Why don't creationist like to do research?

Question

Why do creationist say there is no proof of evolution when so much can be found with a simple search on the internet, including the transitional fossils that they claim don't exist, and the observation of the development of new species through natural selection?

Answer 1

Marcus Ross' recent peer-reviewed Ph.D. (Univ. Rhode Island) in paleontology demonstrating he could accept Old Earth Darwinism as a working but falsifiable hypothesis is a data point that disproves your assertion.

I respectfully suggest you start here:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design-peer-reviewed-faq.htm

Then check out some others:
http://conference.nwcreation.net/

http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/videos/v049sk.htm

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/linksUS_L2Z.htm

http://www.gcc.edu/Conference_examines_evolution,_intelligent_design.php

http://www.darwinvsdesign.com/

Answer 2

I am not a creationist. However, the theory of evolution seems riddles with flaws. You are no doubt referring to the semi-literate, knuckle draggers who deny evolution on the grounds that it doesn't support the Bible. However, scientists now are starting to come forth and say that, the more they research how organisms developed, "evolution" appears to be unable to account for what the scientists are discovering.

Here is an excerpt from Ann Coulter's book, "Godless":

"A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on the
coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless.

An animal cell's whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function whatsoever. If one of the parts is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that catches only half as many mice: you don't get a mousetrap at all.

Behe then demonstrated that it is a mathematical impossibility for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to have been brought together by the "numerous, successive, slight modifications" of natural selection. Life at the molecular level, he concluded, "is a loud, clear piercing cry of design."

So, does the theory of evolution still seem so convincing?

Think about animals like bats, who supposedly evolved naturally from rats. According to evolution, the rat would slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years, develop wings. However, what about all the intermediary stages? Without wings that function, they would be a great handicap, and make the rat a lot easier for prey to capture.

There are thousands of instances in nature when evolution does not explain why a species would start mutating, when those first stages of mutation would make the animal much less fit to survive. Evolution is supposed to posit the theory of survival of the fittest.

I think this whole debate is ridiculous if you concede the possibility that there is a God. If God made everything, you can see his "fingerprint" in how there is organization, when there should only be chaos.

I think the under-educated creationists are slowly being replaced by the "Intelligent Design" proponents, who simply say that life on the microscopic level does not support Darwin's theory. Instead of science disproving the existence of God, a lot of scientists are starting to become believers.

Do you see the difference between the Creationists and the Intelligent Design proponents? The former contend that God created everything, and man did not have any primitive ancestors. Of course that is preposterous.

The Intelligent Design proponents are saying that science is increasingly disproving the theory of evolution, not supporting it.

Answer 3

I am a Creationist, and I love to research. I've done quite a bit of research on evolution in fact, and had you really done YOUR research instead of believing the first thing that pops up on your computer, you would have found that all 'evidence' used to prove evolution has been shown by many esteemed scientists (both Christian and Atheist) to be either false, fraudulent, or entirely speculation. Carbon dating has been shown completely inaccurate, dating two sides of the same bone as being millions of years apart. Probably one of the biggest inconsistencies is the fact that they try to say that the geometric layers date the fossils, and then turn around and say that the fossils date the layers. That's circular reasoning and it's sad that so many people buy into it. Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.

Answer 4

Who ever said creationists don't like to do research? I believe that God created the Universe and I LOVE doing research.

I know you're just trying to get a rise out of people like me but it's not really going to work.
I do think it's pretty funny how both creationists and evolutionists use the complexity of the natural world to support their own beliefs.
And I happen to know that evolution is a theory, not a proven fact. So is creationism, for that matter. It's only a question of what one personally believes.

Answer 5

Well REAL creationist DO do research. But am I to believe in UFO's strictly because the internet says they exist. Because creation must be true by simply conducting an internet search......How ridiculous...lol. Or better yet, why dont evolutionist consider OTHER alternatives? Its a 2 way street!!!

Answer 6

In this subject, parties on both sides tend to be rather single-minded...it has become less a question about what happened, and more a question about who's right. People on both take great offence that someone might have evidence against their views...so, it's human nature. Yah.

Answer 7

We do not say that there is no proof for evolution. We know that evolution happens. We say that evolution theory is a theory. We are not against the research either, it is just we believe that God was behind of this operation. : )

Answer 8

And, so, my friend, why can't evolutionists agree that 99% of their theory is conclusions and suggestions?

And if evolution is proven today, what difference will that make to me or you tomorrow? No difference whatsoever.
So continue on with your "holier then thou" research and as soon as you come up the real proof and what that proof means as far as bettering our lives, we will be glad to listen.

And, you see, my friend, the evolutionists are no longer looking for proof, they are looking to prove something that they believe is there. It is like "fixing" the vote in a election. Remove all those votes that you don't want to see. And you are left with what you were looking for. Big difference between searching for something and doing "research."

Answer 9

Some people use their logic to formulate conclusions,
while they use conclusions to formulate their logic.

If truth does not fit, then it must not be truth.

They feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created out of dirt.

Modern science, geology, biology, and physics fail to convince them of anything, but someone rolling around on the floor and "speaking in tongues" is evidence of the validity of Christianity.

Answer 10

heck, they could watch it in a petri dish if they were willing to accept the challenge - just try to deny evolution when you can see it happen with your own eyes - deep down they know that the proof is too damaging to their belief system, and are afraid to admit they were wrong. Better to use the excuse of faith than admit you were ever wrong, eh.