Why do atheists have so much faith in "false" Evolutionary Theories?

Question

Evolutionary theories are all guesswork, hypotheses, opinions, conjectures and totally unproven. (FACT#1)

Evolution cannot be trusted. (FACT#2)

The Earth cannot be proven to be 4.5billion years. Nobody in the entire world can validate such erroneous data. Radiometric dating is subject to much criticism. Contamination and decomposition of material leads to gross errors in the testing arena. (FACT#3)

All of the above requires a strong religious faith to accept false theories based on false logic. (FACT#4)

Evolution and Creation is based on faith. Neither can be proven. Only embraced on ones faith.

Have faith dear friends in God.

Isaiah 45:18 (FACTS---#5)
"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is none else".

Hebrews 11:3
Colossians 1:16
Genesis 1:1
Psalms 24:1-3

Romans 10:9
1 John 1:9

Answer 1

Until someone trusts God and accepts Jesus as Savior, there may be doubt. Faith is trusting that God created all things. The Scriptures that are listed explains everything for everyone forever.

Answer 2

You don't provide any evidence to support your alleged facts, so they apparently aren't facts.

The bible deserves the same scrutiny and critical thinking as any other book. You wouldn't give the Koran or Hindu writings your unconditional trust, so you shouldn't give the same to the bible.

The bible has much good in it, particularly the notions of love and grace. But to assume that every word of it from beginning to end was the exact message that God would have chosen or that it's all literally true is absurd. The bible was written enitrely by sinners. Every author was fallible. Out of 1200 pages of fine print, some of them got some things wrong. That's just human nature.

Radiological dating is far more reliable than religious doctrine in determining the age of the earth.

Suggestion: Read the Easter stories in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Read each one *thoroughly*, and take notes along the way as to who saw what when, when the angels appeared, how many angels there were, when the stone was rolled away (before or after the women got there?), how many women showed up at the tomb, when Jesus first appeared (in the tomb or outside it?) etc., and you'll see several discrepancies between the four stories. If the bible were perfect, there wouldn't be any discrepancies


You need to get off your high horse and simply love others. Treat them well. Listen to them. And someday maybe you'll see that the bible is religious, not scientific.

Answer 3

Your "FACTS" are nothing of the sort. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Just repeating debunked talking points and spewing scriptural references as if they had some validity as evidence.

People would have more respect for creationists if they didn't go out of their way to look like idiots.

To stratocaster, you're leaving out a possibility:
"What it mostly comes down to, is that people who don't understand evolution + accept it either have been brainwashed by religion, or simply lack the mental capacity."

These are both common reasons people refuse to understand evolution. But there's another. The inadequacy of education in biology. Students aren't given a good grounding in the facts, sometimes due to creationist nutjobs screwing with the curriculum. Some of these people are simply stupid, but many are only ignorant, through no fault of their own. A condition which is distinct from the WILLFUL ignorance frequently exhibited by the most vehement evolution-deniers.

Answer 4

simple. all of the things that you assert are facts aren't. i notice you don't even bother to try to demonstrate them. sounds a bit like 'faith' to me.

1. evolutionary theory is supported by physical evidence that matches the predictions of the theory. you left that out for some reason...

2. naked assertion. you should be embarassed.

3. radiometric dating is not totally straightforward, it requires careful sampling and analysis, but it can be reliable when used properly. also, radiometric dating has nothing directly to do with evolutionary theory.

4. since the above points have not been demonstrated by you this point is irrelevant.

5. if this is true, it says nothing about how long it took for the earth to be formed or how life came about so it is irrelevant.

Answer 5

There are more tested facts in the origin of species than the bible.

Prove to me that a senior citizen somehow got two of each animal into a tiny boat.

Besides, evolution has nothing to do with creationism or how the earth started. It is mainly about how things work in nature such as development and speciation. The big bang is not even mentioned in the origin of species or in evolution.

The big bang and evolution are two very separate things. Dont get them confused

Get your facts straight.

Answer 6

lol
Evoltuion could be proved easily. Lets say that there was a colony of ants and a frog. The ants who walked over to the frog got eaten. The ones that didn't survived. Because ants have no intellect and are based on instinct, the ones with the instincts to stay away from the frog survive, therefore reproduce and have more baby ants that stay away from the frog. People just don't feel like putting the time into it.

What it mostly comes down to, is that people who don't understand evolution + accept it either have been brainwashed by religion, or simply lack the mental capacity.

Answer 7

Fact 1: You should not use "facts" that are not facts when trying to say something else is untrue. It discredits you.
Fact 2: Decomposition is not a problem with radiometric dating. IT is how radiometric dating works.
Fact 3: There is a good deal of actual factual proof supporting evolution. It is not "totally unproven" as you would like to think.
Fact 4: all my facts were actual facts not insane ranting like yours.

Answer 8

declare: Organs and organ structures would have been ineffective until all the areas have been in place. The coordinated innovation that they require is in basic terms too inconceivable for evolution to create in one step. reaction: This declare is an occasion of the argument from incredulity. In all specific circumstances of this declare, there are techniques for the organs and organ structures to adapt gradually. the thought they could no longer evolve frequently is composed of a variety of of of here blunders in questioning: -that organ areas seem without warning. This seems to be an artifact of creationist questioning. Evolution, besides the fact that, isn't creationism; areas exchange gradually. -that organs much less developed than what exists now could be thoroughly ineffective. that's nonsense. a easy-comfortable patch on the exterior is probably no longer as useful because of the fact the eyes we've, besides the fact that it incredibly is greater useful than no longer something. And basically a sprint of greater useful is all it is needed for the trait to adapt. -that areas could evolve one after the other. Coordinated innovation between areas of an organ or organ device is achieveable. certainly, if the areas evolve gradually, it incredibly is inconceivable that areas that work together does no longer coevolve in such a vogue that variations are coordinated via making use of organic determination. -that areas do no longer exchange function. Many organs do no longer initiate from no longer something. somewhat, they initiate as a factor that serves a distinctive function and gradually gets co-opted for a clean function. as an occasion, tetrapod legs developed from fins. The invalidity of specific examples of this declare are considered interior the the bombardier beetle, the giraffe neck, the woodpecker tongue, and the fangs of venomous snakes. often times distinctive coordinated variations can ensue whilst there's a mutation in a regulatory gene.

Answer 9

Fact #5 is the only thing approaching truth.
Yes, the text is from Isaiah.

Otherwise, this is just a collection of assertions without any support and in stark contrast to all facts, evidence, and opinion (including from most religious people).

This "false" theory is widely accepted by rational people, the minority of whom are atheists.

Answer 10

So, tell me, how long DOES it take to change bone into stone?
So tell me, how much sand does it take to bury the city of Troy? And how long does it take that sand to pile up?
These are pretty accurate guesses if you ask me. The proof is in how well you analyze weather patterns, measure temperature and determine density.
2) evolution can totally be trusted. It is solid, physical proof that we were knitted together. (The DNA chain looks knitted to me, so King David's psalm about being knitted together in his mother's womb was bang on) (the DNA molecule is proof that we evolved because of its amazing ability to mutate.)
3) Yes it can, with a rudimentary knowledge of trigonometry, you can even measure the distance and size of the sun. Math never lies.
4) Evolution is not based on faith. That is a misnomer. The more we find out, the greater our faith becomes, as the wonder of His Works unfolds before us. Even in recent visions, Christ Himself talked about the discovery of black holes, and the reason God put them there. (Dang! I wish I had a link to that vision. Must have been Fatima or Medjugorje, since he told the children about Black Holes before they were discovered.) God isn't stupid. He allows us knowledge. He doesn't allow us immortality.
5) So bow down to Him. In all humility, He's the one who used evolution to create the Earth, the Universe....Everything! How short of a time span is an instant to the Lord? Tell me how long we must suffer here on Earth? To God, but a blink of the eye.

Answer 11

1. There is only one Theory of Evolution, and it is one of the most well-supported and well-evidenced theories in all of science, on par with gravity in that aspect. Furthermore, it is the CORNERSTONE of modern biology, and our understanding of it is the primary reason we have modern medicine/vaccines that work quite well (if the theory made no sense, why would applications of it work, hotshot?). Example: notice the conspicuous absence of smallpox in today's society.

2. Evolution consistently makes accurate predictions, including the very significant prediction that humans would have a fused chromosome which accounts for the fact that we have one less pair than our evolutionary cousins, the apes.

3. Not only can it, but it has. Radiometric dating is very reliable, and nothing is given a conclusive date until it has been subjected to at least a half dozen DIFFERENT dating methods, all on different scales, which all come to the same conclusion. Half-lives are well-understood and well-documented.

4. Okay, care to refute these 29+ evidences for macroevolution/common descent? (source) After you've refuted every last one of these, I will begin to even entertain the suggestion that evolution is based on fallacy.

5. Yes, it's a fact that the Bible says what you quoted it to say. This is meaningless tautology, similar to saying, "FACT, circles are round."