Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Wry Catcher]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

 

[Frannie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

 

[Wry Catcher]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).

 

[Frannie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).

The scum that you mention is formed from life. Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.

Try again

 

[jillian]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Why would you pretend that something is science when it isn’t?

That would be really really stupid

 

[Frannie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Why would you pretend that something is science when it isn’t?

That would be really really stupid

Retards do that

 

[Wry Catcher]

Creation is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).

The scum that you mention is formed from life. Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.

Try again

Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.

 

[Frannie]

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).

The scum that you mention is formed from life. Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.

Try again

Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.

Really, are the Clinton cum stained rugs still there

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).

The scum that you mention is formed from life. Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.

Try again

Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.

Really, are the Clinton cum stained rugs still there

Nope, Trump's tiny little hands are reflective of his tiny and flaccid penis; his envy of Bill cause him to destroy the carpet.

 

[Frannie]

What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific

Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).

The scum that you mention is formed from life. Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.

Try again

Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.

Really, are the Clinton cum stained rugs still there

Nope, Trump's tiny little hands are reflective of his tiny and flaccid penis; his envy of Bill cause him to destroy the carpet.

Is that why bill was fucking ugly Monica and the nose known as Paula jones

 

[MisterBeale]

Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?


Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?

 

[Frannie]

Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?


Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?

U scared of something

 

[james bond]

I love it when God wears a red superman cape and waves a wand.

Haha. That's not a wand, but a scepter. It's Lord Jesus Christ and the scepter represents his authority over kings, peoples, and nations. It also represents something to fear to his enemies.

 

[james bond]

Why would you pretend that something is science when it isn’t?

That would be really really stupid

Creation science is the real science. Evolution science is fake science. Here is an example using bent rock formations. Secular or atheist scientists claim rock gets bent due to great amount of pressure over long time. They think sedimentary layers became rock due to pressure over thousands of years (see stupid videos above), but it's not what happened at all.

What happens in reality is sedimentary layers are washed in the rivers, streams, and other flowing water and a chemical reaction takes place so that the sediment becomes rock. This doesn't take that long as thousands of years under pressure. Rocks form relatively fast due to chemical reactions. If you want to go through the following vids, it explains the real science (sorry, it's probably a bit dry if you're not interested in geology. When the rocks are forming due to chemical reaction like cement (synthetic rock) forming into concrete, the rock can be bent due to external pressure bearing upon it. Thus, the formations that you see of sedimentary layer rocks happened in much shorter time than thousands or millions of years.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?


Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?

 

[MisterBeale]

Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?


Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?

U scared of something

This subforum is devoted to science and technology. These two aspects of Western culture seperate and have made the west dominate over both Islamic culture, Russian Imperial culture, and the far East.

Two aspects propelled the west's dominance in Science and Technology, and it was not Christianity, nor was it Judaism.

It was the west's fanatical devotion to this school of philosophy;
Empiricism - Wikipedia

And, it was going through this;
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia


If you prefer to be a religious zealotry like ISIS or the Taliban, giving it all up? If that doesn't bother you?


I prefer empiricism and reason to living in the stone age. . . . .

 

[MisterBeale]

Where's your undeniable certainty?

No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.

“Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park

Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?

 

[MisterBeale]

dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it

but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it

I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.

there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground

Lucy was just a small ape.

She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot. The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later. But she was on her hind legs. That's big.

dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion


and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???

Humans are primates. They are now considered, taxonomically speaking, just another great ape, like a chimp or a gorilla.

Hominidae - Wikipedia

 

[cnm]

Haha. That's not a wand, but a scepter. It's Lord Jesus Christ and the scepter represents his authority over kings, peoples, and nations. It also represents something to fear to his enemies.

Where's YHWH?

 

[Frannie]

Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?


Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?

U scared of something

This subforum is devoted to science and technology. These two aspects of Western culture seperate and have made the west dominate over both Islamic culture, Russian Imperial culture, and the far East.

Two aspects propelled the west's dominance in Science and Technology, and it was not Christianity, nor was it Judaism.

It was the west's fanatical devotion to this school of philosophy;
Empiricism - Wikipedia

And, it was going through this;
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia


If you prefer to be a religious zealotry like ISIS or the Taliban, giving it all up? If that doesn't bother you?


I prefer empiricism and reason to living in the stone age. . . . .

Okeedokee Charlie