Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Again you seem to reinforce what this thread is all about.You would believe an unevidenced assertion over an evidenced claim that is in direct contrast if your evidenced claim is something that is part of your religion?Here is how "evolutionists"(I hate how creos use this term, like people that adhere to scientific principles are one monolithic block that has all the same beliefs and outlook on life. It isn't a religion) think. We think critically. We want to see evidence. If there is no evidence then the belief should be at least questioned and evidence should be looked for it and against it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

How do evolutionists think, in your opinion? Please keep in mind that about 30% of biologists world wide believe in some form of a creator god and an afterlife.

I've registered over there at evolutionfairytale. I've only posted a few things and started to see what was actually going on, so I backed out slowly. It is amazing to see them in their natural habitat.

The essence of evolutionist - i.e. scientific - thinking is that they discard ideas that don't match reality. If creationists thought like that, there wouldn't be any creationism.Edited by Ringo, : "throw out" --> "discard" (more explicit)

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I'm back where I started.

Good to see you back.

Yes, I think there maybe some closet creationists here. Sounds like you maybe one of them....eh?

How did you get out of I do not see how you could derive that from what little was said. Is Poe's law striking again?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I also think that one of the reasons that evolution becomes an anti-theistic point of view is that there are those evolutionists that use evolution to explain all of existence. Here is a Dawkins quote.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.

---

If evolution is viewed simply as the manner in which life has become what it is today then there is no problem. If however evolution is viewed as the fundamental basis for life itself then it is just as much a faith as is creationism and the two are no longer compatible.In my view this is one reason why uninformed creationists vehemently oppose evolution as they see it as denying any theistic position. People like Dawkins do a good job of perpetuating that misconception.Evolution is a solidly based theory that portrays the history of life today. It has nothing to say about whether evolution is designed or even a guided process.In the end obviously theology and science have to be congruent. Science is at its essence simply a natural theology.

You're welcome.

I have never been able to find that kind of essence in science.

Paying people unsolicited compliments is certainly the best way to avoid being rude.

Ah, yes, creationism. And that people who think they're Napoleon should think like people who don't.

It just seems to me that if our science is correct then it should have something to tell us about a creator should one exist. That's how I see it anyway.

There are probably many people who agree with that. But it is a personal conclusion, and not a required part of science. So I think "essence" was the wrong term for you to use.

Different field entirely.Science has chosen to work with natural phenomena, so why should it be telling you about supernatural phenomena?For that you need to turn to the approximately 4,000 world religions, or if you prefer, the approximately 40,000 sects, denominations, or flavors of Christianity.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.