Sentences with phrase «creationists often»

Creationists often incorrectly say that evolution makes no testable predictions, but they are clearly wrong.

Creationists often point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they tend to exaggerate their similarity to modern humans:

Curiously, as a debating tactic to discredit other hominid fossils, creationists often accept 1470 as human, even though many of them reject larger - brained erectus specimens as apes.

As young earth creationists often do, he points to «gaps in the fossil record» as a flaw in evolutionary biology.

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... I'm serious.

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

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.

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.

Not exact matches

I often find it puzzling how the creationists tend to focus almost exclusively on Judeo - Christian perspective, when there are so many other creation stories throughout the world and in history.

Creationists» beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as «just one theory,» they often embrace other fields of science and technology.

Unfortunately, efforts to push forward a careful alliance of theology with evolutionary biology are often obscured by the more sensational spats going on between IDT defenders and creationists on the one side, and evolutionary materialists on the other.

But those who hold to these alternate ways of reading Genesis 1 are often discredited by six - day creationists for believing that the Bible has errors.

So while creationist and evolutionist will often agree on the what, we disagree on the how, why, and where, which are often more difficult to test definitively.

As a result, the neo-Platonist tradition is becoming emboldened again, often encouraged by New Age spirituality (Goodwin's critics describe him as a New Age mystic); Aristotelianism is likewise making a comeback, particularly in creationist arguments for the validity of concepts such as purpose and design in biology.

Altogether, Inherit the Wind supplies the view most Americans have of the Scopes Trial, and it often surfaces in response to some development in the never - ending quarrels between evolutionists and creationists.

Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream.

That monument has come under fierce attack these days — from postmodernists (to whom truth is subjective and cultural), from creationists (to whom truth is biblical), and from religion in general (where faith is often seen to compete with reason as the fount of ultimate answers).

Both claims seem to have sunk without a trace except among creationists, who often cite them.

And, of course, Parker doesn't mention that creationist scientists both before and after Darwin were often equally racist.

I doubt that he was even paying much attention to his creationist sources - Parker is so sloppy with his facts that I suspect he was often working from memory.

They will often be the creationists who see something which works as an integrated whole — and have considerable difficulty seeing how that whole may have come into being gradually and as the result of a blind process.

I would say talking to them is indeed very akin to debating a creationist and thanks to the nature of the denyosphere, it is often difficult to separate this kind of thing from those who have more thought - out objections.

They're often the same people, i.e. Roy Spencer is a creationist, creationist sites like Uncommon Descent post fairly often on «AGW fraud» which they explicitly link to the «evolution fraud» as being evidence that science is thoroughly corrupt.

No name calling here, just stating a fact that you seem to be confused about what a theory is and that I have often heard creationists refer to evolution as «just a theory».

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.

The popularity of this fallacious way of thinking is one major reason why real scientists are often reluctant to debate creationists.