I have been studying evolution vs. creation for quite some time now, and it would seem to me that evolutionist on average refuse to accept any form of evidence or clearly establish evidence. Why do you think that is?
2007-02-14 13:49:48 · 20 answers · asked by spreading_the_word 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
that is GOD's trick on them. i myself find any explanation irrational because no matter what stance you are taking there becomes a point where you run out of answers.
2007-02-14 13:54:00 · answer #1 · answered by glass. 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1. Evolutionist is not a word.
2. Actually plenty of evidence for evolution exists and has been accepted. Clearly established evidence.
3. No evidence exists for Creationism.
4. Creationists refuse to accept evolution because its against their god and no amount of evidence is going to change that because they don't want to believe.
2007-02-14 13:54:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I'm afraid it's the other way round. Creationists don't accept any evidence that contridicts their creation story, where as scientists don't accept evidence that doesn't pass a series of validity tests and peer reviews.
There is a slight difference in the form of refusal of acceptance there.
2007-02-15 21:32:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess to you, 'quite some time' is approximately 9 seconds. Evidence for evolution can be Googled in far less time.
For using the word 'evolutionist', you pretty much forfeit all credibility.
2007-02-14 13:58:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Generally, the aim of the 'evolutionist' as you put it, is to help society progress through science.
The aim of the creationist is to desperately try to cobble together some kind of evidence to prove the evolutionist wrong.
2007-02-14 14:01:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tell you what, you show us some REAL evidence for creationism, ONE single solitary shred of evidence that can stand up to even casual scrutiny by someone with post secondary education in a related field, and then I might just change my mind.
But since that has NEVER happened, even once, I'm not going to hold my breath.
2007-02-14 13:54:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
What kind of evidence? Like the bible? The bible is jsut an old book that say's the PI is 3 and the earth is flat.
And no two christians think alike, because they interpurite the bible differently.
2007-02-14 13:55:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would seem to me that you haven't been studying evolution in the right places. Despite what the creationists claim, the weight of evidence, including transitional fossils, weighs heavily on the side of evolution.
.
2007-02-14 13:54:53 · answer #8 · answered by Weird Darryl 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What are you talking about? Evolutionary biology is pure science, and as such is based totally on scientific evidence. If you mean that professional scientists who are experts on evolutionary biology won't accept the silly ramblings of uneducated people who claim that humans and dinosaurs once lived together, than I say "thank God they don't!".
2007-02-14 13:56:29 · answer #9 · answered by barbara m 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you actually have evidence that will pass a peer review and get published in a journal, then we can talk. In the mean time you really do sound just like the 9-11 conspiracy freaks.
2007-02-14 13:52:33 · answer #10 · answered by Alex 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Because that is what you want to believe about 'evolutionists'.
I will be right back with links to two separate experimental confirmations of common descent.
EDIT
Both of these links show experimental confirmation of common descent. Also note that there is no reason for these vestigial structures (genes, centormers and telomeres to be in our DNA if we were designed.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges.
2007-02-14 13:53:46 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋