Aren't the people that challenge evolution as fact the same type that challenged the round earth "theory".

Question

People should always challenge claims of fact, but when there is overwhelming evidence, freely available to support it, don't they come off as ignorant for not changing their opinion? Won't they go down in history as fools like the flat earth believers?

Answer 1

Flat earthers, young earthers, there's no difference.

Answer 2

Actually it's been generally accepted since the time of the Ancient Greeks that the world is round. What the Christians rejected was that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, with the Sun revolving around us rather than the other way round. The Catholic church finally accepted the science in 1992. It also seems the Catholics have learned the lesson and have accepted evolution as well. It's just groups of fundamentalists who are now giving religion a bad name.

Answer 3

Yes anyone who does not accept evolution is brainwashed and takes religious scripture way to seriously.Religions and the theory of creation were developed thousands of years ago to keep uneducated peasants under control, essentially religion was the first form of law and government achieved through scare tactics. But I do believe in a supreme being or force how else can you explain evolution.

Answer 4

Faith is about faith. It is a belief choice despite the facts in front of you.

For many years there was overwhelming evidence on what caused gastric ulcers. Recently they found out they were caused by a virus. Science is not always right.

The earth is not round. It is a slightly flattened tri-axial ellipsoid shape. So there.

Answer 5

To challenge the theory of evolution you need an equally compelling theory of your own with an equal body of evidence to back it up...so far nobody has successfully challenged evolution and it is not in any danger at all.

Answer 6

No. The people that challenge evolution do look at the facts, often they just come to different conclusions.

For example, evolutionist basicly believe that if you take rocks, add energy and give it enough time that life forms. I find this absurd. (The chemical pool is broken down rocks.) This violates the principle of entropy.

They also evolutionist believe that DNA is improving with random variation. That these will give rise to better, more fit forms of life. I cannot subscribe to this. They mutated fruit flies through millions of generations in the labs and were only able to give them deformities and no improvements. This also violates the principal of entropy in physics.

If you have overwhelming evidence, I would love to see it.

The whole field of fossils that might be able to support evolution fits on a about a kitchen table.

Answer 7

Hovind's mission is worded in a fashion that makes it no longer plausible to win. examine this out, anybody who's no longer conscious of it: "I actually have a status furnish of $250,000 to anybody who can supply any empirical data (medical data) for evolution.* My $250,000 furnish demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution isn't some other thing beneficial than a non secular idea." WATCH THAT ASTERISK! it is what it leads to: "* be conscious: at the same time as i take advantage of the note evolution, i'm no longer with regard to the minor alterations found in all of different existence kinds (microevolution). i'm with regard to the overall concept of evolution which believes those 5 important activities got here about without God: a million. Time, area, and count number got here into existence through themselves. 2. Planets and stars formed from area dirt. 3. count number created existence through itself. 4. early existence-kinds discovered to reproduce themselves. 5. important variations got here about between those diverse existence kinds (i.e., fish replaced to amphibians, amphibians replaced to reptiles, and reptiles replaced to birds or mammals)." to boot the reality that maximum of those 'numbers' do no longer fall everywhere close to what the concept of Evolution easily states (the ToE is area of biology--someone prefer to inform me wtf superstar and planet formation has to do with biology?), it is likewise fairly particular that the concept of Evolution makes NO CLAIMS in any respect that ANY adventure got here about "without God." Evolution isn't, I repeat, no longer atheistic. comprehend that his definition of "the overall concept of evolution" is an finished fabrication! He also asks for an no longer plausible data, and that is 'educate God did not do it.' inquiring for data of a first damaging is absurd. you are able to not 'educate God did not do it.' that is why creationism isn't technology! some thing that ought to't be falsified isn't technology. Hovind is flatly mendacity (he's not in any respect even been waiting to substantiate that he has the prize earnings any respect), and he's created a huge strawman argument the following. For a more beneficial in-intensity check out how dishonest this 'mission' is, examine my resources out.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

Evolution is not a complete evidence for the creation of human life. We need philosophers here, not religious fanatics neither stubborn scientics.

Answer 10

I think you're right, although I'm a born-again Christian who believes in the miracles and prophecies in the Bible.

They just can't get their heads beyond pedantic literalism.

Answer 11

There are lots of proof against evolution as well.
Earth being round is almost observed fact now, but evolutionists are yet to given an answer for broker links and genetic explanation for evolution