Just wondering.  Creationist theory requires a layer of fossils that would include all known species of animals (man, dog, horse, panda, etc.) all jumbled together as if deposited by a wide scale catastrophic event such as a flood.  Since the flood happened within the last 6000 years, the layer should be fairly close to the surface.  Has a single creationist paleontologist found that layer yet?
132227
No, this has not been found.
447336
Hello The agitator.. :)\n\nI pray you had a Blessed Thanksgiving Day.. :)\n\n \nCould Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?\n\nA growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood. This is causing them to question whether or not the biblical account of Noah's ark could be true. Many people are rereading the Biblical description of the Ark to ascertain the feasibility of such a vessel to fulfill its designated purpose in light of present day knowledge of both zoology and our present day knowledge of shipbuilding.\n \nSize comparison between average size one-story home and Noah's Ark. Illustration from The World that Perished.How big was Noah's Ark?\n"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)\n \nA cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.\n\nThese dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.\n\nWas the ark big enough to hold the number of animals required?\nThe total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.\n \nAssuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.\n\nNow comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?\n\nAccording to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.\n \nGod only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found th
47806
This is a difficult question to answer. There are fossil gaps, and gaps in our understanding of human evolution. But no one "missing link", especially one that we have a picture of. This is the fantasy of the media.
626592
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
302652
First off, creationism is not a scientific theory.  Please don't elevate it to that level with the term "scientific creationism."  Creationism is religion, not science.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n
315871
The dinosaurs fit right in. What I don't get is how more people don't see how it fits but let me give you my humble opinion. This is not doctrine, this is one man's opinion. This is what I believe. On things of God we have a couple a sacred texts or scripture, in the oldest book about God written by the hands of prophets on stone, papyrii and what not we have accounts of the creation, in Genesis the first of even the pentetauch we are given such as slim or incomplete description that it is possible that 1 billion years could pass by as we read in a matter of one stanza. It has been said that 1 day in God's time is 1000 of our years in our reckoning. So lets take the first 6 days of the creation, or in particuliar the the 5th day after he had made some grass and light and stuff. In Gen 1:20 it say that He said" Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21. And God created great whales, and every living vreature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and Multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 32. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so. " So that 5th day was very busy and at 1000yr /day reckoning its possible that it took 365,000 years to complete but cant know precisely yet . The beast of the earth that is referred to, also the great whales that are referred to, also refences to unicorns and all manner of beasts now extinct, isn't it possible that although not specifically mentioned that and on the 5th day about the 6th and 1/2 hour God made the T-rex and he blessed them and saw that they were ferocious. No . We only have this small wordage to assemble together the whole of creation. I dont see a problem with 17 billion year universe age and putting it into Gods plan at all. Bless you and have a pleasant tomorrow.
500362
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
513419
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo
232804
gino_gg your not going to get a clear answer from creationists. They'll simply point to the bible and make a quote from the bible to be fact, despite the fact that the bible is inconsistent with some of the stories\nfor example\nGE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.\nGE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.\n\nIt will be difficult to show creationists that evolution is factual
98992
You may be interested in this site: it lists the many fossil homonids.\n\nSome of the more famous fossil homonids include the Taung child, Turkana boy, Chellean man, Heidelberg man, and of course Lucy.  The site provided gives information on these and many other fossil homonids.  It also has interesting rebuttals to creationist arguments that these fossils are false, made-up, non-human, not as old as they seem they are, etc.  Definitely worth the read if you're interested in this topic...\n\nhttp://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm#args_piltdown\n\nIt is also good to remember that not all homonid fossils are "human ancestors", the Homo genus "family tree" has many branches.  There's a good article on Wikipedia explaining this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution\n\nHope this is helpful :-)
38767
>>>>>They have never found any.\n\nThere are many transitional fossils.\n\n\nThe only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.\n\nTransitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.\n\nThe following are fossil transitions between species and genera:\n\n   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.\n\n   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).\n\n   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).\n\n   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).\n\n   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.\n\n   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).\n\n   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).\n\n   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).\n\n   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).\n\n  10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).\n\n  11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
223933
A little over 200 years ago, man thought the world was flat.  Their world had "limits" for them to believe that.  At the time of Noahs flood, their world, the area they knew around them was even a smaller area.  The flood of Noah was just in the area that Noah knew and lived. I'm sure most Christians don't belive in evolution,..so WHY would one make a statement that all the races came from Noah?  Races do NOT evolve. Noah was of a TRIBE of certian people.  Noah was a decendent from Adam.  The name Adam means ruddy complected,..to see blush in the face.  Some need to reread Genesis.  On the sixth day God made both man AND woman.  He gave these peoples to fish and hunt.(the races)...Then on the seventh day God rested,...and THEN He saw He had no man to till the ground. That's when God made Adam,..for the garden.  Then God saw that Adam was alone, so God made from Adams rib a woman especially for him.  Rib means curve,...like in our Helixs curve today;..DNA. Bone of Adams bone, flesh of his flesh.\nThe flood of Noah was in the area that Noah lived,...and it was brought on because of the geber/giants, offspring of the fallen angels.God sent the flood to that area to rid it of the giants.   God shook this earth way before the flood of Noah and way before He made man flesh. Just another thought;...When Noah sent out the dove, the dove brought back an olive leaf.  IF the flood totally destroyed all the earth, then how does a olive tree grow and set forth leaves in such a short time?...  Notice too how many times seven is used?  Seven means Spiritual Perfection.
83294
This is a topic that sets a lot of people off. Mainly creationism states god created everything, and the burden of evolution is, it being based on science, it must have hard evidence to prove the existance of evolution.\n\nSince Origin of the Species by Chales Darwin in 1859, moutains of evidence has come forward to prove that evolution is behind every living creature on earth. The one weak linkis that evolution hasn't yet been able to prove how life first started. It is this one point that creationist harp on, and state as their proof that god is behind everything.\n\nIt must be noted that until recent times teh age of the Earth was only believed to be 10,000 years old, this has been disproven. It can also be compared to medevil times when the world was considered flat and it was thought that the earth lay in the center of the universe. In time science will find a solid explination for everything that we consider impossible today.\n\nAs a chemist and a scientist, there are many things in science that boil down to beautiful mathmatical relationships, or theories that are very simple yet profound implications. What I believe, is that who was ever here before the universe made a very complex yet elegant system of particles and enegrgetic interactions that give us the world today. What I have against creationsim is that it doesn't seek to find the real awnser; their reasoning is that it is too complex to be understood, despite historical evidence of things being not understood only to be explained in good detail later. The people that say the bottom line in science is too complex to understand today are the same people who believed that the world was flat 800 years ago. \n\nWikipedia has a good breakdown on evolution and opinion, hope my thoughts helped
145904
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.
360666
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
78324
no.  you're going to get a variety of responses ranging from the reasonable, like david's to the utterly ridiculous, like a lot of the others already here.\n\nas for the claims that the crater in the yucatan is supposition or "only a theory" (ever heard these words before?) there is a lot of evidence for it:\n\n"Probably the most convincing evidence for a worldwide catastrophe was the discovery of the crater which has since been named Chicxulub Crater. This so-called smoking gun is centered on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and was discovered by Tony Camargo and Glen Pentfield while working as geophysicists for the Mexican oil company PEMEX. What they reported as a circular feature later turned out to be a crater estimated to be 180 kilometers in diameter. Other researchers would later find that the end-Cretaceous extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs had lasted for thousands of years instead of millions of years as had previously been thought. This would be the final piece of evidence that convinced the vast majority of scientists that this extinction resulted from a point event that is most probably an extra-terrestrial impact and not from increased volcanism and climate change (which would spread its main effect over a much longer time period)."\n\nIt seems to be a bit more than a layer of clay in the ground.\n\nwhether this is worthy enough for biblical mention is debatable, but it seems that such a large impact would have had tremendous effects on any living species at the time, including (as creationists claim) humans.  why is there no mention of it either in the bible or other human cultures?  probably because it happened long before any humans were around.  it would have been a very important event, more important than a lot of the mentioned events in the bible.\n\nand if it is mentioned in the bible, please provide a passage.
553209
Darwin never "withdrew" his theory, nice try.\n\nYou're right there were lots of storms and meteorites.  For all we know, life needed a couple of tries to get started.\n\nJust the fact that you are asking whether we came from monkeys or from goo, shows that you either have NO idea what evolution is about or are just trying to get a rise out of people.  You bore me.