Back on Topic : The three Scientifically based Creationist arguments that have appeared on the thread (and rebuttals)
There are no transitional forms in the fossil record, anywhere including humans.
This is the most common creationist argument.Darwin recognised this when he wrote "Why then is not every geological formation and every stream full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". Creationists, however, ignore the rest of Darwin's chapter, in which he addresses the problem.
There are two main answers
1. There are transitionary forms - some unknown to Darwin
e.g. Archeopteryx is a classic example which is part reptile / part bird
2. Gould and Eldredge argue that gaps do not indicate missing data of slow change, rather, 'missing fossils are evidence of rapid and episodic change ('punctuated equilibrium')
Structures such as an Whale fin or a bat wing are proof of intelligent design
This argument works against creationist theory. Why would a whale have the same bones in its fin as a bat has in its wings. On omnipotent designer would have done better, surely, or did 'he' lack imagination?
The second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution cannot take place.
The second law applies to closed, isolated systems. The Earth receives energy from the Sun so is strictly not a closed system. On Earth, entropy may decrease and order increase. Life may evolve without violating any natural laws. Recent research in chaos theory suggest that order can and does spontaneously generate out of apparent chaos.
Does one break the laws of Gravity by jumping?
w. |
