|
Hello,
With a High School board rejecting science books because they did not
contain creationism, I thought we should take a look at creationism
as a science.
One of the methods of science is to Form a hypothesis. Then figure out
what that hypothesis will predict. Then look for evidence that supports
your hypothesis and its predictions.
Hypothesis:
Although its hard to define Kind, we will give it a definition here.
A kind is similar to a species, but slightly different. All those that
can mate together (whether they produce non sterile offspring or not)
are of like kind. We shall assume that a Mongolian Horse (Takhi), Horse,
a Donkey and a Zebra are all types of the “horse like kind.”
Noah only took one type of each kind onto the ark, and from this kind
all the other variations of like kinds came from it. Since it is my
belief that no new information can be gained from evolution, only changes
within a kind, then that means that Noah needed to take the highest
chromosome count with him, the most information rich of each kind. A
Mongolian Horse (Takhi) has 33 pairs of chromosomes, a Horse has 32
pairs of chromosomes, a donkey has 31 and a Zebra has 22. So Noah took
a Pair of Mongolian Horses on board the ark and no Horses (normal, not
Mongolian), donkeys or Zebra. Horses, Donkey and zebra must have evolved
from the Mongolian Horse after it stepped off the ark.
The flood also distorted all radio carbon, and radiometric dating for
pre flood animals.
What the Hypothesis should predict:
•The post flood fossil record should
show Mongolian Horse fossils older than horse, donkey or zebra fossils.
As Mongolian Horses got off the ark, and then some changed into all
the others of the Horse like kind.
•We should see a rate of evolution,
as in:
-4350 years ago, Mongolian Horse walked
off the ark.
-4250 years ago, the Mongolian Horse evolved
and formed the Horse
-4150 years ago horses evolved and formed
Donkeys.
-2000 years ago horses or donkeys evolved
and formed zebra.
(Rates are only an example)
•The fossil record should support
and show some sort of recent evolution change over the years, since
the ark landed with only the Mongolian Horse of the “horse like
kind.”
•If we expect this rate to continue,
we should also be seeing the horse like kind change more, we should
be seeing a possible transitional species of the horse kind into other
horse kind that are less complicated than the Mongolian Horse.
•If the flood distorted all radiometric
data of pre flood animals, we should find a large gap in Horse, zebra
and donkey fossils. They should have existed in preflood times, then
have been killed by the flood, which would distort their readings by
thousands or possibly millions of years, then they should reappear as
they then reevolved from the ark animals. So we should see a gap between
preflood animals that arent the peak of their kind and postflood animals
that arent the peak of their kind.
•The larger we make the definition
of a Kind (I.E. if it became closer to the Genus category instead of
the species category) the larger this gap should become and the easier
it should be to find it.
Evidence:
Now we need to search the fossil record to see if these predictions
are true. If they are true, then it supports our hypothesis, if they
are not true, then we either need to change or throw out our original
hypothesis.
Is there evidence that supports this hypothesis or do we need to change
the hypothesis?
Addition:
I sent this question to AIG (www.answersingenesis.org)
and got a couple responses.
-They questioned the definition of Kinds,
However as I said, as the definition of kinds grows, so should the evidence.
- They questioned whether the Mongolian
horse was the Top Kind. I dont really know, however the farther away
we are from the top kind, the evidence should grow as well, because
there should be even more horse species that are not the top kind.
- They also assumed that I was assuming
the fossil record was consistent. Even though it does seem to be consistent,
a non consistent fossil record would also disprove this hypothesis because
it is expecting a fossil records to be organized in a basic way.
- They didn't however provide any evidence
to back up this creationism based hypothesis.
-Ari
Last Update 8/10/03
©03 Ari
Back to Main Page
|