CREATIONISTS TAKE WARNING:
Oh my God. If I come across ONE MORE crackpot website on Creationism or "intelligent design," I'm going to scream. I mean, come on. If you're going to take the time to put up a website, at LEAST research your facts. No, dinosaur footprints were NOT found in the same strata as human footprints; no, coal does NOT form in a mere 10 years; and no, there is NO geological evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed in 6 days and is thus an example of a miracle.
Anyways, I'm not going to debate the facts here. I don't have time to explain to you every single little detail about anatomy, radiometric dating or primate morphology. Besides, Talk Origins has already done a sufficient job of it. Instead, I'm just going to go on a rant about your ATTITUDE.
First of all, if you're a Creationist, don't come crying to me that oh, the Evolutionists aren't able to objectively evaluate your creationist theory of human origins. You people are the first in line when it comes to denouncing documented, published and peer reviewed scientific data based on the fact that one sample in a pool of 1,000 does not fit evolutionary theory. There's a name for that one "off" sample, and it's called STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. Feel free to ask a mathematician to explain it to you.
Second, I hate to break it to you, but NO ONE has seen the Holy Grail or found the Ark, unless, of course, you count the ones in the Indiana Jones movies. So spare me the sob story that the evolutionists are discounting your precious evidence. To adapt a line from Jerry McGuire: Show me the Covenant!
Third. Learn what the word "theory" means. Almost every single Creationist web site I go to states that evolution is "just a theory." You know, if you really knew what that word meant, you would realize that calling it a theory is actually NOT helping your argument. And speaking of semantic hair splitting, you know...I would think that if you have so much evidence on Creationism, you would be busy presenting that to the world instead of spending so much time debating whether or not evolution is a fact or theory (incidentally, it's BOTH--look it up in someplace BESIDES Merriam-Webster).
Fourth, again on this theory issue. You're right, evolutionists often tell you that they would be more than happy to debate you if you would just produce a theory. And it's true...come to us with some facts, experiments, whatnot...we'll get you published, we'll peer review it, and then we'll go about doing one of the most important things in the scientific method: we'll see if we can repeat your tests. Because you see, theory is all about REPETITION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS THAT SUPPORT A HYPOTHESIS. If you can't produce that, then tough cookies, but you can't play ball with us.
And no, that's not unfair. Remember, no one is INvalidating your idea of creationism here. We're just telling you, based on the standard definitions put in place by the scientific method a few hundred years ago, that your ideas can't be categorized as a theory. It may be valid, but it's NOT scientific. If you have an issue with that, then really, your issue is NOT with evolutionism but with the scientific method, so arrange your anger appropriately. Also, stop trying to undermine our work with yours, OK? After all, I guarantee you, if you read through the actual original writings in physical anthropology, you'll see that NO ONE ever came out and used evolution to denounce creationism. In fact, you'll see the opposite, where esteemed anatomists, physiologists, and social scientists actually TRY to make the fossil record fit the words of the Bible. So lay off. The fact that YOU feel threatened by evolutionism is, really, YOUR PROBLEM.
As for the Bible being accepted as a factual account...sorry, try again. The Bible was written by MEN, who, incidentally, are subject to the same bias and subjective nature as all of us are. Unless you saw God himself come down and pen those words, there is unequivocably no "proof" that there is any fact in it. You can believe, and if it brings you comfort, I will never say otherwise. But don't throw this idea around that "everyone the world over" accepts the Bible as fact. I assure you, many of us don't.
Oh, and finally...evolution and belief in a higher power are NOT mutually exclusive UNLESS you take the Bible to be 100% fully accurate, word for word. If that's the case, then any of you who have ever stolen anything--that includes those paperclips from the office--should be put to death.
After all, that's what it says in the Bible. So it is written, so it shall be done, right?
Yeah. That's what I thought.
o hey - this was so great to find and read. I've written similar stuff about those yahoos. I am so happy to run across a THINKING girl in rockford. I just saw your name and I thought I would check you out because your name reads a lot about someone who's been trying to IM me - and I kept blocking because I thought it wasn't human. So sorry about the illness - I hope health will be yours for years and years and years and years!
A CREATIONIST COMMENTS:
Actually, I am a Creationist, but I agree with most of what you wrote. Most Creationists are way, way out of line when it comes to "facts", so I'll just nod an agreeable "Amen" right there. Hypotheses need to be supported with scientific data before they are considered "theory". And soundly tested before solidly pronounced as "fact". Anything less is simply a matter of "faith", not science.
Honestly, I don't care how long it took for the Earth or the Grand Canyon to be created. What's the difference? It's no more or less evidence of God, in my opinion. And I don't see how finding certain historical objects (like the Ark) makes any difference in a creation/evolution argument anyway.
Geologically, there is evidence of The Great Flood (Noah's ark story), so that's kinda cool. Even the Great Pyramid of Giza has markings from the waterline. That stuff fascinates me.
People can argue in circles about the evolution/creation of humanity, but again... It really serves as no more or less proof of God. Obviously, evolution is a real thing. But were humans the result of it? Personally, I don't think so. We're just a little too ornate to be an accident... But in the big picture, it's one of those details that's too ambiguous to be worthy of argument. Who cares?
I won't bother to counter most of your rant. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm cool with that. :)
You know, I was thinking, after I posted this entry, that I need to be careful about this habit I have of generalized labeling. I know that I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped into the soccer-mom Oprah watching-crowd just because I happen to fit the demographics (not that there's anything wrong with that, just not my thing). So it's not very fair of me to put out a blanket statement on "creationists" without at least qualifying it a bit (as in, "those crazy creationists on XYZ website").
Although I humbly disagree with you on humans not being a product of evolution, I do agree that in the end, the issue is irrelevant and doesn't get us any closer to answering a question about God (or a god, or deities, or spiritual level or whatever you choose to believe). No matter how far back we go, no matter how much we can trace back the big bang, we will never, ever, ever be able to answer the question, "Why something instead of nothing?" with scientific methods and logical deductions. I think studying evolution is interesting in its own right, just like studying the laws of physics or chemistry can be interesting. And I do think that studying those sorts of things can change how you look at life and how you approach spirituality. But no one will ever be able to answer that one spiritual question--why are we here in the first place?-- with any kind of materialistic measures.
I think that's why I like science and evolution so much. It's this paradox of science versus spirit that fascinates me.