Science has explored
the creationism claims but it is hard to prove a negative there is no evidence to support it.
Creationism claims that there was a beginning to everything in the Universe.
Not exact matches
You get guys like Nye, et al, who in their defense of evolution, make these wide sweeping
claims that belief in
creationism is somehow going to undermine the very foundations of science.
Teaching
creationism which you
claim is not real «causes harm».
(
Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific
claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything.
That doesn't make
creationism wrong, but let's not confuse a scientific theory with an extraordinary
claim that by definition can not be disproved.
Trying to discuss anything with Topher other than you believe in
creationism and the ridiculous
claims that entails is futile.
If you want to
claim that
creationism is fact, the onus is on you to provide proof.
Whether you believe
creationism or evolution, I find it interesting that Bill Nye would
claim that Christians in the US believe differently from Christians in other nations.
On the other hand, those components of
creationism which involve certain types of magical events (e.g., the divine creation of a young universe with all of its components bearing the false imprint of great age) make the
claims of
creationism untestable — making
creationism not a theory at all, because theories must be testable!
He made a rational
claim and evidence based argument as to why
creationism is silly and should not be espoused.
Since he can't appear in Playboy, he does the next thing,
claims that
Creationism is bad for children.
And of course Jews also believe, or at least teach,
creationism as
claimed in Genesis as well.
But he
claimed to believe in
creationism, and so I hoped the university hadn't tainted his mind too bad and he wouldn't give me any evolution malarkey.
Take a step away from
creationism, many
claim that Bible folks were all once flat Earth people.
Creationism is a wild
claim without a shred of evidence, and without even a testable hypothesis.
I suspect that Liver's only source is the
creationism website because they are the only ones who would make such a patently false
claim.
The problem is that
Creationism doesn't stop at «why»; it
claims to answer the «how» and the «when» with religious dogma from a pre-science cosmogonic myth.
This time last year, scientist and teacher Michael Reiss made headlines for appearing to
claim that
creationism should be taught in science lessons.
Without proof,
creationism should be taken as seriously as the
claims of the Vikings that a giant serpent encircles the Earth underground or that of the Egyptians who believed the Sun was pulled across the sky by a chariot.
Another
claim frequently made about peer review is that it keeps out opposing views, not just on climate change but also things like alternative medicine,
creationism, all sorts of pseudo stuff.
When I was «debating» evolution vs.
creationism in DebunkCreation with creationists, every few weeks we would have a creationist come by with only a first name
claiming to be a scientist but would refuse to even mention what his speciality was — and it soon became quite clear that the «scientist» knew very little about the scientific method or any area of science he chose to discuss, and as such was clearly not a scientist.
In other words, the consensus issue is one that was raised by those
claiming there was none — you will find that biologists involved in evolution -
creationism disputes also frequently point out that scientists have reached consensus on evolution (although perhaps not in those words), and in both cases this protestation is raised only because it is a (true!)
I would expect to hear smears
claiming that «This person is funded by an Oil company», or «This response is like
Creationism».
My
claim that it can't be a mass phenomenon, and further isn't needed, also remains the same for the
Creationism domain.