In the recent thread about humans being animals, it has become apparent (to me at least) that evolutionists have no idea about what creationism teaches.
I'm not a biologist, but I accepted the theory of evolution.
You guys would call me an "evolutionist", although I (and the rest of the scientific community), certainly would not call me that. The same way I accepted the atom theory, but I'm not a phycisist. You guys should call me an "atomist", too, if you had any form of integrity.
So, in the general sense, you guys would call me an "evolutionist". The same way in which I'm a "gravitationist".
That's why I'll answer this.
There are "creationists" who also accept the Theory of Evolution, to the exact same extent as non-religious scientists do. They don't call themselves creationists, they call themselves things like "theistic evolutionists".
They are religious, biologists and accept the Theory of Evolution. That's more than 99.9% of religious biologists!
I do not count those scientists as creationists at all.
With that in mind; I have got a very good idea of "creation science". Everything I've ever read from what creationists call "creation sciece" is always untrue.
I see Kent Hovind, Harun Yahya and Michael Behe as creationists.
I don't see people like Ken Miller and all those other religious scientists who accept evolution a s creationists.
[When a creationist rejects evolution, then the creationist is ignorant of evolution .....
Of the few trained biologists who reject the Theory of Evolution, not one of them is ignorant about the theory. They just suffer intense cases of "blocking out reality not to end up burning, because the believe they will if they don't". However, every single one of them active in "creation science", always lies to try and justify his or her faith. There's no exception to this.
...that's why he rejects it.
No, lay-people reject it because they mostly are ignorant. Real scientists who do reject it, always have to lie, even to themselves, to maintain their faiths.
And actually anyone who does rejected is labeled as being ignorant of evolution.
We've got plenty of evidence for that on this web-site. There's not even one trained biologist who is a creationist on this here.
Well I have a question, how much do you as an evolutionist know about creation to come to the conclusion that it isn't true?
I read a lot on creationists web-sites. They always lie. Read a lot of what Kent Hovind, Harun Yahya, Michael Behe, etc. have to say. Also seen their videos. All of them always lie. That's all they have.
Having read the Bible or OT and NT doesn't count as having studied creation. It just counts as having read the Bible.
I've done that, too. As well as the Quran. As well as other religious books. Remember, the overwhelming majority of religious scientists also accept the Theory of Evoltion. More than 99.9% of them.
It seems as if you don't understand: the Theory of Evolution is a scientific one. Not a religious one. That's why more than 99.9% of relevant religious scientists also accept the Theory of Evolution.
But, too answer your question directly, I do understand creationism very, very well. It is not science.
