Sentences with phrase «creationist argues»

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.»

The same can be said for creationists arguing against evolution.

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 even all creationists argue for the «one Genesis day = millions of years» idea.

For another one of those ironies, Gerlich and Tscheuschner argue among other things that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics — in much the same way that creationists argue evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

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.

You win... your stupid level is too high for me... someone else can argue against your creationist troll nonsense...

Some creationists have tried to avoid such consistency by arguing that the temporal aspects are of a different order than the spatial.

Some evolutionary creationists have argued that this non-randomness of evolution is a way that God uses evolution to shape His creation (the best work on this topic is Life's Solution by noted Cambrian paleontologist Simon Conway Morris).

It is completely made up by creationist because they can't argue against micro evolution because it is continually happening right in front of them.

The irony of ID / creationist attempts to invoke science to (erroneously) support their purely religious views is that they require the practice of science to be fundamentally flawed (evidenced in the repeated cases wherein ID / creationism proponents argue for a redefining of «science» to include untestable propositions).

On the other side are «creationists,» who argue — against not only science but also those faiths that accept the compatibility of evolutionary biology and Sacred Writ — that the earth was created on or around Sunday, October 23, 4004 b.c., a conclusion based on a sincere but discredited calculation by James Ussher in the seventeenth century.

Chad, do yourself the disfavor of continuing to argue the stupidity that you do that does more harm to your position and the position of creationists than it does to the theory of evolution that you claim to be against.

For sheer fatuity, on this score, it would be difficult to surpass Martin Kettle's pompous and platitudinous reflections in the Guardian, appearing two days after the earthquake: certainly, he argues, the arbitrariness of the destruction visited upon so many and such diverse victims must pose an insoluble conundrum for «creationists» everywhere» although he wonders, in concluding, whether his contemporaries are «too cowed» even to ask «if the God can exist that can do such things» (as if a public avowal of unbelief required any great reserves of fortitude in modern Britain).

Alongside his 50 years of research into evolution, Professor Ayala has long been a champion of the interdisciplinary questions of faith and science, arguing repeatedly against both creationist / intelligent design and atheist approaches to the origins of life.

This whole argument between creationists and evolutionists is equivilant to a group of ignorant children / teenagers arguing with fully grown, educated adults.

I read an exchange in The Creation Research Society Quarterly between two young - earth creationists, Henry Morris and Robert Kofahl, in which the latter argued that the Second Law of Thermodynamics must have existed in Eden before the Fall because the animals and Adam had to break down the molecules in the food they ate, and the necessary biochemical reactions would not occur without the Second Law of Thermodynamics being in effect.

«Creationists may prefer not to think to much about the conspiratorial implications of what they're arguing, but creationism just won't work without the actual existence of such a «fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics.»

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.»

The BHA commented on the exhibition earlier this month, arguing that «putting creationist views on display in a National Trust site gives them an unfair appearance of legitimacy.

Randi: And you validate the creationist by arguing with the creationist, I think.

Some creationists do use thermodynamics to argue against evolution, but that is not what I am doing here; as an expert on evolutionary processes I would never do that.

More than anything else, his style of logic is reminiscent of the creationist quacks who set out to undermine evolution by arguing that it's a «theory» that hasn't been «proved.»

Are you really arguing that, because creationists claim they have been unreasonably treated, no other claim of unreasonable treatment anywhere in the world will be countenanced?

Fun Factoid: As I'll argue in a bit more detail later on, the great majority of climate change sceptics, globally speaking, are also creationists — why doesn't Duffy give them a go on his program?.