Do creationists really believe that there are no "transitional" fossils?


Do creationists really believe that there are no Tiktaalik

Cynagnathus

Archaeopteryx




0|0
1|6

Most Helpful Girl

  • Creationists have no idea what transitional fossils mean

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • Archaeopteryx is one of my personal favorites.
    My understanding is that creationists either put their fingers in their ears and start humming when confronted with such ideas, or say stuff like, god put that stuff there for humans to find.

    I'm not a creationist, mind, but that was last i checked. I honestly don't know why it matters, religiously, that is. Fossils and what not make them uncomfortable because science is trying to disprove the existence of god. I thought the whole idea was to have faith, to not worry about proof or disproof and just believe. But I'm a Buddhist and we don't concern ourselves with that who was first nonsense.

    Lets hope a creationist comes along, I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion!

What Guys Said 5

  • Wow an artist went back in time and drew up a painting. That's an amazing feat!!

    I'm neutral, but having done a 90 page paper on evolution in uni, it's pretty obvious the evidence is lacking when it comes to the transitional fossils if you research into it. Just look at the "Cambrian Explosion" for one.

    1|0
    0|0
    • The Cambrian explosion is not that hard to explain. it occurred around 529 to 521 MYA in what's known as the Tommotian and contrary to popular belief there are fossils that predate the Cambrian explosion. First of all some (pre) historical context: During the Precambrian the Earth underwent two ice ages, and I don't mean ice ages like the cavemen had, because these would have made them look like a tropical paradise. During the Precambrian Glaciations, the planet froze over entirely from the poles to the equator. Life still survived but only near cracks in the ice. In glacial lakes in Antarctica, the same thing is observed. Photosynthesis virtually ground to a halt and volcanoes pumped out carbon dioxide and with no producers to uptake the CO2, the CO2 caused a greenhouse effect which caused a global meltdown. This brought vast quantities of minerals that single celled algae needed to grow into the water column.

    • These tiny algae would release oxygen which had previously been rare into the atmosphere and something that is well documented is that in areas that have high oxygen concentrations two things are observed: one, life is more diverse and two, life is more complex. After the first snowball Earth, the oxygen concentration was 40% its present day levels and we see some multi celled organisms in the fossil record such as Horodyskia and Parmia. Then there was the Cryogian glaciation 750-650MYA and afterward there was again an increase in oxygen. Shortly after, we see the ediacaran fauna http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html Which were the much less diverse soft-bodied precursors of the Cambrian Explosion. Just before the Cambrian Explosion in the Early Cambrian we see what are known as small shelly fauna which had a greater diversity and complexity than the Ediacaran fauna but not as much as those in the Cambrian explosion such as the more iconic Hallucigencia, Anamalocaris, Trilobites and Haikouichthys (Granddaddy to us all)

    • The small shelly fauna were interestingly much smaller than either the ediacaran fauna or the fauna of the later Cambrian. In fact if you could see the Early Cambrian world it would look much like the proterozoic where the seafloor is covered in stromatilites. But you would have seen these tiny reefs made up of small sponge-like creatures known as the Archaeocyathans. These reefs were no larger than a rug and visible life wouldn't have been present any more than 8cm above the seabed. But nonetheless these minute ecosystems bridged the gap between the Ediacaran and later Cambrian fauna.

  • Creationism as evolution are both hugely varied terms. They're branched. You can be an evolutionary creationist. Naturalist creationist creationist etc.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Science doesn't favour one

  • The velociraptor was feathered

    0|0
    0|0
  • To this point I fail to see how evolution and creationism is essentially contradicting. Now if we take away those who say the earth is 2000 years old (which is pretty stupid to begin with, because when Jesus came there were people around already) - how exactly are those two necessarily contradictions?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I guess your referring to evolution but there being no evidence of fossils showing inbetween?

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...