Sentences with phrase «of creationist arguments»

Added sections on recent developments, and an overview of creationist arguments.

My point here is not to particularly attack b4bigbang, it is to take this one pretty typical creationist claim and point out that it is an absolutely unsupportable falsehood, and that this is pretty typical of creationist arguments.

This reminds me of the creationist argument against dog breeding supporting evolution.

Not exact matches

Lets dispense with the creationism argument... this is really an argument about the existence of God (God being the necessary precursor for any «creationist» event).

Nye's first two examples basically blew apart the whole creationist argument — we have ice cores that demonstrate a history of over 680,000 years.

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...

This attitude has also been held among scientists until recently, when the creationist pressures on public education and policy became so threatening that some scientists founded a new journal, Creation / Evolution, a «Committee of Correspondence» and a Creation / Evolution News letter, aimed at defending evolutionary science and dismantling creationist arguments.

This is an old and tired argument creationists love to make - that science is itself a form of faith.

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).

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.

«The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half - truths, lies, and straw - man arguments that the opponent can not possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

We've got the fossils (millions of them, of extinct species), so creationists have lost the argument.

In this article Johnson provides what he calls a «rough description» of modern evolutionary biology, raises a series of arguments against evolution, and finally proposes a creationist view of the origin of species.

As a young man, Charles Darwin was a creationist deeply impressed with William Paley's version of the argument from design.

The «you weren't there so you don't know» argument is actually a valid line of reasoning within the creationist community.

If you mean that we counter creationists arguments that evolution runs counter to the second law of thermodynamics by saying that that law only applies to heat transfer and randomness in a closed (gaseous) system, well, that is true.

If the creationist argument can't handle something as fundamental as the speed of light, how can anyone believe it?

Thank you, atheist sir, for doing such an excellent job of showing how stupid are the creationist and believer arguments and positions!

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.

To Tour's credit, at least he dismisses the creationist denial of radiometric dating; however, his opinions, which are targeting an area outside of his actual research area, are worth only as much as the evidence and arguments he presents.

It is his contribution to countering the creationist argument that the fossil record is too patchy to support the theory of evolution.

Additionally, this ID / creationist argument fails in light of clear examples of common forms with discrete evolutionary lineages and accompanying discrete genetic const - itutions (e.g. new world v. old world vultures, etc).

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

As a bonus, this research undermines creationist arguments about the impossibility of large - scale evolutionary changes.

The outcome rests with the Texas State Board of Education, whose 15 members will decide in November whether to accept newly drafted biology textbooks, which may contain creationist arguments.

Collins easily dismantles the shrillest arguments of the creationists, stressing that religion is too important to be based on fuzzy thinking.

[Box 26] AAAS and Congress, lobbying, 1959 - 1987 Congress, 1986 Arctic, 1981 Legislative Branch, 1981 - 1984 Executive Branch, pre-1985 OMB Circular, 1983 Science Policy: A Working Glossary, 1978 Science Policy Task Force Congressional Research Service, 1986 Environmental Protection Agency House Committee on Science and Technology, 1986 Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1982 Office of Technology Assessment, 1980 Senate State Department (2 Folders) AAAS Science, Engineering, and Diplomacy Fellows, Lunch and Orientation, 1983 Tax Bills, 1981 Edwards vs Aguilard, Louisiana Creationist Suit, 1986 Edwards vs Aguilard, NAS amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, People for the American Way amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, Supreme Court arguments Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, amicus brief, 1978 Southeastern College vs. Frances Davis, amicus brief, 1979 State Department, 1976 - 1984 Human Subjects Research, 1979 Controversy over Inhaber Article in Science, 1979 Three Mile Island, 1979 Federal appropriations, universities and pork barrel projects

The problem of non-ancestral «ancestors», by Jim Moore (discusses the common creationist argument that H. habilis is not a valid species)

Its worldwide circulation, broad scope and Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide

Plus evidence for a much younger Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide

Refuting a Popular Argument by Old - Earth Geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth Large annotated directory of internet resources on radiocarbon and other radioactive dating methods, including creationists» views and scientific critiques

Wolf Walker The opening paragraphs of this article give me the same tingling - down - the - back - of the - neck feeling as those creationist arguments about thermodynamics.

Design argument creationist folk compute the improbability of the world or a thing, but evolutionist's retort they never compute the improbability of a creator plus the world which must always be lower but for some kind of (I personally believe magical) discounting of the improbability of a creator.

The energy, time, and resources that some creationists put into this endeavor is astounding, resulting in a mountain of false claims, half - truths, misdirections, unsound arguments, and misinterpretations.

The models have failed and comparing my arguments with the Creationists is a nasty tactic and typical of you true believers.

A creationist commenter on a post of mine discussing lame creationist arguments first admitted that he did not actually read my post, and then began to repeat the same tired creationists lies and logical fallacies we hear over and over again.

Once again you sidestep any examination of the criticisms to see whether or not they are warranted or even asking someone how they arrived at a given conclusion or what justification they have for a given premise and claim, based upon an argument from incredulity which is common, for example, in creationist literature to the effect of, «I can't believe that there is a natural explanation for the origin of the eye, therefore the origin of the eye must be supernatural.»

During a debate that I spectated last year, Plimer's mode of argument reminded me very strongly of strategies employed by creationist advocates.

The Orwellian - named «Discovery Institute» is an organization dedicated to the promotion of Intelligent Design (ID), which is little more than a superficial repackaging of long - discredited creationist arguments against evolutionary theory.They do not have a legitimate scientific program, although they desperately try to create the impression that they do.