Mithrandir wrote:Wow gryph, stir up the pot eh?
Anyway, evolution teaches a very slow and gradual change from simple to very complex (in a nutshell). There is micro evolution, change within a specie, and macro evolution or Darwinism, one life form changing over a long period of time into another. The latter is what we are talking about here. With that in mind, if evolution is true then we should see evidence of it in the fossil record. In fact, we should see this gradual change all over the fossil record. What we can actually observe is the appearance off all kinds of animals but very distinctive in characteristics. When we see a fish, it is definitely a fish...and so on. We are hard pressed to observe this slow gradual change. Instead we see distinct lines between the different species.
If we look at the definition of the two models of evolution and creationism and predict what we should find in the fossil record based on those definitions, and then examine the evidence that we have today in the fossil record and the geological column, I am convinced that the scales are tipped towards creation more than evolution.
This is not science. I'm sorry, but even if you do take religion out of it completely, your argument falls flat on its face.
In a nutshell, you're using the "well you can't prove this theory completely, so this unrelated idea must be true".
Evolution has evidence. We can see micro-evolution within our lifespan, we see fossil evidence of species with clear relationships and divergences over the centuries of our planet's existence.
What evidence does one have for creation? Your claim that there are "distinct lines"? Even if that were a valid claim (and I don't believe it is), that isn't evidence of creation. Creation isn't a theory. You don't have a valid agency, a method, anything that could be proven or disproven. Are you saying aliens dropped specific species on the planet? What color aliens? How did they fly their ships? Did they just drop eggs or entire communities? You've taken religion out of the argument, so you have to have a non-deity agency to perform these actions...
This is the problem with religion. It allows people to believe that they can replace critical thought with a patch by throwing an omnipotent power in the mix. Look closely at the theory of evolution, how it builds on scientific concepts (such as mendelian genetics) and how new scientific concepts are able to be fit in with it. This is a well developed theory, with an agency, a time frame, supporting evidence and some real-life examples. You have none of this with "creationism".