Sentences with phrase «not creationist»

Not all creationist stance is ID - based, Don Don, and unless we look at specifics, Kip may have a point.

I am not a creationist and do believe smoking tobacco or even pot causes lung cancer.

I'm no Christian and I'm certainly not a creationist, but if a school wants to teach creationism, they have every right to do so.

He is not a creationist; indeed, as he points out, he is «of no religion.»

Von Braun was not a creationist, nor were a few others there.

And not the creationist form of intelligent design.

I'm not a creationist.

The issue was idolatry, not science; syncretism, not natural history; theology, not chronology; affirmation of faith in one transcendent God, not creationist or evolutionist theories of origin.

And how exactly is Pell NOT a creationist??

Not all creationists believe the 24 hour rule.

So go back to the drawing board and educate yourself what science really is, and not the creationists definition this time.

That doesn't mean the bible itself is dogma, because plenty of scientists are christians that are not creationists.

They're not mutually exclusive and all scientists who have faith in a monotheistic God are not creationists, deniers, etc..

Not exact matches

The Bible does not support fundamentalists and creationists who claim that the creative days were literal 24 - hour days The Bible does not support fundamentalists and creationists who claim that the creative days were literal 24 - hour days.

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 % provNOT 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 % provnot 100 % proven.

Just because you are a creationist doesn't make you a Christian.

The standard intelligent design belief has been proven in court to be completely based on changing a few words in a creationist text to try to make it legally «not religious.»

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

But that's not what creationists say.

Here it is, directly from Professor Dawkins — Why I Won't Debate Creationists By RICHARD DAWKINS May 14, 2006 http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

I don't think Christians do themselves any favors by throwing their lot in with «Young Earth» creationists like Kenneth Ham.

This is the classic creationist shell game: Attack evolution for what it does not do (claim to explain the origins of things).

The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of «good science» (creationism) vs. «bad science» (anything not in agreement with creationism).

I haven't read a creationist's answer on here yet.

I can't find your scholarly, peer reviewed rebuttal — please provide a reference, or grasp at the next ID / creationist straw.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer's research has been hijacked by «young earth» creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn't possibly survive millions of years.

Don't confuse the creationist... They refuse to understand the difference between science and religion... how can you expect them to understand the difference between a century and a millennium?

«Dawkins WILL debate believers» — I stated that Professor Dawkins won't debate creationists, not believers.

I actually learned something about the creationists» viewpoint (though not swayed).

(for those who aren't aware, L4H is a young earth creationist)

Funny how IDers don't claim to be creationists, yet both have the EXACT same language and interpretation of evolutionary theory verbatim, go to the same church, watch the same videos, use the same arguments, vote for the same leaders, listen to the same pastors, and quote the same scripture, etc...

Creationists say that this can not be replaced in lab.

Creationists refuse to subject their «theories» to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts.

Probably creationist don't turn to Leviticus 13 for medical advice on how to treat skin disease (leprosy); nor do they turn to Joshua 6 (Siege and fall of Jericho) for lessons in military science; nor do they turn to the staple of ancient legal science in Exodus 21:23 - 2 (lex talons «eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth») for modern jurisprudence.

Creationists are saying that the physical laws of the universe did not apply a few thousand years ago and that this is some sort of test of faith.

«Many «atheists» won't answer believers for the same reason Professor Dawkins doesn't debate creationists..

@Chad — Many «atheists» won't answer believers for the same reason Professor Dawkins doesn't debate creationists... it's a waste of time and it lends implicit validity to their claims.

It doesn't matter if you're a creationist or an evolutionist, this blathering idiot is taking up, «spending» your precious time, and then has the gall to ask for money to continue to support this fraud: If you love the LORD and Church; go to church.

That's not to say, of course, that there aren't Scientists out there with a spinal reflex reaction to deny the possibilty that doesn't even consult their forebrains, but that really doesn't make them any different from the true believer Creationists who react the same way to Evolution.

... and produces results that every creationist can't live without!!!

Gravity is just a theory, too, but I notice the creationists don't just float away.

The Daily Telegraph columnist Rupert Myers said at Mr Walkers appointment: «Creationists can not be trusted to report objectively... or to interact reasonably with their interviewees and with the public.»

I'm sure that the consensus will eventually be overturned from lack of progress, but I don't see them ever giving up their god Copernicus as long as they wrongly believe that this is an admission in the direction of the creationist's position...

Atheists do not feel insulted or dehumanized by «creationists» you idiot!

I don't «poke fun» of people but I do challenge Young Earth Creationists in matters of science.

We don't believe your creationist delusion, haven't you noticed by now?

«Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.

All the creationists have to do is prove it isn't true, and they get a Nobel Prize.

... i know your book says don't believe anything else before or after to protect its place in history, but just as you would read greek mythology and have incredulous thoughts about multigods ruling the earth water and the undergrounds, those who are not stuck on your wavelength, read your mythology and think how anyone in their right minds could ever fall for those idolatric stories... your belief in your creationist god is as unfathomable as an adult looking up the chimney and feeling the power of Santa Clause in them... does the power of Santa Clause compel you?

I had a couple of creationist friends who thought I was ridiculing their faith when I pointed out simply that perhaps as it was not accurate that it might be best not to take it literally.