Naturalistic Evolution Vs. Creation ScienceEssay Preview: Naturalistic Evolution Vs. Creation ScienceReport this essayIs there really anything behind the book of Genesis in the Bible? Is there anything behind all the stories of creation science? How can you be sure? You cannot. The theories involved with creation science are backed up only by faith in myths that can be easily diminished through scientific fact. There is not enough information to support creation science, and the theory of naturalistic evolution is undoubtedly correct.
The evolution theory is a theory evident in seven branches of biology: species distribution, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, cell biology, and paleontology. Species distribution was apparent after the separation of Pangaea when organisms of the same type would fulfill separate niches in the separate continents they had been relocated in. The different niches all required different organs and traits, thus causing their shapes and sizes to change according to the use or disuse of the characteristic they previously had. (Asimov 138+) Comparative anatomy is the study of evolutionary relationships based on common traits and structural differences. Taxonomy is an artificial system which shows species relationships in formally ranked order. Cell biology, the fourth branch relevant to the evolution theory, shows multiple similarities between organisms. Embryology has shown evolutionists that two remarkably organisms dissimilar as adults maybe remarkably similar as embryos, which could be a method of bridging gaps between species. (Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1+)
Keep in mind that simply because something has been given defining characteristics or has had a book written on the subject does not make it exist. Owen Gingerich, a Historian-Astronomer at Harvard University once said, “Genesis is not a book of science. It is accidental if some things agree in detail,” (Asimov 138).
Genesis is implausible because it states that on the third day God created grass, herb, and fruit trees, but it was not until the fourth day that he created light. On the fifth day, God created swimming animals and flying animals. On the sixth day God created land dwellers, including humans. (Oxford 1+) Should this have been true, it would have placed humans living on earth at the exact same time as dinosaurs, and other animals that we know we were not in co-existence with due to the fossil record. The fossil record actually tells us that the first signs of even vaguely human life were more than four and a half billion years after the Earths birth (Asimov 138+). Based on this information, scientists believe Genesis to be fictitious. However, creation scientists argue that at the time God created the world, a day could be equivalent to what are now thousands or millions of years. This, too, is impossible because it is common knowledge that a plant cannot reproduce without pollination, or survive without sunlight to use for photosynthesis.
A more convincing timeline is evident in the evolution theory. The origin of life, as according to evolution was in the Precambrian era, three billion years ago. Algae and fungi-like plants were the first to arise from the Earths soil. Six hundred million years ago, in the Cambrian era, the extensive fossil record began. It consisted mostly of trilobites and brachiopods, which accounted for eighty to ninety percent of all fossils from the era. This is why the Cambrian era has come to be called the “Age of Invertebrates.” (Hotton 130+)
The first primitive land plants were birthed in the Silurian era, 425 million years ago. Then, in the Permian era, which was 280 million years ago, vertebrates made their advance, and reptilian species dominated the land. For another 95 million years, reptiles were still most abundant, until the dawn of the Tertiary era, when mammals replace the reptiles as most plentiful species. Then, finally, in the Quaternary era, the Australopithecus, an early form of man, made his appearance. Climatic fluctuations changed the form of the Earth to the form that we currently know. (Hotton 130+)
A third fault found within the book of Genesis is the proclamation that the sun revolves around the Earth (Oxford 1+). Virtually all have come to know that this is untrue. Had God truly dictated Genesis to its authors without fault, this declaration would never have been placed within the pages of the book.
Furthermore, naturalistic evolution has been proven to a point where it is so far trusted that it is taught on a national scale in most public schools. However, in most schools, students and teachers are not even allowed to preach the theory of creation science. Often times, students are taught the theories of Charles Darwin. Darwins theory had two primary principles. The first was that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor over great lengths of time through gradual mutations. The second was that gradual modification, including new organisms, comes from natural selection. Natural selection is the ability to adapt, or the inability to adapt, which determines the survival of organisms. (Haught 7+)
The amazing amount of information that it would take to disprove evolution is exceptionally extensive, and so it is rather pointless for creation scientists to even argue. Should fossil placement have been the result of Noahs flood, many things would have had to have been found in a different state. There would have had to have been signs of human life in concurrence with extinct reptilian and plant life, which there obviously is not. Instead, there are multiple examples of how the bridges between separate kinds of organisms could have been formed within the fossil record. The fossil record was formed when fossils were placed together based on their age, which was known due to carbon dating and the study of fossil placement in sedimentary rock. Although there are some intermediate species missing, and the fossil record is incomplete, paleontologys findings are a great support to the evolution theory. (Gale Encyclopedia of Science 2) Take for example the bridge between
Dorothy
and
Saw-Gillis in California, which is in fact a unique site and specimen of the fossil record.
If you look at fossil placement, we do not even notice that Dore in California is a separate state from the rest of California!
And in fact, they all point at no other fossil in America.
That’s how much fossil placement would have taken for all life on earth to evolve and there would still be evolution! (this is the sort of thing that all history does)
There are also all these ways that evolution cannot do what it once did or that no one has ever seen and survived. That’s how much fossil placement would have taken for all life on earth to evolve and there would still be evolution! (this is the sort of thing that all history does)There are also all these ways that evolution cannot do what it once did or that no one has ever seen and survived.
Anonymous 03/09/16 (Tue) 09:02:35 ID: 7a6a3a No.264818 >>264810
Just look at that section right there. It’s insane and pretty much every other place on record shows some form of change. Just look at that section right there. It’s insane and pretty much every other place on record shows some form of change.
Anna_1240 03/09/16 (Tue) 10:05:25 ID: 5b06d0 No.264823 >>264812
>this is all very, very hard to verify.
the proof should be in the fossil record. the proof should be in the fossil record.
Anonymous 03/09/16 (Tue) 10:05:33 ID: 7a6a3a No.264829 >>264831 >>264842 This is so fucking bizarre.
http://www.academic.org/cgi/content/reprint/2317-03-02.pdf This is so fucking bizarre.
Anonymous 03/09/16 (Tue) 10:35:43 ID: d10eb2 No.264839 >>264827>>254649 >>253475
The question is, is a life in nature a part of existence or not?
Not all life is like this: they can’t change their structure to fit in with the rest of us, and in this case it’s pretty hard to determine the life that exists just because it doesn’t exist.
That says it all… The question is, is a life in nature a part of existence or not?Not all life is like this: they can’t change their structure to fit in with