Which is an absolute baseless argument. The church was arguing the world was flat eventhough it was actually, according to many historians, pretty much an accepted fact even back in ancient greece times that it was not. Phytagoras, followed by Parmenides, first stated that the earth must be a sphere. That was 500 BC.

In any case that's just a little excursion into history and phisycs, your argument has it completely backwards. The church claimed the earth was flat without providing evidence for it other than...well, it didn't even say that the earth was flat in any of their books so they really had nothing. Galileo (again) stated the earth was spherical due to several observations he made, so obviously Galileo was by far the more credible source.

Same is here. There is a solid base of evidence that points towards evolution being true, yet creationists don't really have much to back their own theory up. So clearly in this case as well, the theory of evolution can, eventhough critically, certainly be called more credible than the theory of creationism.

When you come up with something that has such a solid base of evidence as the theory of evolution, let's talk about that. Creationism sure does not.

__________________