Question for you AIG_Busted. The constant response from the creationist when you show a transitional fossil is that this is just one of God's unique creatures, similar design similar designer, etc. They go on to say there are no transitional fossils.
They also pretend that such things as Pakicetus or Basilasaurus are not surprising finds at all. Just some of God's unique creatures.
So here's my question to you. Prior to the discovery of such things as these whale transitional forms, did prominent creationists ever assert that such things would never be found? I assume evolutionists must have posited that land dwelling mammals must have existed with some whale like features, then subsequently their rear legs shortened, their heads elongated, their nostrils moved towards the top of the head. So we should see fossils that look like this. Did the creationists say that we would never find such things?
I think that would show that these things are unexpected on Creationism, but are expected on evolution, and now that they are found this is powerful evidence for evolution. It would be great to be able to ask the creationist "Why did Duane Gish, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind claim that we would never find these very fossils if these are not unexpected on creationism."
Yes, creationists have often exploited "gaps" in the fossil record as being fatal to evolution. Philip Johnson, in his book "Darwin on Trial", made a big deal out of the lack of whale fossils, as did Michael Denton in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". I do not recall if they asserted that such things would never be found, but they clearly saw this as a crackerjack argument against evolution, and never once thought it would be a problem for intelligent design.
So yes, evolution expects it, for IDers it does not matter what is found, and for regular creationists transitional fossils should not be found at all because Genesis implies that animals were created in discrete kinds.
Question for you AIG_Busted. The constant response from the creationist when you show a transitional fossil is that this is just one of God's unique creatures, similar design similar designer, etc. They go on to say there are no transitional fossils.
ReplyDeleteThey also pretend that such things as Pakicetus or Basilasaurus are not surprising finds at all. Just some of God's unique creatures.
So here's my question to you. Prior to the discovery of such things as these whale transitional forms, did prominent creationists ever assert that such things would never be found? I assume evolutionists must have posited that land dwelling mammals must have existed with some whale like features, then subsequently their rear legs shortened, their heads elongated, their nostrils moved towards the top of the head. So we should see fossils that look like this. Did the creationists say that we would never find such things?
I think that would show that these things are unexpected on Creationism, but are expected on evolution, and now that they are found this is powerful evidence for evolution. It would be great to be able to ask the creationist "Why did Duane Gish, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind claim that we would never find these very fossils if these are not unexpected on creationism."
Hi Jon,
ReplyDeleteYes, creationists have often exploited "gaps" in the fossil record as being fatal to evolution. Philip Johnson, in his book "Darwin on Trial", made a big deal out of the lack of whale fossils, as did Michael Denton in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". I do not recall if they asserted that such things would never be found, but they clearly saw this as a crackerjack argument against evolution, and never once thought it would be a problem for intelligent design.
So yes, evolution expects it, for IDers it does not matter what is found, and for regular creationists transitional fossils should not be found at all because Genesis implies that animals were created in discrete kinds.