Powerman said:
You can say what you want but the fact is this: The theory of evolution is widely accepted as fact in the scientific community. Creation theory was never widely accepted by science and is considered an obsolete theory by science. To say that the creation theory is in any way factually equal to the theory of evolution is absurd.
The Earth being flat was once widely accepted by the scientific community and people just like you made the same arguements at people who thought the world was round. It was once widely accepted by the scientific community that maggots were spontaneously created from meat, but that was disproven. The tonsils were once thought to be useless by the scientific community while religious people kept saying that God didn't hand out spare parts. Tonsils were later found to be a key part of the immune system. The appendix was once thought to be useless by the scientific community while religious people kept saying that God didn't hand out spare parts. Tonsils were later found out to be key in filtering toxins from the bloodstream.
Scientists theories about how evolution "really happened' change every few years because they find yet something else that disproves them. The fruitless search for the missing link has caused them to conclude that transspecies evolution happens so quickly that it rarely leaves behind a fossil record, while a grand total of less than a dozen fossils are said to be missing links. I'm thinking they're more like the platypus, which is not an evolutionary link between duck and beaver, but rather a creature in and of itself. It's also a scientific fact that mutations remove information from the DNA strand rather than add it, so where did all this information supposedly added to DNA between bacteria and us come from?
Sure, there's evidence for evolution, but that evidence is hardly ever scrutinized enough, and those who do scrutinize it are immediately dismissed as religious zealots, even if they're not religious. In fact, among the scientific community at large, greater and greater numbers of scientific minds are seeing evolution as implausible, and even though most of them don't switch over to believing in God, they believe that we must look elsewhere for our origins. Are you seriously going to say that Albert Einstein was a "moron" just like the rest of us who are "too stubborn" to accept evolution as fact?
Now, I'm not trying to convert you to believing in creationism, but you two seem to dismiss every alternative theory as some crack pot piece of religion that has no basis in fact and is absolutely untrue. Are you really so closed-minded that you can't even open yourself to the possibility that you might be wrong. I am. I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but I don't think that I'm so correct that everyone who doesn't think like I do is stupid. That attitude is the epitomy of blindness, ignorance, arrogance, and a general lack of manners and respect.
Yeah. Religous people tend to be very stubborn because they believe what they want to believe. Without faith which is the belief in something for which there is no standard of proof there is no way anyone would try to disprove evolution.
Once again, many atheistic and agnostic scientists have seen enough holes in evolution that they are beginning to look elsewhere for our origins, and it's absurd that you would believe they are doing so for religious reasons. Oh, and being well respected scientists with a lot of credibility in the scientific community, attempting to call them stubborn morons like you do to us will completely discredit you.
You may be able to get away with this childish attitude with some people, but around here, blanket claims that you're right and everyone else is a moron hold no water.
