The more I read articles related to evolution, the more puzzled and amused I become. Here is a recent article on a new Burmese fossil from Foxnews. The article is a series of contradictions by world-leading scientists about what they actually found. I will let you read it. I find it very funny, because they do not seem to agree on anything! How surprising!
I use this post, however, to point my readers to this excellent site about creation and evolution. It is written by people who have a much better understanding of the issues related to biology (my critique and reading of the article mentioned above is simply that of a college educated reader with no expertize in biology – I assume that is the intended audience).
The people at CREV are really well read, they know what they are talking about, and they are very funny. I find their analysis of every current issue related to creation and evolution excellent. Enjoy! I would be surprised if they do not comment soon on the Burmese fossils.
P.S. Does anyone have a list (or a link) to certain things about evolution, like things that are not disputed and ‘everybody’ agrees on? I would like to take a look at that.
A few weeks ago I wrote a brief post about the upcoming documentary of Ben Stein: “Expelled”. Today I ran into an interesting blog which discusses the participation of Dawkins to a screening of this movie. The blog also has some useful links to more info about “Expelled.” It is interesting (though not surprising) that the blog got many hateful and obscene comments (which were wisely not approved by the host: Jeffrey Overstreet). See the post here:
It seems from the debate that some of the scientists interviewed were misled about the purpose of the movie etc. This is certainly wrong and unfortunate. However – I am wondering if the answers that they give in the interviews would have changed (or would have had to change) if the purpose of the movie is different? I think that the purpose of a movie should be irrelevant to the answers that I give to a question – as long as the question and answer are placed in the right context and are not misinterpreted. Isn’t that true?
P.S. For a response where “Ruloff explains how interviews were obtained with top Darwinists including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, and dispels claims that trickery and deception were used” – see