Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons

Hi. I was wondering if I would be able to get some information about Evolution. I have studied Creationism pretty extensively, and now I wish to do the same for Evolution. I am thinking of possibly writing a paper on Evolution, but I don't have many arguments for it. I would like to receive 3 or 4 things, if it is possible.
1. The Top Ten arguments why Evolution is true (or any number).2. The Top Ten arguments against Creationism (or any number).3. Responses to some Creationist and/or ID arguments.And possibly most importantly:4. Definitions for some of the most commonly used words
(For example: God, Intelligent Design, Evolution, etc.)Thanks to all who answer, I greatly appreciate it.

Not wanting to be mean, but I think you will find all of what you are asking for here already. Why don't you spend a little time browsing and ask any questions about what you find.The links supplied will also give you a lot more information than you're going to have time for. Talk Origins is my fav.------------------
Common sense isn't

Seconding NosyNed's recommendation, I'll make it a little more specific:The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQsThe talk-origins "Must Read" files.

Here's a fun ten. They are in the order that they were realized by humanity:1. Fossil animals are different from living animals (Cuvier, 1708)2. Living organisms are organized in nested heirarchies of form (Linneaus, 1758)3. Geological processes are uniform and many sedimentary features are very old (Hutton, 1788)4. Domestic animals are changed through artificial selection and nature seems to do the same thing to wild ones (Darwin, 1859)6. Organisms pass on genetic material through reproduction (Mendel, 1865)7. Microevolution proven in captive fruit fly experiments (Dobzhansky, late 1920's)8. DNA discovered (Watson and Crick, 1953)9. Radiometric dating developed and actual rock ages are shown to correspond to fossil ages predicted by evolutionary morphology (Macroevolution) (Evernden, Savage,Curtis and James, 1964)10. Human and Chimp genomes are compared in detail and are very, very similar (about a week ago)

Very nice, but I can't help but feel you snitched this list from someone. Source please?My apologies, if that is an original compilation.Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links-----
Added by edit - I've seen the following message. Cheers to you. NosyNed has already given the message a "Post of the Month" nomination. - Still Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-14-2003]

...for the compliment.I wrote it myself.send me an email if you would like to verify

Wow, that's great world! Can I possibly use that, and site your homepage as the source?Also, I just wanted to clarify, as there seemed to be confusion over what I was asking for. I would like lists just such as world's. They are simple, and they just state the facts. If I want a detailed argument of it, then I would look over the rest of the information on that. I would just like the list to know where to start. Therefore, any links and such would also be helpful. Thanks.Servus Dei

As world said that is a "fun" list. Lists are not a very useful way to learn about what the science is all about. In any case, people have given them in the topic here:http://EvC Forum: What convinced you of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What convinced you of Evolution?

Servus-I can't help get the feeling that you trolling for lists to avoid going further with your own research.It is always easier to have faith in others than to think for yourself.Critical thought is the first step to understanding.I would be delighted if you used the list to jump deeper into any of the subjects on it.I would be dismayed if you used it as a straw man for some creationist semantic game.In any case, the post is up. You can do whatever you want with it. Here are some suggestions on how to cite electronic sources:Home - Evaluating Resources - Library Guides at UC Berkeley

Perhaps you could tell us what you have concluded about it and why you have reached that conclusion (however, tentative the conclusion may be).I'm safe in saying that if you think you have support for it you'll get some of your "Top Ten arguments against Creationism" in very short order . You'll find that the support is thin to non-existant when it is held up to critical scrutiney.

What happens when intelligent, yet desperate Christians deliberately spin intelligent arguments to trick other less-intelligent Christians into thinking they are not valid?Sound's kind of like the work of that clever and tricky devil of yours!Just out of curiosity, Servus, have you used the previous posts on any other sites?Why won't you post your responses here?

At last count, I had over 60 bits of evidence against ID at my website: This website is frozen.Cheers, DT / Oolon

This thread:http://EvC Forum: paper against evolution, for intelligent designHas some good stuff ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

GreetingsThe purpose of this reply is to expose the rhetoric contained in post #12 of this topic.Remember rhetoric is the mis-use of logic in order to support a belief.This post directs you to a website that lists what the creator calls abnormalities in nature which is intended as evidence against ID.The nonsense of this argument assumes that an Intelligent Creator would not create these abnormalities thus creation was not intelligently designed.The creator of this website (and others like it) are using a flawed criteria to determine the lack of intelligent design. The flaw is contained in their starting assumption, which is that they have subjectively decided that IF creation was intelligently designed then it cannot have these abnormalities. They place God in a box that they have previously constructed, a box that says God MUST pass the scrutiny of our litmus test.This website and its message reflect the bias of their worldview (atheism) and there is nothing wrong with that. The "evidence " presented is a deduction that a Creator cannot exist because He would not create these abnormalities. Yet using this same criteria (to deduce) they will not deduce the existence of a Creator from all that is not "flawed".The Bible teaches that God left His fingerprints all over creation and the inability to deduce from what is made that a Creator made it is because you are suffering the wrath of God. (which is another subject)

No, the creationists are the ones putting God in a box. By starting with the assumption that God directly created everything, they choose to accept any evidence that supports this assumption and ignore any that calls it into question. Thus, God the creator passes the rigged litmus test regardless of the facts. Isn't this perspective even more disrespectful of God than forthright atheism?For every aspect of natural phenomena whose design impresses us, there are others that baffle us with their redundant complexity, amuse us with their clear lack of foresight, or disgust us with their blatant cruelty. All Darwinsterrier is saying is that nature should be taken on its own terms. If the design objectively appears to be the product of purposeful intelligence, so be it. However, if the design is much more indicative of a mindless process of variation and selection, let's admit that too.The creationist is the only one linking the origin of organic molecules or the nature of the process of biological evolution with the existence of the supernatural. It's not our problem that your faith seems to depend on there being an aim and purpose behind biological complexity. Many people, believers and atheists alike, don't consider scientific evidence particularly important to their philosophical worldview. Your assertion that only an atheist would deny that biology is proof of the existence of God is manifestly false. Many believers would say that whether biological complexity is the product of intelligent purpose or mechanistic processes, their faith would remain the same. But then their faith is probably a lot more mature and realistic than yours.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall