Like me, Dan grew up defending a young
earth creationist view of origins based on the conviction that the Bible spoke definitively on the issue.
This is particularly true
of creationists who effectively require every relevant branch of science supporting evolution (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc) to be so flawed as to be worthless.
Why should science in America be held back by
creationists who do nt understand the fundamental basics of science?
A selection of statements on this blog by young earth
creationists in just the last few days: Nope..
After an enthusiastic reception by journalists and some scientists, the theory was seized on
by creationists as a sign that the theory of evolution was not universally accepted.
Not murdering people, or stealing vast fortunes, or even lying
as creationists do in their misrepresentation of evolution.
If one really wishes to appreciate more fully the religious meaning of creation in Genesis 1, one should read
not creationist or anticreationist diatribes but Isaiah 40.
Does this mean we have to hear THIS argument
from creationists for the next 10 years now?
If you transitioned from an anti - evolutionary / pro-intelligent design view to an evolutionary
creationist view a few years ago,» why didn't you keep going and just embrace evolution and drop the theistic aspect?
The first site is a collection of information linking to other sites and resources but will a particular focus on addressing
creationist claims with the actual science.
Young Earth
Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24 - hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
Most
creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
The Piltdown hoax [the 1912 discovery of a supposed skull of early man, which 40 years later was determined to be a human cranium and ape jaw fraudulently joined together] was actually perceived [as a hoax] fairly early on by
creationists because they refused to believe that this could have been a real skull.
ER 1813 (510 cc) also has many of the same features that many
creationists use to justify calling 1470 a modern human.
If creationists in Texas get their way, students in the US could soon receive biology textbooks that falsely cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution
Regardless of what
many creationist web sites say, there is no scientific basis for Creationism, which is why it really has no place in the science class.
KS 3 - A 19 page unit which looks at the history and nature of
creationist theory; the story of creation from Genesis; Adam and Eve; Abraham and the Queen of Sheba; Use of evidence to prove religious history; Tasks, suggested answers and glossary
Science educator Bill Nye, left, will face off
against creationist Ken Ham in Tuesday night's debate.
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.
Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise,
most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis.
I think
creationist just like the idea of god better than anything else, true or not.
in which a young earth
creationist argues that «Reasonable evidence exists from the Scripture that heat did indeed flow before the Curse, which would imply a change in entropy.»
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.
You feel insulted and «dehumanized»
when creationists say that people were created in the image and likeness of God, but you have no problem with the evolutionist claim that we all evolved from slime by a cosmic accident.
Even as a believer, I find it ridiculous
how creationists so often defend their beliefs by saying something to the extent of «HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN A BANANA?!?! If you step back, it's really quite comical.
Another reason
why Creationists do not believe in the theory of evolution is that there can be errors in carbon dating and other methods that are used to determine the age of fossils and the Earth.
Then, that some Evolutionist declare that plant life began first and then
Creationist point to Genesis 1:11 - 12
Although I also have heard other
creationists make this claim, no one else has responded either.
Please avoid regurgitating already discredited blather from
creationist web sites.
I know of no
other creationist who has even tried to look at original fossil hominids: not Lubenow, not Bowden, certainly not Gish, all of whom snipe away from a position of profound ignorance.
So how does me drawing a parallel
between creationists who follow pseudo-scientists» opinions through selected media, and denialists following pseudo-scientists» opinions through selected media make me totally ignorant of the scientific process??
This highly significant change has been made in order to ban creationism from being taught in Free Schools, and prevent
creationist groups from opening schools.
Phrases with «creationist»