Why do so many evolutionists refuse to debate the evidence?

Question

I have asked a number of questions pointing out anomalies in the evolutionary hypothesis. E.g. evidence that the earth is young, that coal is not old, that dinosaurs lived recently, etc.

A lot of people seem only able to reply with ad hominem insults, without any reference to the actual evidence I discuss.

Why do so many people claim to hold scientific views, yet demonstrably hold bigoted religious views, dismissing a priori anyone that disagrees with their philosophy.

Have people forgotten the scientific method?

Answer 1

I think you'll find a big difference between artistic minded people and scientifically minded people. Many have believed in their view so long or have worked so hard to convince other people of their beliefs that they are not willing to accept they are wrong. You must know a lot of people who can't admit they're wrong?!

A lot of people have no education or knowledge of a subject but will still debate on the matter in question which I find frustarting especially when they aren't willing to listen to a reasoned argument becaus ethey simply don't actually care what the truth is they just like to sound clever or prove you wrong.

I come across this a lot in my line of work through simple ignorance (I think everyone does it at some point, I know I have) about a subject. I worked in the exotic dance industry and the ignorance about the industry has spred so many rumours that are wholly untrue you would not believe. People are not convinced until they see with their own eyes. If it is a scientific theory you cannot do that for them and so they simply will not believe.

The most important thing to remember is that the theory that evolution does not exist cannot be disproved. The religious idea is that God put the fossils there. Anything you come up with like examples of evolution, fossils, coal etc. will simply be discredited in their mind by saying God put it there. How can you disprove that answer without going back in time to show them?!

Answer 2

In the few months that I have been participating in Yahoo!Answers, I have read hundreds of thoughtful answers from "old-earthers" and "evolutionists" to questions about evidence for the age of the earth and evolution. Therefore, I disagree with the implicit assertion in your question. But I will grant that I have also seen some rude comments from both the old-earth/evolutionists and young earth/creationists.

The verb that you use here is interesting: "to debate". My understanding of the community rules is that debate is counter to the stated purpose of the Yahoo question/answer forum. Perhaps "tone" is affecting the way that people answer you, or choose not to answer. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that you received quite a few science-based answers to your questions.

I have read your questions and the answers you received. Regarding the age of coal--you received scientifically-based answers or links to good answers from at least 7 people (plus/minus rude comments about the tone of your question).
Regarding salt in the sea--Tentofield gave a really comprehensive answer. You responded with a comment/question (still not enough salt?) on his answer that said, "This is the kind of circular reasoning often used by evolutionists. " See paragraph two of your question above. You received 7 answers to "still not enough salt?", many by folks who had responded to your other questions. Some of them were rather specific in their points about scientific evidence and interpretation of evidence. I would say that you have inspired a rather lively debate--so I disagree with the primary assertion of your statement/question that you are seeing a refusal to debate the evidence.
Regarding dinosaur tissue--Chemistrydragon and Tentofield asnwered the question and pointed out their reasons why they think your assertions are inaccurate.-and that they disagreed with your subquestion which was--"Isn't a more credible explanation that they[dinosaurs] are not very old.After all there is much other evidence that man and dinosaurs (aka dragons) have coexisted?"

Answer 3

Why are religious people always a century behind?

The following comes from a famous Oxford Union debate during the 19th century:-

"Prof. Huxley defended Mr Darwin's theory from the charge of its being merely an hypothesis. He said, it was an explanation of phenomena in Natural History, as the undulating theory was of the phenomena of light. No one objected to that theory because an undulation of light had never been arrested and measured. Darwin's theory was an explanation of facts; and his book was full of new facts, all bearing on his theory. Without asserting that every part of the theory had been confirmed, he maintained that it was the best explanation of the origin of species which had yet been offered."

Answer 4

Because what you are referring to is not evidence. If 14 different tests show the age of rock as 4.7 billion years with a standard deviation of 100 million years, and one test fails to show the age of rocks in that range, the outlying test is discarded. It is not to be "debated as evidence." Humans have a habit of focusing on the infinitesimally rare outliers, like the one person who wakes up from a mild coma, while disregarding the tens of thousands that never do. Or focusing on the lotto winner, and not reporting about the 400 million losing tickets sold. That is why evolutionists don't debate. Evidence and theories are peer-reviewed, the final test in science. In short, there is nothing scientific about debate.

Answer 5

If you had even the smallest respect for scientific method you'd reject creationism - after all didnt the US supreme court that it wasnt science?

Intelligent Design is best described as Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

What evidence is it you're suggesting though? I notice you haven't included any.

Oh and science is not religious or a philosophy, please look up what science actually is. I doubt you'll be enlightened. You'll probably pray to forget what you read so you can put your head back in the sand. Ignorance is bliss, right?

Answer 6

The scientific method uses laboratory evidence and logic. Debate is not part of the process.

Concerned for your soul? See Deut 22:11.

Answer 7

The earth is not young.
Coal is old.
The dinosaurs did not live recently. Not in any classically defined sense (i.e. T-rex, brontasaurus)
Carbon dating is the best evidence of this. Carbon dating is used because carbon decays at a steady rate. Using simple math, the relative age of something with carbon in it can be found.

By the way, your question states no evidence, only conjecture.

Answer 8

Science is done via peer-reviewed journals. This is world-wide for about 100 years. No young earth or anti-evolution paper has ever, EVER been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

So, either there is NO EVIDENCE to support your biblical claims based on faith, or there is a worldwide conspiracy against the christians (even though many evolutionists and old earth scientists are quite christian).

Answer 9

yes, evolution is a theory, but one with a lot of evidence to go into it. Show me hard physical proof that the world is only between 4-14 thousand years old, and maybe we could talk.

Creationism has no place in a school, it is a matter of faith, something we are free to choose whether to believe in or not.

Answer 10

No.

When you say "debate the evidence" what do you mean?

I suspect that if you were to debate the evidence you would point to minority view science papers, and some specific quotes from the Bible.

Well, I say "quotes", I mean miss and out of context quotes.