Why do evolutionists have to provide perfect evidence, but creationists none?
544425
I have responded to the 'creationist' argument on a number of occasions.\n\nBasically people like to argue based on a premise that cannot be argued (i.e. prove God doesn't exist and wasn't responsible ... obviously impossible to prove).\n\nIn terms of the whole creationist argument I agree that evolution is flawed (remember though the Bible is CLEARLY flawed as it is contradictory and suggests behaviour that would get you arrested today) but it makes much more sense to an independent person (if there is such a thing) than the whole 'man in the sky got bored one day and knocked up a planet'.\n\nWhile arguing the whole fossils give incomplete record thing they never seem to explain the existence of dinosaurs which, for some reason, seem to get very low coverage in the Bible.\n\nOverall I am happy to respect other peoples rights to their beliefs but not necessarily their beliefs ... I would hope they would do me the courtesy of the same.  The problem with most creationists is that they infer stupidity on the part of non believers.\n\nPeace out
263310
ROFL, typical responses that you were probably expecting given your question.  You have logged onto a site where it seem many literalist fanatics like to reside.  The vast majority of christians in my country, the UK, do not believe or wouldn't even entertain the idea of creationism -As a whole, thankfully, we are a country of ardent Evolutionists.  I cannot say the same for the US, maybe some US citizen can.\n\nThere is a massive amount of research and findings that support the evolution theory, but it is that, a theory.  In fact almost everything in science is a theory, Science isn't math.  Scientists want to know the truth, most don't care whether evolution is the correct theory or not, they just want to know the answer.  At present based on all the available work done world wide, the scientific community and most european societies accept that evolution has the best foundation, evidence and answers to how we and world got here.  They have spent the most time looking at it too.  There is no accepted peer-review paper on why creationism is true or even worthy of investigation. \n\nWhy would I accept a book that was compiled by a roman for political means as the truth to all things, because the book itself tells me too, please come on.\n\nDarwin sat, thought and observed.  Since his theory has been constantly looked at, and 9 times out of 10 the evidence supports it.  For those 1/10, we just don't know the answer yet, ID and creationism is not the answer; I will not be jumping to conclusions prematurly.\n\nour science isn't perfect and we often tear down pre-existing theories.  Evolution will be no different.  The fact that it has lasted since its conception is a testament to it's probable correctness.\n\nScience itself will tell you that given all the evidence Evolution is still the best theory they will endorse for how we all got here.  And in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to prove evolution to me.  Despite looking, and reading throughourly creationist arguments and evidence, not one of them even remotely made me doubt evolution.  The evidence for evolution is quite simply overwelming.\n\nWe cannot and should not accept old ancient texts versions simply because they are there, and others do.  It should be demonstratably true, and the evidence should match the hypothesis.  Creationism doesn't even come close to a science.
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.
251395
Well, if you really want an answer..\n\nYou can see by the answers of the creationists who responded that they will not believe in evolution, no matter HOW MUCH evidence is in front of them.  It has been my experience that they care little for the truth and only for maintaining what they already believe.\n\nKen Miller wrote an EXCELLENT book on this called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."\n\nMiller does a great job of answering your question but the short version may go like this:\n\nCreationists FALSELY believe that if evolution is true, then their religion is necessarily false.\n\nAs long as they continue to decieve themselves with that, no amount of evidence will ever convince them and they will continue to expound that the sun revolves around the Earth.\n\nI should note here that Miller is a Christian who FULLY belives in his religion and is a celluar biologist who FULLY understands evolution.\n\nMy last thought is from comedian Lewis Black: He says he won't even debate evolution's detractors because "we've got the fossils. We win."\n\nWell put, Mr Black but there is far more to rely on than just fossils.
523015
In my experience with creationists in my personal life and profession as a biologist, is that they know enough about evolution to know it is complicated.  Then, they stop and say it is too complicated, rather than try to understand.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
868498
I completely agree with you. I've done my research and evolution in reality has not been proven. It is the media that propagates the myth of evolution, even brainwashing children with pictures of monkey-men in textbooks to do it. They've even go so far as to make whole skeletal structures of out of small bone fragments in order to provide "physical proof" of evolution, like with "Piltdown Man", a fraud  that was not discovered as a fraud until 40 years after it was made. It's a big lie, one of the greatest frauds in history. Even Darwin said, "If evolution has occurred, where are the missing links?"\nBelief in God and science is completely compatible. In fact, the Bible has a lot of scientific foreknowledge that "scientists" didn't even discover until centuries later, even just in the last century when it was right in front of them all along.\nThe Bible says it was God who made everything, and that it was God who established laws that hold everything in its place. Hence to see science for what it really is is to see the fingerprint of God.
907031
An odd question, but you may have a point; an example would be some of the 'scientists' who have associated themselves with young-earth creationism. One guy has a degree in paleontology and studied under Steven Jay Gould - he knows that creationism is a load of bunk, but ignores all the evidence for an ancient earth, because he wants to believe the bible. I can not comprehend this kind of double-think, and find it quite scary, but the logic seems to be, "There is so much evidence against what I wish to believe, so I must have lots of faith to continue believing - this makes me a good servant of god!"
925227
I completely agree with you, I never understand why people can't consider the idea of God planning evolution, a combination of the two just like you said.\n\nThe people who disagree are the ones who consider the Bible to be the absolute truth when it comes to God and creation, even the Atheists are doing it. The Bible is not a history book, even Christian Fundamentalists have interpreted creation in the Bible differently. If you remember that it's not 100% facts and keep an open mind, then people would understand.
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
732459
As science demonstrates the evolutionary process in greater and greater detail, Creationists have to keep refining the rhetoric they use to disregard obvious facts.  They demand demontration of a new species arising, then when you show it to them, they demand a genus.  Show them a genus, they will demand a family.  I've actually seen demands for kingdom shifts.  They demand evolution be reproduced on a laboratory benchtop, but show them the results and they disregard them as artificial.  They claim there are no beneficial mutations, but show them one, and they disregard it for one reason or other.  Show them another that overcomes their objection, and they come up with a new objection.\n\nNothing has been demonstrated to adapt more rapidly than anti-evolution rhetoric.
515747
Nope, there is no logical evidence supporting creationalism.
506269
gino_gg your not going to get a clear answer from creationists. They'll simply point to the bible and make a quote from the bible to be fact, despite the fact that the bible is inconsistent with some of the stories\nfor example\nGE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.\nGE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.\n\nIt will be difficult to show creationists that evolution is factual
222212
OK, I will put this nice and simply.  There is absolutely no scientifically credible evidence that supports creationism, or the idea that we originated from two individuals.  Faith is a wonderful thing but is not a substitute for evidence.
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 :)
535071
Evolution has no proof, has never been observed, tested, and measured to any extent, but neither can creation be tested. But we can look at the universe and everything around us and see Gods attributes:\n\n"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"\n\n-Romans 1:20\n\nBut the main reason there is no hard evidence is because we must believe with a heart of faith.\n\nLots of things cant be seen, doesnt mean they dont exist.
304551
Tell you what.  Spend six weeks in a biology lab with some species with very short life/reproductive cycles--say, drosophila or flatworms--and they'll be your witnesses to evolution.  Is it easy to argue against the existence of something one can actually see happening in front of one?  For example, how do you explain the constant mutation of the flu virus.  It's not a point of theory--it's an observable fact.  So, how does that happen, if there's no evolution?  You see my point:  we don't need "witnesses," because we have real empirical evidence.\n\nBut in any case, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe.  There is room both for your cosmology and for mine in the world.\n\nWhat does matter is what is taught in school.  As of yet, right-wing Christian evangelicals have not succeeded in imposing their particular worldview on the entire country by changing our laws into Evangelical Christian shariah, and our schools into Evangelical Christian madrassas, despite their repeated efforts.  Until that time, it does matter that science, not religion, is what we study in science class.\n\nBy the way, try reading other eye-witness accounts to the creation of the world.  Upon what basis, other than your community's belief, is your religious creation myth more demonstrably true than that of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Baha'is, Jains, etc.?  Show me the legitimate, objective, neutral, non-theological criteria that proves your book's eyewitness account more true than theirs, and you might have made a real point.  Until then, not really.\n\n(By the way, any answer that says the Bible has the true answer "because the Bible says so" would not count as a reason outside your faith system.  I'm not saying you're wrong--just that that's not science.)