Why should anyone trust creationists over scientists when it comes to science?

They think that all the answers to everything are in the bible - and ONLY in the bible. Therefore, scientific qualifications at best mean nothing to them, and at worst are the work of Satan.

People are delusional. Until recently, they couldn't explain science so they decided it was all down to a 'god'. But now that we can explain science, their claims hold no water and have no evidence.

I completely agree with you.

Creationism isn't science. This isn't a science question.

Oh you are a self proclaimed scientists...so you have all the answers is what you are saying. My bad, you sound ignorant and self righteous.

You are what you think and what you think is what you allow yourself to see, what doors you open, so you think what you allow yourself to think, by choice, conscious or otherwise.

Everyone thinks they're not as biased as people may think, which is a cognitive bias itself.

If you open the Bible to Genesis 1, you do not see "In the beginning." You see "There is no God." This is your worldview, that everything is naturalistic, w/o the need for God. Your worldview is what determines your starting ASSUMPTIONS.

I also have a biased worlview, but mine is founded in the evidence of the Bible, and corroborating evidence from science, like the evidence of Moses or Noah or the Great Flood, and Creation by eyewitness accout. There is no better evidence.

In scientific terms, Creationists claim evidence from the Bible with corroboration of the observed origin of matter, and it is consistent with our belief. Evolutionists cannot say the same, and are frequently inconsistent, like life from non-life, exactly the opposite of laws of the universe; nonsense. Like wishing on a star, wishing for aliens or some form of life out there, or that pesky missing link, when there should be millions/billions.

It is not Creationists "over" science or "against" science. It is typical for atheists to portray creationism as a fanatical anti-scientific religion, and evolution as dispassionate, objective science. Evolutionists have, on the whole, always had a strong bias and religious dimension in their quest to explain the universe without a Creator to make it. Despite the spectacular failure of all experiments to demonstrate abiogenesis, they have spread this unproven doctrine far and wide.

You also ask, "What makes you think you are more qualified to judge the merits of a scientific theory than the scientists." Well, for starters, I have a whole team of scientists in the next building, rub shoulders with them all the time. Am I allowed to use them?

Seriously, if you were educated, you would know that almost any professional is somewhat trained in science, and can easily understand science w/o much effort. The professional MUST confirm their ASSUMPTIONS or fail miserably.

I don't deny science, I challenge claims made by you and other unfounded, unsupported atheists AND scientists because their claims do not appear to be supported by the evidence. This in fact is part of the scientific method and as a result, when I question claims based on the evidence, I am in fact affirming science and the scientific method. Those who avoid the questions and deny the evidence are the ones denying science! If you do not believe this is the case, or deny this is the case, or did not know this is the case, stop whatever it is you're doing here until you do.

Opinion is used in science to describe and detail the evidence. Opinion by itself is pointless. OPINION also fails automatically by itself, because it does not meet the burden of proof of scientific method. You do NOT seem to "know" this, so just stop whatever it is you're doing until you learn something applicable, provable, repeatable, testable; a fact.

When you look at the real world, 95% of all sciences were formed by Christians, yet you ask the silly rhetorical question intentionally misrepresenting truth: "Why should anyone trust creationists?" One begins to wonder what planet you came from. You clearly know nothing about science except what you've read at propagandist websites. High School science is just a beginning, not knowledge and fact.

It is very sad that your teachers were more concerned teaching what to think (interpreting the facts/evidence for you) than teaching you how to think (how to evaluate the facts and interpret them for yourself).

Natural selection by definition is the survival of the fittest, meaning those who leave the most surviving offspring. Therefore it requires self-reproducing entities to start with. Talk about "dumbass!" Anyone else had a course in logic? Where do you go from here, genius?

You have no explanation for the universe and everything in it, which is just another display of the bankruptcy of evolutionary thinking. You really can't talk about how species evolved until you explain the matter that supposedly started the species.

When you look at the real world, Materialism fails! The notion of eliminating exclusionary materialism has gone way past the quantum physics community and is found to varying degrees in most sciences. Both scientists and the common man recognize there is something wrong with modern science, and are starting to ask the right questions.. Now it is just a matter of time!

Atheists actually believe the nonsense they have been spoon fed or want to believe so badly they have become willfully stupid and are blind to how nonsensical evolution is.

Evolution has nothing to offer on origins. And it's a valid point. Were we created or just magically appear from non-life through no known process or law? We don't even know how to describe it or what to call it or how it came about or why it should etc., but now you want to discuss how something we can't even name, evolved? You're kidding, right? Why discuss fantasy and myth and unfounded opinion and made-up stories to support an unknown, unsupported, unfounded, illogical, irrational position with circular reasoning?

All of this detail unveils a primary starting ASSUMPTION of evolution; that life can come from non-life, called abiogenesis. Nonsense, never been observed and never will, because biogenesis is universal law laid down by our Creator. Everyone knows this, but abiogenesis is a starting assumption of evolution, even though an atheist/evolutionist will lie to you and tell you evolution has nothing to do with origins; hogwash. They use circular reasoning to throw you off track.

Require a Christian to confirm their assumptions, and you have a more solid Christian with confidence in the Bible and multitudinous evidence. Require the atheist/evolutionist to confirm their assumptions, and the day is won, because faulty priors cannot be fixed.

Eight Evidences for a Young Earth

Young Earther Christians, what's your scientific proof the earth is young?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/eight-evidences-of-a-y...

Is Noah's Ark a Fairytale?

Why don't Christian fundamentalist just give and admit that Noah the Ark is just a made up fairytale?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/is-noah-s-ark-a-fairyt...

Dating the Bible w Egypt pyramids and Gilgamesh (also ice cores)

Did The Biblical Flood Happen?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/did-the-biblical-flood...

Geology of Grand Canyon & Noah's Flood

In what ways do you justify that the Earth is some 6000 years old?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/geology-of-grand-canyo...

Is it written that GOD our Heavenly Father completed creation?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/is-it-written-that-god...

Radiometric Dating with a thermal ionization mass spectrometer

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/radiometric-dating-wit...

How many SCIENTIFIC reasons can you think of to illustrate why Evolution is not a good theory?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/scientific-reasons-to-...

Does God exist?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/does-god-exist

Is Philosophy basically Science that is against religion?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/is-philosophy-basicall...

Can evolution and creationism coexist?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/can-evolution-and-crea...