Why do Americans reject Evolution so much?

[habsheaven]

With evolution your missing more then 300 pieces, according to Alex who started this thread, there is no absolute truths in evolution. Everything in evolution is a theory, evolutionists use certain stances when it benefits them, then change to something else when talking about a different matter.

With creationism, can you not see 100% of the picture? You know who created the earth and everything else. You can see things in the Bible that would explain things that we find in the world around us ( the flood explains fossil layers etc. )

I am sitting in front of your Creationism puzzle. Can you point out a piece of the puzzle that I can see, because I can't see anything? I DO NOT know who created everything. How can I? As I said earlier, I can IMAGINE the picture, if someone like yourself whispers in my ear. But I cannot see it.

And the Flood does not explain fossils.

[habsheaven]

The problem is that your 1000 piece puzzle of evolution only has about 10 or 15 peices.

To believe in evolution you have to accept that dramatic changes occurred almost instantly, not over an extended period of time. We are to just accept this jump from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with absolutely no connection between them. There is no proof that the two are linked.

We went from this...


to this...


with nothing inbetween them.

We went from large wide-set eyes, a forward jutting brow, a small cranium, a broad nose with a large opening, a forward jutting upper lip and a wide, thick lower jaw to smaller narrower eyes, a less prominent brow, a large cranium, a small nose, a recessed upper lip and smaller lower jaw...and all of this happened at once? It must have because NO evidence exist of any "evolution" from one to the other. Not a single figment of evidence exist that shows Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis gradually evolving into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. None.

If evolution is true then there should be evidence showing a gradual change from one version of humans to another. Instead we have these sudden jumps. The strongest argument that evolution has to prove itself is the strongest argument against it being believable. We are to believe that gradual changes occurred, yet science can provide no evidence of these gradual changes.

If you think there are only 10-15 pieces of the evolution puzzle THAT is your problem. Nothing I say can change that. But based on that evaluation I am curious how many of the Creationism puzzle pieces you can count?

As for missing evidence in a chain. The "common sense" solution to the "missing skulls" is that none have been found yet. It certainly isn't that they simply went from one skull to the next. That is another example of a strawman argument; you are telling me what I have to assume and discrediting that assumption. It simply is not true.

[Star_Cards]

The problem is that your 1000 piece puzzle of evolution only has about 10 or 15 peices.

To believe in evolution you have to accept that dramatic changes occurred almost instantly, not over an extended period of time. We are to just accept this jump from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with absolutely no connection between them. There is no proof that the two are linked.

We went from this...


to this...


with nothing inbetween them.

We went from large wide-set eyes, a forward jutting brow, a small cranium, a broad nose with a large opening, a forward jutting upper lip and a wide, thick lower jaw to smaller narrower eyes, a less prominent brow, a large cranium, a small nose, a recessed upper lip and smaller lower jaw...and all of this happened at once? It must have because NO evidence exist of any "evolution" from one to the other. Not a single figment of evidence exist that shows Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis gradually evolving into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. None.

If evolution is true then there should be evidence showing a gradual change from one version of humans to another. Instead we have these sudden jumps. The strongest argument that evolution has to prove itself is the strongest argument against it being believable. We are to believe that gradual changes occurred, yet science can provide no evidence of these gradual changes.

I get all of the questions and gaps in the main idea of how humans came about. What I find baffling is that people who believe in creationism accept religious texts as valid proof with little to no question, but yet question most things about evolutionary theory. Take those two skull pictures for example... Why is it so impossible that those two species could be somehow linked and yet it's so plausible that a creator simply placed us here. Even with all of the differences in the two skulls and the gap of specimens showing the progression of the evolution, both skulls have a lot of similarities. It's not like we are looking at a human skull and a hippo skull and saying it's possible we are linked to hippos.

[JustAlex]

You look at the past with evolutionist shades on, I look at it with Biblical shades on. You have no more " proof " of evolution then I have " proof " of a creator.

HILARIOUS!

Evolution has MOUNTAINS of evidence where is ONE.....just ONE shred of evidence for your "creator"?

@Duane:

Seriously bro, you put two skulls and say there is "nothing in between"?

Let me tell you on one thing, we (People who accept evolution and science) have facts and evidence on our side....you have faith....blind faith on a book written by man.

This is my response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils


Australopithecus afarensis


Australopithecus africanus


Homo Habilis


Homo Erectus


Homo Erectus skeleton


Homo Heidelbergensis


Homo rhodesiensis


Please do NOT say there is "Nothing in between"....the simple fact is that there are so many that scientist no longer believe in the "missing link"!

[JustAlex]

[youtube]11s9ZIGYdvo[/youtube]

^Here is an EXCELLENT Documentary by the History channel which chronicles the evolution of Humans.

At the very least Christians should give it a chance and see just how much evidence scientists have discovered.

[boba]

I am sitting in front of your Creationism puzzle. Can you point out a piece of the puzzle that I can see, because I can't see anything? I DO NOT know who created everything. How can I? As I said earlier, I can IMAGINE the picture, if someone like yourself whispers in my ear. But I cannot see it.

And the Flood does not explain fossils.

I can't see any piece of the evolution puzzle, like I said, this is semantics.

Actually, the flood can explain the fossil layers.

[boba]

HILARIOUS!

Evolution has MOUNTAINS of evidence where is ONE.....just ONE shred of evidence for your "creator"?

Evolution has no hard evidence and creationism has no hard evidence. All there is are pieces of evidence in the world of our history that evolutionists can look at with their shades on and creationists can look at with their shades on.

Sorry to break it to you, but there are people who don't believe the same as you do, and just because of that they are not stupid.

[theonedru]

Evolution has no hard evidence and creationism has no hard evidence. All there is are pieces of evidence in the world of our history that evolutionists can look at with their shades on and creationists can look at with their shades on.

Sorry to break it to you, but there are people who don't believe the same as you do, and just because of that they are not stupid.

Which God created the world, and which story of creation is the correct one? Christian, North American Native, Zoroastrian, Hindu......

[AUTaxMan]

Which God created the world, and which story of creation is the correct one? Christian, North American Native, Zoroastrian, Hindu......

Not this again.

[habsheaven]

I can't see any piece of the evolution puzzle, like I said, this is semantics.

Actually, the flood can explain the fossil layers.

Take a look at the two posts before yours. They are what one would call puzzle pieces. Please explain how the flood explains fossils. I can't wait to hear it.