Why do creationists always look so unevolved?
458565
It is because their beliefs don't seem to have a logical basis.  However, it is the task of evolved people such as yourself to respect other peoples beliefs even if they disagree with yours.
518798
"Creationists" are functionally illiterate, so what else would you expect?\n\nAnyone who defines "evidence" to mean "because I said so" is clearly illiterate. And that is all the "evidence" they have to support the "creation" argument.\n\nThe universe has always existed and was not created by anyone or anything.
331313
It is thought that man came from ape like ancestors, not quite monkey's.  \n\nIt could take hundreds of thousands of years for macro evolution to occur.  Wait around that long, and i guarantee there will be NEW species.  So it is still happening.\n\nThe fossil record is not complete because fossils are hard to come by, not everything fossilises despite contrary belief.  In fact it's amazing we have as much info as we do.\n\nHow on earth does it take less belief to believe in a god, there is no evidence whatsoever for this!  At least evolution has enough evidence to fill several hundred warehouses, what do you have, testimony.. Yeah right, thanks, i'll keep to evidence, not faith to inform my decisions about the world around me.
630426
First off, creationism is not a scientific theory.  Please don't elevate it to that level with the term "scientific creationism."  Creationism is religion, not science.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n
784202
Poor research model, Abraxas. You should ask for people who accept evolution and people who are creationists BOTH to submit their occupations. This way you look like you've got creationists in your targeting sights.
1081959
whats sad to me is the standard sheeple line of there is no proof of evolution,\n\ni could accept there is not enough evidence to support this in my mind,\n\nthe sheeple mentality is most apparent in the discussion regarding evolution, it shakes out the sheeple,\n\nit clearly separates the men from the sheeple
738549
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
925227
I completely agree with you, I never understand why people can't consider the idea of God planning evolution, a combination of the two just like you said.\n\nThe people who disagree are the ones who consider the Bible to be the absolute truth when it comes to God and creation, even the Atheists are doing it. The Bible is not a history book, even Christian Fundamentalists have interpreted creation in the Bible differently. If you remember that it's not 100% facts and keep an open mind, then people would understand.
123639
I don't know if this is controversal, but the fact that the Darwinists don't want to discuss the flaws in the theory.  So much of the "science" behind it can't be recreated or observed, which is a big part of science.  Darwin himself said that it is a theory and needs to be treated as such.\n\nThe one thing I have asked about evolution is.  Normally the old "mold" dies off because the new "mold" is better.  If that is true and we evolved from Apes, why are there still apes.\n\nI believe that micro-evolution happens in species but no cross evolution.
535071
Evolution has no proof, has never been observed, tested, and measured to any extent, but neither can creation be tested. But we can look at the universe and everything around us and see Gods attributes:\n\n"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"\n\n-Romans 1:20\n\nBut the main reason there is no hard evidence is because we must believe with a heart of faith.\n\nLots of things cant be seen, doesnt mean they dont exist.
660314
They rationalize them away, just like they do everything else. They say "there's no missing link" when indeed we have found so many missing links in the past 100 years it's ridiculous. Of course, there's always a space between two points, so one can continue to say there's a "missing link" ad infinitum.\n\nI think the typical creationist response is that the fossil record is evidence of a worldwide flood. This is nonsense in that the fossil record is layered into various strata, with certain species only appearing at certain levels. If it all took place over a 40-day period, each species would be spread out across the various strata rather than separated into stratum according to species. Their excuse for this is some nonsense about heavier species sinking to the bottom or something. What? Not a single primitive-looking species floated to the top layers? Nonsense.\n\nAs for fossils of fish species on mountain tops, that's a no brainer. Mountains are formed when rock is upheaved due to various geological forces. Hence what used to be below sea level ends up atop a cliff or peak. It's basic geology.\n\nIt's all just willful ignorance, so there's not much you can do to convince them they're wrong. Admitting that macroevolution is a fact would require them to question their literal reading of the Bible, which would cause their whole world to come tumbling down. Obviously that's not going to happen.
1174074
They're trying to give 'scientific' proof of their religious beliefs. There is no logic in it, only rationalizing.\n\nTheir understanding of evolution is nil, they draw their conclusions from a caricature of evolutionary theory presented by creationism proponents.
766101
Creationism is not science and can never be science. A fundamental point of anything scientific is that it is constantly being revised every time a new fact appears. That is the way evolution works. Millions of new facts have appeared since the 1800s and all of them have been able to easily fit into a theory that is flexible and predictive. \n\nOne of the characteristics of science is that it has falsifiability - that is, you have to explain what proof you would accept that your theory is wrong. Evolution would be wrong if there was any meaningful evidence that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Evolution would be wrong if there was no evidence that animals are related to each other. But despite desperate searching, the anti-evolutionists have not come up with any evidence for either of these points. \n\nOn the other hand, the creationist guys refuse to explain what evidence they would accept that creationism is wrong. That alone means that they cannot be regarded as scientific and that alone makes their viewpoint a religious one which ought to be excluded from science classrooms. That is the legal position in the USA, confirmed over and over by many courts - most recently last summer when a very conservative judge appointed by President Bush threw out a case where some Pennsylvania religious fanatics were trying to get creationism taught in school. The judge gave them a tongue lashing and told them to stop wasting the court's time!
652003
Quote mining to the highest degree. You wonder why Creationists are called Lying Creationist Weasels?\n\nTHE FULL QUOTE FROM DARWIN:\n\n"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." \n\nAny more out of context quotes you wanna make?\n\nALSO: Darwin didn't recant on his death bed. Another false claim:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
251395
Well, if you really want an answer..\n\nYou can see by the answers of the creationists who responded that they will not believe in evolution, no matter HOW MUCH evidence is in front of them.  It has been my experience that they care little for the truth and only for maintaining what they already believe.\n\nKen Miller wrote an EXCELLENT book on this called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."\n\nMiller does a great job of answering your question but the short version may go like this:\n\nCreationists FALSELY believe that if evolution is true, then their religion is necessarily false.\n\nAs long as they continue to decieve themselves with that, no amount of evidence will ever convince them and they will continue to expound that the sun revolves around the Earth.\n\nI should note here that Miller is a Christian who FULLY belives in his religion and is a celluar biologist who FULLY understands evolution.\n\nMy last thought is from comedian Lewis Black: He says he won't even debate evolution's detractors because "we've got the fossils. We win."\n\nWell put, Mr Black but there is far more to rely on than just fossils.
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
1021610
We have fact and the ability to think  on our side. Facts that prove that there is no god. That means that you only have ignorance on your side. No one but Christians suggest we came from monkeys, that is just one more example of their ignorance. Evolutionists say humans and apes came from a common ancestor that was not either human or monkey. Do you really think creationism is better? We came from Adam and eve? So then all after them were inbred. The family must have sat down together for orgies. Inbreeding that closely would kill a species, but god let them live to f*** their mothers. I would think you would rather be related to apes, than come from motherf***ers. You need not kid yourself by suggesting that you have a trace of intelligence, when you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Have a nice day.