are creationists serious?

Question

i just dont see how its possible to be so willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate. i would like to ask you some questions:
Why is it that not a single fossil contradicts the theory of evolution. The progression of complex organisms is without fault. if all life was created in 6 days, why arent there humans and dinosaur fossils together? why is there not a single mammal in the oldest layers of strata?

Why is it humans have tailbones and no tails. occasionally, mutations result in the activation of vestigal DNA, which does cause a small tail to grow from the tail bone. this is obviously not just a random mutation, as the tail is always coming from the tail bone. Isnt this clear evidence that human ancestry once had tails? its the same thing with dolphins and whales. occasionally they are born with a pair of useless legs. interestingly enough, this never happens with fish, only marine MAMMALS.

How do you explain the different breeds of dogs, the types of cabbage, the strains of vaccine resistant viruses, the london underground mosquito ect. this is all MODERN day evidence of evolution.

last question: are you just stupid?

Answer 1

Sadly, they are, in fact, entirely serious, at least most of them.



It's mostly due to fun stuff like confirmation bias: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney discusses the matter at length. Our minds tend to reject "unfriendly" information, however valid.

Answer 2

There are human and dinosaur fossils together. There isn't a single fossil in the Earth that proves Evolution. There are no fossils in the fossil record whatsoever of one species in transition to another. I think you are confused by the strata. You fail to understand that the lowest layers are not necesserily the oldest. In fact after the flood of Noah a whole heap of crap got put down in no particular order.



Flesh has been found in dionsaurs and armoured fish supposedly 65 miillion years old and that is completely impossible if they were that old. Even in lab jars where you have animal life preserved in jars and solution the molecular bonds still break down and the flesh starts to disintegrate fairly quickly yet in the modern world you have these dionsaur and other fossils that the evolutonists would supposedly have you believe were 65 million years old washing up with flesh and even in some cases blood still present.



No it is absolutely not clear evidence that humans once had tails it is false theory and reasoning. You are using the lowest form of evidence which is what evolutionists usually do. It is what they have been doing right from the very start. They stick a diagram of a monkey next to man and see that because the form, shape, limbs and other body parts are similar they conclude that one must have evolved from the other.



Different kinds of dogs are exactly that, different kinds of the same animal a dog as they were originally created. A wolf, a poodle are still dogs. It doesn't mean the poodle evolved from the wolf.



In your opinion it is all modern day evidence of evolution and you would be completely right. Of course you know there is a vast difference between evidence and proof, and when the only evidence you have is the lowest form of evidence, and you have to constantly keep filling in the huge holes in your "theory" you're in big trouble.



And your last comment, people who can't win an argument against you will resort to name calling instead, and throwing their dummy out the pram. It is you sir, who is the stupid one. Grade F. Back to the drawing board for you!

Answer 3

The guadeloupe woman was a fully human skeleton found in 1812 on the coast of Guadeloupe island in the French Caribbean. The skeleton was missing only the feet and head, and was in the british museum until 1881 (this is not because it was found to be a fraud, nor does the age of this discovery say anything about its authenticity). It belonged to a woman about 5 feet and 2 inches tall. The skeleton was found in very hard, very old limestone, over a mile in length. Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old. humans are only supposed to have evolved 3 million years ago, this skeleton is 25 million years older than it should be, and to repeat, it is a human skeleton.



Also, macro evolution is most certainly not a grand scale of micro evolution. Micro evolution involved the adaptation of species to better fit their environment. However adaptations only use genetic information which is already encoded in the genome of that species, for something to entirely switch species new information must be introduced into the genome, which only happens in mutations. Although we've never observed a mutation that introduces new info.

Answer 4

The Republicans used to be the party of Science. Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863.William McKinley won two presidential elections, in 1896 and 1900, over the anti-evolution Democrat William Jennings Bryan. McKinley supported the creation of the forerunner of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Bryan's campaign against evolution led to, in 1925, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and drove more scientists towards the Republican Party.



In 1923, an exasperated Republican, Nobel Physicist and President of the California Institute of Technology, Robert A Millikan, wrote that creationists were, “ men whose decisions have been formed, as are all decisions in the jungle, by instinct, by impulse, by inherited loves and hates, instead of reason. Such people are a menace to democracy and civilisation.”

Answer 5

I probably should learn more about evolution - where would you suggest I go to learn of it? By the way, what kind of posts have you read that make you suspect that creationists "have zero knowledge of what they argue against"? I.m. or email me if you'd like. I don't read scientific journals much, but I kind of doubt that "it's not even seriously debated at all in the science community". It must be debated by some. After thinking about it though, perhaps it's not debated much in non-theistic sources simply because theists already provide plenty of criticism against it so the non-theists don't feel much need. Another reasons could be that the non-theists feel like they would have to come up with a better explanation if they try to debunk evolution, and that's hard to do if you don't believe in intelligent design. I think the case is pretty strong that we had to have come from either intelligent design or from evolution of some sort. What other plausible explanation could there be?

Answer 6

first yes i am serious. how is it possible the universe just decided to exist one day. Then how come things dont just pop up into existence anymore.

second of all evolution just means things change. how is it that change contradicts creationism. THe controversy is over how much things change.

third not all creationists beleive that the earth formed in 6 days.

fourth fossils are susceptible to change over time. sedement can be hard but given thousands of years will chip and break. Even old minerals in it can be replaced with new minerals.

fifth no. i am not stupid.

Answer 7

1. Yes

2. Human and dinosaur fossils have been found together

3. Because they didn't die as the earth was first being formed

4. This question could apply to any other body part. And yea, actually it is a random mutation.

5. It's a process called speciation. Obviously you aren't good at science (you wouldn't have posted this question if you were, besides the fact that even my grammar is better than yours) so you wouldn't know about it. Look it up.

6. Well if I am, I don't know what that makes you.

Answer 8

Chaldran, with such rudeness you really do not deserve a fair answer. I am both a Christian and a Creationist but not a young earth believer. YOu call us stupid, you suggest we are willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate. I will compare my exposure to life, science, and evolution with yours any day or time. Your first paragraph shows how prejudiced you are but let us cover that and your other questions.

You say "Not a single fossil contradicts the theory of evolution". If your definition to the "theory of evolution" is that life forms adapt to their environment but if you go with Darwin's theory--not one fossil proves evolution. Likewise science tells us humans and dinosaurs were not peers on this earth and you suggest since their bones are together as fossils--someone just might be mistaken--could it be you? Now as to fossils of mammal being in the oldest layers of strata--so? Could it also be that strata has been redistributed through floods, continental separations, earthquakes, local floods and a multitude of other reasons--now this is what God said-----all that was created was in the beginning--nothing new as you suggest later.

Why tail bones and no tails. Man was created perfect---if that be the case then the explanation is man has adapted over time as his gene pool got corrupted and strange mutations do occur--even today they are still happening---article just last week of a young girl with a disease which caused her to have a hairy face--their are colonies of people with that same trait--male and female. That tailbone does not prove evolution nor do the bone feature that appear as legs perhaps in whales. Why did you not bring up the two headed toads, or calves or calves with six legs are they evolving or are these freaks of nature--I personally know they are a sign of gone amuck genetics due to the influence of gamma rays or poisons found in their environment or some other yet unidentified factor but evolution--not likely. One other point before I get to the dogs. You tell me how evolution can engineer a single cell creature so it can manufacture a bio-machine that is so very precise that one mistake it fails and the creature dies. Components so closely built to tolerance--must be assembled in a single order sequenced manner, placed in a preselected space within the wall of this creature before it wil function and give this single cell creature mobility--your scientist, your by chance evolution or did God do it---I vote for God.

Darwin had a theory on evolution that suggested the progressive increase in complexity from simple cell creatures on to we humans and other complex mammals. So from slime(proven wrong) the first form of life came(wrong) and those which lived in water slowly became less dependent upon water born oxygen so they now ventured upon land, developing limbs rather than fins, skin instead of scales or some other salt and pepper combination. Birds going with feathers, and mammals with hair and hide--gosh what selectivity. A canine in which dogs are part of genetically has the mixed pool of genes and their mixture of mutations to form every species of canine. Take any pair of like canines and you by selection have the German Shepherd, the collie, cocker, dalmation, bulldog etc. etc. etc until you have competition at Westminster. Not evidence--you do not have any transitional fossils of one specie moving part way into a new previously unknown species. Genetically it cannot be done. Using your tail question why not try the reverse--if man is without a tail, perhaps we have the early stages of a human reverting back to the monkey beginning in the behind---a tail means he is really a monkey--wow! let us get excited that we found the missing link in reverse--just as plausible as the other way around, don't you think.

The last question was meant for those who will be answering your question but I believe you must have misdirected it--are you just stupid? See how it reads more logically as I present it than the way you did?

Answer 9

Yes, they are serious.



Some of them are actually stupid and unable to understand the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



Others are merrily ignorant and uneducated.



The ones who are educated and still believe what they do are crazy. There's no other explanation. It's like looking at the sky and claiming it's red.

Answer 10

They all have the special ability to ignore everything that contradicts their personal beliefs and bias.



Some are serious because they really are that ignorant while others are only serious because you can very easily make millions of dollars if you go around preaching that stuff.

Answer 11

They think they are. Rational people laugh at them.

Answer 12

They may take themselves seriously, that doesn't mean that anyone else should.

Answer 13

Alas, yes they are, most of them.

Answer 14

ok