Well, I think it's time to stir the old pot again! I'll 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 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 Edit: 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. Let us take a brief look at some of the evidence that give credence to evolution. 1. Biogeography, animals are in close proximity to structurally similar animals. Now, creationists may argue that it is because of the similar climate but they are mistaken. Take the famous example of the Galapagos Islands. The birds there are structurally close to the ones off the South American coast even though the climates are competly different. Therefore the location must be the factor in taxonomic relatedness. Additionally islands with much more similar environments have birds that are more related to the birds of thier coast than to the birds of the Galapagos. Surely if there was an intelligent designer the birds from similar islands would have similar structures to face similar challanges, however this is simply not the case. Geography is the measure of structural similarity not climatology! 2. Paleogeography, continental drift theory shows that around the time of the early mammals (as per the fossil record) Australia breaks free from all other continents. Today, Australian mammels are massively different from all other mammels. How can creationism account for the fact that there is such a massive difference? 3. A clear line of homologous structures. In the fossil record and among modern animals they follow a nested branching line of similarities in structure. For example all vertabrates have spines and all mammals have fur. Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur? With creationism there is no answer, with evolution, the answer is because the predecessor to all furry creatures was a vertabrate. Now, many creationists will argue, "well what about structures like the eye?" But when one looks at the nature of a squid eye vs. a bug eye vs. a fish eye we see that just because they have the same purpose they are very different in terms of structure. The method in which squid eyes and fish eyes focus is very different, and bug eyes look completly unlike the eyes of other animals. The structure in eyes is very different as is the way it works, however mammal fur and structure is basically the same for all mammals! This is clearly evidence based upon observed phenomena, so we can put the myth that evolution has no way to observe it to rest! I'll post more on a "feel like it basis"