Creationist, why do you think your "opinion" matters in the face of scientific evidence on Evolution?

what evidence?

go look at Noah's Ark about 18 miles SSW of Mt. Ararat and tell me how that got there? you can practically drive up to it.

Go explain to me how Jesus beat all odds to fulfill all the requirements of the Messiah listed in Scripture.

and How did Evolution possibly occur, knowing the astronomical odds against it? Not only must you believe it "could' happen, but believe that it then transformed into all sorts of plants, animals etc.. in perfect harmony never getting wiped out, but always going forward.

Go look at the butt of a Rhino and tell me how that happened and look at lots of other animals butts too and tell me how that happened out of pure chance. Spend a year looking at animal butts and get back to me.

I have not seen any evidence.

DNA alone debunks the whole theory.

DNA does not increase over time, it decreases.

Evolution religion so far can't provide any theory as to where or how the DNA come about.

And if just one little bit of the DNA code has a problem then that whole creature will not live, or die in a short time.

A male giraffe does not give food to the female. And yet we have females.

Cows can't swim very well in the sea. The direction and the form of the nose is very bad for swimming in the ocean. The cow does not shoot the milk out, the calf will suck the milk.

This will cause an issue since sea creatures shoot the milk out for the offspring, since sucking will not help due to the water pressure. 2 swimming creatures, cow & bull, oops the one drowns due to natural selection, how can a whale be born from only one female?

Natural selection is one of the main religious tools, they say natural selection creates more variations of creatures, but natural selection says the better one survive. So you have two planes, 1 crash and the other survives, it decreased the amount of planes. How can a mechanism makes less and less, create more?

How about this:

One research scientist, *T.A. McMahon, worked out the formula

for the general size and height of trees. The mathematical formula goes

something like this: “The diameter of trees will vary with height raised

to the 3/2 power; that is the length times the square root of the length.”

That is surely a lot for a simple-minded tree, without any brains to keep

track of. Here is more of the formula: “The mean height trees obtain is

only about 25 % in that which they could obtain and still not

buckle. In other words, trees are designed with a safety factor of about

four.” Someone very intelligent did the designing. We should not expect

that the trees went to college, took math, and figured all that out.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory

has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”—*

Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983)

[Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific

Research in France].

“The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as

an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious

obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been

repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results,

even from uniform experimental material. For everything

must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology

cannot, therefore, be built up.”—*

“Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded

us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may

be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring

or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to

Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United

States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine

our sacred cow more closely.”—*B. Storehouse,

“Introduction,” in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution

(1984), p. 12.

“We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in

spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor

are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical

methods of paleontology or biology.”—*Errol White,

Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic

matter is, at present, still an article of faith.”—*J.W.N.

Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

How about population growth:

The humans like today are more than 250 000 years old. Why are we only about 10 billion on earth?

You are a living contradiction. Science accepts the idea that there is a God who created the multiverse.

There are currently 10 known dimensions and we are only on the third. Albert Einstein knew this, Richard Feynman knew this, and they both said that the universe is so complex that it couldnt have possibly have been an accident. of course, they put it more elegantly and in such a way where it could not be refuted. The beginning of understanding is the realization of how much you don't know. Or, how much you can't even fathom, how much you will never be able to understand in a single life time, how much you can't even imagine. Just think of what lies in the dimensions above ours and let your mind go free from there. Or better yet, just think of the mysteries that are in our own universe!

Scientific evidence regarding the advent of man despite its proselytizing still remains refutable and inconclusive at best.

That is why Evolution is still a THEORY and a hypothesis not a fact as proven beyond all doubt.

Certainly it has many features that support an argument but nothing that is definitive and the more people investigate Evolution as others do the Bible find that they in fact raise more questions than they find answers.

either /or

And for those answerer's who like to look at animals butts you might want to see someone about that..just a bit too creepy !

@Motivational Raven - "what evidence is that?"

- Simply google the internet for it... there are tones of evidence for evolution. http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

But I am quite sure you will just ignore everything and keep on yelling "Where is the evidence?" Like most willfully ignorant people do.

What I can't find is any evidence that shows man came from dirt, woman came from rib plus talking snake. Yet creationists don't seem be questioning it for evidence. I guess their brain doesn't seem to be functioning well.

The have confidence all they examine in a e book of information made up by 0.5-bare, heavily sunlight-affected sand savages based in Bronze Age myths, legends and superstitions. they think 31 verses in one financial ruin of a e book of information made as much as answer the questions of childrens and the scammers made up some stuff to fulfill them. cutting-factor-day technology, fairly scientific technology, is geared up on Evolutionary concept. i ask your self what proportion real Believers™ might take their ill son or daughter to a doctor – who replace right into a witchdoctor steeped in Bronze Age myths, legends and superstitions … who exceeded over the discoveries of contemporary technology. those Defenders of lack of understanding above/in the previous me determine that USians will quickly quit to be worldwide leaders in scientific examine – apparently the numbers of youthful USians going ‘into technology’ are at an all time low. i'm nonetheless reeling on the lack of understanding some answerers have shown … all in accordance with concern … all based on the paranoid premise that there’s an invisible guy contained in the sky who watches each little thing we do, think of and say, 24/7. ~

The only "evidence" evolution science has is that animals adapt. There is no "evidence" of macro evolution (hence evolutionists distance themselves from the expression), there is no "evidence" of biogenesis (and despite the fact evolution is kinda stumped when it comes to how life started, evolutionists distance themselves from the theories of biogenesis). There is no "evidence" of the big bang. (Hence evolution scientists distance their theory from the big bang theory even though they still have no other explanation of a first cause).

So to conclude the only "evidence" - that is proven observable scientific study and experimentation - evolution has is that we adapt. Based on this and the fact that a genius like einstien believed in intelligent design I would say the "opinion" of him and other reputable scientists is worthy of consideration.

They think God created things like the fossil record and carbon/radioactive dating to test their faith. That's what makes debating science with them impossible. (cognitive dissonance)

I doubt many creationists even know the science of how fossils are formed. Richard Dawkings writings on DNA is far to advanced if they don't even understand the fundamentals of the fossil record and transitional species.

To a poster below: There is a saying "You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to facts".

Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory, jump of a cliff and let me know how it works out.

It doesn't matter. They can't argue with science. They try but fail, so they rationalize it by denying science.

The good thing about fact is that you don't have to believe in it for it to be true, it doesn't require your belief, it's still true.

Because every human being is allowed an opinion, otherwise your trying to control their thoughts and beliefs.