Your reason for accepting evolution

I do not believe that this is true. Creationists start with their conclusions, and then ignore evidence or force fit the evidence into their conclusions. Reading a website like Answers in Genesis is quite informative, if you know something about the science or are willing to go to a university library and look up actual scientific papers. AiG distorts the evidence, misquotes researchers, and/or ignores facts that are inconvenient.- There is no single piece of evidence that absolutely negates the possibility of special creation. Rather, it is the entire body of evidence that, looked at in its entirety, gives a pretty unambiguous picture of the history of the world.That said, my favorite single piece of evidence is the nested hierarchical classification of the species. No single piece of evidence by itself will totally refute special creation, like I said, but this one piece is my favorite single piece.- Well, it could be that the evidence doesn't support either one very well at all. In that case, we should decide that neither theory is very likely and admit the truth is probably something else entirely.Another possibility is that the evidence supports both theories pretty well. In that case, we would say that, until further tests and evidence comes up, both theories are likely contenders.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

It turns out that there was no "Cambrian Explosion". First, the Cambrian Explosion represents when the first hard body parts (like shells, teeth, and bones) first appeared. Soft body parts are rarely fossilized, so it's obvious that fossils dating before the first hard body parts should be rare.Second, the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over several millions of years. Hardly an "sudden" appearance.Third, there are precursors to the Cambrian fossils found in Precambrian strata -- the so-called Ediacaran Fauna.Finally, the life represented in the "Cambrian Explosion" are nothing at all like the species we see today. That kind of goes against the creationist belief that life was created more or less like it is now at the beginning of time. Whatever problems you think it poses for evolution (and it actually doesn't), it poses worse problems for creationism.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

It was also accepted as the alternative to the big flood explanation by atheists, materialists, and Christians who understood that it best explained the data that they were seeing in front of their eyes.- Actually, it was accepted by those who looked at the data and realized that the flood model didn't offer a cogent explanation for what they were seeing, but the "uniformitarian" model did.- Huh? I'm unaware of any hydrological sorting associated with the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Could you provide some details to this?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Yeah. The only thing I've heard about creationists and Mt. St. Helens is how the formation of a gulley through unconsolidated volcanic ash somehow shows how the Grand Canyon could be dug down through a mile of sandstone.On the other hand, I did hear one person claim that the tidal wave that occurred a few years ago in Asia showed that hydrological sorting works.I was thinking myself that Beretta got a couple of different arguments mixed up.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Huh. You seem to have to rely on psychological motivations of other people to try to understand why people are disagreeing with you. Have you ever considered the possibility that you just don't know what you are talking about? This is a serious question -- when so many people disagree with you like this, don't you even consider the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong? That maybe there is something to learn about the subject before you should make up your mind? That when you have to resort to making up psychology to explain why so many people disagree with you, that this might be a sign that it is your side of the argument that is weak?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

And don't forget noses. Consider how improbable it is for noses to be placed exactly in the right place to hold up our glasses unless that was exactly what they were designed for!

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein