Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Lysistrata]

Wrong, as always. Atheism is lack of belief. It's not a religion.

It is a religion. You just don't know. Thus, you are wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

And you pathetic fundies are right? Why do you idiots try to shove your pathetic, prostituted variation of Christianity on all of us? Don't you have any pride or dignity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection. That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.

Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken. This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.

Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed. Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.

What are your 3 favorite examples of this?

First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours. That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB. You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others. IOW, you are a simpleton.

Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.

1. Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps. Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory. The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.

2. Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life. His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere. Thus, no amino acids could form. Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup. Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life. They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present. Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?

3. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe. Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.

What are yours for evolution?

Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method

He did that. Creation science did not do that.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation

Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.

Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.

Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?

 

[james bond]

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection. That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.

Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken. This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.

Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed. Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.

What are your 3 favorite examples of this?

First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours. That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB. You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others. IOW, you are a simpleton.

Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.

1. Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps. Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory. The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.

2. Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life. His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere. Thus, no amino acids could form. Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup. Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life. They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present. Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?

3. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe. Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.

What are yours for evolution?

Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method

He did that. Creation science did not do that.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation

Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.

Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.

Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?

Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead.. You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection. That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.

Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken. This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.

Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed. Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.

What are your 3 favorite examples of this?

First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours. That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB. You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others. IOW, you are a simpleton.

Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.

1. Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps. Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory. The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.

2. Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life. His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere. Thus, no amino acids could form. Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup. Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life. They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present. Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?

3. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe. Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.

What are yours for evolution?

Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method

He did that. Creation science did not do that.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation

Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.

Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.

Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?

Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead.. You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.

If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.

 

[bripat9643]

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection. That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.

Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken. This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.

Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed. Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.

What are your 3 favorite examples of this?

First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours. That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB. You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others. IOW, you are a simpleton.

Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.

1. Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps. Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory. The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.

2. Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life. His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere. Thus, no amino acids could form. Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup. Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life. They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present. Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?

3. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe. Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.

What are yours for evolution?

Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method

He did that. Creation science did not do that.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation

Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.

Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.

Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?

Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead.. You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?

 

[cnm]

But by definition, the *cause* of the universe coming into being *must* be extra-natural or super-natural as a thing cannot cause itself, and anything outside our universe is 'extra-natural' therefore whatever caused the universe is extra-natural.

We do not know that. You do not know that. You cannot provide evidence for those assertions. You are filling with gods the gaps in your knowledge that make you fearful.

 

[Hollie]

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection. That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.

Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken. This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.

Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed. Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?

Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.

What are your 3 favorite examples of this?

First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours. That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB. You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others. IOW, you are a simpleton.

Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.

1. Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps. Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory. The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.

2. Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life. His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere. Thus, no amino acids could form. Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup. Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life. They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present. Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?

3. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe. Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.

What are yours for evolution?

Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method

He did that. Creation science did not do that.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation

Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.

Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.

Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?

Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead.. You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.

Creation science is simply religious fundamentalism under a burqa of false labels.

You need to spend some time and actually learn some science if you're going to rail against it. There is no disagreement among the relevant science community that biological organisms evolve, that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is far older. Your revulsion for science is focused on those particular elements.

Science is based on observational, testable evidence. This is different from religion, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, science comes from evidence, while religion uses evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the holy text de jour).

Theism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (floods, miracles and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book(s))-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Theism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

You Harun Yahya clones are a danger to yourselves.

 

[cnm]

Creation science is simply religious fundamentalism under a burqa of false labels.

Hoho, the hijab of hypocrisy...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?[/QUOTE]
If 'Creation Science' was framed as the pursuit of science topics that suggest a Creator may have designed the universe or kicked off the Big Bang, it might have validity.

But Naturalistic Science cannot PROVE a Creator because it is outside its realm of application, hence an internally flawed oxymoron.

 

[danielpalos]

we cannot teach any Thing as science if we don't understand it.

 

[bripat9643]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

The couple of times I've talked to students about early hominds, "Neanderthal man" and the theory of all humans evolving and spreading out of Africa, I explain that there is another belief system by some Christians, that of Creationism, which holds that God created the world.

But that's pretty much all I know about it, so if a student ever asked for more information about it, I'd have to refer them to their minister.

Science raises a whole slew of questions about what happened to cause the Big Bang; what came 'before' the flow of space time.

But there is no 'before' the beginning of time, and so science has no answers and I doubt it will be abler to offer anything more than a wild guess for another century or two.

But by definition, the *cause* of the universe coming into being *must* be extra-natural or super-natural as a thing cannot cause itself, and anything outside our universe is 'extra-natural' therefore whatever caused the universe is extra-natural.

But science cannot answer this question as it must remain within the naturalistic assumptions/framework.

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..

What caused God?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What caused God?

God is outside the flow of time, so it is impossible for anything to 'cause' the Creator.

The is no 'before' to allow for cause.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?

If 'Creation Science' was framed as the pursuit of science topics that suggest a Creator may have designed the universe or kicked off the Big Bang, it might have validity.

But Naturalistic Science cannot PROVE a Creator because it is outside its realm of application, hence an internally flawed oxymoron.

"Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator." What it can do is prove that all theories about some supernatural creator are absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

What caused God?

God is outside the flow of time, so it is impossible for anything to 'cause' the Creator.

The is no 'before' to allow for cause.

A theory with no visible means of support.

 

[james bond]

If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.

GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out. You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces. Absolutely disgusting!

We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times. That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks). From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse. We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs. Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory? What kind of evidence did you provide? What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location? What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location? It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals. Even the size difference is tremendous. What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits. We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .

 

[james bond]

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?

That's what I have been saying about birds are not dinosaurs (BAND), and why people need to learn real science in public schools.

 

[bripat9643]

If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.

GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out. You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces. Absolutely disgusting!

We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times. That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks). From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse. We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs. Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory? What kind of evidence did you provide? What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location? What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location? It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals. Even the size difference is tremendous. What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits. We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .

You only proved that you don't know a thing about dinosaurs. Plenty of fossils of feathered dinosaurs. The feathers were fossilized, not just the "skin follicles." The rest of your tripe is even more absurd and wrong. The facts are practically the exact opposite of what you posted.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?

That's what I have been saying about birds are not dinosaurs (BAND), and why people need to learn real science in public schools.

You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.

GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out. You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces. Absolutely disgusting!

We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times. That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks). From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse. We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs. Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory? What kind of evidence did you provide? What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location? What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location? It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals. Even the size difference is tremendous. What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits. We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .

GP already did,

You're lying.

We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.

So that means Genesis explains all of science?

What kind of evidence did you provide?

You made the claim that.....

"Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method"

How can the scientific method show that Genesis correctly describes how life appeared on Earth?

It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.

Which Bible passage explains how they're different?

What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.

So you still don't know the time frame of pre-Cambrian, do you?

 

[james bond]

We do not know that. You do not know that. You cannot provide evidence for those assertions. You are filling with gods the gaps in your knowledge that make you fearful.

We do have evidence in that quantum particles need space and time to form and move. Even Stephen Hawking admitted this. Oops. Thus, we could not have universe ex nihilo. God is timeless and spaceless so can do creation ex nihilo. Universe ex nihilo led to the Big Bang Theory. Before that, it was the eternal universe and creation science showed it was pseudoscience with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Also, we found gravitation waves in observation.

What kind of idiot are you? You are the dumbest mf'er I have seen on USMB. And you're the one who insisted birds ARE dinosaurs causing the Is This Evidence for Satan thread -- Is This Evidence For Satan?

Moreover, Hawking could not explain why his big bang could happen violating the laws of physics. He tried to come up with the theory of everything, but failed. Thus, he and other atheist physicists went to the multiverse hypothesis. He died before he could find the evidence he claims exists. I would venture to guess all of the atheists/agnostics here will die like this. They will die believing in their fake science and you know what that means according to creation science . It's not worth it for beliving in stuff like universe ex nihilo and birds ARE dinosaurs as you claimed.