Well, I think it's time with the closing of the old thread (a replacement for the even older thread) to stir the old pot again! This thread will be started start the new thread for the following reasons: 1. So Evolutionists get the first word 2. To enlighten the masses to the evidence for evolution including: evolutionists unaware of some of the fascinating evidence, those in the middle who need to see the light, creationists to combat the notion that evolution has no evidence and that creationism is scientific. 3. So I can set up some fair ground rules to make the thread more fun. 4. Sadistic Pleasure 5, The old thread was closed The Rules: 1. No swamping the thread with articles. If you feel an article would be appropriate you may post it, but please only one per response. Also do not just post some random article, please use it as a means to augment your arguement, not as your arguement. 2. No yelling at someone to read a book. You want to post an exerpt from a book as part of your arguement, be my guest. However, yelling at someone to read a book is not going help. 3. We are arguing scientific credibility, therefore religious texts are not by fiat correct. If you want to argue religious philosophy go to the "Prove God Exists" thread. Please stay on topic 4. All standard forum rules apply, especially the no flaming, trolling and spamming rules. While one may consider their opposition to be incorrect let's not assert that they are not intelligent. Here's my claims: 1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim 2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism. As with the first thread I think I'll start off with a thought to chew on: In general many Antievolutionists when they try to argue evolution is impossible make silly assumptions about evolution. I once attended a lecture by one of if not the leading ID advocates, Micheal Behe. To provide evidence for the impossibility of evolution he took an enzymatic pathway composed (IIIRC) 9 enzymes and looked at studies that removed the genes to code for the enzymes. Because none of the systems functioned properly he argued it could not ofevolved. This arguement is silly though, because he neglects changes in the enzymes other than them spontaneusly arising. When confronted by an audience member he just said it was something to look into. When one tries to proove a currently accpeted theory as invalid, one must look through all options and not just take a first glance approach.