At another forum someone raised an issue I thought might be worthy of a debate here, because I have noticed that the evolutionists at EFF forum seem to be more educated about creationists than at EvC forum.
Here one member, Dr Adequate says:http://www.evcforum....rol=msg&t=19182
DrA: Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, although (as we shall see) they don't really know what this order consists of. In the creationist imagination, the fossil record has crude, primitive organisms at the bottom, and then as one works up through the sedimentary layers the organisms get progressively more sophisticated, complex, agile, intelligent, etc, culminating in the awesome wonder that is Man.
Notice he says, "as we shall see" but in order to prove his claim he has to show that creationists really argue this.
Here is what creation scientists have ACTUALLY said about earlier forms:
Creation scientist: Trilobites are mostly found in Cambrian rock3 which evolutionists claim was laid down hundreds of millions of years ago. Most people mistakenly think that these were much simpler creatures than today’s. This is actually not true. The aggregate eye, for example, reveals remarkably precise design. The details in the technical section below show us that this trilobite eye, far from being ‘primitive,’ was constructed on the basis of precise optical engineering principles which people only discovered a few centuries ago......(and) ..The fossilized arthropod was an extinct giant shrimp-like creature identified as Anomalocaris6 and described as having “at least 16,000 hexagonally packed ommatidial lenses (in a single eye), rivalling the most acute compound eyes in modern arthropods.”4 So, again, complexity and stasis—arthropods’ fully-functional eyes have always been that way.
The reason I raise this issue here is because I myself have never known even one creationist to argue that the fossil record starts with "primitive" forms, or that only man is a, "wonder". One thing I would consider a "wonder" is the dragon-fly, which has remained unchanged and has no evolutionary ancestors. The aerodynamics of flight is also incredible. The insect wing is incredible, The earliest insect wings are fully insect-wings, and are found in very, "old" rock.
So my question is - do "creationists" argue what Dr A says we do? Further still, have you ever known even ONE creationist to argue what he says we argue?
(To be fair to the anti-theists at EvC forum I shall give them a link to this thread. I doubt they will join the discussion here even though they're welcome because at EFF forum you basically are forced by the admin, to remain civil, polite, and are not allowed to use the propagandist, rhetorical tricks, and personal ad-hominem attacks, that so many anti-theists seem to DEPEND on).
Disclaimer: I am not attacking Dr A here, I just thought what he said was pretty bemusing, and perhaps we could discuss how primitive creatures are. My understanding of evolution is that a simple primordial form (though the least form has to be complex anyway) gave rise to all forms, so then under evolutionary-terminology, the monophyletic trunk of the phylogenetic tree then led to branching (diversification, when one isn't arguing convergification, LOL) and then the species at the tips are modern. This is rather bemusing again when we consider than you ARE allowed to call a trilobite, "primitive/ancient" but not a jellyfish if the jellyfish is found in similar-aged rocks. That is to say, AT FIRST you could not call a jellyfish, "ancient" then when they found them, now they are classed as, "primitive/ancient"
Which logically is ODD, because if an evolutionist says, BEFORE we found jellyfish fossils, "show me a modern jellyfish in the rocks" and I can't, when they are later found in older rocks, now he will say, "a jellyfish doesn't count, it is ancient".
Hmmmm. So we don't find any, "modern" forms in the rocks, and when we do I guess they are then classed as, "ancient". The question is, how many other "modern" forms are only silent. (not too long ago they found a living fossil, a pelican spider, presumed ancient and extinct) (we haven't found positive evidence of them, YET) -- but creationists wouldn't expect to find bunnies with marine-forms anyway folks, in case the evolutionists didn't know this, bunnies are not marine-creatures.