I've been thinking recently that it is futile to debate evolution with a Creationist, especially when attempting to apply rational scientific evidence to support evolution and/or debunk creationist claims.
I believe the fundamental difference between the two areas lies in the vast difference between the thought process involved in applying faith, and that of applying lateral, rational theory based on empirical evidence. To say it simply, evolution science starts with facts and *then* forms theories that best fit those facts in a rational, sane way. Creationism starts with a conclusion and..., well ends with one also. Additionally - and most surprisingly (to me) - the same creationist will go about their daily lives in the exact opposite manner, i.e seemingly very sane and rational - up until the topic of "Where did we come from?" appears.
No matter what is presented as an argument to counter a creationist's claim, you will *never* persuade otherwise as the conclusion is simple and clear - No matter what you say, they know God did it.
I wonder what it would take for a Creationist to think sanely and rationally about evolution and see that it is the best fit to the scientific evidence present here on Earth today.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add 1 more blank line (between first 2 paragraphs)
™ Version 4.2