I was reading this article on Creation Science Evangelism recently, and I just didn’t know what to say. The article basically creates a mock debate between a creationist and an evolutionist. Pretty soon, the evolutionist resorts to insulting the creationist. Now that’s just rude. I know that I would never do that. Frankly, if I were the one representing evolution, things would go a lot differently. Here’s how the debate would probably go:
Creationist: Hey, why do you believe in evolution when there’s no evidence for it?
Me: First of all, I don’t believe in evolution. Rather, I support it. Saying that you believe in evolution carries religious implications that shouldn’t be there.
Creationist: Are you telling me evolution isn’t a religion? You bet it is! Let’s start with the fact that out of the six kinds of evolution, only one can be observed and tested-that’s microevolution, which is really not evolution at all. The rest aren’t science-they’re religion.
Me: That whole “six kinds” baloney makes no sense! For starters, the first four kinds don’t have to do with evolution. They have to do with the Big Bang, star formation, chemical formation, and the origin of life. Evolution doesn’t explain any of this. It just explains how life diversified to fill niches. And anyway, the fifth one, macroevolution, is observable in the fossil record. Lots of transitional forms exist in the fossil record that show gradual evolution.
Creationist: So what if the six kinds argument isn’t true? Those “transitional forms” you speak of have all been falsified! For instance, Archaeopteryx, touted by evolutionists as proof of dinosaur-bird evolution, is just a bird, not a transitional form!
Me: Yes, Archaeopteryx was a bird. But it had teeth, and claws, like a reptile. Additionally, we find feathered dinosaurs all the time, so we have evidence for dinosaur-bird evolution on both sides of the spectrum.
Creationist: But wasn’t Lucy’s kneecap found miles away from the rest of the skeleton? And don’t experts now agree that Lucy was just a chimp?
Me: No, and no. The so-called “Lucy’s kneecap” was from a different skeleton. Plus, no credible expert has ever claimed that Lucy was just a tall chimpanzee! And even if the kneecap argument was true, Lucy still had lumbar vertebrae (info courtesy of Wikipedia), a sign of bipedalism.
Creationist: The whole fossil record was probably formed by the Flood, anyway.
Me: I was hoping that you’d bring the Flood up! If the fossil record had been formed by the Flood, wouldn’t we see something a little more random than each dinosaur species in one of three layers, and not appearing anywhere else? I mean, if you can show me evidence that a T-rex was fossilized with some woolly mammoths, that would be more along the lines of Flood evidence.
Creationist: You know, Noah didn’t have to bring every species of animal onboard the Ark. He just had to bring every kind. A kind is different from a species. And Noah might have just brought juveniles aboard the Ark, for a lot of reasons.
Me: That’s what I always hear. Creationists have never really defined a “kind”. Is it a domestic dog kind? A canid kind? A carnivore kind? A mammal…”
Creationist: Okay, okay, I get the point. But what about the juvenile argument?
Me: As for that? Well, Talkorigins says that Noah brought “a male and its mate”. That was from Genesis 7:2, so the juvenile argument actually contradicts the Bible, because the verse indicates that if Noah brought animals, they were at sexual maturity. That’s about maybe three-fourths the size of an adult, and really wouldn’t make any difference.
Creationist: Fine, so maybe all the animals couldn’t fit on the Ark. Okay then, but what about the Cambrian Explosion, where thousands of different species erupted from seemingly nowhere, in only a thirty million year period? Isn’t that a problem for evolution?
Me: Not at all! Firstly, preliminary fossils have been found that predate the Cambrian Explosion, so evolution is still plausible for that scenario. And secondly, if evolution is true, man had only about six or seven million years to evolve. Thirty million? No trouble at all!
Creationist: Dinosaurs could have lived with man! All of those dragon stories could have just been dinosaurs.
Me: You know the story of the griffin?
Creationist: Yeah, body of a lion, head and wings of an eagle. What about it?
Me: Some historians think that the griffin was inspired by Protoceratops skulls. However, does that mean that the ancient Mongolians saw Protoceratops and were inspired to write about the griffin? You see, dragons could have been inspired by dinosaurs, but they didn’t need to be alive.
Creationist: What about the Paluxy tracks? The Ica Stones?
Me: The Paluxy tracks are believed to either be a misidentification, or a hoax. Actually, there is some testimony to support the latter. And the Ica Stones? Local villagers have admitted to faking them. And anyway, the stones also show signs of ancient astronauts. Do you believe that aliens visited the guys who carved those stones?
Creationist: No. How about this: the Grand Canyon was obviously formed by the Flood!
Me: That argument has been used time and time again, but there’s a few big problems with it. For one thing, most floods go in a straight pattern, but the Grand Canyon is sort of zigzag-shaped. Why? It wasn’t formed by the Flood! And of course, there’s the fact that if the Flood HAD formed the Grand Canyon, the natural wonder would be shallower and wider, not looking like someone had taken an ax to it.
And so on and so forth. But I would never insult a creationist, even if their arguments have been long disproven. People deserve respect.