Here are some questions I have for creationists. I am not trying to be mean or malicious, but I feel these questions must be answered before creation can be considered anything like a valid scientific proposal.
1. What about the 'missing links'? Creationists write them off as either completely human or completely primate, but how can this be? We have archaic forms of homo sapiens with primitive traits, and we have upright apes with large craniums (Australopithicus Afarensis). What were all these subhuman creatures doing walking the earth?
2. What about atavisms?
3. What about ERVs?
4. What about the order of the fossil record? Why aren't dinosaurs and man found together? Three main mechanisms were proposed, but Stephen Jay Gould set you straight on that in the Arkansas trial. So just why does the fossil record appear to show evolution?
5. What would falsify creation?
3 comments:
Of all these questions, I think the last one is the most telling. I would like to see scientists/"evolutionists" answer the same type of question: What would disprove evolution? My prediction is that scientists would come up with many scenarios (difficult given all the evidence in support) and that creationists wouldn't have any. Let's hear from both sides!
I'd say something on the order of fossil rabbits in the precambrian, or fossil hominids with dinosaurs would do the trick. A creature that mixed two different lineages would also be great evidence. Then again, Darwin didn't know about DNA, so if each major group of animal used something besides DNA, that would do the job too.
@Joel:
Here's an entire page that presents a series of different conditions that would falsify evolution, as well as the observed reality that supports evolution.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm
Post a Comment