Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Ringtone]

J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.

Piffle. Adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable. Aside from being a mathematical and engineering monstrosity, the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of naturalism and nothing more. If the extrapolation were true, what we should see is a Precambrian strata with a decisive indication of the same, if not a Precambrian strata saturated with transitional forms. We don't. What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time. The argument that tens of millions of animals undergoing billions of transitions in aggregate would not leave a decisive record of ten of thousands, if not millions, of transitional forms, regardless of the fossilization conditions, is nonsense.

Oh, look, the unobservable and indemonstrable, evolutionary extrapolation is true even when there's no observable or demonstrable evidence that the evolutionary extrapolation is true! LOL!

 

[Hollie]

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.

Lee Strobel?

Why drag that quack out?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Lee Strobel

Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune television host (“Faith under Fire”), and author of several books, all with titles starting with “The case for …”. In his publications and interviews Strobel’s approach is to claim to assume the role of an investigative reporter but take anything that agrees with his position at face value (regardless of how vague, foggy, or unsupported it is; examples here and here). His tactic against people he disagrees with is to take a quote out of context and use it to erect a strawman. Note that his point is not to argue that faith is compatible with science - he does indeed perceive a conflict between science and religion; fortunately, his armchair arguments for God are supposedly good enough to refute the parts of science he doesn't fancy.


Strobel’s own arguments against evolutionary theory are mostly based on ignorance and distortion, for instance “Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process” [no, it isn’t], and “Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator.” It is followed by “700 scientists of impeccable credentials signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement. Believing in evolution requires a leap of fatih. This isn't faith versus science it's science versus science.” Right.

 

[Hollie]

J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.

Piffle. Adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable. Aside from being a mathematical and engineering monstrosity, the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of naturalism and nothing more. If the extrapolation were true, what we should see is a Precambrian strata with a decisive indication of the same, if not a Precambrian strata saturated with transitional forms. We don't. What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time. The argument that tens of millions of animals undergoing billions of transitions in aggregate would not leave a decisive record of ten of thousands, if not millions, of transitional forms, regardless of the fossilization conditions, is nonsense.

Oh, look, the unobservable and indemonstrable, evolutionary extrapolation is true even when there's no observable or demonstrable evidence that the evolutionary extrapolation is true! LOL!

Speaking of piffle, your juvenile, mostly incoherent rambling offers nothing but.... well... piffle.

 

[Ringtone]

Creation science quackery is clearly not backed by the Scientific Method. iD’iot creationism / creation science, and the other labels for Christian fundamentalism are just fronts for Christian religious extremism.

Nonsense! Once again, while adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable, . the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of a mathematical and engineering monstrosity. Materialism is quackery. Ontological naturalism is quackery. Atheism is quackery. The hypothetical extrapolation is quackery. Your post is quackery. Your Cousin Chimp is quackery. Your Grandpa Ape is quackery. Your monkey's uncle is quackery. Your quackery is quackery.

 

[Hollie]

J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.

Piffle. Adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable. Aside from being a mathematical and engineering monstrosity, the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of naturalism and nothing more. If the extrapolation were true, what we should see is a Precambrian strata with a decisive indication of the same, if not a Precambrian strata saturated with transitional forms. We don't. What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time. The argument that tens of millions of animals undergoing billions of transitions in aggregate would not leave a decisive record of ten of thousands, if not millions, of transitional forms, regardless of the fossilization conditions, is nonsense.

Oh, look, the unobservable and indemonstrable, evolutionary extrapolation is true even when there's no observable or demonstrable evidence that the evolutionary extrapolation is true! LOL!

Actually, speciation has been observed and is quite common.

So, you’re back with a new account but the same old piffle, eh?


Observed Instances of Speciation

Odd that what we don’t have evidence for is super-magical “creative events”.

I guess Amun Ra has been too busy with his administrative duties to wow us with pulling rabbits out of a hat...LOL.

 

[Hollie]

Creation science quackery is clearly not backed by the Scientific Method. iD’iot creationism / creation science, and the other labels for Christian fundamentalism are just fronts for Christian religious extremism.

Nonsense! Once again, while adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable, . the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of a mathematical and engineering monstrosity. Materialism is quackery. Ontological naturalism is quackery. Atheism is quackery. The hypothetical extrapolation is quackery. Your post is quackery. Your Cousin Chimp is quackery. Your Grandpa Ape is quackery. Your monkey's uncle is quackery. Your quackery is quackery.

Nonsense. You can’t even define the nonsense term “adaptive radiation”.

What phony, crank ID’iot creation ministry did you steal that from?

LOL.

 

[Ringtone]

Speaking of piffle, your juvenile, mostly incoherent rambling offers nothing but.... well... piffle.

Nonsense! The evolutionist's pathetic excuse for the stunning lack of transitional forms is juvenile, incoherent, baby talk. Your post is piffle. Your piffle is . . . well . . . piffle. Evolution? A pure myth, a superstition, a delusion, a long con; it's the stuff of magic, unicorns, goblins, fairies with boots. . . .

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of piffle, your juvenile, mostly incoherent rambling offers nothing but.... well... piffle.

Nonsense! The evolutionist's pathetic excuse for the stunning lack of transitional forms is juvenile, incoherent, baby talk. Your post is piffle. Your piffle is . . . well . . . piffle. Evolution? A pure myth, a superstition, a delusion, a long con; it's the stuff of magic, unicorns, goblins, fairies with boots. . . .

Oh, my. It’s the angry, self-hating, bible thumping Rawlings with a new account.

So, about those common transitional forms you thumped around but couldn’t address.


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


Transitional Species in Insect Evolution

Maybe wrap your bibles with duct tape into a double wide and find your favorite street corner.

 

[Ringtone]

Nonsense. You can’t even define the nonsense term “adaptive radiation”.

What phony, crank ID’iot creation ministry did you steal that from?

Oh, look, we got ourselves another atheist know-nothing, pretending to understand or to know things better than those who eschew the unobservable and indemonstrable Darwinian extrapolation, another fraud unwittingly exposing herself for the ignoramus that she is.

Adaptive radiation is a process in which organisms diversify rapidly from an ancestral species into a multitude of new forms, particularly when a change in the environment makes new resources available, creates new challenges, or opens new environmental niches. Starting with a recent single ancestor, this process results in the speciation and phenotypic adaptation of an array of species exhibiting different morphological and physiological traits. The prototypical example of adaptive radiation is finch speciation on the Galapagos ("Darwin's finches"), but examples are known from around the world. (Wikipedia)​

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense. You can’t even define the nonsense term “adaptive radiation”.

What phony, crank ID’iot creation ministry did you steal that from?

Oh, look, we got ourselves another atheist know-nothing, pretending to understand or to know things better than those who eschew the unobservable and indemonstrable Darwinian extrapolation, another fraud unwittingly exposing herself for the ignoramus that she is.

Adaptive radiation is a process in which organisms diversify rapidly from an ancestral species into a multitude of new forms, particularly when a change in the environment makes new resources available, creates new challenges, or opens new environmental niches. Starting with a recent single ancestor, this process results in the speciation and phenotypic adaptation of an array of species exhibiting different morphological and physiological traits. The prototypical example of adaptive radiation is finch speciation on the Galapagos ("Darwin's finches"), but examples are known from around the world. (Wikipedia)​

Oh, a wiki groupie. How cute.

Another bible thumping zealot who trolls wiki in a hopeless attempt to conceal his complete lack of a science vocabulary.

Still thumping along with no response to the evidence for speciation. Somehow, your lack of ability to respond with a coherent argument is very familiar.

 

[Ringtone]

Maybe wrap your bibles with duct tape

Maybe you should duct tape your pie hole and stick to the science. Oh, wait, you can't do the science either.

Those sites are not talking about fossilized transitional forms entailing one organism evolving into an entirely new organism. They're alternately talking about fossilized specimens of adaptive radiation within species or genera, or the non-fossilized, branchings of the hypothetical extrapolation. You're a know-nothing, a fraud, a pretender.

 

[cnm]

God did create the universe! The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence, God's necessity, is overwhelming. God created the world because science is all wet is nonsensical. Are you implying that the alternative option would be that science created the world because God is all wet? See the problem?

Yes. The problem is you have no rational evidence of god's existence, only assertion. Nothing new.

 

[cnm]

What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time.

Oh. Are you saying YHWH created species millions of years apart? Interesting.
If so, when do you estimate that creation of species stopped?

 

[Ringtone]

God did create the universe! The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence, God's necessity, is overwhelming. God created the world because science is all wet is nonsensical. Are you implying that the alternative option would be that science created the world because God is all wet? See the problem?

Yes. The problem is you have no rational evidence of god's existence, only assertion. Nothing new.

No. You have no evidence. I have plenty. You're blind and irrational. I see and think clearly. You're an atheist crackpot. I'm a sane, rational human being. The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is self-evident.

 

[cnm]

No. You have no evidence. I have plenty. You're blind and irrational. I see and think clearly. You're an atheist crackpot. I'm a sane, rational human being. The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is self-evident.

Well fair enough. Who could argue against such an earnestly asserted assertion?

 

[james bond]

Ummm…..5 million years ago isn't pre-Cambrian.

Try 53 million years old which is quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive.

 

[james bond]

J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.

What science? It's fake. Evolution is built up fossil evidence. What creation scientists have found are a number of out-of-place fossils.

It ends up disproving evolution and the silly birds from dinosaurs. No one is going to go see feathered dinosaurs.



We'll probably have reboots of those old, old, old sci-fi movies from the 50s again (sarcasm) .

 

[james bond]

Lee Strobel?

The documentary shows how he changed his mind through real science.

 

[james bond]

We've always had a lot of myths written about birds going back to ancient times. There are plenty of stories about dragons, dinosaurs of ancient times, too. There are no mythical stories of dinosaurs turning into birds

10 Truly Crazy Birds From World Mythology - Listverse

"After Alexander the Great invaded India he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave. Later Greek rulers supposedly brought dragons alive from Ethiopia. (Gould, Charles, Mythical Monsters, W.H. Allen & Co., London, 1886, pp. 382-383.) Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (“Dinosaur” entry) explains that the historical references to dinosaur bones may extend as far back as the 5th century BC. In fact, some scholars think that the Greek historian Herodotus was referring to fossilized dinosaur skeletons and eggs when he described griffins guarding nests in central Asia. “Dragon bones” mentioned in a 3rd century AD text from China are thought to refer to bones of dinosaurs.


Titus Flavius Josephus


Herodotus – “Father of History”

Ancient explorers and historians, like Josephus, told of small flying reptiles in ancient Egypt and Arabia and described their predators, the ibis, stopping their invasion into Egypt. (Epstein, Perle S., Monsters: Their Histories, Homes, and Habits, 1973, p.43.) A third century historian Gaius Solinus, discussed the Arabian flying serpents, and stated that “the poison is so quick that death follows before pain can be felt.” (Cobbin, Ingram, Condensed Commentary and Family Exposition on the Whole Bible, 1837, p. 171.) The well-respected Greek researcher Herodotus wrote: “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.” (Herodotus, Historiae, tr. Henry Clay, 1850, pp. 75-76.) This is a remarkable description of a pterosaur! In his third volume Herodotus goes on to tell how these animals could sometimes be found in the Arabian spice groves. He describes their size, coloration, and reproduction. It seems that venomous flying serpents were infamous for living in frankincense trees. When workers wanted to gather the tree’s incense, they would employ putrid smoke to drive the flying reptiles away. (Note the illustration below to the the right.) Herodotus has been called “the Father of History” because he was the first historian we know who collected his materials systematically and then tested them for accuracy. John Goertzen noted the Egyptian representation of tail vanes with flying reptiles and concluded that they must have observed pterosaurs or they would not have known to sketch this leaf-shaped tail. (Goertzen, J.C., “Shadows of Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaurs in Ancient Egypt and Nubia,” Cryptozoology, Vol 13, 1998.)"

Dragons in History | Genesis Park

 

[cnm]

Seek help.