Originally posted by Laser Eyes
(i) Evolutionary theory suggests a fossil record that contains very simple life forms gradually changing into complex ones with transitional links between them and new body features starting to appear. Creation suggests a fossil record that contains complex life forms suddenly appearing, variety only within species, no transitional links between species and no partial body features. Many scientists openly admit that when you look for links between biological families they just aren't there.
"Many scientists" is not the majority of experts in the field who
do see the links. There are many examples of transitional* features in the fossil record (examples provided upon request). Genetics has greatly augmented the ability to draw connections between species/families alongside the fossil record evidence.
* This terminology (along with "partial features") implies a directed goal from Feature A to Feature B...which is not an accurate reflection of the theory of evolution which pertains to selection forces on variations within a population (a branching of variations, not a ladder or one-way road). Similarly, simple-to-complex is not required for evolution. Most life has remained simple (most life throughout history has remained as bacteria) and there are examples of complex-to-simple (e.g., multiple toes changing to a single hoof). Evolution is change.
I would also say that Creationism suggests a fossil record*, with not just "complex life appearing suddenly", but in which all complex and simple life (aside from speciation within a "kind") appear instantaneously in the beginning. Humans and trilobites should be found in the same rock (they aren't).
* - Somehow! since the fossil record we see would take far longer than 6000 years to create (fossilization is a rare and slow process). That, plus the stratigraphy & geography of the fossil finds are still not explained with Creationism.
Even Darwin in his Origin of the Species admitted the fossil record did not support his theory when he said, "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, ... imperfect to an extreme degree."
Darwin was indeed concerned that, because fossilization is so rare, the fossil record would be an imperfect proof of his theory. But he did not say that the fossil record disproved his theory.
After more than a century of research, and an extensive record now discovered, the fossil record reveals the same thing it did in Darwin's day: Complex life forms appearing suddenly without transitional links between different species. Far from supporting the theory of evolution, the fossil record lends weight to the arguments for creation.
Disagree. The fossil record shows a clear transition of life forms through the ages. The difficulty is in connecting each dot-to-dot because, again, fossilization is rare (and it's hard to find the fossils that did form). But, as you say, there is an extensive record available after a century of work and that does paint a picture of transition. Human fossils did not appear instantly...they had precursors that show up in the fossil record (e.g., earlier species of the genus Homo, preceeded by species of the genus Australopithecus, which was preceeded by the genus Ardipithicus, and so on and so on.).
Just recently, a well supported transition of land animals to whales was found in the fossil record.
It's worthy to note that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (proposed modification to the current theory of Neodarwinism) offers an explanation for examples of stasis in the fossil record (the idea being that the PACE of evolution speeds up and slows down at various times rather than proceeding at a constant slow pace as suggested by strict Darwinism). But even those faster times are still over long time frames.
In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."
I'll have to dust off my copy of Cosmos to check that. It seems to be taken out of context, knowing that Sagan did not support Creationism.
