Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[bripat9643]

"Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."

Well that is all good and well since no one can use science to prove something that is beyond nature or science, and cannot disprove it either.

What it can do is prove that all theories about some supernatural creator are absurd.

Bullshit, or else morons like Richard Dawkins would not be able to shut up about it.

Science cannot prove anything outside the natural realm or disprove it.

Now go back to the kiddie table.

There is nothing outside the natural realm other than your fantasies. If it can't be discussed scientifically, then it's a fairy tale. If a scientist can't know, then neither can you.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is constantly talking about the implausibility of claims about a supernatural creator.

 

[alang1216]

We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest. They discovered a whale in the Himalayas. Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol.

Just making stuff up? No scientist believes whales walked to the Himalayas or can you provide a link? Of course you can't.

Just for the record, the fish, crustaceans, and whales on top of Mt. Everest were fossilized underwater, they are found in marine sediments, and elevated as Tibet was elevated, just like it is still doing today.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false. I'm not repeating anything. We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.

Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory

Fossil of Microraptor gui includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)

Meh. That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils. That feather is way too large for the microraptor. Keep trying.

ROFL! So you're saying that the fossil lies?

Can you provide a link to something that supports your accusations?

Microraptor - Wikipedia​

Microraptor was among the most abundant non-avialan dinosaurs in its ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[2]​

Real science shows that fossils were mostly that of marine animals. We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest. They discovered a whale in the Himalayas. Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol. Dinosaur and bird fossils just show where they died. It does not mean they are connected. We know from historical and anthropoligical evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs. All you have is made up paleontological evidence which fits the common ancestor theory. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

It's hard to fathom the pile of bullshit you posted. Not a single sentence of your post is a fact.

The "common ancestry theory" is called evolution. There's nothing "made up" about what I posted. Those are actual fossils. They are facts.

You're the one who is making things up. Furthermore, what you make up is so absurd that even grade school children would laugh at it.

Your fossil is the bullsh*t.

"Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.New Scientist 128(1745):30, 1990.">7 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!8"

Where are all the human fossils - creation.com

Even if true, you proved exactly nothing.

By the way, a single bone is not a skeleton. So there must be many times more bones in storage than the ones that are included in the 2100 skeletons on display.

There are many fossils that are not in museums. For instance, there were thousands of fossil skeletons preserved in the ash from a Yellowstone eruption

Ashfall Fossil Beds - Wikipedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.

I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.

We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.

 

[bripat9643]

However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.

I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.

We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.

No, we actually don't know that. Whether the big bang occurred is one thing. Whether the singularity occurred is another. The two are not synonymous.

 

[james bond]

We're working to prove your claims right now.
After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.

I already showed you were a liar claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million. Why should anyone believe you? Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers. I already said that, too. What kind of idiot are you?

Rabbit - Diversity and conservation status

The family Leporidae (rabbits and hares) has been relatively unchanged since the Eocene Epoch about 40 million years ago, when its fossil record first became well documented.​

My rabbit is earlier and larger at 53 million years ago. It probably lived with the dinosaurs and humans. Does this destroy your evolution?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is nothing outside the natural realm other than your fantasies. If it can't be discussed scientifically, then it's a fairy tale. If a scientist can't know, then neither can you.

Lol, so if we lived in 1600, radio waves couldn't exist because the science at that time could not affirm they existed?

And there cant be other universes either since that is supernatural to our naturalistic Universe, roflmao

Also, is mathematics outside of the natural realm or not?

lolol

BTW, Richard Dawkins is constantly talking about the implausibility of claims about a supernatural creator.

Dawkins talks out of his colon. There is no science that proves God cannot exist or is absurd.

If you have such evidence show it, don't just run your mouth about it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.

I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.

We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.

No, we actually don't know that. Whether the big bang occurred is one thing. Whether the singularity occurred is another. The two are not synonymous.

I don't believe that material singularities are actually plausible since time is altered as one approaches the singularity.

The point is TIME BEGAN somewhere in the past. Time is not eternal.

 

[james bond]

I think what I've shown is the scarcity of evidence of birds from dinosaurs shows they didn't have feathers and its the evos taking a small percentage of what was found and blowing it up to make a case of birds are dinosaurs. They don't even stop to think that it could the common sense notion of where the animals died. Anyway, I think we can put this BS to reast. Moreover, the birds could not breathe if they descended from theropods. They also would not run the way they do today as knee runners. Not upper leg runners like the theropods. I also showed why we should teach creation science instead of secular or atheist fake science. We can go back to enjoying scary dinosaurs with skin again. I hope Jurassic Park series do not believe the dumb paleontologists and continue on with how it was thousands of years ago.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"? All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends. Among American Indians alone there are many. I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes. We get ours from the Torah. My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'. This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic. Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.

God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.

All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.

God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.

 

[bripat9643]

We're working to prove your claims right now.
After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.

I already showed you were a liar claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million. Why should anyone believe you? Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers. I already said that, too. What kind of idiot are you?

Rabbit - Diversity and conservation status

The family Leporidae (rabbits and hares) has been relatively unchanged since the Eocene Epoch about 40 million years ago, when its fossil record first became well documented.​

My rabbit is earlier and larger at 53 million years ago. It probably lived with the dinosaurs and humans. Does this destroy your evolution?

What the hell is "your rabbit?" I cited the known facts. Anything else is pure moonshine. How does making things up that no one believes prove your theory of creation?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"? All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends. Among American Indians alone there are many. I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes. We get ours from the Torah. My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'. This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic. Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.

God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.

All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.

God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.

It's not a fact. It's a myth.

 

[bripat9643]

However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.

I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.

We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.

No, we actually don't know that. Whether the big bang occurred is one thing. Whether the singularity occurred is another. The two are not synonymous.

I don't believe that material singularities are actually plausible since time is altered as one approaches the singularity.

The point is TIME BEGAN somewhere in the past. Time is not eternal.

Sorry, but none of your suppositions have been proven. As I mentioned previously, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity. That means time may not have had a beginning.

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing outside the natural realm other than your fantasies. If it can't be discussed scientifically, then it's a fairy tale. If a scientist can't know, then neither can you.

Lol, so if we lived in 1600, radio waves couldn't exist because the science at that time could not affirm they existed?

And there cant be other universes either since that is supernatural to our naturalistic Universe, roflmao

Also, is mathematics outside of the natural realm or not?

lolol

BTW, Richard Dawkins is constantly talking about the implausibility of claims about a supernatural creator.

Dawkins talks out of his colon. There is no science that proves God cannot exist or is absurd.

If you have such evidence show it, don't just run your mouth about it.

Nope. Note that I said "if it can't be discussed scientifically." We have always had the ability to to discuss radio waves and other universes. We were just too ignorant in 1600 to know about them. I'm a child of 5 and I never heard of China, does that mean China doesn't exist? Obviously not.

You just said that God cannot be proven, so why are you even talking about it? If he can't be proven to exist, then nothing you say about him is justified. You can't make any claims about him whatsoever.

However, there is plenty of logic that says a supernatural creator is absurd. The fact that you say we can't know anything about him and then proceed to tell us about him is a contradiction. It's absurd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're working to prove your claims right now.
After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.

I already showed you were a liar claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million. Why should anyone believe you? Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers. I already said that, too. What kind of idiot are you?

I already showed you were a liar claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old

You're lying.
You posted a link which you thought had proof of rabbits 53 million years ago.
When I read your link, it discussed a rabbit from 3-5 million years ago.
I made no claim of rabbits at all. Just pointed out your error (lie?).

rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.

Yes, your second link actually pointed out a rabbit ancestor from 53 million years ago.
Ironic, a creationist pointing out that something from 53 million years ago evolved into current rabbits.

Why should anyone believe you?

Coming from the guy who thinks the pre-Cambrian was 53 million years ago, that's funny!

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"? All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends. Among American Indians alone there are many. I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes. We get ours from the Torah. My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'. This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic. Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.

God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.

All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.

God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.

It's not a fact. It's a myth.

Atheist and God Haters have an agenda and are biased

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"? All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends. Among American Indians alone there are many. I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes. We get ours from the Torah. My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'. This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic. Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.

God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.

All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.

God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.

It's not a fact. It's a myth.

Atheist and God Haters have an agenda and are biased

And you don't have an agenda? Truth is my agenda.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope. Note that I said "if it can't be discussed scientifically." We have always had the ability to discuss radio waves and other universes. We were just too ignorant in 1600 to know about them.

That's my point. Our ignorance in various subjects should not imply some kind of categorical limit. If you described 'invisible light' to a scientist of the 17th century they would say you are talking fantasy. Given hind-sight we know that is not true, but it would not be discernable at that time.

I'm a child of 5 and I never heard of China, does that mean China doesn't exist? Obviously not.

Hmmm, that is not what I was suggesting.

You just said that God cannot be proven, so why are you even talking about it? If he can't be proven to exist, then nothing you say about him is justified. You can't make any claims about him whatsoever.

I said one cannot prove God via Science, but there are other means to knowledge outside of science. Mathematics, philosophy, theology, logic, etc all can be used to attain Truth.

However, there is plenty of logic that says a supernatural creator is absurd. The fact that you say we can't know anything about him and then proceed to tell us about him is a contradiction. It's absurd.

OK, what logic says God is absurd, that is the Creator, not Thor, lol.

 

[james bond]

What the hell is "your rabbit?" I cited the known facts. Anything else is pure moonshine. How does making things up that no one believes prove your theory of creation?

Do you not know who evolutionary biologist and geneticist, JBS Haldane, is and his famous rabbit quote was? He was asked what would convince him evolution was false. I wonder if he's spinning in his grave now.

'“J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!’” (Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, 2009, p. 147.) While certainly not Precambrian, a fossilized rabbit discovered in India is supposed to be 53 million years old, quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive. (Handwerk, B., “Easter Surprise: World’s Oldest Rabbit Bones Found,” National Geographic News, March 21, 2008.)'

“Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park

 

[james bond]

And you don't have an agenda? Truth is my agenda.

Truth may be your agenda, but it appears that you made some mistakes. For example, the two experiments to counter Miller-Urey and abiogenesis destroyed life forming in primordial soup in geyers. If it was a lightening strike and a sparker was used in Miller-Urey, then it likely would have exploded. What were the gases present in the early atmosphere? Do you want to try the Miller-Urey experiment online to see if you are successful in creating amino acids? The other evos and atheists were too scared to try I guess.

Miller-Urey Experiment

All of this is explained in my video in post #1.