Why is it that creationists attempt to discredit evolution by attacking other theories that are unrelated?
Almost every time a creationist tries to discredit evolution, they attack something else like the Big Bang or abiogenesis. Do they even understand the differences between the theories?
- Anonymous9 years agoBest Answer
That is because they are integrally related The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, THAT alone destroys it, They employ a False Dichotomy, meaning the evidence HAS to be this or that But IT cannot be God,
In The series of Below Listed Videos, Lee Stroble a FORMER ATHEIST Honestly and Objectively did his own research without the influence of a pre-set world view and Contaminated by a Hostile anti christian Philosophy and ideology.
I suggest watching them from an Unemotional Objective point of view and consider the Possibility of the fact that Evolution teachers have lied to you for More Philosophical reasons than for Pure truth of Science, Ohh I know, some people will answer with all these Long winded answers trying to sound all smart with walls of texts and links and think if they sound intelligent it has Validity, Fact is it doesn't, Don't be fooled by high-sounding words from Fools,
Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 1 of 10)
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 2 of 10)
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 3 of 10) The Negatve Evidence
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 4 of 10)
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 5 of 10) The evidence of Cosmology
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 6 of 10) The evidence of Physics
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 7 of 10)
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 8 of 10) The evidence of Biological Machines
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 9 of 10) The evidence of Biological information
The Case for a Creator (Chapter 10 of 10)
- jeshurunLv 69 years ago
I don't know.
But, why is there micro evolution, macro evolution, quantum evolution, and any other way to try to prove a theory that can't be proved?
Even scientists can't agree 100% about the theory of evolution. And, some scientists have even falsely fabricated skeletons so as to make the theory of evolution plausible.
Book: LIfe-how did it get here? By evolution or by Creation?
Case in point: "Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions"; The reptilian, by Archie Carr, 1963 p. 36.
Neanderthal man was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book "Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves." As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.
Another fossil type frequently encountered in Scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens "were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans?.
Piltdown man, discovered in 1912, was “the most notorious scientific fraud of the century,” says The Times of London. It was exposed as such in 1953 after scientific tests proved that far from being a missing link in some supposed evolutionary chain of human ascent, the skull was that of a modern man and the lower jaw belonged to an orangutan. Who had perpetrated such a clever hoax?
For years the finger of suspicion pointed to Charles Dawson, the lawyer and amateur geologist who found the remains. Others thought to be implicated were Sir Arthur Keith, an ardent evolutionist and former president of the Royal College of Surgeons; British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; and French priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Conclusive proof was lacking, however, and Dawson was eventually deemed responsible.
Now, the real culprit has been named. He is Martin A. C. Hinton, a former curator of zoology at London’s Natural History Museum, who died in 1961. Nine years ago a canvas trunk that had belonged to Hinton came to light in the museum. Inside were elephant teeth, pieces of a fossil hippopotamus, and other bones, which have been closely analyzed. All were found to be stained with iron and manganese in the same proportions as the Piltdown bones. But the clinching factor was the discovery of chromium in the teeth, also used in the staining process.
- Deacon_227Lv 49 years ago
What they understand is that in order for people to be able to defend Creationism they must portray science as close minded, fleeting, inconsequential, capricious and built upon shoddy foundations. Any Creationist not completely ignorant soon realizes that the attacks on science cannot be constrained to evolution, since evolution is science and is supported by thousands of disciplines and hundreds of independently verified theories in biological science. They are left with the task of attacking the very foundations of science as a "religion" that people "believe", and that this angle of reasoning puts Creationism on equal footing with science.
Of course, it does not.
- Edward the LessLv 79 years ago
So, some evolutionists would acquiesce to the theory that God created the universe and is the author of life? Otherwise, they are inextricably linked, like it or not. Without God, scientists really have to determine the causal effect of the universe, the causal effect of the beginning of life, and the causal effect of species becoming new species - all with pure, blind, random chance with nary a hint of intelligent design. A daunting task by anyones standards.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
They also don't understand that a scientific theory is a explanation for a bunch of results you get.
- AEFLv 79 years ago
Nope. Evolution, Big Bang and abiogenesis are all one big muck of hogwash to them.
I suggest not trying to reason with these people.
- One Man WolfpackLv 69 years ago
I enjoy pointing out the gravity is "just" a theory and that they should test it. Preferably from great heights.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Well, one could argue they are interrelated.
But to be completely honest, I think they're simply ignorant of the theory itself and will use any means necessary to bash it.
In doing so, they simply discredit themselves.Source(s): Rationality
- AvocadoLv 49 years ago
Ignorance, plain and simple.