Fundamental flaw in the creation/evolution debate

[Ryantology]

Humans ask why questions.

...whats wrong with us?

You make up answers to satisfy yourself.

[paulpablo]

It seems to me that the creationist should embrace scientific research into the origins of our existence because it would "increase their understanding of god."

if they think they benefit in believing in god and god doesnt exist it doesnt benefit them to understand god more.

[Baalzebutt]

Paul, that is a good point but it would make them THINK they understood their nonexistent god better. Maybe they would accept the teaching of evolution in our schools.

We all know that the xtians have little or no use for science unless it directly benefits heir argument. Perhaps this is a wy to make the BBAE arguments benefit them which gives us atheists one less ridiculous argument to field on a regular basis.

[Deicide73]

Creationists are the most intellectually dishonest people around when it comes to the whole debate between creation/evolution. They take scientific research and butcher it to fit their fairy-tale book. One individual comes to mind.... Eric Hovind.

[Creed of Heresy]

No purpose? LOL

There is no purpose! deal with it.

That's the problem, they can't.

[killybob]

@OP
There is no evolution/creation debate going on. Creationists just like too think there is. The vast and overwhelming majority of scientists in any of the relevant fields acknowledge that evolution is a fact, and anything that could possibly be recognised as a debate is simply the creationists bashing their bibles around, throwing scriptures at the scientific community, who have to constantly bat away each and every new, and increasingly incredulous argument that is put forward.
Also, creationism/intelligent design is not a theory. A theory is an explanation of observations, built around known existing evidence. What creationists do, is build up evidence around the explanation, instead of the explanation around the evidence. Of course, because intelligent design is incorrect, they have to build incomplete, or broken evidence around it, which doesn't do a lot for its credibility, I must say.
Creationism purely an assertion, and at best can be called a hypothesis.

[Minimalist]

simply the creationists bashing their bibles around, throwing scriptures at the scientific community, who have to constantly bat away each and every new, and increasingly incredulous argument that is put forward.

Never takes much to impress the bible-thumpers. Stupidity is an epidemic among them.

[fr0d0]

It seems to me that the creationist should embrace scientific research into the origins of our existence because it would "increase their understanding of god."

I completely agree.

However the creationist view, mistaken IMO, confronts science on science's home ground. Bringing nothing to the scientific arena but some far fetched fancy.

---

I am not quite sure how to respond to your statement that not many Christians are creationists. If the creationists aren't Christians, what are they?

Creationists are a minority amongst Christians. Better?

[Ryantology]

Creationists are a minority amongst Christians.

If only a minority of Christians accept the Christian version of creation, from which the entire dogma descends, then Christianity is entirely worthless.

[Minimalist]

Creationists are a minority amongst Christians.

If only a minority of Christians accept the Christian version of creation, from which the entire dogma descends, then Christianity is entirely worthless.

It IS worthless.