19th century writers did us no favors when they started using ‘missing link’ to describe gaps in the human fossil record. Creationists ran wild with the idea that there is such a thing. Of course, now we have countless examples of transitional fossils and understand that evolution is not just jumping from one species to another species with well-defined separators between those two species, subverting the whole concept of a ‘missing link.’
Yeah it’s like arguing that a jigsaw puzzle isn’t real, despite seeing it laid out before them completely assembled but missing 6 or 7 of the hundreds of puzzle pieces.
A lot of dinosaurs I grew up learning about never even actually existed; they just came to be because archeology played fast and loose with the bones and was just making shit up.
I have not read the book myself- someone elsewhere posted the images- but if the snail thing someone else posted is from the same book, and it appears to be, the answer is: terribly.
Ah ok, so what they mean to say isn’t so much that fossils contradict evolution but that the existence of fossils can be explained by the biblical account of Noah’s Flood.
Not the same thing of course, but then hardly surprising given the apparent level of scientific understanding on display.
Young Earth Creationists will go off on all sorts of tangents to explain it. Like how the fossils were put there by satan to spread doubt.
Even when I was a Christian, YEC’s were the idiots we made fun of. It’s an entirely unnecessary contrivance, all because they imagine that the humans who wrote everything were infallible.
I’ve heard most creationist talking points before but this one is new.
How do they attempt to argue that the existence of fossils contradicts evolution by natural selection?
The usual claim is that because fossils don’t show every single intermediary step that they can’t possibly be showing evolutionary change.
Yes, that arguement is as stupid as it seems.
19th century writers did us no favors when they started using ‘missing link’ to describe gaps in the human fossil record. Creationists ran wild with the idea that there is such a thing. Of course, now we have countless examples of transitional fossils and understand that evolution is not just jumping from one species to another species with well-defined separators between those two species, subverting the whole concept of a ‘missing link.’
Every missing link found creates two more missing links, between the new species and the ancestor and the new species and the descendant.
Yep, it’s the god of the gaps fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Yeah it’s like arguing that a jigsaw puzzle isn’t real, despite seeing it laid out before them completely assembled but missing 6 or 7 of the hundreds of puzzle pieces.
A lot of dinosaurs I grew up learning about never even actually existed; they just came to be because archeology played fast and loose with the bones and was just making shit up.
I could see that being used against it also.
It wasn’t that long ago that I learned that brontosaurus wasn’t a thing. Also, I guess there’s a new ocean and one less planet? 🤷🏻♂️
I have not read the book myself- someone elsewhere posted the images- but if the snail thing someone else posted is from the same book, and it appears to be, the answer is: terribly.
Ah ok, so what they mean to say isn’t so much that fossils contradict evolution but that the existence of fossils can be explained by the biblical account of Noah’s Flood.
Not the same thing of course, but then hardly surprising given the apparent level of scientific understanding on display.
They just do. Didn’t you read the book?
Motivated reasoning, same as all their other arguments. They’re just shuffling cards.
Young Earth Creationists will go off on all sorts of tangents to explain it. Like how the fossils were put there by satan to spread doubt.
Even when I was a Christian, YEC’s were the idiots we made fun of. It’s an entirely unnecessary contrivance, all because they imagine that the humans who wrote everything were infallible.