Define what you mean by "higher" and "lower." To my knowledge, evolutionary theory says no such thing. You are perhaps referring to the ladder idea of evolution which (wrongly) states that evolution has a goal, i.e. to produce "higher" species such as humans. Most scientists believe that humans appeared through purely random processes, though there are other ideas out there that scientists have posited (not creationism).


We have geological evidence, the fossil record, and genetics for a start. Dismissing all of this as non-existent or lies is an example of cognitive dissonance (see my earlier post). It's there and you've got to work out a way to address it. Is there a particular aspect from one of these disciplines that you question?


When you're finished laughing maybe you can answer this: how else do you explain the phyletic gradualism (the small changes in time) of horse evolution? Click the link to horse evolution that I posted earlier. You will see that there are many transitional fossils, each of which shows small differences from the preceding one -- and in the order in which they are found in situ. Is this just a weird coincidence? Did God create one horse ancestor, only to wipe it out and create another slightly different one? And do it again and again? The logical conclusion, where this is repeated across different species all over the globe, is evolution. I repeat, how else do you explain the evidence?


I'm disappointed. I thought you were pointing me toward some actual evidence to back up your statements, but this is just an explanation of begging the question, or circular reasoning. I have explained a number of times that there is strong evidence pointing toward evolution as an explanation. It is only you who assumes that I have a preconceived need to believe in evolution and will try to find anything to back it up whether it's true or not. I can't speak for the sort of reasoning that's going on in your head or anyone else's but that isn't what's going on in mine. If I see good evidence for a theory then I will accept its likelihood until better evidence comes along. This is what any good scientist does.

So I will ask again: where is your evidence that creationism explains what we see better than evolution?


This is true. Sometimes the strata are disturbed by natural and human-made processes. But when fossils are found in situ, they are always sorted in the same order. There are various ways that geologists can tell when and how strata have been disturbed.

I'm waiting for you to start backing up your statements with evidence. Creationists seem to spend most of their time trying to invalidate evolution. I've been asking for months here and no one has yet been able to explain why creationists say that there is more evidence for their version of events than there is for evolution.