Replies

Well to my knowledge I did not participate in the "ganging up" on you.

You say Macro Evolution has no proof. I say Creationism has "negative proof". Why you may ask?

Let me ask a question. Why is it that the farther back in the fossil record you go, the less likely you will see any modern species? And not just for the Animal kingdom but for the Plant kingdom as well? Why?

If Creationism was true, we would have to believe that modern humans walked with Dinosaurs and swam with the Trilobites, right? I would have to believe that all the animal species that exist today, existed at the creation of the Earth, right?

But... that isn't what the fossil record shows is it? If anything, it shows that humans were not even close to being around during the time of the Dinosaurs, right? It also shows that conifers did not exists before the Carboniferous period. It shows an exceptionally large number of animals that walked/swam/grew on this Earth a very very long time before humans (or any primates) appeared on the scene.

So why is it that we have a fossil record full of animals that no longer exist yet, we have a large number of modern day animals that only go back "so far" in the fossil record?

When one looks at it Creationism falls apart from a scientific standpoint. There just isn't any evidence that all species were created at once, or even within a hundred million years of each other. Quite the contrary, the evidence shows that over an exceptionally long period of time, different species of life came and went. And that my friend, is perhaps the best "lay man's" proof that Macro Evolution is true. It EXPLAINS what we see in the fossil record and it also makes a heck of a lot of sense as well. If you agree Micro Evolution exists in the short term, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination that Macro Evolution exists over a much longer period of time.

So if anything, there is NO proof that Creationism happened. Everyone knows this, this is why people tried to repackage it as "Intelligent Design". ID says that an "unknown" creator created us (it doesn't and will not say God did). Well that makes no sense does it? What scientific proof is there that there is an "unknown creator" that did all of this?

This is why I am most exceptionally against teaching Intelligent Design as science. Because not only is there no proof to back its claim, ALL the evidence points to the contrary.

"If Creationism was true, we would have to believe that modern humans walked with Dinosaurs and swam with the Trilobites, right? I would have to believe that all the animal species that exist today, existed at the creation of the Earth, right? I never made the claim of being a "creationist". At least not of those who proclaim the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that all animal species (including humans) "became" at the same time. My question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not living organisms "evolved". I have no problem with that tenent of TOE. I just don't see where a specific animal species changed such that it became something entirely different (which is what many evos propose).

When one looks at it Creationism falls apart from a scientific standpoint. There just isn't any evidence that all species were created at once, or even within a hundred million years of each other.

If we were to consider just for one moment that God did indeed "create" all life on Earth, why would anyone think that He had to have "created" all life forms at the same time? Would it not be possible that God started off with those earlier life forms, and then over various periods of time (separated by lengthy periods) He "created" different life forms? What you call "explanations" are merely guesses of what happened which fit the "evidence" as humans understand the "evidence" Guesses can never be proof as any scientist worth their degree will attest.