In the article The Fossil Record Supports Evolution, writer, David A. Thomas argues his position. He favors Evolution over Creationism. In the article David explains how there are gaps in fossilization. He tells how creationists expose those gaps and claim that because of those gaps evolution is not proven to be true. However Thomas explains that there are many difficult steps in the process of uncovering fossils, but those difficulties don’t disprove anything. He says that creationists say that because scientists don’t have the full fossil that they aren’t real. Thomas explains that just because they don’t have the full fossil doesn’t mean the fragment is useless. It means that there are in fact fossils in B.C times and there could be …show more content…
Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and all that exists. There has been a long disagreement between the evolution believers called evolutionists and Creationism believers called creationists. Thomas defends his belief in evolutionism from the creationists. The creationists claimed the evolutionists’ argument, which is fossilization, has gaps in it that make their ideals flawed. Thomas defends his position by giving evidence on how he can prove that fossilization is valid truthful evidence to support evolutionism. Thomas uses the explanation of the formation of the fossils to defend his case. He gives a series of descriptive steps all telling how each step helps support his argument, each step supporting evolution in different ways. The formation of fossils gives the explanation that animals must die and be buried in a compositional area. This allows scientists to be able to date the age of the discovered fossils. Thomas admits that dating fossils might not be one hundred percent accurate, and there are gaps. Thomas also claims that dating the fossils is much more evidence based than any evidence creationists have. This article is just a small portion of the arguments for both sides have it’s primarily evolutionists. It’s just defending one of the many critiques of the creationists. Thomas explains to the readers that even though he can’t physically prove that evolution is true, he can back up his claims with science based calculations,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said “The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact”. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an acclaimed astrophysicist, cosmologist, and science communicator and has influence in the scientific world we live in today. “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification” (“An Introduction to…”). “This definition encompasses small-scale evolution and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)” (“An Introduction to…”). There is now enough evidence for the theory of evolution that many consider it a fact and as such are turning away from the idea of creationism as a whole. Because of evolution you can trace just about every living thing on the Earth back to its ancestry billions of years ago. Darwin believed that all life on Earth descended from one primordial form (Naff 61). Darwin didn’t discover evolution or come up with the concept, but he was the frontrunner in research and a public endorser of the theory. The theory of evolution is correct because of homology, progressions of species changing over time, and natural selection.
Gould explains how Evolution is a theory and a fact. Evolution is a fact but how evolution happened is a theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection as an example of how evolution happened. Creationists deny evolution. Creationists believes in a supernatural creator of plants and animals. They believe that science would never discover how the creator created creations. Gould believes that Scientific creationism is a meaningless phrase because it’s
The skeletal characteristics of these hominines suggest that their mode of locomotion was likely a cross between occasional bipedalism and obligate bipedalism. From the reading we have learned that obligate bipedalism is bipedal locomotion that is practiced all of the time while occasional bipedalism is bipedalism that is practiced on occasion. The ratio of arm length to leg length (longer arms) suggests that they did spend time climbing trees, however the cranial and post cranial traits of these fossils suggest that they spent much of their time on the ground and likely ambulating bipedally combined with a variation of upright walking and knuckle walking. This is evidenced by two factors: the fact the foramen magnum of the skull is centrally located, and the ratio of arm to leg length. In creatures with bipedal ambulation, the foramen magnum is located in the center of the base of the skull to keep the head aligned over the center of gravity of the creature. If the fossils were walking primarily with their knuckles, the
Creationists debate about evolution and say that evolution is just a theory and not a fact. Gould knew this and has explained that Creationists have become ignorant and try to argue when they don’t know the true meaning. Most people use the term theory today as a guess, an idea and thought. In science theories are ideas that explains facts and therefore theories cannot be facts. Facts on the other hand are observations that have been confirmed over and over again to be final but it still does not make it final as today it could be set in stone but tomorrow it could change and be discarded. A fact that is known to a lot of people and is almost impossible to deny are fossils. We have dug up a ton of fossils and they leave evidence to how us humans were
As we have learned in class and as we still see now in the modern world, the topic of evolution vs creationism has been one of much dispute. To many, there is only one side; you either believe in God or in Science, you either believe that Adam and Eve are our ancestors or you believe that through the years and the changes in the world we have evolved from apes. Whichever side you find yourself on there will always be someone that disagrees with you and is willing to tell you why you are wrong.
A common argument that quite a few people bring into play when they do not agree with creationists on their stances is that creationism is not able to be proven scientifically. But a counter to that argument is how the theory of evolution is just as much as a theory as the theory of Creationism, so it seems to render that argument as a moot point. However, that is not true. There is a difference between the science use of theory and regular people's use of theory. As the University of California at Berkeley’s Understanding How Science Really Works puts it:
Creationism, it is theory that claims every element in the earth, including living species, are all created by the god as the Bible said, which denies the evolutional theory came up by Charles Darwin. Then, since Darwin’s evolutionary theory is testable and make solid predictions whereas creationism cannot be tested nor predict precisely, it has been considered as a pseudoscience. However, recently there is a Ph.D. Biochemist bring creationism theory back to the audience again, his name is Duane Tolbert Gish from University of California. Dr. Duane T. Gish has written several books and articles to support creationism, and the most famous one is Evolution: The Fossil Say No!, which published in 1978. In his article, he denied the evolutionism since he claims there is insufficient fossil evidence to support Darwin’s theory, and which would prove creationism is real.
Dawkins proponent of Darwinism, claims that the world appears to be as if the world had a designer. He states that many Americans believe this illusion. Dawkin argues that when people see something that appears to be design they think it is evidence for design. He asserts that is the error creationist make. He argues that highly improbable thing exist in the world. He argues that people don’t understand such nonrandom cumulative ratcheting. They think natural selection is a theory of chance. He refutes the argument that there are gaps in fossil record indicating a gap in Darwinian account, stating such reasoning is no science. He claims some animals just don’t fossilize. He admits there are other hardships to accepting Darwinism such as the
As for addressing fact versus theory, the two keywords in the titular treatise, he is slow to get to the point. Over the next paragraph he asserts creationists, as a sweeping generalization, have “presented not a single new fact,” and they have “…arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago.” This, with the accusation that creationist’s true motivations are political, along with the improper comparison of “scientific creationism” to the Orwellian term “newspeak,” bears no relevance to the denotive differences between fact and theory in any context. Also, his attacking an opposing stance, and failing to point out any contradictions or fallacies therein, could be an indication that his own position lacks substance.
Next she brings up the theory of creationism and states that it is as unproven as the theory of evolution. “Creationism does have a bit more reasonable parts to it,” she says, however she neglects to provide any examples to back up her point.
The author and his colleagues chose to focus on 375 million year old rocks in their search for fossils because amphibians that look dissimilar to fish were discovered in 365 million year old rocks, while fish without amphibian characteristics were discovered in 385 million year old rocks. Thus, it is possible that the evolutionary intermediary, or the “missing link” between fish and amphibians, would be discovered in 375 million year old rocks, between the two time periods. The rocks examined were sedimentary in composition, as the gradual and relatively gentle formation of sedimentary rock under conditions of mild pressure and low heat are conducive to the fossilization of animal remains. Sedimentary rock is also often formed in rivers and seas, where animals are likely to live. This site provides a resource that describes means by which fossils are formed and how the fossil record may be interpreted, and shows some examples of fossils demonstrating evolution through geological periods: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm. In 2004, Shubin and his colleagues were looking for fossils on Ellesmere Island, in northern Canada. This location was chosen because of its lack of human development, as well as of obstructing natural formations and life forms such as trees, which
The opposition to this theory comes in part from those whose religious beliefs are contradicted by it, those who claim that evolution is “just a theory,” and claim it is not a sound science because of the label. To understand that evolution is true and reliable, the definition of the word theory in a scientific context must first be understood. In Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth,” this is explained, ”The Oxford English Dictionary gives two meanings… Theory, Sense 1:... a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts… Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation: hence, a mere hypothesis,speculation, conjecture…” It is proposed in this book that scientists and creationists are using these definitions in different contexts. Creationists use the second sense of the word theory, meaning a speculation of no value, and scientists use it in sense one, that of a proven hypothesis. In science the word theory is surpassed only by the word law in the sense of conveying certainty. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has never been disproven, such as the theory of gravity. Evolution has been proven many times over through both observation and experiment, which is the reason it is taught in public schools. Though it has uncountable examples, only a fraction will be mentioned. Transitional fossils are one of the major concerns on the part of creationists. They use gaps in the fossils record to argue its unreliability. Transitional fossils are the species that lie in between the transition from one species to its ancestor or descendant. When these fossils are missing, it can seem far-fetched for a whale to develop from a land dwelling dog like animal, but when the fossils in between these two species are discovered, the transition becomes clearer. Though
Following the statement of Paul Davies was the announcement of Stephen Gould, another evolutionist. Earlier in the video, Dr. Mortenson places a significant burden on the evolutionary tree. He then proposes the question of, is there any fossil evidence, supporting the evolutionary tree. In regards to the truth of the tree, Gould declared evolutionist only have enough information and evidence to support the tips of the tree. Still scientist will argue, they possess evidence to prove evolution. But Mortenson provides us with sufficient evidence and countless assertions of evolutionary scientist testify, the fossils scientists have discovered almost identically match their common day ancestors. So the question is clear, how much tangible evidence does evolutionist have? The answer is none! Scientists have no concrete physical evidence to support their claim that evolution is fact. Contrary to that, evolution has fashioned countless physical examples and made numerous assumptions; all of which has been proven to be false. In the end, this supplies us with a crystal clear truth of evolution, and leaves us without any doubt evolution is absolutely
Evolution has been a constantly debated topic with central importance in defining the origin of man. Creationism is still a common belief in modern society, somehow maintaining validity through assumed truth; this belief attained its popularity many years before the concept of evolution itself, yet is the main opponent of the theory of evolution. Alan Rogers, author of In Evidence for Evolution, provides thorough arguments against creationism, ranging from molecular to morphological data. He argues that many creationists use “arguments from personal incredulity,” meaning that a lack of a fathomable explanation to a question is proof of an answer. Creationists are strong proponents of these arguments; rather than acknowledging the
Evolutionist believe that their carbon dating method is accurate and can specifically date fossils and bones back to a certain period in time. They believe this works for when something dies the carbon 14 it has in its body will start to decay. So when half of the carbon 14 that used to be in this living thing has decayed they say that it has been dead for 5730 years which is considered a half life. Creationists believe that Carbon Dating is inaccurate for many reasons. Charles Darwin was making the assumption that the earth has been around for billions of years when he published his book ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859. It was not until 1940 when radioactive Carbon 14 was discovered by Martin Carbon. Carbon dating was not invented until 1947 by Willard Libby (Radiocarbon dating). So how would we know that the fossils or bones are really that old back then? Also, Carbon dating is only reliable back to 50,00 years ago, so how do they determine the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old with only 50,000 years of so called proof? The Big Bang, common ancestry and carbon dating are all proven false if you just use common sense. Although an evolutionist would probably bring up how was God created and how would we know God is real but that ties in with your faith. It is difficult to believe evolution with all this evidence that shows it is