Do the creationists know that if they doubted everything as "theoretical" as evolution, they.......?
453499
Cherryred64gto- "Dr." Dino has no real degree- it's an honorific title, but has no real validity as a real doctor who went to post-grad school, graduated, and received a sheep skin to prove they ARE a doctor.\n\nAs far as arguments "dr." dino makes, they are usually strawman, ad hominem, circular logic, or just plain errors of logic and reality.\n\nAlso, the term theory shouldn't be used disparagingly, like it's "just a theory" as if it is just someone's opinion or belief system. A theory is second to scientific law only in that it hasn't been proven wrong yet.\n\nAnd a scientific law has been proven to be universally acceptable to the scientific community. The Law of Gravity has been proven correct over and over again, both here on Earth and millions of light-years away, in other parts of our universe.\n\nA theory is a set of observations and evidence that supports an idea construct such as evolution or subatomic theory. (Subatomic as you say "so-called theory" makes it possible to construct the microchips that make your computer do what it does).\n\nA theory such as subatomic theory has some areas that we don't understand, but the lion's share of it we do, so when we completely understand the field of subatomic particles, it won't be a theory any more, but a scientific law. Just because we don't understand something, that doesn't make it false or incorrect- we just don't know enough about it one way or the other.\n\nOne good proof that the theory of evolution is a valid theory is the fact of the rapid change, or evolution, of microorganisms into drug-resistant strains of influenza "flu", tuberculosis "TB", and more recently, the mumps virus.\n\nDr. Dino uses oversimplistic language and seemingly obvious flaws in the theory of evolution to try to prove his point, but mud slinging proves nothing, and he brings nothing to the table that is useful- all he manages to do is confuse the issues and present opinion and assumptions as fact.
1032997
Yes of course they are! They and the suckers they mislead. \nThe brilliance of the charlatans of our day can be seen in the postings of many of their followers to yahoo answers. These charlatans have convinced the ignorant that not only is their opinion just as good as the opinion of experts (people who have spent their entire life studying a subject) it's actually better, because it's not based on unapproachable 'egghead' stuff, but on a child-like faith in sweet Jesus that even an idiot can have.  \nCrooks like Stroebel and Hovind are lying to this crowd and they mostly know it too. \nJust one example of this is their treatment of radioactive dating. When creationists say that dinosaur bones have been found that radio-carbon date to a few thousand years old, this leads their readers to assume that the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old, but surely the creationist know that carbon14 has a half-life of only of 5730 years. Potassium-argon dating is used to date anything over a million years old, and using that dating method, dinosaur bones date from between 140 and 65 million years. The creationists must know a simple fact like that. They complain about the unreliability of radioactive dating methods but see no problem with setting their clocks to standards based on radioactive decay. It's extremely reliable as a method of setting chronology.\nThere is a vast array of intertwining evidence that supports evolution, and the extremely old age of the universe and of the earth. Fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, geography, nuclear physics, and astronomy, have given humans a wonderfully coherent and comprehensive picture of the universe we live in, of what it used to be like, and of what it most probably will be like in the future. It is a picture based on theories with not just great, but astonishing, predictive power. \nCreation science proves nothing, does not explain existing evidence, and has astonishingly poor predictive power. This is why no one at all, except Christian Fundamentalists, believes in creationism. \nUnfortunately creationists sound impressive to the ignorant and the gullible, and the English speaking world has both these types in abundance.
230139
medical researchers, yes.  probably quite a few.  there are also quite a few evolutionary biologists, and paleontologists who hold personal beliefs that God created the universe and life.\n\nhowever, there are very few (if any) evolutionary biologists or paleontologists who believe that a literal version of creation as laid in out the bible took place (i.e. in six days, man created from dust, woman from man's rib etc. etc.)\n\nthat literal interpretation just doesn't fit with the physical evidence that has been uncovered (and is even inconsistent with itself).\n\nas far as medical researchers, there are probably some who do believe in a literal biblical story of creation, but their professional opinion on the matter is about as relevant as an automotive mechanics.  they are certainly skilled workers in their own field, but evolution is not where their expertise lies.
1173386
Yeah, the only people dumb enough to think you were really arguing for creationism were evolutionists.\n\nBecause your stupid question is exactly what evolutionists think creationism/Intelligent Design is about.  \n\nToo bad you people won't do any independent reading because we all know the public schools aren't going to broaden your knowledge of the topic.
750492
Well, tell them that those structures have evolved several distinct times and distinct ways, including eyes nine times.  It sertainly is not direct proff of any kind of creation, and it is more supportive of common shared lineages.\n\nLook, god could make everyone 100 feet tall covered in purple pokadots, right?  It's god, it can do whatever it wants because it is magic or devine or whatever.\n\nTell them every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
417171
As it seems this question has raised yet another debate, I'd like to add my 2cents. As the father of paleoboy, and a Christian, I believe I have raised my son well. Because I have not fallen into the ignorance, as I will call it, of pre-empting God. Evolution is merely a theory, man should  not be assumed to be included in this factor. In fact, there exists more questions  of man's progress than proof of any evolution. \nThe animals however, and lower life, could have been designed by God in many numerous ways. Who are we to question the means, or claim to know as to how God works? He works, as we know, in mysterious ways! Could he not have in fact, by design, created species that could evolve and adapt to earth changes, if for no other reason, to allow clues behind for the event of man to discover, to weed out those that would choose to use this information, to disprove His existence?\nTo claim we have all the answers to the mysteries of God is to fall into ignorance as Christians. I back up my son's answer, as an open, unquestioning mind as to the works of God. Paleontology is a science, based on evidence, and a great deal of theory, which is always subject to change with newly discovered evidence.
231135
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c
16854
If you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is depressing. \n\nA recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.
79540
Creationism by our Creator. And the evolution theory would be okay if it werent contradictory to scripture... The bible says He created everything according to its kind.  See Genesis 1:20.  Also if we evolved, why are we not stil evolving?
8356
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
880645
Almost every open debate between Creationists and Evolutionists are won by Creationists. That is why \nEvolutionists are afraid to have Creationism taught in schools/colleges. \n  Evolution is based on scientific proof,or so it is widely thought,but Creationism is also based on scientific proof. The fact that Creationists believe all living things were created by a Creator does NOT subtract from the fact that ALL creation science is based on scientifically proven fact. Creation Science is not just based on religious belief,but on hard scientific facts. Thus,I believe Creation Science should be taught in schools as the opposing view to Evolutionary Science. How can our children be fully informed of all the facts if only one side is taught to them? As it stands right now, evolution is being taught as the only answer to the origin of life,and it hasn't been openly challenged...until now. \n   Those who don't believe in creation say that it shouldn't be imposed upon their children in the schools,but there are other things to consider.What about those of us who don't want evolution imposed upon OUR children? What makes anyone think that the rights of the evolutionists supercede the rights of creationists? \n   Not to put any less value on the other religions of the world,but Creationism and Evolutionism are the two largest worlwide beliefs,and the most debated over. I feel it is only fair and logical for Creationism to also be taught in schools/colleges as the opposing view to Evolutionism and let the people who are being taught make an equally informed decision as to which one they believe to be more factual and logical.\n   I cannot speak for all Christians,but I for one am prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to see that this happens,or to at least get the ball rolling,so to speak. Yes,I realize it will be an uphill battle,and I am only one person,but the voice of one  can lead to the voices of many being heard. As I said before,this isn't just a matter of religion,because Creationism is also based on scientific fact,and we can prove that if given the chance to broadcast it wordwide. As it is right now,evolutionists have thwarted all efforts to make creationism a known truth against them,but if enough people are willing to stand up and declare their rights to have their side represented,then sooner or later, we will be taken seriously and our voices will be heard.
862281
You must have a lot of time to spare if you invite creationists to "debate" with you. You cannot convince them of the truth because they don't want the truth. They have no understanding of scientific method or principles. The scientific world accepts evolution and continues accumulating molecular evidence that shows beyond any doubt evolution has occurred. There is a Mount Everest of evidence out there, yet every creationist/IDer ignores it. Why? They are not interested in truth.\n\nThe world has moved on - IDers are wallowing in the dark ages. Do yourself a favour, do something where you will achieve an outcome. Talking with creationists won't get you there.\n\n(As a rule of thumb - the more rabid the creationist, the worse the spelling and grammar. There IS a correlation, I swear!)
1062864
Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
1018036
I understand what you're saying -- I believe in the theory of evolution.  But you do realize that people are just going to say God put it there in the beginning?  As fossils -- not as ancient creatures imprinted or encased in stone.
1164641
By God of course.  Every other belief is just a theory withouth any proof.  The proof that we were created by God is not only the Bible but everything around us.  It makes no sense to believe in evolution, because why has evolution taken a break for a very long time? Huh!  Charles Darwin was a scumbag, I bet he got hit with that evolutionary rock multiple times.
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.
498151
Creationism is an elaborate form of Christian apologetics.  The whole purpose of "creation science" is to provide speculative ways for the Bible to possibly be true in light of what is known.\n\nSince it's apologetics and not science, not only is there no test which could even theoretically discredit the "theory", but creationists do not even attempt to do that.  They spend all their time trying to disprove evolution, which actually would make them evolutionary scientists if they would pay serious attention to the results of those attempts rather than simply searching for shallow "disproofs".\n\nI have heard creationists say that nothing could possibly disprove creation to them, and this is certainly the attitude of people like "Dr." Dino, who is at the forefront of creation "science".  So you are correct, creationism does not count as science.\n\nRegarding changes to the theory, they never happen.  The only thing that happens is that new speculations are plastered onto the original hypothesis to account for new information.  No attempt is ever made to go back and simplify prior assumptions.  It's just a hodgepodge of disparate claims with no predictive power whatsoever.