Do you believe in evolution or what your holy book says?

[Peg]

I am struggling with this notion of evolutionary theory being debatable...perhaps it's my atheist tendencies. I just cannot see past the archeological evidence. And what about dinosaurs? Where do they fit in?

evolutionary science is highly debated even among evolutionists. Take the example of the dinosaurs....do you know how many differing theories there are among scientists about how they died?

some say they died due to disease others say it was volcanic dust, others claim it was a meteorite or comet...some say it was due to continental drift, some say climate change, some believe it was genetic...the list of different opinions on the subject is almost endless. The reason is simply because the fossils themselves in no way provide any such 'facts' about the dinosaurs. Scientists can speculate on them but thats about it.

Yes, dinosaurs existed. The bible doesnt say that they didnt exist so there is no reason to believe that the existence of dinosaurs is contrary to creationism. I guess the question about them is 'did they evolve or were they created?'

The fossil record shows that they appear suddenly (as all other life does)... they aparently dont have links to earlier life according to many paleontologists. To my mind, that evidence in itself leans toward creation.

[Cricket]

Here are my thoughts on fossils and creation:

Fossils simply show that there have been creatures who died and were buried suddenly, before they could decompose normally. In fact, some were buried in the midst of childbirth - I've seen pictures of a half born creature fossilized with it's mother. To me, the fossil record is one of the best evidences of a global flood - millions of creatures killed and buried in an enormous catastophe.

The fossil record also does not show ANY transitional creatures. Sure, "missing links" are found from time to time, but they have all been proven false after further research. That part generally doesn't make the news. The missing links are still missing. So, once again, the existance of fossils does not support evolution.

The only debatable point is the age of the fossils. Radio-carbon dating gives figures of millions and billions of years for many fossils. However, we have no way to determine whether these numbers are accurate. We assume that carbon decays at the same rate over time, but we don't KNOW it for sure. We are incapable of measuring the behaviour of carbon isotopes over millions of years. So there's one question about the accuracy of radio-carbon dating.

Also, when Mt. St. Helens erupted, fossils were created. There is a fossilized miners' helmet which has been discovered. It carbon dated at millions of years old. It was, in fact, a few decades old.

I also understand that it is often assumed that a fossil is a certain number of years old, based on the kind of rock it is found in. And we assume that the rock is a certain number of years old based on the kind of fossils that are in it, and where they fit in the evolutionary time frame. A bit of circular reasoning.

Finally, the fossil record actually supports the idea of dinosaurs and fully-formed humans co-existing. There is a fossilized footprint of a human, within a footprint of a dinosaur. There are also cave drawings of dinosaurs, and I believe that the legends of dragons and creatures like that, that are common in many places of the world are based human contact with dinosaurs long ago.

I have no problem believing that God created dinosaurs right along side of men. They were likely on the ark, with everything else. (The average dinosaur was about the size of a sheep, by the way, and Noah would certainly not have taken mature adults of the huge ones - young ones would have been smaller.) And, they may well have mostly died out in the climate changes that followed the flood, or some other circumstance. Species are being lost daily on the earth - becoming extinct for one reason or another. No reason to doubt that the same thing didn't happen to the dinosaurs.

[butterfly_warrior]

One of the things I found most amusing in my university studies of geology - they could use various different forms of radioactive isotope (it's not all carbon) decay to date rocks. They could take rocks formed at a known date due to volcanic eruption and they would date at millions or billions of years old. And yet geologists still trusted it to date other rocks!

I've seen pictures of gold chains found in the middle of coal seams.

Like cricket, I have no issues believing the earth is only around 6000 years old. I have no issues believing dinosaurs existed. I have no issues believing that fossils were created suddenly and rapidly in a global, catastrophic flood.

I do have serious issues trusting the dating methods that suggest the earth is billions of years old. I have serious issues believing in evolution.

I won't claim to have all the answers. I'm happy to trust that God knows and one day when we join Him we will also know (or it will become irrelevant!). I would much rather believe the bible is literal fact than be responsible for deciding which bits are fact and which are just poetry - that would be an absolutely enormous responsibility and one I don't feel qualified for!

BW

[Epacris]

As an environmental scientist and ecologist I find the notion of "believing" in evolution kind of strange. Darwin's theory of evolution forms the basis of all our knowledge about biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem level. This knowledge is how endangered species, populations and communities are managed. It's not like there is an alternative view, or another way of doing it, this is it!

For example, if you have three isolated populations of an endangered species you need to decide whether those populations are genetically distinct from each other and if they are beyond the point of no return in terms of number of individuals in each population. Once you have researched these two questions you can now make decisions about whether to mix the populations or keep them separate all with the ultimate aim of maintaining maximum genetic and species diversity. All our knowledge about this has come from Darwin's theory of evolution. To me it's not "just some crazy theory", it is a set of incredibly important and practically applied information that helps us as humans manage our impact on species and ecosystems, so we don't create even more chaos and destruction than we already have.

And in terms of artificial selection, you only have to look at the vast array of domestic breeds of animals to see that in action. I head somewhere that pug dogs have less genetic diversity than the critically endangered panda!

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

Thanks for your view Epacris - its interesting to see it from a scientists point of view!

In regards to using Darwinian Theory as a base for current environmental protocols - humans have had all kinds of theories over the centuries that have proven to be, not only wrong, but actually detrimental. Only a couple of hundred years ago we were still bleeding people to let heat out if they had a fever. Doctors used to do their rounds accompanied by a nurse with a single towel, which the doctor would use to dry his hands after examining each patient, leading to cross contamination, infection, and more often than not, death. And for decades, doctors have been working with the theory of 'give them a pint of blood and they'll be fine', and we're only just starting to learn how harmful THAT one can be!

Scientific theories are based on current human understanding - and as we progress as a race, we learn more about ourselves, and our environment. This often make us look back and go 'Wow, I can't believe we used to believe that - how naive!'

On the other hand, the Bible has never been wrong - the only problem comes when Man tries to put his own interpretation on it. It has a 100% track record, which is more than enough for me

[Nelle]

With evolution, like I said, I think that evolution and adaptation are two different things. I believe, like with breeding pug dogs, that we can lose genetic information to bring out certain traits in species. I believe things have changed through adaptation and mutation. I'm not sure about brand new genetic information that's never existed before evolving into being.

Is that incompatible with what you do Rachel? (*adds curious and not challenging emotion here*)

[Epacris]

Thanks for your kind and warm acknowledgment Berenice.

Yeah sure, we're are always learning and discovering new things but taking your medical example.... Throwing out "On the Origin of Species" for ecologists, would be like throwing out "Gray's Anatomy" for the medical profession.

Nelle, you are one of the kindest and gentlest people I know, you'd have to be a very hard nut to take something you said the wrong way. But I'll have to think about my answer, it's complicated (of course) and I'm not sure where to start. I'll BBL.

[Epacris]

Well you see Nelle, a mutation is brand new genetic information. Every time genes recombine they make little mistakes, mutations, this (as well as the actual recombination itself) is what creates genetic diversity. Within a randomly breeding population individuals will be different from each other. If environmental conditions change in some way (for example there is a new predator or disease or there is a change in the climate) the more variation there is within a population the higher the chance that some individuals will have characteristics that will help them survive in the changed conditions. All individuals that do not have the required characteristic do not successfully breed (or survive) and pass on their genes. A new population that exists in the changed conditions is founded by individuals that had the characteristic that was required for successful survival and reproduction, because they are the ones that passed on their genetic information.

If one species is split into multiple populations they may be experiencing different environmental conditions that drive this adaptation. Over a very long period of time, these different populations can become different species. Before they become different species there are lots of steps along the way and this is what I have experience in working with, distinct populations, subspecies, forms, varieties. Provence is a huge issue in the bush regeneration industry. When you revegetate an area, from where do you get the plant material you need to propagate the plants? How much material do you take to maximise genetic diversity? How can you ever hope to replicate a natural ecosystem (unfortunately, we can't even begin to come close but that's a whole other story ). At least by having an understanding of our ecological impact, we can understand how precious and irreplaceable the biodiversity that we have left is.

Ahhh far out Nelle, I fear I have made absolutely no sense at all.

And I just wanted to reiterate that for me evolution is not a belief, it just is. To me, saying "Do you believe in evolution?" would be like saying to a medical professional "Do you believe in Gray's Anatomy?".