Have you noticed that every time Scientific Evidence is uncovered to support Creation Evolutionists lose it?

Question

I posted several posts refering to some scientific studies I had read and I was lamblasted by a lot of people who were very derogatory and arrogant.

What I have noticed in their posts and on www.talkorigins.org is that ever time good solid scientific evidence is presented that SEEMS to contradict the evolutionary theory, they go ballistic.

They go into panic mode as if someone had insulted their mother or threatened the life of their wife and children. They circle the wagons of ignroance and bigotry and refuse to listen to anything else.

Simply put they have a chip on their shoulder, and if you even breathe a word of disagreement they are insulted and lash out.

I have been asking about this in the past few days and the knee-jerk reaction has been amazing to watch.

People like me have read the Bible. We have accepted the truth of God's Word that He created the World. It is logical. True Science backs this up. But a lot of people are threatened by this.

Once again I would like to thank all the rude and discourtious posters who proved my point once again. Without you, my questions credibility would have suffered greatly. Thanks for the support.

What Facts support Creation? Try these:

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm

Answer 1

You are correct. There is no doubt that there is evolution within a species but there is no proof of any species evolving into another species. Palentology doesn't support evolution either, but they don't want to see the facts.

Answer 2

For a start there is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist', sigh. Do you have any idea what you are talking about when you refer to the Cambrian (note the r) explosion? Michael Behe was destroyed by a high-court Judge (A lawyer for pity's sake) earlier in the year, a believing Christian no less. Scientific evidence of Creation would be easy to find if in fact there was a creation, there isn't any evidence because there was no creation, got that? And for every one Professor you can quote I can find 100 others who take the opposite view. Edit: And just in case this is a genuine question (very low probability), the so-called Cambrian Explosion is a term coined by Gould and Lewontin to sell their idea of punctuated equilibrium, in that evolution proceeds by leaps (and very slow leaps to be sure) rather than at a constant rate and that most of the time species are in evolutionary stasis lasting for as long as hundreds of millions of years. Their evidence was primarily but not exclusively a collection of fossils (yes fossils!) found in the Burgess Shale that suggested many new species formed over as short a time period as 30 Million years!! whether or not you accept their ideas and evidence it isn't really all that earth shattering and Dawkins for one explains why they are attacking a straw man and why there isn't really very much new to be contributed to evolutionary theory from these observations. Got that?

Answer 3

No, I haven't. That's because no evidence has actually been uncovered to support creation. There hasn't been any evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory because if there had, evolution would not be a working macrotheory. True science, as you call it, does not back up the bible. An example: Bishop Ussher, who is arguably one of the most brilliant theologians that ever lived, put the creation of the earth at about 7000 years ago. Science puts the beginning of the earth at about 4.5 billion years ago. True science disproves the bible, not backs it up.

Your conceptualization of science is rather poor. Instead of assuming that "they" are bigoted and ignorant and "we" are the only one's who know THE TRUTH, perhaps you should spend a little time getting to know science. Science, by the way, literally means "to know." It is one method of gaining knowledge. It just happens to be the best method we have as it's the method that acknowledges human fallability and allows for it.

The Nicene Council was human. Do you acknowledge their fallability? Can your beliefs afford you the luxury to acknowledge their fallability? That's the difference between science and belief. You believe the Nicene Council is infallible. Science requires that their conclusions be independently verified at any time by anyone with the wherewithall to do so.

Does this mean evolution is right and creation is wrong or vice versa? No. It means that the scientific method is a superior means of gaining knowledge than faith because, quite simply, the parts of evolutionary theory that are proven wrong (for example, the part where it was believed modern humans are descended from Neanderthals) are to be altered to fit the facts and if that alters or disproves the theory, the theory is discarded. With faith, if anything is proven wrong, there is no changing it or discarding it in favor of what is right. If some part of your bible is proven wrong, what do you do? Continue to believe it? Or do you doubt the word of god? Or that it is the word of god? Your worldview cannot permit any "wrong" in the bible. Instead, the bible becomes more and more allegorical and metaphorical as science alters our view of how things are and as our culture grows past the constraints of biblical culture.

Of course, should I breathe a word of disagreement with your paradigm, you and your brethern will be insulted and you will lash out. The "dust-mote" chip may rest on my shoulder, but if you look in the mirror, you'll see the "beam" boulder on yours.

Answer 4

Single males creating life spontaneously with no motivation is illogical. I have read several books about or by theologians who have read the Buy-bull a number of times, are professors at Ivy League colleges or are advanced scientists. Thomas Jefferson even wrote his own version of the Buy-bull so don't fool yourself into thinking only Xians do. Ironically, most don't.
'We have accepted the truth' and you think 'true science' backs up oddities such as how the globe did not spin off course when it's weight was thrown by all that water during 'the Flood'? Oh, there are so many more questions about that story alone that common sense even can't answer. Only imaginary science could explain what the animals ate for the year they were on the boat and during the years afterword's when everything was adjusting.
Wow, are you deluded. You should try and take a 'World Religion' class.

Answer 5

I've never seen a scientific study that supports Creationism. If something contradicts the current theory of evolution, it does not mean it supports the current theory of creation. I would like to seen these periodicals you refer to for myself if you can post up links that would be great. Unless they are subscribed sites, as I know many sites are which release study papers online.

I've studied science with a passion for years and have never found this support which you refer to. I'd love to read it as I find this all very fascinating.

I've also read the bible cover to cover twice, as it was mandatory reading for two university classes I took (European History and Philosophy of Western Religion) and I've not found this evidence you speak of.

I am surprised that some people here think that there is not record of one species changing to another. When I studied Paleontology in University I did see evidence in the fossil record that on organism can evolve into another. Though I only did 3 courses. I also covered in for 6 years in biology and the evolution of one species to another is what Darwin first observed in finches.

I would like to find the other research that shows this does not happen.

I'm sorry people have lashed out at you.

Answer 6

No.

You posted a load of half truths and things that have been proven to be wrong.

You have yet to post anything close to "good solid scientific evidence"

I am sorry if you can not face the reality of the world but that is your problem.

It is not logical that God created the world. Science does not back this up in any way. You do not threaten me in the slightest, but I am not going to let lies and falsehoods go out unchallenged.

You were proven wrong about 200 years ago. Ever since then you have been proven wrong at every major scientific discovery. Get over it already.

Answer 7

Interesting link.

Too bad the authors drag out the same old strawmen to be knocked down.

3 examples:

1) the standard (and dishonest) commingling of Big Bang, origin of life, and evolution.

2) a complete misrepresentation of what "vestigial organs" are. It's easy to disprove something when you change the definition to something you know you can disprove.

3) The often debunked "second law of thermodynamics" gambit.

Answer 8

Like WHAT scientific evidence?

The bible was written by MAN. Evolution has been proved time and time again in the lab setting. The whole world excepts evolution...except the radical religious right in the US who don't get it.

Answer 9

I've watched some of the with your questions as well. It's like a bunch of people standing on a paper foundation and someone has poured water on it. They are scrambling to find a safe spot to stand.

Answer 10

Mankind will never admit that God is real, because this world is controlled by it's "Father who is the Devil" as we see in scripture;
JOHN 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Once the world admits God is real, it would be impossible to define the complications it would bring...

THE TRUTH IS... MAN CANNOT AFFORD TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH DOING SO.

It's much less painless for mankind to press on with a tiny glimmer of hope that they are right than to trudge on afraid of the great and dreaded Day of Judgment.

Answer 11

i simply ask, with no hate or distaste my fellow yahoo answers user, why do use a book translated by man (whom does has faults) over scientific fact? No disrespect, but you're simply conflicting two things - faith and science.
I don't have "faith" in science - i know it works. Yet religion has to have faith in it because they have to believe it works.
It's odd, but true. It's like comparing apples and oranges - simply don't do it. I wouldn't do it to you.