Sentences with phrase «creationism make»

How does young - earth creationism make sense to intelligent, well - meaning people?

Holding to 6 - day creationism makes good philosophical sense if you believe, as you insist, on Scriptural inerrancy.

Amazing... taught to hate and critique evolution by a pastor, and you think Creationism makes more sense.

Creationism made for a great story for those befor emodern science.

Since there IS no science of creation, creationism makes no predictions here or anywhere else.

Not exact matches

(You can check out a philosophical / theological debate for creationism that actually makes sense to me on my blog http://shadetree-theology.blogspot.com/2009/07/just-how-old-is-earth.html).

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.

The wording is just the creationists attempt to make their baseless hypothesis mainstream and scientific sounding, but make no mistake, there is NO science behind creationism... none.

(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.

Bill Nye, «the Science Guy,» made fundamentalist Christian heads snap recently when he declared it was flat - out wrong for children to be taught creationism.

The government, the Supreme Court actually, you know, the one made up of christians and jews but no atheists, said one religion could not be taught to the exclusion of others, and they said ID is not science, just religious creationism in disguise, so can not be taught as science.

For me, the evidence from DNA makes a strong case for the theory, but I also recognize the fact, as with «creationism», that a certain degree of speculation and conjecture is involved.

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.

I think Bostontola is making a point that both creationism and atheism provide examples of lay persons talking about a science they don't fully comprehend.

It is a reference to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort making fools of themselves on national television trying to argue in favour of creationism.

Athiests and many scientists simply expect people to dismiss religion and creationism out of hand, and take a scientific I.O.U. for all of the assumptions that they make.

Dalahast; you said «I think Bostontola is making a point that both creationism and atheism provide examples of lay persons talking about a science they don't fully comprehend.»

That does not, however, provide any support for Creationism or ID, they still need to make their own case for their hypothesis.

We can make a prediction and see if the available evidence confirms or rejects the prediction; evolution passes that test, creationism does not.

Michael Gungor and his wife Lisa, both of the worship band Gungor, came under fire for statements they made about creationism and Genesis» account of the flood.

sqeptiq... That was a wonderfully «crafted» piece of «creative» writing... Hence, you have proved that you are indeed «made in the image» of the God who CREATED you... Your post reflects (and demands) creationism... unless you are now going to tell me that those words got there by «accident»...?

Go read some books from prominent scientists who lean towards creationism, refute the facts they present, make whatever «excuses» you want, then come back here and argue with me.

You said, «Wait, so the problem with Creationism is that it «makes up» answers to questions man does not have real answers for by finding an idea that fits all the observable criteria in a meaningful and consistant way?»

Creationism: When all rednecks who failed middle school science came together and made up their own ideas to justify their lack of ability to comprehend simple scientific principles.

Internet arguments of God vs. no God, evolution vs. creationism, boxers vs briefs... they all make my head hurt.

He made it straightforward and simple: TEACHING CREATIONISM IS LIKE TEACHING THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT God gave him the gift of clarity.

The difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism is that creationism is simply made up.

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.

Creationism was born when a bunch of rednecks failed middle school science class, scratched their heads and went «Wait a minute, this don't make no sense!

CNN has apparently tried blocking multiple comments I've made because I've favored creationism.

It is funny to me that the same people who say that they believe that the bible (and creationism) is God's word, and therefore true, are the same ones that deny the old testament when told that it also says that you can't wear clothes made of wool and linen together, or that Exodus says it is OK to sell a daughter into slavery, and so many other things, that those things don't matter.

Wait, so the problem with Creationism is that it «makes up» answers to questions man does not have real answers for by finding an idea that fits all the observable criteria in a meaningful and consistant way?

Creationism = If you don't like years and years of research just make something up and call it FACT.

The only thing a belief in Creationism will do is make this country a laughingstock and cause us to regress as a people.

For him to say believing in creationism will block or hinder our chidren from making huge or amazing discoveries is small thinking.

Creationism starts with the conclusion and, unable to find any evidence to support it, makes sh it up or simply refuses to address the absence of factual support.

It suggests that the latter should more properly be called «special - creationism», for what it really teaches is that every life - form is made by a special act of creation, and it counsels Christians not «to present God's creative design as if he were granddad in the potting shed with components on a shelf, a workbench and a pencil behind his ear!»

I'd recommend such courses, since I believe education provides the antidote to creationism and that if people are exposed to actual science rather than the distored view I find usually presented by creationists they will be far better equipped to make reasonable judgments regarding the actual evidence.

@chad You will say something to get last word in so take it up with the courts It is illegal to teach creationism / ID or bible studies in public schools in US STEM science standards for 2013 They are making ears.

But the basic premise behind creationism / intelligent design is that a god / creator made the world in some way — period.

You Said:» Good thing the United States declared its independence from England or else we would have bullsh.it propaganda like this making its way through our home schools trying to teach a lot more than just «creationism».

But he makes the point that this only modifies what Darwin proposed, and he also argues against creationism.

I believe in creationism, but I believed that GOD made a mistake putting the brain and mouth of Mr. Rubbio at the wrong end of his body.

The only blend of creationism and science that makes sence, is that the universe is god's game of Spore.

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.

And yet, the very grounds on which these controversies have been fought — arguing for the «scientific» basis of creationism, making use of the «rational - legal» procedures supplied by the modern court system, and drawing on social scientists for «expert testimony» — all point to the considerable degree to which even religious conservatives have accommodated to the norms of secular rationality.

After all, it's closet manchowder chuggers like you that demand science be removed from the classroom to make room for teachings of creationism.

As best I can remember my parents never made a point to bring up Creationism or Evolution, but they didn't have to — the subculture did it for them.

I think unless Rubio has made a big deal of pushing creationism in the shcols, this is not an issue.