AlexNora said:
Penguin_Factory said:
I spent quite a while looking at the "evidence" for creationism, from the creationist side. I read blogs, websites and watched videos made by Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute. None of it was convincing.
Also, if you're getting your information from Kent Hovind you're being lied to. The man is a fraud who peddles discredited hypotheses and urban legends as truth. Send me a PM with an example of any of his claims against evolution and I'll prove it to you.
id much prefer you tell me about stuff these people don't cover its hard to find truth amongst all the noise.
If you truly are interested in learning this stuff, I'd highly recommend you buy a textbook or take an evolutionary biology course at a university or college, or even a decent highschool biology class. There really is too much information to convey in forum posts and pms, and a professor/textbook are much more prepared to deliver the information in a way that is logical and easiest to follow.
But basically, take any argument made by a creationist, and believe the opposite and you'll get along fine enough. Let me give you one quick example: one of creationists most common arguments is that of "irreducible complexity". They claim that certain body parts ( the eye most notably) are too complicated to have arisen by chance, and that if you removed even one part of the eye it loses all of its functionality. They therefore claim that it is impossible for these structures to have evolved, because all of the pieces would have had to come together at the same time.
Now, the truth is that every irreducibly complex system proposed by creationists have been shown to be reducible, and there are actually species still around today that exist as the steps between evolutionary changes. I'll just put this video here, it is very interesting and I highly suggest that you watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhDWCujcFEY (anyone know how to embed?)