xP No offense and all, but it figures that you wouldn't realize that that is a ring-tailed lemur, not a monkey.

--
Night ballad broken by the thunderWhiteHotLightWasBrieflyShone
OldOak,it'sRottingRootsAsunderTornFromEarthItLongHadKnown
TornFromMonotonousPastMadeRoomForGrowthOfGrassNext day
AndSureAsLighteningStormsWillpassHere~DeerAndAntelopewillPlay.

Thanks for clarifying. I did know it was a lemur, but I think most people who look at it first think "monkey." Besides, at one time the lemur was thought to be the evolutionary ancestor of the monkey, though that has since been refuted. Regardless, it wasn't my intention to make a zoologically correct animation. I guess you could classify it as evolutionary satire.

But it figures that you wouldn't have realized all that. When you say "no offense," and then proceed to say something offensive, that simply tells me that you're not thinking before you speak. Does this offend you? Because you basically said the same thing to me in your comment.

Please don't assume that just because I'm a Christian, I'm not intelligent.

I'm sorry, that came out a little harsh, I think.

I meant simply to express that I have done (and still do) quite a bit of research into these matters, and I'm not one to blindly accept what others tell me. I know you didn't ask for this rant, but behind your assumption that I didn't know the correct term for an animal was the assumption that I blindly follow whatever my religion tells me, which simply isn't the case.

I research, explore, and examine until I've found what I believe to be the truth, and then I continue to do so in order to make sure I have truly found it. I sincerely hope that you are doing the same.

No big, I can speak freely, and so can you. :3
And, I must point out that I never said that Christians are stupid, only implied that creationism is quite a presupposition. Most creationists I've talked to don't understand evolution, which is probably why they don't agree with it. (ie "If I came from a monkey, why are there still monkeys?")

--
Night ballad broken by the thunderWhiteHotLightWasBrieflyShone
OldOak,it'sRottingRootsAsunderTornFromEarthItLongHadKnown
TornFromMonotonousPastMadeRoomForGrowthOfGrassNext day
AndSureAsLighteningStormsWillpassHere~DeerAndAntelopewillPlay.

I know you never said it. But by saying that creationism is quite a presupposition, you're saying that 1) there's no evidence for it, 2) there is evidence which falsifies it, and 3) to believe creationism is an act of blind faith that goes against logic. None of which are true in my opinion. I agree that many creationists don't understand evolution, but I would also reply that many evolutionists don't understand creationism. Besides, just because some who say they align themselves with certain views don't understand the opposite views, that doesn't mean their views are probably wrong and the others are right. That doesn't make sense at all.

The sense I get from evolutionists all the time is "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm smart, you're not, and if you'd only look at the evidence, you'd agree with me." The fact, however, is that we're all looking at the same evidence, and we're left to interpret the evidence the best we can. When I look at it (irreducible complexity, the law of entropy, and the impossibility of the contrary, for starters) I see all the evidence pointing towards a Creator.

I personally wouldn't say there's any evidence at all for creationism, and believe me, I've looked. The idea I see is "This is too complicated for evolution," never "this points to creation." So, if there were ever one organism that had no similarities to other organisms at all, or had the word "GOD" written in it's bones, then I'd consider further. But those who strongly oppose creationism, from what I've seen, understand all there is to be understood. Those like Kent Hovind, for example, skew his "evidence" in his favor, and use so much non-evidence (ie: if you believe in evolution, that makes you a MONKEY!) that, while I'm sure it makes people want moreso to believe in creation, that it only more strongly confirms that creationism will NEVER have anything to do with science.
It might be true--but it won't be science.

--
Night ballad broken by the thunderWhiteHotLightWasBrieflyShone
OldOak,it'sRottingRootsAsunderTornFromEarthItLongHadKnown
TornFromMonotonousPastMadeRoomForGrowthOfGrassNext day
AndSureAsLighteningStormsWillpassHere~DeerAndAntelopewillPlay.

I truly doubt anybody understands everything there is to understand. If anybody truly has absolute knowledge on any subject, we should immediately bow down and worship them, for they must be God.

If creationism is true, then it must be science. Science won't contradict truth (is that what you're implying by your last statement?). When I look at the evidence, I see God's signature all over the place. Granted, we all look at the world through our own worldview glasses. I accept the Bible as truth (because of the resurrection of Christ...I've yet to find a better explanation for that than it's actual historicity), so therefore, I believe in a young earth (even though most Christians nowadays believe in an old earth, I'm convinced that the book of Genesis is literal rather than figurative). So, I check the evidence to see if it lines up with what the Bible says. I find that it does. I don't think I'm ruling out evolution pre-emptively. I took the "hypothesis" of God's word and tested it. That's science.

There are some bad arguments for creationism. I'm not saying there aren't. But there are some bad arguments for evolution also. Judging a theory based on someone's bad argument isn't logical.

The fact that no one will ever be all-knowing makes it so that we should still question but get used to what is the best of our knowledge. Which is why scientists don't really pay attention to what COULD be true if you turn your head sideways, squint, stand far back, and completely disregard and misrepresent the history of research in that subject. Occam's razor.
Look at it this way: We're playing hangman, or that gameshow where you guess letters and they are revealed to be a sentence or word. Guessing represents a hypothesis, and letters being revealed represents a conclusion. Evolution itself is not an experiment, however a hypothesis like "there should be a link between fish and amphibians" would provide a letter if something like Tiktaalik rosae were to be found. So, here's what we've got so far:

EVOLUT_ON EXPLAINS THE H_STORY _F LIFE

So, we see the holes in the theory.
Also, one part of a book being true (and...the resurrection of Christ is true?) wouldn't make the rest true. I believe in Britain, brooms, 14-year-olds, and schools, but I don't believe in Harry Potter.
Would you mind explaining your experiment that you used to test the hypothesis of God?
Also, I've never heard an argument for creationism better/more complete than Hovind's.

--
Night ballad broken by the thunderWhiteHotLightWasBrieflyShone
OldOak,it'sRottingRootsAsunderTornFromEarthItLongHadKnown
TornFromMonotonousPastMadeRoomForGrowthOfGrassNext day
AndSureAsLighteningStormsWillpassHere~DeerAndAntelopewillPlay.

Your analogy regarding turning your head sideways and disregarding research is how I feel many (most?) evolutionists deal with the evidence for creationism. They preemptively rule it out based on their worldview that there is no God.

When Kent Hovind or Ken Ham speak on the subject, they generally condense it down to an hour long synopsis of the position, which is hardly the bulk of the evidence. Ken Ham's website [link] has a lot of good information on it, and they're constantly doing more research. I'll make you a deal. If you subscribe to their blog and read it occasionally, I'll do the same for an evolution blog that you recommend (though I'm already subscribed to a few...).