Sentences with phrase «other creationist»

I know of no other creationist who has even tried to look at original fossil hominids: not Lubenow, not Bowden, certainly not Gish, all of whom snipe away from a position of profound ignorance.

I know of only one other creationist discussion of the Dmanisi skeletons, in an article by Answers in Genesis (AIG)(scroll down to the 2nd item).

There are only 8 references in the whole book, mostly for unimportant points, and all but one of them refer to other creationist sources.

As far as I could tell, all of the material in Parker's book could have been recycled from other creationist sources, and probably was; it is hard to see how someone familiar with the scientific literature could get so much wrong.

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:

YOU, and other Creationists are the ones who are saying, in effect, that 2 +2 = 3, and everyone else is wrong — with your claims about evolution and creation.

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

Although I also have heard other creationists make this claim, no one else has responded either.

Other creationists are not going to like that result, because sediba is far more similar to africanus or afarensis (Lucy) than it is to modern humans.

Not exact matches

, people want to say that it's creationists against scientist or academia or any other reference that makes a believer seem ignorant.

No, just over 40 % are young earth creationists, based on their infantile beliefs in the Easter Bunny, or some other fictional character.

Ken Ham is a rock star in the creationist community who is quick to point out his own educational credentials and those of other scientists who support creationist views.

In fact, when the topic of teaching religion in schools crops up and you suggest to those pushing the idea that maybe it would be OK to teach religion in a comparative context, with many of the world's major religions examined objectively alongside each other, the creationist fundies are the ones yelling the loudest that that must never, ever be allowed — it's only their view that's welcome.

You may want to mention that to the creationists, evolution deniers and those that oppose homosexuality based on their fairy tale, among others.

Furthermore, neither scot nor any other ID / creationist can point to some mechanism which precludes the acc - umlation of novelty beyond some particular taxonomic classification.

There are now nearly 50 creationist organizations in the United States, another dozen in Canada and more in other countries from England to Australia and from Germany to India and Brazil.

The combined circulation of creationist periodical literature is in the millions, while other fundamentalist magazines also frequently contain creationist essays, such as Herbert W. Armstrong's The Plain Truth, with its 7 - million monthly circulation.

Having examined evidence such as Big Bang cosmology (yup, I'm what you'd call an «old earth» creationist), the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record, the problems of abiogenesis, and textual criticism of the Bible, I've found that the Bible describes historical events and other aspects of reality much more plausibly than any other faith system.

Where we part company is in our belief that evolution without chance does not imply, in a creationist sense, that «God's creative action... was not a one - off event» - in other words that God continually intervened to create new species.

As of yet no Intelligent design creationist has given anything but «faith» or «words» written down in a book equivalent to many other «holy» books with different and competing gods all throughout history that also have no verifiable evidence.

I just don't understand how you Creationists can ignore radiometric dating techniques and many other proven scientific theories.

Unless you are a creationist you would accept that the bible cant be taken word for word. - in other words its fiction.

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.

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

Creationists KNOW their beliefs can not compete in a free marketplace of ideas, and therefore attempt to restrict access to other areas of knowledge from their children.

I also love the fact that Christians will pump up their chests and claim they are over two billion strong and then claim that those catholics aren't real Christians, or another sect claiming that creationists are not true Christians, So how many true Scotsman / Christians are there when they seem to get great pleasure in stabbing each other in the back.

In which case, we can discard creationists and others who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.

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.

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.

On the other side, creationists simply deny scientific data; but Intelligent Design, having abandoned this tactic, now tries to use science to promote religious doctrines, and this, too, is a philosophical error.

She also labels Michael Behe of the Intelligent Design school a Creationist, given his apparent affirmation of the distinction between «direct» creation of some phenomena and the «autopilot» mode of others.

Worse, he says nothing about the real problem with creationism, which is the never - ending campaign by creationists to impose their ideas forcibly on other people.

The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description.»

«On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood... Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisacreationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood... Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisaCreationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation.»

I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs).

It comes from a particular vocal group of naturalists on one side and a much smaller but equally noisy lot of creationists on the other, both of whom have increasingly been declaring their respective philosophical views not merely to be true but to be true in a specifically scientific sense.

The civil libertarians have not recognized the problem: by their lights, the liberties of the creationists and others who hold other - than - naturalistic views of human origins are not being infringed upon because only scientific truth is arrayed against them.

Creationist are doing great harm to our country, keeping our test scores low in comparison to other nations.

Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as «proof» that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.

i'm a creatialutionist by nakedpastor Browse other Nakedpastor T - Shirts Some are creationists.

Drop a bowling ball on your toe before you watch it if your a creationist, the pain in your foot will help ease the pain you will feel at realizing you've been told a bunch of lies by preachers and others you may have trusted.

5 states trying to make their kids scientifically illiterate Louisiana, Missouri and others are shamelessly pushing a creationist agenda to appease the Christian right DAN AREL, ALTERNET

The resolution on the agenda concerns the teaching of creationism in Europe's schools, which should «resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion.»

You don't need to be educated or care to enjoy the fruits of others labor, however if you are educating your children to be creationist, that's one less American scientist, which has been impacting the role of this country in biomedical research.

He also said they are planning to homeschool... in this situation and many other hard - core creationist situations, homeschooling shouldn't be allowed for fear of the real science not being taught.

The difference is that scientists go to the lab and do experiments to try to find accurate explanations; creationists on the other hand, find a magic explanation and attribute it to what we don't know yet.

The other students laugh at me and make fun of me and call me «That creationist kid» The teacher says that evolution is THE FOUNDATION of modern biology.

Indeed, their paranoid fascination with the fossil record (which includes, almost, surreally, a «creation museum» in Cleveland, Ohio where one can see biblical children playing with dinosaurs) Hell, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, «true» Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred — and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden!!!