Do scientists need some concrete evidence such as laboratory equipment from way back when, or can they determine whether it was evolution or creatinism by looking at DNA or other signatures the human body may have?
2007-01-24 08:30:42 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Anything that can't be explained through natural means. Note that does not include things we do not yet know - that's just a god of the gaps argument.
Some examples would be finding fossils in unexpected layers (e.g. finding the skeleton of a horse in the stomach of a tyrannosaurus rex), finding inexplicable chimeric creatures (something that is half chicken, half dolphin), examining biological structures and functions that could not have come about in any natural way (not finding any transitional fossils at all, but have entire lines of species just appear seemingly out of nowhere).
Now, these may all sound like silly examples, but these are the sorts of things that those who wish to support creationism and its relatives should be looking for. However, they'd rather run a public relations campaign in stead getting in there and doing hard work because they know that doing the work will only end up supporting the dreaded theory of evolution.
2007-01-24 09:33:43 · answer #1 · answered by abulafia24 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From a "scientific" point of view, there is no such thing as the "truth", what there is (or at least should be) is a "working theory" that is compliant with the available data and can reasonably explain these facts. Evolution is just that, a theory. It is however compliant with all the observed facts and, for that reason can not be discarded.
Creationism also offers an explanation but it is not compliant with the facts available, hence the "evolution of creationism" into intelligent design. Intelligent design is a possible explanation for the "truth", but is not a valid scientific theory because it is not falsiable. On that note, affirming that evolution is NOT controlled by a higher being is also not falsiable and, therefore not scientific.
2007-01-24 16:48:19 · answer #2 · answered by Dull 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Four simple measurement systems that discredit the young-Earth hypothesis.
Fossil strata.
Tree ring chonologies.
Radiometric dating.
The molecular clock.
2007-01-24 18:06:27 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fossil rabbits in the precambrian deposits.
Only ignorant people believe in creationism anyway. Take a look at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
2007-01-24 16:34:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Isn't someone suppose to show up? That would put the icing on the cake, would it not?
2007-01-24 16:53:05 · answer #5 · answered by kwh_ca 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how would know? though the evolutionist theory is really lame. Everything that they bring up all contradicts itself. Trust Me. Read the bible.
2007-01-24 16:40:47 · answer #6 · answered by Kay 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the bible
2007-01-24 16:42:26 · answer #7 · answered by ckielblock18 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋