Sentences with phrase «most creationists»

Most creationists have considered the Peking Man fossils to be those of apes, or, even more improbably, monkeys, but in recent years the view of Lubenow that they were humans has been gaining ground.

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.

Although the above two skulls look quite similar, most creationists claim that the first one (ER 1470) is human, while the second (ER 1813) is classified as an ape by the few creationists who even mention it.

Most creationists avoid the evidence from biogeography because construction of elaborate and implausible myths is required to explain it away.

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.

Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact.

Most creationists refuse to accept any form of evolution, even the possibility that evolution happened according to God's plan.

Not exact matches

Christianity has many denominations and most of the larger and older of those denominations do not support creationist theory.

Young earth creationism is ludicrous and young earth creationists, most of whom live in the United States and are fundamentalist Christians, are the laughing stock of the thinking world.

Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1 would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to read it — including both evolutionists who may dismiss it as a prescientific account of origins, and creationists who may try to defend it as the true science and literal history of origins.

From Paige: What has been the most compelling evidence for you personally that has solidified your position as an evolutionary creationist?

Since creationists now claim that their putative «magic seed» volume is diluted 10 ^ 150 + times by inflation, their claim is now revealed as the most insanely erroneus idea ever devised by man!

The anthropic principle is the strongest evidence there is that creationists suffer from narcissistic psychosis of the most extreme variety.

There is no god, creationists may as well deny gravity too, (and most do believe they will ascend into a heaven after death.)

All I know is that most of the people who claim to know what the Bible says, be they athiests, creationists, evolutionists or whatever, have not actually read it.

Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was «given to the Muslims»).

Most of the creationist / ID web sites have quietly begun to ask their followers to stop using a whole set of arguments against evolution, including the «just a theory» argument, because they reveal the person's woeful ignorance of real science.

However, even if they were all creationist it would not change the fact that evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science.

There are scientists that are creationists, however there are even more PROMINENT scientists who are atheists who most likely subscribe to the theory of evolution.

Thanks creationists — it's incredible how much smarter you are than the most gifted archeologists and paleontologists in the World!

Most scientific facts, technology came from what this stupid article is calling creationists.

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.

RichardSRussel - You should probably stay away from electricity completely, as electrical engineers are the people in science most likely to be creationists.

2 (d) should read «creationist» as many, if not most Catholics don't have a problem with the big bang, or evolution.

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.

On the contrary, the inability of most biologists to make any sense out of creationist criticisms of their presuppositions is evidence of their own philosophical naiveté.

So, for someone who isn't familiar with those disciplines, I would suggest the person ask himself or herself, «who is most likely more knowledgeable in these areas and who can most credibly assess the evidence in these sciences, kermit4jc and other creationists like him or the world's scientists working in those fields.»

Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

«Patterson has been quote mined several times by creationists, most notably from a tape recording of a talk he gave in 1981 at the American Museum of Natural History for a systematics discussion group.

Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was «given to those suicidal Muslims»).

I think it is sad that, in the 21st Century, most major newspapers still carry astrology columns and that the Bronze Age mythology of Adam and Eve is still seen as true by about 40 % of the country, but things are changing slowly, as the inevitable forces of science and reason pry open even the most firmly closed of creationist minds.

Mr. Nye seems to have conveniently forgotten that most modern science exists because of the thinking and hard work of creationists throughout history.

You seem to make the some grievous error that most other creationists make.

Ok, what I'm most discouraged by when it comes to Bill Nye's response is that he's assumming that either one is a young earth creationist, or an evolutionist.

Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor why most of it was «given to the Muslims».)

Most Young Earth Creationists (Creationists who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old) believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by the waters of the flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 8.

Not even the majority of Creationists are Young Earth Creationists, and most Christians accept evolution but believe it was how God made life as we know it.

Most Thoughtful: Peter Enns with «Creationists Talking About Creation... (Or, on Theological Mass Re-Education)»

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.

Most of you sitting out there, when you deal with a question of debating with a creationist, it's maybe at a holiday, a family gathering, or maybe on a street corner or whatever it would be; where it's not in the guise of [«You have] 10 minutes and then you have 2 minutes to respond and then».

It pains me to say it now, but before my trip to Kentucky, I'd assumed that the quality of mind most highly prized in the creationist community would be credulity, thus making it easier to believe things that aren't true.

About one in six of the surveyed teachers espoused young - earth creationist views, and most of them taught their students those views.

That said, the most outspoken creationists have a long history of ignoring, selectively citing, or simply distorting the evidence in order to support their conclusions — which is to say that they are not following the procedures of the scientific method, and their claims should be viewed accordingly.

The fossils form such a neatly graded series, getting less and less ape - like and more and more human as they get closer in time to the present, that the most earnest creationist can do little more than muddy the waters by inflating and distorting the existence of points of disagreement between specialists, or trying to revive long since discredited Homo sapiens specimens once claimed to have been from extremely ancient deposits.

Creationists interpret this to mean that it was the skull of a modern human; in fact, Bowden (1981) thinks it «probably the most convincing evidence» of this.

If we compare five of the most important creationist writers on humans origins (Gish, Lubenow, Bowden, Cuozzo and Mehlert), no two of them agree on how to classify some of the most well - known fossils.

will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon - 14 dating,.

Here is your only statements on the matter before your most recent post: «The creationist debate may only exist in an isolated state, but the point is that it is not scientifically orderly.»

Of course surface temperatures respond to ENSO events, even the most ardent creationists would probably agree!

Edward Greisch (# 62), I disagree with your argument, if only because most published AGW denialists, creationists, and even geocentrists could pass the Engineering & Sciences Core Curriculum.