Hi Kelly,
Creationists only reject the idea of macroevolution
Yes, they only reject that which is in conflict with their preconceived notions about what is 'true'.
My first exposure to this 'science' was some ideas as to why radiometric dating was apparently flawed.
At first the arguments presented seemed plausible so I began to look into radiometric dating further.
I came across the isochron method and read up on that. That seemed to put the nail in the coffin on the creationist argument but I went back to the creationist side and asked about their rebuttal to this technique of dating to which their previous objections did not apply or hold any weight. Since this group existed I figured they must have some valid reasons behind their viewpoint, so I expected that they'd open my mind to the reasons why the isochron method was flawed. Well they had no counter argument against it. They simply shrugged and said all rocks display isochrons as though it was some inherent property of rocks in general and insignificant.
It was at this point that I saw that their 'science' was nothing more than a willful dismissal of facts that were/are in disagreement with what they think is fact and trumps reality.
In another thread I mentioned ERV patterns that are identical in humans and chimps. Have you even looked at that evidence? How do you rationalize that away? How do you suppose that patterns that arise randomly in nature match one another exactly in two different species?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.