or do I need to type slower?

I assume you mean it is based on physicalism... again... I would want to see a proof (philosophically and logically speaking) that proves such a fact as you are making the claim (evolution implies physicalism).

An example of what I am looking for:

Premise 1: All men are mortal

Premise 2: Socrates was a man

Conclusion (from 1 and 2): Socrates was mortal

You can use the definitions I provided and present a reasoned argument or you can't and you would be forced to accept that evolution does not logically necessitate physicalism.

Thanks

I don't want to derail the thread but you offered an analogy with no evidence and when I try to refute your claim and ask for evidence you decline on the basis that it will derail the thread.

Do you think the Ptolemaic system was not based on the evidence of the day?

I think it was merely a hypothesis based on no evidence (unless you include the appearance of the sun crossing the sky) as we had no tools with which to make the proper explanation.

[Pahu]

Pahu,

I've read through some of this thread and in almost every post of yours I shake my head at the lack of knowledge shown even in the most elementary aspects of sciences.

Examples:

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Where did all Earth’s water come from?

No, you don't get off the hook because they're from Brown's book. You're posting them and should take responsibility for them.

On a brighter note. it's good to see others here also think Brown's book is garbage.

Why do you believe it is garbage. The conclusions Brown comes to are confirmed by the scientists he quotes, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

I find it odd that you argue that because a lot of scientists accept Brown's work (although I would appreciate it if you would reference this claim) and yet you ignore the 99.9% of scientists that deny Brown's work and accept evolution. Hypocricy? I think so...

I

Pahu,

I've read through some of this thread and in almost every post of yours I shake my head at the lack of knowledge shown even in the most elementary aspects of sciences.

Examples:

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Where did all Earth’s water come from?

No, you don't get off the hook because they're from Brown's book. You're posting them and should take responsibility for them.

On a brighter note. it's good to see others here also think Brown's book is garbage.

Why do you believe it is garbage. The conclusions Brown comes to are confirmed by the scientists he quotes, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

I find it odd that you argue that because a lot of scientists accept Brown's work (although I would appreciate it if you would reference this claim) and yet you ignore the 99.9% of scientists that deny Brown's work and accept evolution. Hypocricy? I think so...

I did not claim that the scientists accept Brown's work. But they do confirm his conclusions. Most of the scientist Brown quotes are evolutionists (which rules out bias) who have discovered information that disproves evolution.

Your figure of 99.9% of scientists who accept evolution is probably a figure you made up.

With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution? Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved ... then the entire historic fabric of Christianity—the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement—collapsed like a house of cards." (The Outlines of History)

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist” :

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption. ... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” (1966, 3:19).

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," Psalm 14 tells us. Why, then, do so many educators make atheism and its cousin naturalistic evolution their creed, to the point of depicting the rest of us as fools and simpletons? Why do the elite, who pride themselves on their power of critical thinking, buy so uncritically into what has been called "a fairy tale for grownups"?

Amazingly, some have been quite willing to answer this question, and their candor is both surprising and refreshing. So then, why do they embrace evolution?

"…Because they fear that we shall revert to believing in a divine plan," wrote the late Gordon Rattray Taylor, British author, broadcaster and former chief science adviser to BBC Television.

"…Only because it supposedly excludes a creator," said Dr. Michael Walker, former senior lecturer in anthropology, University of Sydney.

"…Not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible," wrote the late D.M.S. Watson, chair of evolution at the University of London.

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable," wrote the late Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist and head of the Anatomy Department at London Hospital.

"…Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door," wrote Richard Lewontin, former professor of genetics at Harvard University.

Yet none puts it more plainly than Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University.

"I do not want to believe in God," Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine. "Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

Sir Julian Huxley, the late president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin's colleague Thomas Huxley, put an even finer point on the argument:

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores," he wrote.

"We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom," concurred his brother, the late author Aldous Huxley.

"I want atheism to be true," New York University philosophy professor Thomas Nagel elaborated, "and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is not God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

How ironic that Charles Darwin, after a lifetime of turning the scientific world on its head, began in later years to question his own conclusions.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me," Darwin wrote in a letter to his friend and colleague Charles Lyell, "and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."

OK, let's see if I've got all this straight:

Our children are barred from learning about Creation in school because it is politically incorrect to question the accuracy of an old man's "phantasy," even though the old man did so himself; and … 


Teachers are prohibited from offering an alternative explanation of how we got here because the academic elite don't want to be reminded that the Creator of the Universe doesn't approve of their sexual behavior; and … 


Intelligent Design is not an option for consideration in college because tenured philosophy professors "don't want the universe to be like that"; however… 


The parents of students are still required to prop up this charade with their tax money, despite the fact that only 13 percent of Americans even believe in naturalistic evolution!

"Most professors continue to teach evolution in the universities out of fear," explains Dr. Phillip E. Johnson, retired professor of law at the University of California Berkeley and spokesman for intelligent design education. "This fear is that of not being tenured, of not getting research grants, of not being published, and of not being accepted by their peers. So to be accepted, to be published, to be granted research money, and to be tenured by their university, they must follow the party line, which is evolution. This is how the academic game is played."

Thanks, Doctor. I think I get it now.

So, don't expect to hear a cumulative mea culpa out of academia any time soon, because that would go against the character, not to mention the economy, of that institution. But it's plain to see that the freedom to teach alternative concepts in the classroom has gone full circle, and the tail is now wagging the dog.

The once-revolutionary theory of evolution has become the powdered wig of the 21st century. Most people agree that wearing it doesn't make very much sense, but nobody wants to be the first to take it off.

http://www.wnd.com/i...ew&pageId=88606

[ByFaithAlone]

I assume you mean it is based on physicalism...

No – I mean metaphysical materialism and I don’t think a syllogism is required. We should all know the difference between statements of science and statements of religion. The Darwinian statement that birds are descended from dinosaurs (pick your flavor, theropods, etc) is a statement of religion – it is not demonstrated via the scientific method. Now if dino-brid evolution is part of your creation myth then fine but it is not science.

They are synonymous terms to most philosophers. Both hold that only the physical realm exists. I agree that we should all know the difference between science and philosophy but as you seem to be defining one of those terms differently then myself (or most dictionaries for that matter) I requested a logical link. Please present a syllogism if you are able.

As to the issue the birds are descendants of dinosaurs, most scientists agree to this scientific theory just like most agree to the big bang theory, etc. Why you ask? Because we have evidence, DNA, fossils, preserved tissue, etc. which leads us to the idea that we have descended from a common ancestor. We weren't there to observe it in person but we can see the impacts. Neither are we at the center of stars but we claim that fusion is most likely the cause for the sun's heat and light.

[Pahu]

Quote mining out of context is one of my pet peeves and I agree with you... I have seen a lot of it based on the postings by Pahu

Pahu was on the first forum I ever went to, I've known him for a while, and he's been hashing out this Brown character for as long as I can remember. Dozens, literally dozens, of people from all sides have tried to reason with him but to no avail. I won't go into details but some have suggested that Pahu is a computer program and people I personally know can write algorithms that can mimic what Pahu does.

Those dozens of people didn't use reason. Mostly they resorted to denial and ridicule.

[Pahu]

Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim.

You are quire mistaken my friend. Your statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion. You are welcome to try to convince us otherwise via the scientific method but you will most likely fail.

BFA is absolutely correct, the scientific theory of evolution is all about physical processes and doesn't delve into metaphysical claims. This is basic philosophy of science. You have to understand scientific theories in their proper place - all their claims are made on a physical plane and never on a metaphysical one.

Let me define science:

science:

A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can give great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning.

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence, which is something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations.

All scientific evidence is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean that the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden beginning, creation is supernatural (not natural) and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the universe came into existence—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of such a flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood, but in science, all starting points are possibilities. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”

Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

For more information on this subject, go here:

http://www.creations....html#wp2727001

[ByFaithAlone]

As to the issue the birds are descendants of dinosaurs, most scientists agree to this scientific theory just like most agree to the big bang theory, etc. Why you ask? Because we have evidence, DNA, fossils, preserved tissue, etc. which leads us to the idea that we have descended from a common ancestor.

Can you please provide your evidence from "preserved tissue" that demonstrates common ancestry?

Sure... in the scientific community the species Homo ergaster is a common ancestor of Homo sapiens. First discovered in 1949 by John Robinson in southern Africa.

Here is a picture which shows its relationship with homo sapiens and where they were found.

I notice how you fail to provide a syllogism to prove that evolution (the scientific process) implies physicalism or metaphysical materialism.

The fossil record suggests common descent, as does the phylogenetic tree. There are no metaphysical assumptions here, as I stated earlier this is simply an exercise in inference to the best explanation. Given this set of evidence, which hypothesis has the most explanatory virtues? That's it.

Darwinian evolution is only *assumed* by the fossil record and assumptions prove nothing. Give us some science on this thread that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Give a verifiable (via science) lineage from man to this alleged ancestor. Please don't include dead-end ape lines.

And by assumed you mean that it is the most likely explanation for what we observe in nature. So based on Occum's razor (i.e. logic) and evidence we have gathered that evolution appears to be true.

[ByFaithAlone]

Here is a picture which shows its relationship with homo sapiens and where they were found.

But where is your "preserved tissue"? You have only presented a man-made chart based on myth that proves absolutely nothing. Is that all you really have?

And by assumed you mean that it is the most likely explanation for what we observe in nature.

By 'assumed' I am mean it completely lacks the required scientific evidence, which leaves back at your default location - square one. Surely you have at least some science somewhere. Maybe you Darwinian guys can pool your limited resources and come up with sometime coherent and scientific. Yes?

As I mentioned, they discovered the body of the homo sapiens ancestor and did analysis on the tissue and bones it had left leading them to conclude it was most likely an ancestral species. As to evidence, besides the DNA evidence, the fossil record, etc which shows clear links between species.

Or perhaps evidence from other sites since you don't seem to be accepting the evidence that we give you. Note that this is from a theistic evolutionist so don't even think about claiming atheist bias.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ - talks about the latest discoveries and arguments about human ancestors

http://www.talkorigi...ansitional.html - talks about transitional creatures

http://www.talkorigi...ion1.html#pred4 - talks about 29 points in favor of evolution in the macroevolution sense

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html - specific cases of speciation

If you want I can reference more and pull in from other sources which may or may not be theists but since this person is a theist and I fear that you would discount atheist sites as proposing some sort of religion (which you tend to do) I played it safe and just posted evidence from a Christian.

Interesting to note that you haven't competed your syllogism indicating that the scientific theory of evolution implies physicalism or materialism. Please do so or concede defeat on this issue de facto as you bear the burden of proof.

[ByFaithAlone]

As I mentioned, they discovered the body of the homo sapiens ancestor and did analysis on the tissue and bones it had left leading them to conclude it was most likely an ancestral species.

Can you provide (on this thread) the identity of this so-called "most likely" suspect? Why do you preface your suspect as "most likely"--do you not know with certainty or are you just speculating once again?

As to evidence, besides the DNA evidence, the fossil record, etc which shows clear links between species.

Again my friend you are simply assuming Darwinian mythology as scientific fact. Genetic similarity and the fossil record demonstrate what we would expect to see via a common designer (i.e., God). Where does God fit into your evolutionism? Do you allow Him any place? .

Or perhaps evidence from other sites since you don't seem to be accepting the evidence that we give you. Note that this is from a theistic evolutionist so don't even think about claiming atheist bias.

You are quite mistaken - your referenced site has a strong bias towards materialism (atheism). Please don't refer us to you propaganda sites as your 'defense'. You can present your interpretation of that propaganda on this thread, but be prepared to defend it. Thanks in advance.

nteresting to note that you haven't competed your syllogism indicating that the scientific theory of evolution implies physicalism or materialism.

As noted - a syllogism is hardly required. You do understand the differences between statements of science and statements of religion - yes? But then again--maybe not.

First off, it is quite apparent that you did not read the evidence I presented or looked at the links I provided. The site is run by a group mainly comprised of theistic evolutionists (i.e. those that do not hold to physicalism or materialism) and even includes some creationist writers and atheists. Please read the evidence and get back to me on that.

Secondly, to the issue of God in science, I see God as the first cause and fine tuner (is that even a word) of our approx. 14 billion year old universe. God also plays an important role in my opinion to the issue of spiritual and moral issues, giving man the soul (or spiritual aspect). However, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

As to the last issue of syllogism, you keep claiming it is obvious so pretend for the sake of argument that I am the least intelligent person that you have ever met (in fact, you may already believe this) and thus present your argument using the definitions I presented. If it is that obvious it should take no time at all (which appears to be about the amount of time you put into this last post).

Thanks!

[ByFaithAlone]

First off, it is quite apparent that you did not read the evidence I presented or looked at the links I provided.

You are correct—I didn't go to the website but I have been there many times. As I noted the site is a major hangout for materialists who do not care much for God. Also, I do not debate websites. Maybe you can copy and past (on this thread) the major points you wish to present and defend and we can see what you have.

You obviously ignored the fact that (as I noted) the site actually consists or more non-materialists and theists. But I suppose if you want to ignore that in order to claim bias that is ok I suppose. As to the issue of copying and pasting, I don't like doing that as it tends to fill up the thread. However, I do give a basic overview of the arguments. One of the links I provided dealt with the latest discoveries regarding human ancestors, one dealt with so-called "transitional" species and another dealt with specific cases of speciation. I tried to link specifically so that you could read in depth analysis as I prefer that to quote mining. I would expert you to read and respond to all relevant sites just as I would expect myself to do with any links that you cite back to me. That would mean taking more than a minute to respond to my posts.

As to the last issue of syllogism, you keep claiming it is obvious so pretend for the sake of argument that I am the least intelligent person that you have ever met (in fact, you may already believe this) and thus present your argument using the definitions I presented.

I do not think you are a half-wit at all if that is what you are implying. I do, however think you have been duped by Darwinian propagandists and you are ill-prepared to defend that which you believe. You are left trying to reconcile the leading atheistic creation myth with the historical biblical account – a feat that cannot be done.

Hmmm.... you still haven't presented the so-called simple syllogism... I am waiting... pretend I am an idiot and just explain this simple syllogism or rescind your statement that physicalism or materialism is implied by the scientific theory of evolution.

I see God as the first cause and fine tuner (is that even a word) of our approx. 14 billion year old universe. God also plays an important role in my opinion to the issue of spiritual and moral issues, giving man the soul (or spiritual aspect).

Are you saying your version of evolutionism is completely unguided by God. Are you saying He created, fine-tuned and then went on a long journey and when he came back He was astonished to see money-like creatures evolving into men swinging in the trees? Was Adam a historical person as acknowledged by Jesus? Was Jesus (the Word) with God in the beginning---did He create all that was created – in your understanding of God's word?

It is possible that evolution was guided by God at certain critical points and I think God was definitely critical to the spiritual and moral development of man. Fine tuning that I am referring to is akin to the fine tuning of the early universe such as the cosmological constant, etc. which must be very precise or else our universe would have collapsed within a few seconds. I don't believe Christ necessarily acknowledged Adam as a literal figure. It could easily be argued that "Adam" is merely representative of man but again I don't think that is relevant to the current conversation. Yes, I believe Christ was with God. That is simple Trinitarian doctrine and irrelevant to the conversation as hand in my opinion.

[Pahu]

The fossil record suggests common descent, as does the phylogenetic tree. There are no metaphysical assumptions here, as I stated earlier this is simply an exercise in inference to the best explanation. Given this set of evidence, which hypothesis has the most explanatory virtues? That's it.

There are not creationist fossils and evolutionist fossils, but there are creationist and evolutionist interpretations of the fossils. When we observe fossils in the present, we can take measurements and determine composition, but the real interest in fossils is interpreting where they came from. Once we start attempting to explain how the organisms came to be fossilized or how and where they lived before they died, we must remember that we are using presuppositions in that explanation—we have gone from operational to historical science.

Far from showing organisms changing, the fossil record is very static—organisms appear fully formed and then disappear or remain today. The lack of change recorded in the fossil record is used by some evolutionists to support the idea of punctuated equilibrium. This hypothesis suggests that evolution happened in rapid bursts over short periods. The lack of transitional forms and the sudden appearance of new organisms in sedimentary layers are used to support this idea.

The presence of sea-dwelling creatures in layers lower than those containing dinosaurs does not mean that the dinosaurs lived after the sea creatures. To make this claim, it must be assumed that the layers were deposited over vast ages and that evolution is true. Since the Flood was a global event that lasted about one year—as Genesis clearly teaches—we would expect to find massive layers of sediment containing the fossilized remains of billions of animals and plants. And that is exactly what we find all around the globe. There certainly are questions that remain about the details of the model, but the foundational ideas explain much within the limits of historical interpretations.

The presence of fossils from marine and terrestrial organisms in graveyards around the world cannot be explained by the slow processes seen today. The Green River Formation, a fossil-rich formation in Wyoming, includes birds, bats, fish, insects, and many plant species all buried together. The Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon contains fossil nautiloids (squid-like creatures with a shell) and other marine creatures buried by a fast-moving slurry that involved 24 cubic miles of lime, sand, and silt. No river or lake today can account for the scale of these graveyards. This is another reason why many geologists today are reexamining the fossil record from a catastrophic perspective—though not necessarily the biblical catastrophe.

Contrary to popular belief, rocks and fossils actually form quite rapidly. The formation of fossils requires the conditions that we would normally associate with a flood. If a fish dies in a lake or river it is extremely unlikely that it will form a fossil. It will be quickly picked apart by scavengers and torn apart by currents. The exquisitely preserved fish fossils that we find across the globe can only be explained by rapid burial in an environment that would prohibit decomposition. We do not find these conditions in very many places on earth today, yet fossils are found across the globe throughout the geologic column.

It is interesting that the textbooks do not mention polystrate fossils at all. The presence of fossils that penetrate many layers is a major problem for uniformitarian explanations. The cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia, present a prime study of polystrate fossil trees. These fossilized trees pass through many of the layers of the exposed cliff face. If the layers represent many millions of years, how were the trees able to stand upright without rotting away while they were slowly buried? Some suggest that the trees were buried and fossilized while the surrounding layer was then weathered and the next forest grew on top of that layer, to be subsequently buried by the slow deposition of the next layer. Repeat the process over millions of years and it supposedly creates polystrate fossils. The fossil trees at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park are another example of this phenomenon.

The Flood, once again, offers a better explanation. After observing the events following the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the floating logs in Spirit Lake, Dr. Steve Austin provided another explanation. The tree stumps and logs floating on the lake eventually settled to the bottom as they became waterlogged. Many sank root end first with sediment and bark layers around and between them. Underwater photographs have revealed similarities to the petrified forests—successive layers of buried upright stumps with no roots. This model provides a Flood-based explanation and is supported by observational evidence.

The fossil record can be viewed either as the progression of life through random chance over 3.5 billion years, or as the remnants of a global Flood which happened about 4,300 years ago. Starting with the authority of Scripture, we can explain the evidence in the fossil record—from massive graveyards to living fossils—in a consistent manner. It is not necessary to throw the Bible out of discussions over fossil evidence. It is not necessary to try to fit evolutionary ideas into the Bible. All we need to do is begin with the eyewitness accounts found in the Bible, and we can explain the world around us.

[Excerpts from http://www.answersin.../fossil-record]