We agree. My response was to your objection that a solution might raise more questions than it answered.
The trouble with the creationist view is that it not only ultimately doesn't explain anything (except to say "God makes it happen")
I was determined to not be moved off of the subject. Since you seem to have the ability to think, I'll respond.
If it is as you say, that the creationist view explains nothing and hides behind God for explanations, then what threat could it possibly be to evolution? Why don't the evolutionists simply grind creationism into the dust of history with their logic and proof? Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life. It is the interpretation of the evidence that differs. It is true we have slightly less evidence than you do. That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view; No Nebraska man, no Piltdown man, no Lucy.
Many evolutionary theories at least attempt to explain observations within the realm of the observable universe.
No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.
A belief doesn't necessarily die simply because it is incompatible with reason or observation. In fact, it is often the opposite. It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation. The belief is the axiom, the undeniable truth to which interpretations of observations must be made compatible with.
That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view
Well, you need to study your opponents. Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence. Even Darwin's theories, as primitive as they may have been, were quite reasonable attempts to explain meticulous real world observations.
Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life.
Maybe I have been the victim of only reading ideas from some black sheep of the creationist movement, but repeatedly I read things such as false interpretations of the laws of thermodynamics that are like neon signs flashing "absurdity".
Even without all the absurd or contorted particulars, I am asked to accept that, given the world as I can observe it, it is more likely that multiple complex species magically popped into existence like a mammoth David Copperfield special than that there was some sort of continuum from the formation of the solar system to earth's present state.
No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.
Actually some posters on this thread have done a reasonable job of explaining the science of evolutionary theories. If you think the theories as described here go outside the realm of reality, I suggest you read a contemporary textbook on the matter. As far as brick walls, they result (in modern theories that are privy to them) in unsubstantiated explanations rather than contradictions. The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science. The process of fixed unfalsifiable conclusions followed by interpretations tailored to fit them is not.
Uhh, they slowly are. That is what all this contention is all about. I can't believe all the energy wasted on this subject. Even if it were proven right Creationism is utterly useless. If it were then that is left then is mind control. Don't think that cause the church says no. We've been there before, it was called the Dark Ages.
Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life.
There isn't one theory that doesn't not contain the presupposition, the Begged Question, of a Supernatural that cannot be proven prior to the presupposition. Name me one thing, anything, the proves the existence of the Supernatural prior to the assumption of It's existence. By definition, it is not possible.
It is true we have slightly less evidence than you do.
There is no evidence. Zero, Zilch, nada. Nothing. No fingerprint of God, no toeprint, no bad breath, nothing. None.
Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter?
I have, I call it, "What went Bang?" But utterly disproving evol doesn't prove anything else. Assume evol is wrong, assume ID is wrong, then what is left? What is the evidence then? Maybe everybody is wrong and the answer is so strikingly obvious that nobody wants to see it.