Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist. So what exactly do you believe?as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,All?? Who is this 'all'? Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country. Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life
you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.
Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.
If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.
I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.
What are your facts, and where do they lead?
Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.
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.
It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.Creation should be taught as a fantasy
Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method? You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
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.
No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
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.
No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.
If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.
I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.
What are your facts, and where do they lead?
Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.
View attachment 276375
Good. I think anthropologists like paleontologists are indoctrinated in evolution. Thus, you are biased from the get go. I have an MBA and Bachelor's in computer science, so life sciences are not my field, but I learned how to think critically in HS and at college. I already presented my argument in the OP. Let's see what your presented so far in rebuttal.
You didn't like the supernatural, but I'm only using it relating to the first two books of Genesis. We aren't talking miracles Jesus performed like turning water into wine. No experiment can replicate that and you won't believe it unless you were there, so let's get that out of the way.
Next, you admitted you didn't read my link nor watch the vid, so you're out. Why should I waste my time with your points when you fail to listen to mine but just chime in with your bias? It doesn't sound like someone who got an anthro degree at a university. Where did you go?
Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
Creation 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.
No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
Not the first two books of Genesis. You didn't watch the vid either.
It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.Creation should be taught as a fantasy
Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method? You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
Creation science is not supported by the scientific method in any way. Your trolling is pretty poor.
It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.Creation should be taught as a fantasy
Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method? You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
Evolution isn't supported by science either.
Just a theory
It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.Creation should be taught as a fantasy
Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method? You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
Evolution isn't supported by science either.
Just a theory
Exactly..
Love ..
Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.
If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.
I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.
What are your facts, and where do they lead?
Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.
View attachment 276375
Good. I think anthropologists like paleontologists are indoctrinated in evolution. Thus, you are biased from the get go. I have an MBA and Bachelor's in computer science, so life sciences are not my field, but I learned how to think critically in HS and at college. I already presented my argument in the OP. Let's see what your presented so far in rebuttal.
You didn't like the supernatural, but I'm only using it relating to the first two books of Genesis. We aren't talking miracles Jesus performed like turning water into wine. No experiment can replicate that and you won't believe it unless you were there, so let's get that out of the way.
Next, you admitted you didn't read my link nor watch the vid, so you're out. Why should I waste my time with your points when you fail to listen to mine but just chime in with your bias? It doesn't sound like someone who got an anthro degree at a university. Where did you go?
She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot. The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later. But she was on her hind legs. That's big.I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.Poor James
They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
try again
dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
Lucy was just a small ape.
It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.Creation should be taught as a fantasy
Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method? You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
Evolution isn't supported by science either.
Just a theory
Exactly..
Love ..
Love is a theory, but is it?
She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot. The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later. But she was on her hind legs. That's big.I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.Poor James
They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
Lucy was just a small ape.
She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot. The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later. But she was on her hind legs. That's big.I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.Poor James
They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
Lucy was just a small ape.
Exactly.. you didn't learn it..It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method? You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
Evolution isn't supported by science either.
Just a theory
Exactly..
Love ..
Love is a theory, but is it?
No love is real... I'm immersed in it with my family.
