Why are creationists always wrong?

Funny, that's what we say about evolutionists. I don't think you follow the creation/evolution debate past reading talkorigins.org, or maybe what your college professor tells you.

The fact is, history shows that evolutionists have been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised. Often, the bold pronouncements of evolutionary scientists are contradicted years or even months later. Theories that were lauded as undeniably true by yesterday’s scientists often turn up in the dustbin of science history.

As one simple example, look at the Scopes trial. Ironically, the very arguments used in Darrow’s biology lesson to convince everyone that evolution is true have virtually all been discredited and thrown out by evolutionists themselves.

From what I have seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

It all depends on who you listen to and who you believe.

As a creationist, when I look at true scientific facts (things that are observable and reproducible), I don't see any that disagree with the Bible account of creation.

Another who does not believe the Bible sees the same scientific facts as I do, but interprets them differently to what I do because they view the world in a different way, as a product of evolution.

I think one of the biggest reasons that the Creationist seems to come off second best is that people will ultimately believe what they want to believe.

Everyone has as preconceived ideas about God and religion, and will accept and believe someone more readily if what the person says agrees with how they already think it should be.

I'm not here to have a dig at evolution by the way, this is just something that I've observed along the way.

Creationist, you always say you have proof that evolution is wrong? Who always says that? And why can't you people accept that many, many people are creationists that are not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic? Always this is brought up in R & S as if the theory of evolution somehow makes one's beliefs wrong.

Because as you point out their arguement is based on false premise, faulty reasoning and general outright falsehood. There is no proof of creationism, and pleanty supporting evolution, however creationist insist that their viewpoint is correct based on nothing but the writing of a 2000 year old book, which is pretty unreliable in itself as valid means of evidence.

The God Yahweh has taught me how to interpret the scripture in The Bible that He wrote in advanced scientific text that will prove He exists. This will now always make me and my answers right and the rest of the worlds answers wrong concerning all fields of science including evolution.

Because creationism is one of those things that must be taken on faith...and faith cannot be proven with scientific measurements or historical research. It is a matter of what a person believes and how deeply. The problem comes when they are trying to "prove" their beliefs for whatever reason.

I'm not Christian, but I have my own beliefs of how the world was created. It's my belief and I don't seek to prove it to anyone else. People will draw their own conclusions without my proving it to them.

Because it isn't honest. It is a 'rebuttal' to science, based upon the Bible. It has an open agenda but a closed mind. It 'accepts' hoaxes that appear to confirm it's agenda, yet uses long disproven scientific errors as some kind of 'current' argument against science. The whole thing would be laughed out of court, but the court of public opinion in the more radical religious circles is freakishly credulous as long as the accusations support the agenda. 'Evidence' has a different meaning in this context. It becomes deception.

How can that even approach the level of honest enquiry necessary to study paleontology, biology or indeed any science...?

Science admits it's errors gladly. That's presumably why it isn't called Scientism.

Creationism is not a tested and valid scientific theory, and The central claim of creationism, that life is so complicated that it requires an act of creation, is scientifically untestable.

Typically they are always wrong because they try to do things backwards. You never start with "Well I think this happened, how can I fit the evidence to support it?" in science. You start with the evidence and THEN suggest a reasoning for it.

Misinterpretation of the holy book is the reason.