Why do evolutionists continue to believe in their 'Theory' when the evidence does not support their position?

Question

-There are no transitional forms

-Genetics does not support common descent

-Geology does not support an old earth

-Astronomy does not support an old universe

So despite the overabundance that they're wrong, why do evolutionists continue to hold steadfastly to their failed theory?

Answer 1

Every single point you made is just plain wrong.  It is nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"  It's typical of the 5-year-old mentality that is seen in deniers of all stripes.

Answer 2

Argument from ignorance is pointless and given the wealth of information available at your fingertips, it is intellectually dishonest.

There are many transitional forms, and yes every organism is transitional.

Genetics does support common decent, this is well documented.

Geology does support the earth at around 4.5 billion years just as astronomy and cosmology support the universe at around 13.8 billion years.

Answer 3

Everything you've said is a meaningless noise.....

Answer 4

It's the same reason why people believe in Creation. People will believe in what they want.

Answer 5

are you high?

seriously.. are you?

there are litterally COUNTLESS intermediary/transitional forms.. archaeopteryx, lobe-finned fish, the anscestry of the horse is VERY well documented, basaltosuarus (whales) and technically all species are intermediaries of either their anscestors or descendants (future, past, or present)..

it most certainly does.. the fact it's all made fo the same 4 elements, common lineage, junk DNA, genetic commonalities, the fact that we can trace traits and their adjacent genes back through history and arrive at any number of common ancestors..

geology CONFIRMS an old earth.. plate tectonics, radiometric dating, the cohalescent properties of iron, many, many more that i forget to name all point to an earth much older than 4.9 thousand years old

you just have to be un-imaginative at this point..

the distances involved int eh universe, redshift, the distribution of mass and energy in the universe, background radiation, the fact that we can see galaxies that are almost 14 billion light years away, the fact that the further away (and thusly back) we look the simpler things become, the age and life cycle of stars

i propose you show any evidence that says otehrwise. instead of just saying  "So despite the overabundance that they're wrong" SHOW SOME d**n EVIDENCE!!!

is there any evidence that anything else is right?

SHOW THAT!!!

Answer 6

I think it is ridiculous that you espouse your beliefs as facts. The fact is, that there are "transitional forms", both in fossil form (archaeopteryx) and living species (lungfish, mudskipper etc).

If genetics does not support common descent, why is our DNA so similar to other mammals?

If the Earth is not billions of years old, why don't geologists come out and say so, or is everyone with a scientific degree part of the conspiracy?

If the universe is not billions of years old, then why are galaxies moving away from each other at such incredible rates, and why can we see objects that are millions of light years away? Otherwise our vision should extend only to 6000 light years, surely.

If all you read is one book in your life, you will understand nothing.

.

Answer 7

1)  Everything is a transitional form.  You are a transitional form between your parents and your (future?) children.  The transitional forms creationists expect are NOT predicted by evolution, and would actually go a long ways towards proving evolution wrong.

2)  Yes it does.  Look it up, especially retroviruses.

3)  Of course it does.  Look up radioactive dating techniques such as uranium decay.

4)  Of course it does.  See geology, supernova, gamma ray bursts, quasars, and the Hubble deep field.

If you have to lie to support your position, then you don't have one.  And you must know you're lying by now if you looked up any of that.

Answer 8

What's your source for those four claims?

Dr. Dino.com?  Answersingenesis.com?   The "Institute for Creation Research"?

I'm quite sure that you didn't read them in any scientific source ... because all four points  are just flat-out false, wrong, untrue, incorrect, rubbish, hooey, b.s., baloney, malarky, ...

So why do 'evolutionists' support evolution?  Well ... a good reason might be because the people who *oppose* evolution demonstrate the kind of deepset head-in-the-sand approach to science that you illustrate so well here ... and make blanket claims without knowing of a *single* reputable scientific source to support them.  

But the real reason we support evolution is because the science supports it.

The only life form that seems completely incapable of evolving ... are trolls.