I read an article recently in the National Geographich that explained why Darwin got it right. I also read Richard Dawkins' "River Out Of Eden". Although I believe in creation, I tried to read these as objectively as possible. It seemed to me that they did not present a successful case. Although each presented a specific argument within the overall case that seemed persuasive, it was on a scientific matter that I only understood a little. These specific points did make me stop and think, though. Unfortunately, I can't actually remember what they were. Many of the arguments presented in each document could be successfully countered. If Evolution is true, why is the evidence not of such a high quality? I think evolutionist have generally not presented their case very well, but what do you think?
2006-11-04
09:40:55
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous