nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + + + + + + + + +
Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God? (view source)
Revision as of 11:50, March 10, 2008
, 11:50, March 10, 2008Fossils don't favour evolution /over/ creation and the Flood
::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::: "''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''": In order to "support evolution", the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''. Creation also predicts a "rich history of different species of animal[s]", so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.
::::: "''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''": [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.
::::: "''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''": They show no such thing. Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they "show" that that's what actually happened. That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.
::::: "''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''": Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave. And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.
::::: "''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''": Huh? What's that?
::::: "''...or 'flood extinctions...''": How are there "too many"?
::::: "''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''": See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.
::::: "''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''": They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)