Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Wyatt earp]

I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,

Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.

And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.

or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,

sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock

You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims

No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.

Oh we have three species on earth

Liberals who came from monkeys

Grays.

And created conservatives

True story

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Which creation theory should be taught? Around the world, there must be hundreds. Let science be taught as science in our public schools, and creation stories from the world's religions be taught in classes on comparative religion.

 

[Frannie]

I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,

Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.

And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.

or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,

sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock

You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims

No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.

Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

Who wrote the bible?

 

[Frannie]

or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,

sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock

You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims

No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.

but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,

Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!

Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "



~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

 

[Frannie]

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.

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

Who wrote the bible?

This clown believes that the big bang is in the bible

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

Who wrote the bible?

This clown believes that the big bang is in the bible

How did you come to this conclusion?

The BIG BANG may have been when the Holy Ghost banged Mary.

 

[Frannie]

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.

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

Who wrote the bible?

This clown believes that the big bang is in the bible

How did you come to this conclusion?

The BIG BANG may have been when the Holy Ghost banged Mary.

Nope according to Bond the big bang happened about 4000 years before that particular bang

 

[otto105]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

 

[Frannie]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

 

[progressive hunter]

You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims

No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.

but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,

Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!

Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "



~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

when that happens you let us know,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

correction:
they THINK they know where it came from

 

[Frannie]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

correction:
they THINK they know where it came from

I do wish you knew what you believed

 

[otto105]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

The previous post is rated Dumb.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

correction:
they THINK they know where it came from

I do wish you knew what you believed

i;M STILL SEARCHING,,,nothing wrong with that

 

[Frannie]

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 is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh

The previous post is rated Dumb.

Nope global warming is clearly a religion based on morons interpreting what they think is science

 

[Third Party]

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. My Biology teacher in high school said she was going to teach us evolution but she did not believe in it. She was a Catholic, I a Protestant and at least one jew in the class. Evolution was the same for everybody, but the religious approach would have been all over the map.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.

And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.

or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,

sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock

You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims

No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.

See post #144. Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from? It wasn't a giraffe.

I am referring to monkeys/apes as we know them today. Humans descended differently than the monkeys and apes we see today. We didn’t come from monkeys, although we may have common ancestry.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims

No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.

but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,

Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!

Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "



~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

Darwin’s letter to Hooker is not the same as Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is his theory of evolution. Look, any numbskull who wants to deny evolution is ok with me. It just shows dogmatic religious ignorance, but there really is no harm in it.

I suppose God created all the different types of dog breeds, even though we are creating more breeds still......hmmm, hows that work.

 

[james bond]

Why would I show you our common ancestor? You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones. To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say. You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.

A pile of dead bones is the way the public took Lucy. Nobody wanted to pay to see it and thus ended up back where it belongs.

It's really what you say these fossils are. Instead of saying this animal died here, you make up stuff to fit a fairy tale.