Sentences with phrase «as creationists»

I just can not understand why the sarcastic comment and calling us names and suggesting we are just the same as the creationists

Comparing the two just shows me that you are as agenda driven as creationists are.

I should add that AGW denialists are in the same camp as creationists because they willfully disbelieve science they do not understand so that they can rationalize closely held, pig - headed beliefs which only serve to preserve the status quo.

I did not — as creationists, homeopaths, or global warming skeptics do — ignore the objection and continue onwards.

This is the problem: just as creationists cite bible chapters as proof of their «scientific» theories; journalists are are citing what are no more than opinions, often from idealogues, to refute data and analysis.

He's painting (with a broad brush) the big picture of skeptics being the same group as creationists.

They're painting climate skeptics to be just as pathetic and clueless as the creationists.

Webb's conservative position on gun laws is well - known, but here he is on evolution: «This confrontation between religious and scientific theories is still unsettled even today, as creationists rationally argue that the living world could not have been fashioned without an «intelligent designer,» and that the theory of evolution as presented by the Darwinists still rests on scientific speculation that has yet to be proven.»

Although there are some Christians, such as the Creationists in the USA, who insist on the literal accuracy of the biblical account of creation, the majority of Christians would now see the stories as mythological.

If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree.

When you use words like «intelligence» and «design» in discussing the patterns in nature, immediately you are tarred with the same brush as creationists, who have hijacked those terms to defend their religious beliefs.

If results were random, as creationists claim the two would rarely agree.

As the creationists continue to press differently nuanced bills in 20 or so state legislatures, we can expect social pressure to continue to bear on the evolutionism issue.

Equally dangerous to science, however, if not more so, are those naturalistic scientists who play essentially the same game as the creationists, i.e., seek to lend credibility to their particular worldview by attempting to clothe it in scientific garb.

That would seem to mark those respondents as creationists in a relatively narrow sense.

I also need to point out here, for those whose view of Christian belief is as reductionist as Creationists» views of science, that Creationists, in fact, make up a vanishingly small portion of Christian beilevers worldwide, most of whom are perfectly comfortable with the science of evolution.

It does not help things, either, that most members of Group 2 do not distinguish clearly between Groups 3 and 4, generally taking them both to be just as misguided as creationists are.

I'm sure the majority of us would be just a dimwitted as they were before understanding the fact of evolution, before Galileo's heliocentrism, as dimwitted as creationists are who exist in the vaccuum of their self - imposed ignorance.

Even if evolution is only a scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the creationists argue, creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing as biblical fact.

Not murdering people, or stealing vast fortunes, or even lying as creationists do in their misrepresentation of evolution.

As creationists often do when trying to attack evolution, they stack the deck by raising a bunch of questions evolution makes no attempt to answer.

Mark me down as a creationist and not a constructivist when it comes to truth.

So, I guess my point is that the scientific community and the people who follow them blindly are just as zealous as the creationist that do the same.

Isn't a bit just as zealous as a creationist that tells you creationism is fact, to force an absolutely unproven theory, with zero physical evidence as scientific fact, rather than a wild theory that many scientist desperately hold onto?

Go ahead, as no Creationist has been able to.

As for Newton, as well as a creationist, he also believed in alchemy.

As a Creationist, I find the idea that I have to believe in such radical concepts as «Science,» and «The Laws of Physics» offensive.

splovengates: «As a creationist, why would I want to debate an evolutionist?

If, as creationist Marvin Lubenow claims in Bones of Contention, rickets is virtually an unknown disease nowadays, why is it so easy to get information about it, along with X-rays of modern cases?

Why do they say that the smaller Dmanisi skulls belong to H. erectus and are human, if the man they recognize as the creationist expert on human evolution thinks they are apes?

As a Creationist, what about all the other radioisotope methods for dating the rock surrounding the fossils?

Wolf Walker The opening paragraphs of this article give me the same tingling - down - the - back - of the - neck feeling as those creationist arguments about thermodynamics.

You have as much faith as a Creationist.

It is every bit as bad as the creationist nonsense that Plimer was once known for going after.

Ray Ladbury is right on about the AGW denier crowd being just as scientific as creationist crowd.

Not exact matches

This morning though, trying to suggest that the data is good appears to be as difficult as arguing the origins of fossils with a creationist.

I think what creationists really want is NOT to be the only voice in the discussion but to at least be a voice and be heard as an alternative to a view that is not 100 % proven.

An Australian geologist who got his credentials dating rocks billions of years old, still selling his services as a qualified geologist, but also employed as as a «Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology» by the Institute for Creation Research in the USA, where he supports a young earth.

Here's a geologist who received his credentials for dating rocks billions of years old, still selling his services as a geologist while being employed as a «Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology» by the Institute for Creation Research.

That's just honest observational science either evolutionist or creationist can determine from the same data... or lack of / inaccurate as it may be.

But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer's data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as «a complete and total Christian.»

In creationist eyes, that's a a good a reason as any to blindly believe.

Show me the modern textbooks that present «Nebraska Man» as a hominid fossil, show me or admit once and for all that you creationists often simply lie to try to support your point of view.

There is as much evidence for the Native American creationist beliefs involving Spider Grandmother & Turtle Island as there are for the Christian ideas of 6 days, 6000 yrs ago.

John I think that you are actually projecting the creationist underestimation of the age of the universe, which is woefully ignorant (intentionally) of the reality of the actual age, as best as we can determine.

And before you judge me as some kind of religious creationist nut, I believe that God created things like evolution.

The percentage of actual young earth creationists (Christian fundamentalists) has been declining steadily as more information is readily available.

However, he has also been employed as a «Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology» by the Institute for Creation Research.

I'm sure that the consensus will eventually be overturned from lack of progress, but I don't see them ever giving up their god Copernicus as long as they wrongly believe that this is an admission in the direction of the creationist's position...

Whatever orthodox believers may think of Kenny's journey over these decades from classical theism to something vaguer, he is at least an equal - opportunity basher: For his aversion to absolutism can equally well be employed against the New Atheists, who affect an apodictic absolutism in their argumentation that makes them as impregnable to counterevidence as anything found in a creationist textbook.