Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?

These "20 issues" are typical of creation "science" as we see it today.The details don't matter; to creation "scientists" details really don't matter because creation "science" is apologetics, designed to support fundamentalist Christian belief.The ultimate answers are "known" to its practitioners. The details of how things got the way they are are unimportant. If it was not by one method, it was by another, and they don't much care either way.This, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the way real science operates.But that list of 20 "evolution killers" is standard fare for creation "science." Its not supposed to be real science; its enough that it convinces those who already believe. And when the list is picked apart by scientists, who cares? Creation "scientists" already know the answers so the "interpretations" of evilutionists don't matter.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The Time-Life book Early Man appears to be from 1968.There have been a lot of discoveries and refinements since then, both in fossils and in dating methods.And the field of genetics and DNA analysis has come into its own since then.But don't let that stand in the way of the standard creationist talking point that science is all wrong and can't be trusted because it changes.Those changes represent improvements; science is becoming more accurate all the time.Your examples from the Early Man book are horribly outdated. Care to try again with current scientific findings? What, for example, do you think of Homo ergaster and its role as a transitional?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.