Are evolutionists even more blind then the creationists they insult? (Evolution post A)

It seems that all too often evolutionists call creationists (especially literal creationists) ignorant. They use terms like blind, oblivious and others, to basically assert that creationists have no knowledge of science, and just have their teachings "shoved down their throats." But through my own interaction with evolutionists, it seems like they can be even worse than some creationists.

In encounters with staunch evolutionists, they seem to know as little about creationism as some creationists do about evolution. They claim that their "scientific" theory is the indisputable answer. Yet when faced with legitimate thought and questions, they often come up empty.

Evolutionists don't feel the need to defend their standpoint, because they believe science has proven it to be fact. Quite the contrary, many scientists, even those who's belief's are not that of Intelligent Design, or Creation, have either questioned, or even entirely dismissed the theory of Macro-Evolution.

One explanation I got from an evolutionist was that evolution is like a puzzle. Which we have the majority of pieces, but some are still missing. And therefore while we can't see the whole picture, we can still see what it probably is. The problem with this comparison, however, is that there are many, many pieces still missing from the evolution picture, so much so, that it cannot even begin to be confirmed.

Answers I get when asking difficult questions get responses like "we'll figure that out later." Since when has that been considered scientific thinking? If that's legitimate defense to a question with evolution cannot answer, then what stops us from defending any other point of view with that? If that is accepted as reasonable argument, then you could make a claim that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese, and we'll figure out the answer later.

I had a teacher who was so staunchly evolutionist, he was literally the most blind person I know. When faced with a question he knew he had no legitimate answer for, he just walked away. I would deeply crave an actual intelligent discussion with this teacher. Who, belief's aside, was quite a good teacher. But if he is going to make official stances on certain issues, especially controversial ones, in a classroom, he should both 1. Have at least some rational support to his ideas, and 2. Be able to have a discussion about it, that has an ending other than "we'll find answers later" or him walking away. He had the potential to create support for evolution, because he certainly has the intelligence, but chooses rather, to make his claim and follow it with blindness.

Evolutionists can't answer questions about the origin of life. Scientific LAW states "Life cannot arise from non-life" And if evolution, a theory which deals (to some degree at least) with the origins of life, cannot provide an answer that satisfies that theory, it is not science.

Ask an evolutionist why there are no transitional fossils in the rock strata, and see what answer you get. (By the way, the chances that there are fossils that are transitional that we have not found, is so slim as to be considered impossible, but I'll get to that in my next post.

For the end of this post, I would like to really ask that someone who supports evolution, would be willing to actually have an open discussion, and try to defend their point. I don't conclude my argument here, because as I continue in the next few posts discussing evolution and evolutionists, I hope to truly express and give evidence both A) against evolution, and B) (give evidence that) evolutionists are often times even more blind than creationists.

The General Passivity of the Church, and Intro to blog

Welcome to this new blog. The purpose of this blog is to express view points on many hot-button issues. In the political and religious worlds. To give resources and tactics for arguments relating to the viewpoints expressed. Topics such as Homosexuality, Same-sex marriage, Illegal Immigration, Abortion, and Evolution. Amoung many others. Thank you for reading, allow me to begin.

I decided to begin with a post about the Christian church. It seems to me that as a whole, the church has become too passive. Many churches don't even know what they believe regarding important issues. I'm willing to wager that if you want up to a random 10 people at most churches, most of them would not know what their churches view point is on any issue. Because often pastors, preachers, priests, what ever you want to call them, don't want to step on any toes. They are content to give you basic sermons about nothing in particular.
Many times when we do find pastors who are not afraid to step on toes, these churchs are some of the most lively and motivated. They are excited to come to church. Because sometimes thats what you need. Sometimes the pastor really does need to preach out and say "this is wrong". Even, (and perhaps especially) when it is not a really big issue. It doesn't have to be homosexuality. It doesn't have to be abortion. What people need is sermons that relate to them. I want a preacher to talk about issues that pertain to me.
Issues like swearing, greed, fighting, things people deal with everyday. It helps people when someone says "you know, we should be setting a better example." We need to come out and convict people. Because then they get motivated, and they (in my expiriance with people) often remark how good the sermon is. It is important to make sure people know what right and wrong is.

And regarding big issues like homosexuality and abortion. The church as a whole is WAY to quiet about those issues. Mostly because they don't want to offend. Churches are buying into a culture of tolerance. Many times people have opinions with short roots, that anyone whose knowledge is that of a high school student can seriously harm. I want people to know what the church says about certain issues. And, I think it's better to offend than to be silent.