Museum's Fossils Presented in Creationist Context

Reader Comments
Back to article

Evolution can be used to predict. The transitional fossil Titaalik is a fossil with both properties of fish and land animals. It was found in a Devonian (about 375 million years ago) river formation in Canada. The discoverers looked for this fossil based upon what they knew about the first appearance of land animals. This discovery was predicted based upon the theory of evolution.
Darwin predicted the finding of DNA long before it was discovered.
Evolution is a testable scientific theory. As an example, if anyone found a rabbit in the Permian, than the Theory of Evolution would be disproved.

Rev Jim of MN 4:19PM April 09, 2011

If one looks at the geologic record, you see a progression from invertebrates, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans. There isn't any evidence for biblical creation, there is no world wide flood, there is not enough water on earth for the claim, and the ark described in the bible is not big enough to hold all the species. If it were true, how did kangaroos end up in Australia? Biblical creation is a myth.

Rev Jim of MN 3:59PM April 09, 2011

Of course evolution takes place. That is observable and testable. What is neither observable nor testable is the idea that evolution created life in the first place. No one was here to either observe it nor test it.
Darwin's finches evolved BUT they were (are) still finches. That's not to say they didn't change at all. We all need to learn to think scientifically instead of taking what someone, including scientists, tell us at face value. We need to consider the utter impossibility of life coming from nothing. At the same time we need to be careful of getting our exercise by jumping to conclusions!
I believe that God created the earth and everything in it in six literal days and rested the seventh--and that it didn't happen millions of years ago. In short I am a young earth creationist. I believe in science, and am 100% sure that this world is not exactly the same as when He made it.
If you examine fossils, yes, you find plants and animals that no longer exist. At the same time, you'll find fossils of plants and animals that are doing fine in today's world.

Ruth deGraaff of AK 7:26PM October 20, 2010

Almighty God is the Creator of this Universe. There are so many awesome things about His creation that alot of people do not know especially with animals and the human body is no exception.

Helen of LA 8:29PM August 12, 2010

Bill: Did you get vaccinated for H1N1 virus?
I suggest you look up the evolution of the swine flu and how scientists have been using evolution to predict how it will change.

Myrdek of FL 1:39PM November 04, 2009

It would seem to me that evolution fails two of the three aforementioned tests:
"It must testable in experiments"
"Predications of future outcomes based on its principles"

Bill Forsyth, III of OH 3:53PM October 28, 2009

This is really outrageous. No, wait... it isn't. The creationists have done this too many times for me to be outraged anymore. >:( Also, the name gives no hint that it's a creationist museum. This may have no negative effect, but it seems to me that this might help fool people.
PS. From what I understand, there is both a "theory of evolution" and a "fact of evolution". I'm not an expert so I suggest you look it up instead of just trusting me. Intelligent design, which is the same thing as creationism (remember "cdesign proponentsists" from Kitzmiller v. Dover? :] ), is not a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. A "theory" in science is different than a "theory" in everyday speech (*theory* of gravity!). This is, sadly, a common misconception.

Millie of IL 11:40AM October 28, 2009

For something to be classified as a " scientific theory" it must fulfill a number of requirements.
It must have a quantity of supporting scientific evidence
It must testable in experiments
Predications of future outcomes based on its principles
to name but a few.
Neither creationism or ID fill any of these requirements, therefor cannot be considered scientific let alone scientific theory

Peter of IL 3:12PM October 23, 2009