1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation.
including evidence of speciation, natural selection, genetics and mitochondrial dna, and a fossil record full of intermediate forms? i mean, in the the strictest sense of the word, evolution is a form of creationism, isn't it? if you wanna believe god made the world 6,000 years ago in 6 days, and i wanna believe he's been making it through natural processes for the last 4.5 billion years, well, they're not much different, really, are they?
let draw the line somewhere, shall we? aside from the god bit. the evidence is on my side.
a)"microevolution"--changes in a population, for example, *bacteria* evolving into other kinds of *bacteria*. Because we've evolved new forms of bacteria is by no means an argument that all plants and animals evolved from a single cell!
lets go for a walk, shall we? one step at a time. a little farther here, a little farther there. it's too bad we'll never get out of the neighborhood.
you know, unless we keep walking.
you see, "species" "genus" "family" etc are all arbitrary lines we draw. there's no magical barrier there, a so called glass ceiling of biology, to stop things from going further.
the aforementioned archaeopteryx was kind of tricky to classify (i don't even know where it lies taxonomically). see, it's got most of the body of a dinosaur. but it's hips are more bird-like than other similar dinosaurs. it's tail is shorter, but not as short as a bird's, and lacks the specialized end. it's starting to develop the bird's breastbone, but lacks the rib articulation. it has feathers, but no beak. it's head is liek a dinosaur's, but it lacks the neck ribbing like birds. it really is stuck somewhere between dinosaur and bird.
group this with the dozen or two other feathered dinosaur exacmples we have, all at different states, it's pretty safe to call it a transitional fossil.
creationist debates are always funny. show me a transitional species, they say. something half way between two large seperate groups of animals. and someone posts a picture of an archaeopteryx.
some say it's a bird. some say it's a dinosaur. some say it's fake. some say transitional fossils don't mean anything. well... make up your minds. but uhh, none of those answers are right.
Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures.
i had an amphibian once, called an axylotl. the problem is, it wasn't EXACLTY an amphibian. see, it never grew out of the fish-like stage, and got up on land on it's legs. it had gills, legs, and swam. it also has primitive lungs that aren't good for much but floatation.
they provide a good look at what amphibians were just before they became amphibians. these things are closer to lungfish, really. but every now and then... one goes through metamorphosis and becomes something very like a salamander. apparently, it just takes the right hormone...
™ Version 4.2