| RockSmith372 said: The key thing with creationism that I don't like is that they will believe what is said in their holy books regardless of the evidence presented. Most even admit that like Ken Ham(leader of Answers in Genesis), almost every member in the Discovery Institute, and many more. That's when it becomes rediculous. When people have to delibrately ignore evidence to satisfy their sacred text, that is when such belief is not tolerated. The existence of a god can be believed since there is no evidence against it (though there is no evidence for it either), but evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution is a fact. |
I agree. Quite often when debating with Creationists they remind me of those who believe the moon landing was a hoax, in terms of being selective about what evidence they accept.
You can throw all kinds of valid evidence at people who believe the moon landing was a hoax: We've taken photos of the lunar landing sites of Apollo 11 and 14; we've placed a reflector which we use to accurately measure the distance of the moon, which could only have been put there by man; we've seen the video where the feather and the hammer fall at the same speed, which would be near impossible to do on Earth; etc...
But no matter how much of the evidence there is proving man has been to the moon they ignore it. But they are willing to accept without question the starched flag with a pole through it that bent a little as proof that man has never been there.
I'm sure somebody is going to poke a hole in my comparison, but I swear I have felt like that a fair few times.
