What makes a creationist more qualified to talk about evolution than say, an evolutionary biologist?

Ahh... the old evolutionist canard: If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't really understand it.

Another evolutionist lie is that if you don't believe in evolution, then you don't know anything about science.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a science, but they use methods that are obviously unscientific to defend it and attack creationism.

If you have to use unscientific means to defend what you believe, then maybe what you believe isn't scientific.

6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

It is only recently that they have discovered that under seas are like mountains.

Quote: This was first revealed to mankind by the living word of God, not a scientist, so you ask by what authority do creationists speak on science?

When you can figure out how anyone could know this thousands of years ago, we are all ears.

Source(s):

The bible :unquote

Yep and bats are birds, hares chew the cud, snakes talk, pi equals three and the mustard is the smallest seed. When you have figured all that out I'm all ears.

And in answer to the question there is nothing to make a creationist more qualified than a biologist.

You get laughable arguments such as "why doesn't peanut butter evolve, whenever I open a peanut butter jar it is just peanut butter"

And "the banana is proof of god as he designed the banana to fit in your hand and be easy to open"

Real arguments from creationists honestly!

Jonah 2:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

It is only recently that they have discovered that under seas are like mountains.

This was first revealed to mankind by the living word of God, not a scientist, so you ask by what authority do creationists speak on science?

When you can figure out how anyone could know this thousands of years ago, we are all ears.

Nothing I can think of...

I guess a creationist could also be an evolutionary biologist and thus equally studied, but that doesn't seem especially likely.

Hmm, other branches of science attacked...

I guess you could argue that other branches of science are attacked by general stupidity, but that isn't in the same way and with the same fervor.

It wouldn't make any sense, that same way that I role my eyes when an atheist tells me that there is no evidence for Christ.

I'm a Christian but to answer your question, if they are studying the science of a theory such as evolution...those scientists would be the experts on that theory.

The same way that I am a Christian and read a ton of non biblical references and old maps and transcripts, and non-biblical sources, and study the language, the historical evidence and an atheist who has a "feeling" that I am wrong would be out of his league on the subject.

Qualification is a matter of opinion. People who are qualified in one subject seem to think that makes them experts in everything. A creationist laying down the law about evolution is no more and no less daft than a retired zoologist claiming to have disproved God.

Unaccountable dogma. If something conflicts with it, there's either straight denial, or an intellectual jumping through hoops to try to convince people it's wrong. There is a lack of normal accountable science when doing so.

"Are there any other fields of science that come under attack from people who don't know anything about them?"

Cosmology!

Look how many make claims about the Universe, without a single equation backing them.

(((Seals)))

Medicine comes under attack from quacks, herbalists, homeopaths, and Jenny McCarthy.

Climatology takes a fair bit of flack from politicans, especially every 4 years.

Psychology occassionally comes under attack from scientologists.

And creationists talk about more than just evolution and geology. There's cosmology (big bang), astrophysics (stellar evolution, accretion, formation of the solar system, creation of the moon), physics (nucleogenesis), and molecular chemistry (abiogenesis).

Because the Origin of Life is a Chemistry specialty. Biologists study living things, not inanimate matter.

Because Design is a specialty for Designers, like Engineers, Archeologists, and Crime Scene Investigators.

Because the Origin of Matter and Energy is a Mechanical Engineering specialty.

actually there are a few creationists who do hold PhD degrees in fields like oncology, biochemistry, genetics...and i think these people are very dangerous because creationists tend to listen to them, and completely ignore all the rest of the PhD holders who disagree on what these PhD creationists are saying.

Biology.