Let's see, on one hand we have a mountain of fossil evidence going back nearly 6 million years and an even bigger mountain of genetic evidence giving a detailed account of man's evolution from a primitive, ape-like critter to his present glory; on the other hand we have a creation story written down by goatherders 2500 years ago. Which one has more validity...
Evolution is postualtion based on speculation and not observation.
Bull puckey. Evolution, in action, has been observed in both the wild and the laboratory (evolution, remember, is a change in allele frequency within a population over generations). Evolution is tested every time a new fossil is discovered or another genome is sequenced.
You might actually want to learn something about the subject before spouting off on these threads.
I'm tempted to say that if they did, they wouldn't be creationists....
That is an interesting claim. A mountain of fossil evidence?
Check out This post and explain to me why a published environmentalist would say transitional fossils haven't been found because they don't exist?
So which is it? Is there a mountain of fossil evidence or is there none?
An insurmountable problem for evolutionists is that most of them recognize different significant problems with their 'theories', yet their explanations must necessarily imply that other 'theories of evolution' must be wrong. the disagreements within the environmentalist community is so vast, how can anyone honestly claim that evolution is a fact?
Just how many different theories of evolution are there?