Ray Moscow
10 Sep 2009, 07:13 AM
(As highlighted on Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/the_five_best_arguments_for_cr.php)): from the Telegraph:
The best arguments to support Creation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6163313/Creation-film-the-ten-best-evolution-vs.-creation-arguments.html)
The first one says it all:
No evidence for evolution
There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps becuase of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.
Jebus, they let these guys write for major newspapers? :)
The reply in favour of evolution is a lot better:
Support
The evidence in support of evolution is vast, supported by tens of thousands of laboratory studies.The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory – as do more than half of the world’s religious bodies.
The best arguments to support Creation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6163313/Creation-film-the-ten-best-evolution-vs.-creation-arguments.html)
The first one says it all:
No evidence for evolution
There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps becuase of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.
Jebus, they let these guys write for major newspapers? :)
The reply in favour of evolution is a lot better:
Support
The evidence in support of evolution is vast, supported by tens of thousands of laboratory studies.The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory – as do more than half of the world’s religious bodies.