Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[dblack]

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution. It's as simple as that. There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science. Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed. Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism. Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution. Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust. Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood. Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE. He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked. You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been. Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong. My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do. We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did. Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did. If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.

I have no idea why you post your link. Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it? Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?

Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method,

How do you figure that?

The monotheism of Christianity was arguably responsible for the ”one reality” premise of science.

 

[james bond]

You bought into the fraud of Archaeoraptor. Science did not. The alleged fossil discovery of Archaeoraptor was published in National Geographic, not in peer-reviewed journals.

Stop making excuses and own your frauds and mistakes. The people who were involved were evolutionists. The museum put up the money and contacted their people. Instead of admitting that someone put a stop to it, it just festered and grew even larger. I think it shows that evos take the evidence and fit it to their their theory. The evidence was so good that they did not want to stop it. They just wanted their "faith based" science to be true. Wiki states, "Archosauria, the archosaur clade, is a crown group that includes the most recent common ancestor of living birds and crocodilians and all of its descendants." Archosaur - Wikipedia

Put it together with all the other frauds and with every contradiction against what God said in the Bible. Is that evidence for Satan? What other contradictions will come from birds are dinosaurs? Birds are land animals?

 

[james bond]

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution. It's as simple as that. There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science. Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed. Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism. Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution. Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust. Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood. Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE. He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked. You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been. Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong. My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do. We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did. Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did. If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.

I have no idea why you post your link. Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it? Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?

Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method,

How do you figure that?

Because you are ignorant -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.

How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?

I already answered your questions with two sources. Can I help it if you won't accept it?

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?

Non sequitur means you continue to make mistakes. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

 

[james bond]

Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day. This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.

We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon. The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23

The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs. Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals. Thus it fits the days of creation chart. Science backs up the Bible. Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird? God states they are flying animals. How does this work for the evos?

Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.

 

[Hollie]

You bought into the fraud of Archaeoraptor. Science did not. The alleged fossil discovery of Archaeoraptor was published in National Geographic, not in peer-reviewed journals.

Stop making excuses and own your frauds and mistakes. The people who were involved were evolutionists. The museum put up the money and contacted their people. Instead of admitting that someone put a stop to it, it just festered and grew even larger. I think it shows that evos take the evidence and fit it to their their theory. The evidence was so good that they did not want to stop it. They just wanted their "faith based" science to be true. Wiki states, "Archosauria, the archosaur clade, is a crown group that includes the most recent common ancestor of living birds and crocodilians and all of its descendants." Archosaur - Wikipedia

Put it together with all the other frauds and with every contradiction against what God said in the Bible. Is that evidence for Satan? What other contradictions will come from birds are dinosaurs? Birds are land animals?

You need to stop promoting your frauds. The fact is, Archaeoraptor was not promoted by the science community.

And yes, science will contradict the Bibles. Science tells us the planet is not flat and that the planet is far older than a mere 6,000 years. You have problems with those facts because they contradict a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

Learn to, you know, evolve and adapt.

 

[Hollie]

Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day. This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.

We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon. The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23

The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs. Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals. Thus it fits the days of creation chart. Science backs up the Bible. Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird? God states they are flying animals. How does this work for the evos?

Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.

Cartoons and false renderings of planetary history (derived from religious cult followers), are not matters for the public schools.

Why It's Unconstitutional to Teach "Intelligent Design" in the Public Schools, as an Alternative to Evolution | FindLaw

 

[Hollie]

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution. It's as simple as that. There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science. Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed. Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism. Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution. Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust. Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood. Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE. He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked. You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been. Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong. My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do. We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did. Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did. If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.

I have no idea why you post your link. Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it? Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?

Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method,

How do you figure that?

Because you are ignorant -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.

How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?

I already answered your questions with two sources. Can I help it if you won't accept it?

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?

Non sequitur means you continue to make mistakes. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

Because you are ignorant, the fraud of “creation science” was a fairly recent invention by xtian extremists. The fraud of “scientific creationism” was an invention by xtian fundies as a way to try and introduce xtian indoctrination into the public schools. When that fraud was exposed, they changed the name of their cult doctrine to “intelligent design creationism”.

That also was thrown out by the courts.

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution. It's as simple as that. There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science. Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed. Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism. Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution. Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust. Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood. Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE. He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked. You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been. Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong. My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do. We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did. Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did. If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.

I have no idea why you post your link. Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it? Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?

Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method,

How do you figure that?

Because you are ignorant -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.

How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?

I already answered your questions with two sources. Can I help it if you won't accept it?

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?

Non sequitur means you continue to make mistakes. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

I already answered your questions with two sources. Can I help it if you won't accept it?

Your source that I excerpted said 3-5 million. Can I help it if you think that's the same as 53 million?

Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

So are you. Now, about that 53 million year old rabbit......Try again?

 

[james bond]

You need to stop promoting your frauds. The fact is, Archaeoraptor was not promoted by the science community.

And yes, science will contradict the Bibles. Science tells us the planet is not flat and that the planet is far older than a mere 6,000 years. You have problems with those facts because they contradict a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

Learn to, you know, evolve and adapt.

It was bought by a museum who did due diligence, but still didn't stop it. The guy admitted it himself. Why do you think it got published? Part of your problem is you cannot answer my questions to you? If you could, then you would come to a valid conclusion instead of having embarrassing occurrences happen to you. This is how someone debunks someone else's science. So far, the major frauds have been on the evolutionists side.

Czerkas, the museum's owner probably paid Rowe and Currie to keep quiet. Currie is a paleontologist and museum curator himself of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleonotolgy in Canada, so should have known better and disassociated himself with the finding. Tim Rowe is a paleontology professor, so he should have done the same, but maybe he didn't know about National Geographic being involved. He isn't as prominent as Currie saying he regretted not informing National Geographic.

Next, the fossil was rejected by bot Nature and Science for lack of peer review, but Czerkas and Currie allowed it to go forward for the fame, publicity, and money. They didn't inform National Geographic of its rejection from peer review. NG probably thought it was going to be peer reviewed and pass. They didn't do their due diligence and got burned.

"It should have stopped, right there. But, much to Czerkas' later regret, it didn't. Czerkas instead pressurized Rowe and Currie to keep their reservations quiet. Currie then got the fossil looked at by his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, who also noted that it seemed to be a composite of three to five different specimens. And, much to Currie's later regret, he never informed National Geographic of this. So, incredibly, the whole affair rumbles on.

The group then prepared a paper for Nature, which was flatly rejected as the group's time constraints meant that there wouldn't be enough time for peer review. Then, the paper was then resubmitted to Science, who also rejected it. This time, their reviewers spotted that on top of the fossil having been illegally imported, it had clearly been severely doctored to enhance its value.

I'll reiterate that: Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist.

Again, it should have stopped there. Two journals have rejected your find, and many people have expressed severe doubts over the validity of your fossil. But - and, God knows what went through their mind - they decided not to inform National Geographic of the paper rejections. On October 15, 1999 National Geographic unveiled the fossil, and decided to go ahead and publish the Archaeoraptor story in the November issue on the assumption that it would eventually be published in a peer reviewed paper."

I don't think I have to point this out to a grown adult interested in science and have to whip their arse in public. You are an embarrassment to intelligent posters interested in real science and technology on this forum. You, as a poster, reflect the values of too many on the evolution side who will do anything for a quick buck and fame. You do not even get paid. All you get is poster cred. In this case, you got b*llshit on your face. It is even more evidence of the lies of birds from dinosaurs.

 

[james bond]

So are you. Now, about that 53 million year old rabbit

LMAO . Why don't you just admit Genesis Park was right and you were wrong and cannot read? For the rest of the knowledgeable people here, here is the evidence to back GP -- LMGTFY. Knock yourself out.

 

[Hollie]

You need to stop promoting your frauds. The fact is, Archaeoraptor was not promoted by the science community.

And yes, science will contradict the Bibles. Science tells us the planet is not flat and that the planet is far older than a mere 6,000 years. You have problems with those facts because they contradict a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

Learn to, you know, evolve and adapt.

It was bought by a museum who did due diligence, but still didn't stop it. The guy admitted it himself. Why do you think it got published? Part of your problem is you cannot answer my questions to you? If you could, then you would come to a valid conclusion instead of having embarrassing occurrences happen to you. This is how someone debunks someone else's science. So far, the major frauds have been on the evolutionists side.

Czerkas, the museum's owner probably paid Rowe and Currie to keep quiet. Currie is a paleontologist and museum curator himself of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleonotolgy in Canada, so should have known better and disassociated himself with the finding. Tim Rowe is a paleontology professor, so he should have done the same, but maybe he didn't know about National Geographic being involved. He isn't as prominent as Currie saying he regretted not informing National Geographic.

Next, the fossil was rejected by bot Nature and Science for lack of peer review, but Czerkas and Currie allowed it to go forward for the fame, publicity, and money. They didn't inform National Geographic of its rejection from peer review. NG probably thought it was going to be peer reviewed and pass. They didn't do their due diligence and got burned.

"It should have stopped, right there. But, much to Czerkas' later regret, it didn't. Czerkas instead pressurized Rowe and Currie to keep their reservations quiet. Currie then got the fossil looked at by his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, who also noted that it seemed to be a composite of three to five different specimens. And, much to Currie's later regret, he never informed National Geographic of this. So, incredibly, the whole affair rumbles on.

The group then prepared a paper for Nature, which was flatly rejected as the group's time constraints meant that there wouldn't be enough time for peer review. Then, the paper was then resubmitted to Science, who also rejected it. This time, their reviewers spotted that on top of the fossil having been illegally imported, it had clearly been severely doctored to enhance its value.

I'll reiterate that: Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist.

Again, it should have stopped there. Two journals have rejected your find, and many people have expressed severe doubts over the validity of your fossil. But - and, God knows what went through their mind - they decided not to inform National Geographic of the paper rejections. On October 15, 1999 National Geographic unveiled the fossil, and decided to go ahead and publish the Archaeoraptor story in the November issue on the assumption that it would eventually be published in a peer reviewed paper."

I don't think I have to point this out to a grown adult interested in science and have to whip their arse in public. You are an embarrassment to intelligent posters interested in real science and technology on this forum. You, as a poster, reflect the values of too many on the evolution side who will do anything for a quick buck and fame. You do not even get paid. All you get is poster cred. In this case, you got b*llshit on your face. It is even more evidence of the lies of birds from dinosaurs.

Well thanks for this: "Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist."

So, we're back to questioning why you were adamant to insist that Archaeoraptor was a science fraud when the relevant science community never endorsed the alleged discovery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So are you. Now, about that 53 million year old rabbit

LMAO . Why don't you just admit Genesis Park was right and you were wrong and cannot read? For the rest of the knowledgeable people here, here is the evidence to back GP -- LMGTFY. Knock yourself out.

Let me know when you find proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. DURR

 

[james bond]

Let me know when you find proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. DURR

That's not what the GP article stated. Will you accept it as debunking evolution? The oldest rabbit fossil found so far is close enough. It should make you question what the evos are telling you. We also know humans lived with dinosaurs and that they were small enough to take aboard Noah's Ark. Evolution denied it before they started claiming birds are dinosaurs, so they cannot use the argument dinosaurs were too large anymore. We found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue still in them and they could be radiocarbon dated because C-14 was still present. They're not hundreds of millions of years old. Care to explain how that could happen?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me know when you find proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. DURR

That's not what the GP article stated. Will you accept it as debunking evolution? The oldest rabbit fossil found so far is close enough. It should make you question what the evos are telling you. We also know humans lived with dinosaurs and that they were small enough to take aboard Noah's Ark. Evolution denied it before they started claiming birds are dinosaurs, so they cannot use the argument dinosaurs were too large anymore. We found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue still in them and they could be radiocarbon dated because C-14 was still present. They're not hundreds of millions of years old. Care to explain how that could happen?

That's not what the GP article stated.

You posted an article, to back up a pre-Cambrian rabbit, about something 3-5 million years ago.
3-5 million years ago isn't pre-Cambrian.

Then, a rabbit ancestor (I guess it evolved since, eh?) 53 million years ago was pre-Cambrian.

Do you even know the time frame covered by "pre-Cambrian"? Post it.

 

[Lysistrata]

Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.

 

[james bond]

Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.

This is fallacy by generalization. We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion. ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science. One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died. The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions. This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. They base their science on religion of atheism. OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable. Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy. So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion." Birds from dinosaurs is a myth. You do not even have any evidence disproving God.

 

[Hollie]

Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.

This is fallacy by generalization. We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion. ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science. One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died. The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions. This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. They base their science on religion of atheism. OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable. Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy. So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion." Birds from dinosaurs is a myth. You do not even have any evidence disproving God.

I have evidence disproving your gods. You do not even have any evidence disproving my disproof.

 

[Hollie]

Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.

This is fallacy by generalization. We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion. ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science. One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died. The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions. This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. They base their science on religion of atheism. OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable. Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy. So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion." Birds from dinosaurs is a myth. You do not even have any evidence disproving God.

Birds from donosaurs a myth? That's what they teach you at the Watchtower Bible Society but the scientific evidence tells us otherwise.


CC214.1.1: Archaeopteryx a bird?

 

[james bond]

I have evidence disproving your gods. You do not even have any evidence disproving my disproof.

I can imagine seeing the veins pop out of your neck. You could not disprove Satan and his rebellious nature by contradicting everything God said in Genesis ch. 1 & 2. This is another contradiction as God created animals that fly such as birds on the fifth day. Land animals were the sixth day. Are you going to go for another contradiction by saying birds are land animals? We have some nutzos that believe this, again circular reasoning, but flightless birds could just be via natural selection. Variations within a species is part of God's design. It's another evidence for God.

 

[Lysistrata]

Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.

This is fallacy by generalization. We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion. ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science. One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died. The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions. This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. They base their science on religion of atheism. OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable. Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy. So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion." Birds from dinosaurs is a myth. You do not even have any evidence disproving God.

This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. Atheism is not a "religion," you twit. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." You cult people are such a bunch of fools. You are trying to wreck our educational system so that we become a third-world country full of the ignorant. BTW: which god? Every civilization has a creation myth.

It is evident that you have fallen into the idiotic belief that the bible is inerrant and infallible, brought to us by the stupid side of protestantism.