I'm dedicating this thread to exposing creationist propaganda and misinformation...I'll cite videos, articles, journals, websites of creationists and scientific knowledge they deny.
Before we start we need to define the terms....

[b]
"Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation." For young Earth creationists , this includes taking a Biblical literalism to the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution .

As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture .

Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common.

In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalists , specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth —although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists , who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the scientific community." [/b]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Besides the basic information about creationism....one must understand that to be a young-earth creationist, you must vehemently deny anything that contradicts a literal interpretation of religious texts.
Here are some examples of that dishonesty.

The first is Ray comfort.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

Who proposes arguments against well-known scientific principles...the picture below is an extract of his rebutal to slugs being animals.

Among many of Ray comforts apologetics' is his popular banana argument.

In this video, evangelist Ray Comfort introduces what he
calls "The Atheist's Nightmare," the banana that we all
know and love. He argues that the form of the fruit,
conveniently sized for human in an easy-to-open
package, is proof that it was created by God for human
consumption. This segment is from a 2003 episode of
"The Way of the Master," a television series that Comfort
produces with Christian actor Kirk Cameron, who also
stars in the video.
In response to criticism after this video went viral,
Comfort said that atheists had maliciously omitted his
related argument that the spontaneous evolution of the
world is as unlikely as that of a Coca-Cola can. To
address that concern, the Coke can argument is included,
too.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/creationist-presents-the-banana-as-the-atheists-nightmare-to-prove-intelligent-design-video--114306/

The second dishonest character here is this one.

It was a viral video of a blonde mother auditing chicago's evolving earth exhibit....



Here are her comments..

“I don’t want to hear about your theories – your s.tupid
theories about how these creatures became – came from
one cell when you can’t prove it to me.”

“Just show me the animals, tell me about them,”

“But don’t tell me that you know exactly how they came to be, because you don’t, and don’t tell my children that you know either, that makes me angry.”

“I would prefer we just tell them, ‘it’s okay not to know,’”

“There’s plenty of people around the world throughout the ages who wrote these stories about dragons, drew pictures of dragons, who said they saw dragons. And then we have this dragon skull, that looks exactly like a dragon that people have drawn from stories.”

“And yet, here’s this woman in a lab coat saying to me, ‘That is not a dragon.’”

http://deadstate.org/creationist-mom-audits-natural-history-museum-reveals-that-dinosaurs-are-actually-dragons/

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial


This famous trial is a testament to creationist dishonesty',here they tried to cover-up creationism as "intelligent design".

"Intelligent design" was used as a proxy to teach creationism.

"In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover , tried in 2005 in a
Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, " intelligent design"
was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore,
unconstitutional to teach in American public schools.
As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the
teaching of "intelligent design," the trial attracted national
and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in
the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from
September 26 through November 4, 2005). On December 20,
2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling
in which he held that "intelligent design" was, as the
plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism."

http://www.ncseprojects.org/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

In fact every one and any one who wants to understand evolution in the simplest format should watch "intelligent design on trial ".
Aside from being very educative about the theory of evolution , the video also exposes the fraudulent ways of the creationist and intelligent design apologists.

Highly recommended

.

Okay. They still have an imperative way of getting around the problems and errors in Genesis; moon being a light, survival of plants before the creation of the sun, existence of the earth before the sun, occurrence of day and night without the sun etc

This same creationists accept speciation a process under evolution to explain the diverse species that arose after "their Noah flood", but they reject it when it is used to explain evolutionary processes (even when the term, speciation, originated from evolution).. How ridiculous!

nana228:
I find it funny that creationists refuse to believe any other proof of the origin of life from scientists but they have embraced every other scientific breakthrough and they are enjoying everything that science has done to improve human life.

They believe everything in a biology text book except evolution.

There is a difference between operational science and historical or "origins" science .

.

One of the lies is that evolution is science. Evolution is a religion

vooks:
One of the lies is that evolution is science. Evolution is a religion

Take a good look people, misinformation at it's very best...

Thugnificent:
There is a difference between operational science and historical or "origins" science .

There's no such thing, creationist invented words like "historical science" to blur a well defined line.....you'd see that when asked what group radioscopy is they can tell you "observational/historical" just so they can escape stop their own fallacies argument.
When asked why they call their bias "creation science" when an act of "divine creation" is not demonstrable they have no answer....
You can watch these two videos to understand better..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skRSrGX543M



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yQEG7mlTU&itct=CB0QpDAYAiITCNPDz9rr4cMCFVHXHAodCHIAaTIHcmVsYXRlZEjChNyN4ZfI1M8B&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en

Evolution is a philosophy, bad science

davien:
Take a good look people, misinformation at it's very best...

davien:
There's no such thing, creationist invented words like "historical science" to blur a well defined line.....you'd see that when asked what group radioscopy is they can tell you "observational/historical" just so they can escape stop their own fallacies argument.
When asked why they call their bias "creation science" when an act of "divine creation" is not demonstrable they have no answer....
You can watch these two videos to understand better..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skRSrGX543M



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yQEG7mlTU&itct=CB0QpDAYAiITCNPDz9rr4cMCFVHXHAodCHIAaTIHcmVsYXRlZEjChNyN4ZfI1M8B&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en

I get your point, but are you saying there aren't creationist who have made great impact in science. from the top of my head, Isaac Newton and Charles Babbage should ring a bell. But Talk origins would have none of that. I find it funny that creationists aren't given a chance to publish creation science in peer reviewed journals, that also strikes me as discriminating.

Thugnificent:
I get your point, but are you staying there aren't creationist who have made great impact in science. from the top of my head, Isaac Newton and Charles Babbage should ring a bell. but Talk origins would have none of that. I find it funny that creationists aren't giving a chance to publish creation science in peer reviewed journals, that also strikes me as discriminating.

lol....can you demonstrate "creation science" is there such a thing that can be called "creation science"?
What methods would be used?

Thugnificent:
I get your point, but are you saying there aren't creatio nist who have made great impact in science. from the top of my head, Isaac Newton and Charles Babbage should ring a bell. But Talk origins would have none of that. I find it funny that creationists aren't given a chance to publish creation science in peer reviewed journals, that also strikes me as discriminating.

Don't mind this deluded man. He hijacks definitions to suit his own propaganda of eliminitating any belief in any deity and even statingthat belief in deity can hamper scientific development. That is the imperative of these guys who fight any concept of a godly worldview. They keep forgetting that The very masters of science believed in God. They won't tell you that there are even contemporary scientists of very reputable achievements that believe in God.

They purport an idioti.c philosophy of macro cellular evolution as fact and try to make the general public believe that godlessness and science go hand in hand. They will be stopped.

davien:
lol....can you demonstrate "creation science" is there such a thing that can be called "creation science"?
What methods would be used?

Sir, your premise was quite outlandish. I get it that most secular scientists use the term "pseudoscience" to classify creationist/intelligent design arguments forgetting that evolution, big bang, abiogenesis and all "origins" theories are all pseudoscience to say the least. firstly, the biogenesis theory that life can only come from life was proved by Louis Pasteur a creationist hearby dispelling the theory of spontaneous generation which was partly the bedrock of abiogenesis. Now back to evolution, the so called TOE hasn't been able to explain obvious "missing links" and the so called transitional fossils most notably the Archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud. In a nut shell, creationist have made the greatest impact in science so it is foolhardy to term creation science as "pseudoscience" while inane theories are having a field day because they don't involve God in the equation.

nana228:
I find it funny that creationists refuse to believe any other proof of the origin of life from scientists but they have embraced every other scientific breakthrough and they are enjoying everything that science has done to improve human life.

They believe everything in a biology text book except evolution.

The origin of life has not yet been proven.

davien:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial


This famous trial is a testament to creationist dishonesty',here they tried to cover-up creationism as "intelligent design".

"Intelligent design" was used as a proxy to teach creationism.

"In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover , tried in 2005 in a
Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, " intelligent design"
was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore,
unconstitutional to teach in American public schools.
As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the
teaching of "intelligent design," the trial attracted national
and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in
the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from
September 26 through November 4, 2005). On December 20,
2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling
in which he held that "intelligent design" was, as the
plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism."

http://www.ncseprojects.org/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Crap. ID isn't creationism though it strongly suggests creation in a general sense. By the way, Judge Jones simply acquiesced to ACLU, ID'sts say that his judgement was lifted from an ACLU statement.

Thugnificent:
I get your point, but are you saying there aren't creationist who have made great impact in science. from the top of my head, Isaac Newton and Charles Babbage should ring a bell. But Talk origins would have none of that. I find it funny that creationists aren't given a chance to publish creation science in peer reviewed journals, that also strikes me as discriminating.

Isaac Newton was not a creationist, , if at all you know what a creationist is.

And secondly, who is not allowing creatonists to publish a scientific paper?

There is no such thing as creationists science. It is either science or Not science, no half science, creationist science.
If we have creationist science, then we an also have juju, science, magic science, fairy science,etc, etc..

Science is an established and evolving system to observe, investigate, analize and catalogue natural laws and phenomena .

Creatonists are unable nad have been unable to publish peer reviewable scientific papers simply because their entire creationist worlview relies on nothing but unexplained magic.
No one has ever or could ever prevent creationist and goddist to show scientific proof of goddit.

UyiIredia:


Crap. ID isn't creationism though it strongly suggests creation in a general sense. By the way, Judge Jones simply acquiesced to ACLU, ID'sts say that his judgement was lifted from an ACLU statement.

Oh gosh!
How do you guys do it?

I mean how do you manage to you contradic yourself in ONE Single sentence ?


" ID isn't creationism though it strongly suggests creation in a general sense."

What kind of a warped mind can hold two contradictory views in one sentence?
It shows , with a a doubt, that you have no single idea, no iota of knowledge of what you are arguing for or against.
Just a follow follow.

UyiIredia:


By the way, Judge Jones simply acquiesced to ACLU, ID'sts say that his judgement was lifted from an ACLU statement.

Another moronic statment.
I presume that you know more about the finer points of the law that the Judge, or that you would have made a finer legal representation that the team of Id lawyers?

"IDst say... that his judgement was lifted from ...?
Well then , why haven't you shown us where it was lifted from?
So " IDst are your source and authority ?

Just like I said, Follow follow.
That's what you are.

UyiIredia:


Crap. ID isn't creationism though it strongly suggests creation in a general sense. By the way, Judge Jones simply acquiesced to ACLU, ID'sts say that his judgement was lifted from an ACLU statement.

Oh gosh!
How do you guys do it?

I mean, how do you manage to you contradic yourself in ONE Single sentence ?


" ID isn't creationism though it strongly suggests creation in a general sense."

What kind of a warped mind can hold two contradictory views in one sentence?
It shows , with a a doubt, that you have no single idea, no iota of knowledge of what you are arguing for or against.
Just a follow follow.

UyiIredia:


By the way, Judge Jones simply acquiesced to ACLU, ID'sts say that his judgement was lifted from an ACLU statement.

Another moronic statment.
I presume that you know more about the finer points of the law that the Judge, or that you would have made a finer legal representation that the team of Id lawyers?

"IDst say... that his judgement was lifted from ...?
Well then , why haven't you shown us where it was lifted from?
So " IDst are your source and authority ?

Just like I said, Follow follow.
That's what you are.

Before i comment on the meat of this thread... i need to first laugh. Many atheists here have an extremely difficult time marshaling any serious scientific arguments for their claims. So they resort to laughable wastes of everyone's time such as this thread represents. good luck.

davien:
Besides the basic information about creationism....one must understand that to be a young-earth creationist, you must vehemently deny anything that contradicts a literal interpretation of religious texts.
Here are some examples of that dishonesty.

The first is Ray comfort.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

Who proposes arguments against well-known scientific principles...the picture below is an extract of his rebutal to slugs being animals.

the problem with Ray's comment (which also exposes the bankruptcy of many here who are unable to think outside the box) is that if the creation of earth was simply an issue of evolution (survival of the fittest), then what is the evolutionary benefit of [i]sexua[/i]l reproduction? I remember this question came up a while back and no one here was able to answer.

nana228:
I find it funny that creationists refuse to believe any other proof of the origin of life from scientists but they have embraced every other scientific breakthrough and they are enjoying everything that science has done to improve human life.

They believe everything in a biology text book except evolution.

Please look through serious scientific textbooks, most completely avoid the topic of evolution altogether. Most biology textbooks have chapters on genetics, but do not speak about macro evolution in any serious depth. That should tell you all you need to know about what the authors think of the topic. This is the mol biology textbook i used in grad school here in the US - http://www.garlandscience.com/product/isbn/9780815341055

I still have a copy and there is not one section on macro-evolution. You would think they would have included it there no? Most of you have never actually read a biology textbook, all we get from you is the same worn out excuses.

plaetton:


Isaac Newton was not a creationist, , if at all you know what a creationist is.

And secondly, who is not allowing creatonists to publish a scientific paper?

There is no such thing as creationists science. It is either science or Not science, no half science, creationist science.
If we have creationist science, then we an also have juju, science, magic science, fairy science,etc, etc..

Science is an established and evolving system to observe, investigate, analize and catalogue natural laws and phenomena .

Creatonists are unable nad have been unable to publish peer reviewable scientific papers simply because their entire creationist worlview relies on nothing but unexplained magic.
No one has ever or could ever prevent creationist and goddist to show scientific proof of goddit.

I don't understand the cause of your paranoia but i'll still humor you. Sir Issac Newton believed in the literal biblical account of creation. here is a link. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton ......I don't even know were to attempt in your remaining post so I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

plaetton:


Isaac Newton was not a creationist, , if at all you know what a creationist is.

And secondly, who is not allowing creatonists to publish a scientific paper?

There is no such thing as creationists science. It is either science or Not science, no half science, creationist science.
If we have creationist science, then we an also have juju, science, magic science, fairy science,etc, etc..

Science is an established and evolving system to observe, investigate, analize and catalogue natural laws and phenomena .

Creatonists are unable nad have been unable to publish peer reviewable scientific papers simply because their entire creationist worlview relies on nothing but unexplained magic.
No one has ever or could ever prevent creationist and goddist to show scientific proof of goddit.

He actually was. This is just one example of ignorance that should not be left unchallenged.

Joshthefirst:
Don't mind this deluded man. He hijacks definitions to suit his own propaganda of eliminitating any belief in any deity and even statingthat belief in deity can hamper scientific development. That is the imperative of these guys who fight any concept of a godly worldview. They keep forgetting that The very masters of science believed in God. They won't tell you that there are even contemporary scientists of very reputable achievements that believe in God.

They purport an idioti.c philosophy of macro cellular evolution as fact and try to make the general public believe that godlessness and science go hand in hand. They will be stopped.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

davidylan:


He actually was. This is just one example of ignorance that should not be left unchallenged.

Ignorance on your part sir.
I doubt if you know what a creationist is.

plaetton:


Ignorance on your part sir.
I doubt if you know what a creationist is.

no attempt to proffer your evidence... just more senseless personal attacks. I notice you did not take on thugnificent's even more detailed take down of your own ignorance. I wonder why.

Thugnificent:
Sir, your premise was quite outlandish. I get it that most secular scientists use the term "pseudoscience" to classify creationist/intelligent design arguments forgetting that evolution, big bang, abiogenesis and all "origins" theories are all pseudoscience to say the least. firstly, the biogenesis theory that life can only come from life was proved by Louis Pasteur a creationist hearby dispelling the theory of spontaneous generation which was partly the bedrock of abiogenesis. Now back to evolution, the so called TOE hasn't been able to explain obvious "missing links" and the so called transitional fossils most notably the Archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud. In a nut shell, creationist have made the greatest impact in science so it is foolhardy to term creation science as "pseudoscience" while inane theories are having a field day because they don't involve God in the equation.

spontaneous generation is ironically an act of "creation" from ex nihilo,abiogenesis is only proposing the building blocks of life being abundant in the early earth leading to life...how are those two principles the same?
Dishonesty yet again, creationism knows no bounds...