To the creationists - the tough question

"Progress" is poor diction because it implies an anthropocentric view of all life on Earth. Evolutionary change is toward better fitness, not necessarily towards humanoid body types and biochemistry. But the inevitable conclusion from the geologic column is that organisms have changed over the history of life on Earth, and that we are a recent product of that change.What fossils do we find in precambrian rocks? Bacteria and some cnidarian-like and poriferan-like organisms. Find a human fossil in there. Or a fruit tree. If not, a fish would do.It becomes obvious why the Bible is automatically considered inerrant and any evidence contradictory to the Bible is immediately discarded: Creationism would not survive being exposed to real evidence.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-13-2002]

[QUOTE][b]My point is simply that a history of creation and a history of evolution would produce a similar pattern, so the pattern in and of itself isn't evidence for evolution.[/QUOTE][/b]A history of Creation, in which systems were modified from animal states to human forms is philosophically indistinguishable from evolution, in fact, that is theistic evolution.If it looks like a chimp, and has the DNA of a chimp, chances are, it's either a chimp or a modified chimp.