Response #7 to Pastor Al
By Merle Hertzler
Here is the next comment posted to me by Pastor Alfredo Martinez Jr. at my blog.
Here is my response:
Okay, so you have no answer to the evidence?
The nested hierarchies of creatures shows that creatures are related. Mainstream scientists can understand why a zebra is so much like a horse, for they are related. And we can understand why all birds have feathers and no other animals do. And we can understand why all mammals have those 3 bones in the ears, but no other animals do. Related creatures share features they inherited. But you have no explanation for this, do you?
The modern horse and zebra do not appear in the fossil record before 2 million years ago. In the last 55 million years the fossil record shows a steady progression of different horse genera. First there was the Hyracatherium, which was about the size of a fox and had padded feet. Then came in order the Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus and finally horses and zebras. In each step, the fossils look more and more like modern horses. How can you explain these hundreds of fossils and the fact that arranging these fossils by date shows progression in time? (See Horse Evolution.) You have no explanation for that fact, do you?
Many dinosaur fossils have been found, and all date older than 65 million years. Many human remains have been found, and all date younger than 1 million years. Why is this so? I think it is because dinosaurs lived long before humans. You have no explanation for this, do you?
For billions of years the fossil record shows signs only of simple one-celled creatures. Complex creatures do not show up in the fossil record until more recently. I think this is because there were microbes long before there were complex creatures. You cannot explain that, can you?
What do you do with all that evidence? Do you just ignore it and hope it goes away?
Some people interpret Genesis differently from you.
And what about the evidence listed above? None of that fits with your view, does it?
You misunderstand how the basic organs began.
Long ago there were only one-celled creatures. Then these cells began to stick together in colonies, and these colonies had some advantages over one-celled creatures. Then cells within the colony began to specialize, just as people began to specialize when they came together into towns. For instance, some cells arranged themselves into a tube with each cell beating in rhythm with its neighbors, thus forcing water to flow through the tube. The seawater was pumped past all of the cells, and all of the cells then had a constant source of oxygen and nutrients. This was the first crude digestive system, with the inlet as the mouth, the outlet as the anus, and the cells along the tube absorbing nutrients. Many improvements were made on the system with time.
So the basic structure of the digestive system and other organs was formed gradually as single cells started to work in cooperation. The failure of the first attempts of cells to form colonies did not bring instant death, for the cells were capable of living on their own. Only later did cells get to the point where most cells could not survive unless they were part of the colony-creature.
So organs started forming when organisms were little more than colonies of cells. Those colonies survived well with unformed or partially-formed organs.
The reason I described how the eye could have been formed was because you told me it was impossible. And the explanation I gave you answers your charge.
And, no I could not tell you with certainty exactly how it happened, because the soft tissue that formed the early eyes did not preserve well in the fossil record. Just because we don't know all of the details does not prove it never happened.
For years nobody had seen the back side of the moon. You would not say that the moon therefore had no back side, would you? Surely you can understand that the inability of scientists to see something in no way proves that the object does not exist. The inability of scientists to directly observe the development of eyes of the early creatures does not prove it never happened.
Are you sure contemporary genetics disproves evolution? That's odd. Why do scientists who understand genetics overwhelmingly support evolution?
If science is on your side, why do the overwhelming majority of scientists vocally disagree with you? 764 scientists named Steve have joined Project Steve and signed a document saying, "the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry," that evolution is a fundamental concept of science, and that creationism should not be taught as science in schools. And that is just the Steves (and people with names that are derivative of Steve). The list would be huge if it was open to all scientists. The scientific support for evolution is overwhelming.
So are you sure you have the proper understanding of genetics, and that the scientific community has it wrong?
Wisdom created malaria, cancer, poisonous snakes, and the imperfect genetic code we see? One wonders why wisdom would have given mammals a backwards retina. See All Things Dull and Ugly.
If evolution is not science, why do all of those Steves think it is vital science? Is it possible those scientists named Steve know something you don't?
Let me explain this to you one more time. I opposed evolution until I studied the overwhelming evidence for it. I found myself forced to acknowledge the evidence. The change in my view had nothing to do with blind faith.
If you can cast out evolution from the textbooks, in spite of the evidence, can others cast out a round earth? If you can ignore the evidence for evolution, can they ignore the evidence for a round earth?
Science has brought us out of the stone age. I cannot see ripping firmly established principles of science out of textbooks, such as evolution or a round earth, just because some people choose to ignore the evidence. Pulling science facts--like evolution--out of the textbooks can only harm our kids.