Instead of trying to tear down Evolution, why don't creationists actually put forth their own evidence?

Actually they don't even come close to evidence, because before you need to collect evidence you should first make predictions. Creationism and ID don't make any predictions for what they might observe in nature.

Because they do not care. There are two types of Creationists: the completely scientifically illiterate and those who are intentionally dishonest (they run the movement and make the money).

They have been attacking evolution for the last 150 years. It really is not about evolution (after all, when was the last time you heard a Creationist even able to define what it is), this just represents conservative Christianity's most recent tactic in the war it has been waging against science and all objective (non-Biblical) knowledge for the last 2,000 years.

The were wrong and continued to attach the Copernican Universe and spherical earth for hundreds of years after science had conclusively demonstrated the proof. Evolution is just a new wall for them to bang their heads against until even their followers recognize the stupidity of their assertions.

"Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed

Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

-- Tim Minchin

It's weird, because the whole basis of creationism seems to be rooted in this "every word of the Bible is true idea".

Yet the proponents of this pseudoscience don't make a habit of keeping "heathen" slaves. They don't segregate menstruating women or campaign against the abomination of shellfish.

Apparently "everything in the Bible" in their view equates to "everything in the Bible that conforms with my particular prejudices".

So, menstruation? "Don't be silly, this was written in the context of a different time that had a far more limited understanding of science and the way the human body operates." Creation? "Of course it happened in six days, that's what it says in the book so it must be true!"

I'd like to see anyone who thumbs down Euphonium to provide their evidence. There simply isn't any.

And in response to Karl, you're not looking very hard if you don't see any evidence for evolution. There is an entire peer-reviewed scientific journal titled "evolution". The entire body of research presented there (and MANY other places, too) can be cited as evidence.

different the info for evolution (pre-Darwin) got here from human beings attempting to tutor the Bible. while they trie to music all of the distribution of all animals returned to a minimum of one factor (Noah's ark), they discovered there grow to be too plenty version existence and the distribution grow to be incorrect. they have discovered their lesson. After it relatively is all, while you are going to grant a falsehood, it relatively is in basic terms a lie in case you easily examined the assumption earlier making the very fact.

Because they have no evidence that creationism is real. Their arguments are always something along the lines of evolution is supposedly false therefore God (specifically, the God of the Bible) must have done it.

They do! They thump the Bible right on page one where it's headed "Genesis" and tell you that it's God's word.

Even though it was just a story borrowed from the Jews, who borrowed it from the pagans so they'd have a story to tell about creation. It's just as plausible as the one about the stork delivering babies.

The God Yahweh and I are working on that problem as we speak. We are putting together a new translation of the old creation story that explains evolution of life on Earth in modern scientific language that will supersede the old story in Genesis. It will be out as soon as I find a publisher who will print it for me.

i never claim that Creationism is a science, after all science can only deal with the natural, and Creationism by it's definition is supernatural. which is also why science can never disprove there being any god(s).

They do put forth evidence.

First of all, they put forth the same evidence that all scientists have access to. For instance they point to the cambrian explosion of life where all phyla of animal life appears suddenly with no evidence in the fossil record of other forms of life that could have "evolved" into this large group of fully formed and complex creatures.

Then they point out that since that time no "new" kinds of creatures have come into being. You have variations within kinds where natural selection changed mastodons and saber tooth tigers into elephants and modern tigers, but you don't find any new "kinds" of life appearing.

Then they point out that 99.9% of all life forms have gone extinct. So when someone find a new type of ape like creature and claims that it is a "missing link" in the chain of human evolution, the statistics say that it's just another form of life that went extinct. You don't have successive fossil layers showing gradual changes where a primitive animal "evolved" into a different kind of animal.

People desperate to find intermediate species of animals get all excited but time and again more fossils are found and it turns out that they were just creatures with shared characteristics and not part of an evolving "chain" of life where a reptile turned into a bird or a mammal or something like that.