1. A person who thinks that the bible is a science and science a religion
2. A person who has done no research on the subject constantly uses non sequitur, red herrings, and straw man arguments
3. A fucking retard
2. A person who has done no research on the subject constantly uses non sequitur, red herrings, and straw man arguments
3. A fucking retard
Creationist: "Evolution is false because it has nothing to say on the origin of life, and because it said so in the bible."
by Ultimate Blarg March 27, 2010
by Scoobie Doo August 04, 2006
Oh no! He is a creationist!
by MentrySK December 05, 2018
by Erik Karhatsu May 16, 2006
A person who believes that the biblical account of Genesis is a literal, scientific document, and that all scientific knowledge of evolution and geology are mistaken and/or misrepresented by biased scientists. According to Creationists, the world was created in 6 days some 4 to 6 thousand years ago, God placed fossils into various depths of the Earth for no apparent reason (or that, since fossils are so rare, not all co-existing animals were fossilized together) all species where created individually (with allowance for individual variation and common design themes, but no common anscestry), that all life was harmonious before the fall of man (hence carnivores ate grass), that dinosaurs (which are said to be referred to in the bible as "leviathan" and "behemoth" and are supposedly represented in ancient art) lived at the same time as humans, and that they were whiped out in the biblical flood because they couldn't fit into Noah's Ark (or that he only fit the small ones, in which case some dinosaurs might be alive today).
To promote these views, creationists often misrepresent the data themselves, in an effort to discredit science and abuse it to validate their own beliefs. Hence, they are extremely critical of any and all (overwhelming) evidence that does not support their views while using bogus or equivocal data to prove theirs.
This doesn't work.
Any close, unbiased examination of the evidence reveals that nearly all of the creationist's claims are found wanting. I will not list those reasons here but will instead include a few links below.
Creatonists aim to keep the American public ignorant of evolution and science (which they have done a pretty good job of doing, as recent polls suggest) and desire that creation be taught in public schools along with evolution.
This would be about as ridiculous as teaching two different versions of the Holocaust in history classes (as some people claim that it never happened, and can back up this claim with phony evidence) or teaching an alternate flat earth theory (which another society can find "evidence" for) in geography.
That is not to say that there isn't a place for Genesis in the sphere of public education, but that would most likely be in courses involving theology, religion, culture, anthropology, and philosophy.
The moral here, of course, is that one shouldn't look to science to back up theology and vice versa.
Here are some links to learn the truth and why "creation scientists" are wrong (the links themselves can't be included because this site can't have words with more than 50 characters--wtf??). Go to a search engine and type in:
www.talkorigins.org
And perhaps Karl Thornley's page on Theistic Evolution for a few more good links.
To promote these views, creationists often misrepresent the data themselves, in an effort to discredit science and abuse it to validate their own beliefs. Hence, they are extremely critical of any and all (overwhelming) evidence that does not support their views while using bogus or equivocal data to prove theirs.
This doesn't work.
Any close, unbiased examination of the evidence reveals that nearly all of the creationist's claims are found wanting. I will not list those reasons here but will instead include a few links below.
Creatonists aim to keep the American public ignorant of evolution and science (which they have done a pretty good job of doing, as recent polls suggest) and desire that creation be taught in public schools along with evolution.
This would be about as ridiculous as teaching two different versions of the Holocaust in history classes (as some people claim that it never happened, and can back up this claim with phony evidence) or teaching an alternate flat earth theory (which another society can find "evidence" for) in geography.
That is not to say that there isn't a place for Genesis in the sphere of public education, but that would most likely be in courses involving theology, religion, culture, anthropology, and philosophy.
The moral here, of course, is that one shouldn't look to science to back up theology and vice versa.
Here are some links to learn the truth and why "creation scientists" are wrong (the links themselves can't be included because this site can't have words with more than 50 characters--wtf??). Go to a search engine and type in:
www.talkorigins.org
And perhaps Karl Thornley's page on Theistic Evolution for a few more good links.
"Did I tell you about my trip to the American Museum of Natural History?" I asked.
"No," she said, "That sounds wonderful."
"Yeah, I have a profound interest in all things prehistoric."
"I know," she said with a smile.
"You know, I really liked the section on human evolution," I began, almost immediately noticing her tense up a little.
"I don't believe in human evolution," she said.
"Fossils don't lie," I said.
"No," she said, "That sounds wonderful."
"Yeah, I have a profound interest in all things prehistoric."
"I know," she said with a smile.
"You know, I really liked the section on human evolution," I began, almost immediately noticing her tense up a little.
"I don't believe in human evolution," she said.
"Fossils don't lie," I said.
by Killing Kittens November 16, 2004
by Uller June 19, 2005
by Creatarded March 01, 2010