This thread isn't intended to engage in yet another creation vs. evolution debate inasmuch as it is to discuss the gullibility and hypocrisy of those who adhere to the theory of evolution and accept supporting evidence with virtually wholesale approval.

I am not interested in proving or disproving evolution, creationism, or the flood account. There is a constant barrage of insults concerning those who dare question the evidence put forth by evolutionary scientists. Those who do are often referred to as delusional, liars, close minded, ignorant, lacking in logic and critical thinking, etc.

Creationists are often accused of blindly believing the Genesis account and accepting the universe as being the product of a divine creator although there is evidence to confirm our stance (even if it sometimes depends on the process of elimination). I must ask why so many evolutionists regularly swallow evidence that supports their view in spite of repeated faulty finds, retractions, and loose connections and evidence.

Some archaeological finds deemed as fact will later be proven false and the usual defense is, 'We are still learning and are bound to make mistakes.' In my opinion, that is a poor excuse. If you are going to describe something as science and fact but accuse those who do not agree with your view as lacking 'logic, reason, and critical thinking' then the current existing evidence of evolution should be rock solid.

To compare, let's use my opinion of flood geology as an example of how to weigh evidence without being gullible enough to believe something just because it conforms to one's beliefs. I can admit that some finds in defense of the flood are fascinating, some are so obviously false, and some are too open to interpretation to be considered proof/evidence. It would be arrogant to accuse those who do not agree with such discoveries as lacking 'logic, reason, and critical thinking' because some of the evidence is admittedly shaky.

However, ardent evolutionists seem to lack the ability to weigh the evidence being offered to defend their belief and will only admit evidence as being false in the face of absolute facts that irrefutably debunk their evidence. It seems that evidence supporting evolution is innocent until proven guilty.

AshD,

Your examples of evolutionary retractions and hoaxes are just that, hoaxes. The purpose of a hoaxer is not to attempt to gain credibility to a theory usually, but to gain esteem from contemporaries who are making massive discoveries in the same field. It's about ego.

And the Archaeoraptor thing is something you might want to read up on. Although the one you're referring to was a hoax, there have been many more feathered dinosaur fossils found that are not. Again, it's an ego thing on the part of the hoaxer.

Your argument is well constructed. Nice job.

May I ask, do you think that 'Man' can evolve?

IOW, in 10,000 years, will Man still look the same as he does now?

I think you will find that perhaps hard core atheists may say everything in the bible is false or what have you, but your belief in a flood does not negate Evolution, nor add credence to creationism.

I would bet there are a tremendous amount of historical fact in the bible. I think it has been proven enough. But to prove a flood happened, does not prove a boat with 2 of every kind of animal was built and God wiped the earth clean.

It seems more likley there was flood, an historical record of a flood. I would have to say it would be hard to tell if this wasn't a local event or a world wide one, but people needed an explanation. Its obvious just by the DNA record we are not descended from Noahs children. Not to mention we get into that whole, incest meets Cain and Able thing ok , if it wasn't with each other then who.

I would say thats a bigger hole in a theory then any evolution has. Not to mention this same story was told by none Jews for thousands years prior.

I can appreciate faith, but there is some blindness in it in certain cases.

I personally believe, evolution and religion complement each other better a great elaborate program of proteins and molecules which create live when ever possible. I think this make God look a lot smarter then the I dream of Genie approach. I think we were given brains to use them, to question and to try and make sense of these questions. And when we come up with an answer that make more sense, that you can see working (sure there are some flaws , mistakes , but most of it works and can be proven. So using our brains, a gift we are supposed to use we try and figure it out better then people could thousands of years ago.

At least this is MHO. So for the record, I believe there is alot of historical truth in the bible. But again IMHO it is the event and how they were interpreted that takes away from the truth. Just because Bill said something 2000 yrs ago and wrote it down, doesn't mean its bad to question and see if Bills story is true.

Ash,

While both sides may have provided false evidence occasionally in the past, only one has provided any real, solid evidence.

While both sides may have provided false evidence occasionally in the past, only one has provided any real, solid evidence.

Not necessarily. Both sides have presented some pretty convincing evidence to support their view of our origins. Both sides have also presented some rather dubious evidence. My 'mistake' was to take take an even side and read up on evidence in support of evolution and creationism. Upon doing so, my brain just about blew a fuse. One side will present evidence while another side will debunk or refute such evidence. There are so many opposing theories even in such circles.

For instance, creationists can either hold a young earth or old earth view. There are even theistic evolutionists. Evolutionists also disagree on things like missing links or abiogenesis. Then of course, general creationists and general evolutionists butt heads on just about everything.

You might not have spent as much time studying the view of creationists or their arguments against evolutionary evidence but some of it is pretty impressive.

In order to convince me there was a worldwide flood, I would first have to know where all the extra water came from, then where did all the extra water go while leaving some here. Or I would need to know how all the land on Earth momentarily flattened.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
I think you will find that perhaps hard core atheists may say everything in the bible is false or what have you, but your belief in a flood does not negate Evolution, nor add credence to creationism.

Agreed. And if you engage in textual exegesis, you will actually see how the account in Genesis, primarily man's fall and the flood, both allude to genetic changes. The difference is, these changes are degenerative. It is interesting to note, this has been backed up by modern scientific discoveries.

Originally posted by finnegan
In order to convince me there was a worldwide flood, I would first have to know where all the extra water came from, then where did all the extra water go while leaving some here. Or I would need to know how all the land on Earth momentarily flattened.

I have a hard time getting into the flood debate but will do my best to answer your questions. Simply put, it isn't my area of expertise. This is what I have read even if I do not fully agree with all of the following. This is simply a recounting of opinions from others. I'm learning, too.

We are told in the account of Genesis that it was not a simple rain for 40 days and 40 nights but that the 'great springs of the deep broke forth.'

The world also went through a major upheaval. As for the world being topically flat, some believe so (although I plead ignorance). They believe the earth was somewhat flat prior the flood and that the movement of the tectonic plates created higher mountain peaks.

Then there has been talk of massive subterranean water deposits being recently discovered. Many flood geologists also believe the oceans were not nearly as large in antediluvian times as they are in postdiluvian times.

There is also the raqueya theory but I again must plead ignorance due to it being such a heated debate. It has been years since I read up on the subject of the flood and somewhat dug my own grave by reading three different perspectives: Books that supported a world wide flood, books that endorsed a localized flood, and books that completely refuted the flood account.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable of the subject can eventually chime in.

Sorry Ash, but when I can walk into a museum and point to a dinosaur skeleton and say, "Science has proven this skeleton to be 65 million years old." and you pull out a book written by men a few thousand years ago and say, "The Bible says we've only been here 6,000 years," I have to ask which one of us is being gullible.

Science can prove the world is billions of years old, simply by going thru the strata of the continents. Religion says it's 6,000 years and to take that on faith.

I realize common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat, but I'm going with my common sense on this one anyway and siding with evolution.

Originally posted by mrwupy
Sorry Ash, but when I can walk into a museum and point to a dinosaur skeleton and say, "Science has proven this skeleton to be 65 million years old." and you pull out a book written by men a few thousand years ago and say, "The Bible says we've only been here 6,000 years," I have to ask which one of us is being gullible.

I have explained this many times. The 6,000 year old earth calculation was created by an 18th century priest. Even many of the early church fathers believed in an older earth. The priese jumped to many conclusions. Not saying one way or the other but I will say, again, I am not necessarily a YEC. However, I will add there is much contention between the dating of fossils and some accuse evolutionists of using circular logic.

Science can prove the world is billions of years old, simply by going thru the strata of the continents. Religion says it's 6,000 years and to take that on faith.

They can provide evidence of the universe/world being billions of years old yet others have come along providing evidence to the contrary. I don't claim to personally know how old the earth and universe are but both the 6,000 and multibillion year dates do not add up in my opinion.

I realize common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat, but I'm going with my common sense on this one anyway and siding with evolution.

And that is fine. Again, I didn't make the thread to debate evolution vs. creationism for the umpteenth time on ATS but to show not everything has been 'proven' and that it is acceptable to have questions without hearing the accusation of being ignorant.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Badge01
Your argument is well constructed. Nice job.
May I ask, do you think that 'Man' can evolve?
IOW, in 10,000 years, will Man still look the same as he does now?

Being a firm believer in microevolution, yes. We would have some alterations in our traits as we adapt to our constantly changing environment. However, I believe the coding to adapt was 'programmed' in us by a creator. Evolving into a completely superior species? No. I have not been provided with any substantial evidence to convince me of such a possibility.