Creationism and evolution.

[bhsmte]

No. I did not say that.
I said people WANT to ban it.

I have never heard of any efforts to ban people from believing in creationism. Do you have any sources?

 

[juvenissun]

Show me then how scientists who study the planets, use creationism philosophies in their work.

They don't. So even they can dig the planet inside out (like on the earth), they still DO NOT KNOW the origin of ANY planet.

 

[juvenissun]

I have never heard of any efforts to ban people from believing in creationism. Do you have any sources?

Many schools have already banned the "teaching" of creationism.

 

[bhsmte]

Many schools have already banned the "teaching" of creationism.

In science class.

Back to square one, show me creationism is science and it will be taught in science class.

 

[bhsmte]

They don't. So even they can dig the planet inside out (like on the earth), they still DO NOT KNOW the origin of ANY planet.

You are not making sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not just teach biology sans evolution or creation(ism) and let the students decide for themselves which is more likely?

Do you really think that science in the real world is determined by 9th graders who know nothing about it?

Here is an idea. Why not teach them the science they will need to know in order to pursue a career in the sciences. Teach them the theories they will need to know in order to understand the latest scientific findings. Teach them the theories they will need to apply if they ever become a geneticist or anatomist.

As it turns out, absolutely no one uses ID/creationism in the real world of science. This isn't because 100% of scientists are atheists. Rather, ID/creationism is a scientific dead end. It starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and ends nowhere. You can't produce a single useful hypothesis from it. However, evolution is a theory that easily produces testable hypotheses and forms the foundation of research in biology departments across the globe.

If you want creationism taught in science class, then show that it is science. If you can't do that, you have no room to complain.

"Natural selection" is just as mysterious as God's spiritual creative force. Biology was successfully taught long before the ToE arrived on the scene.

Both empty claims.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you really think that science in the real world is determined by 9th graders who know nothing about it?

Here is an idea. Why not teach them the science they will need to know in order to pursue a career in the sciences. Teach them the theories they will need to know in order to understand the latest scientific findings. Teach them the theories they will need to apply if they ever become a geneticist or anatomist.

As it turns out, absolutely no one uses ID/creationism in the real world of science. This isn't because 100% of scientists are atheists. Rather, ID/creationism is a scientific dead end. It starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and ends nowhere. You can't produce a single useful hypothesis from it. However, evolution is a theory that easily produces testable hypotheses and forms the foundation of research in biology departments across the globe.

If you want creationism taught in science class, then show that it is science. If you can't do that, you have no room to complain.



Both empty claims.

Why would the study of biology change if it were the result of special creation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would the study of biology change if it were the result of special creation?

First, we wouldn't use phylogenies in biology which would be a massive change. We wouldn't use algorithms like SIFTER:

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. . . Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16217548​

We would have to throw genetics and anatomy out the window.

Of course, this is like asking what we would do in physics if the gods were the ones moving the planets about.

 

[justlookinla]

The issue isn't about teaching the areas of science which is based on the scientific method, the issue is teaching a worldview in which humanity is the result of ONLY naturalistic mechanisms....which isn't based on the scientific method and is nothing more than pseudo-science.

 

[juvenissun]

In science class.

Back to square one, show me creationism is science and it will be taught in science class.

I have answered this question. Creationism is not science, but is critical to science.
Don't make me say it again.

 

[bhsmte]

I have answered this question. Creationism is not science, but is critical to science.
Don't make me say it again.

You can say whatever you like as many times as you like.

The problem is; you have yet to show why creationism is critical to science.

 

[juvenissun]

You are not making sense.

This kind of response disappointed me. If it happened enough times, I may not want to talk to you again. I rather you be silent than giving this useless comment.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have answered this question. Creationism is not science, but is critical to science.
Don't make me say it again.

How is it critical to science?

 

[juvenissun]

You can say whatever you like as many times as you like.

The problem is; you have yet to show why creationism is critical to science.

I use the Pluto as an example, and I thought you got it. It seems I made an overestimation.

 

[bhsmte]

I use the Pluto as an example, and I thought you got it. It seems I made an overestimation.

Get what?

Show how astronomers use creationism in their work.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except that evolution is not a religion, but respected part of the biological sciences acknowledged by every credible university in existence. Whilst creationism is only acknowledged by the religious, and even then many Christians and those of other faiths recognise the fact that evolution is a science, even if some dispute what it tells us about how life has developed over time.

But that's not correct. Evolution leaves all the "creation" process to the imaginary god abiogenesis, and the creation of the universe to the imaginary god on the other side of the big bang.

Evolution simply turns away from the topic of origins and blissfully pleads ignorance like nuns in a convent.

 

[juvenissun]

Get what?

Show how astronomers use creationism in their work.

They can praise the Creator while they work.
This would be a critical thing to do when they start a Mars mission.

 

[Loudmouth]

But that's not correct. Evolution leaves all the "creation" process to the imaginary god abiogenesis,

Abiogenesis isn't a god, and the theory of evolution works equally well with a supernatural or natural origin to the first life.

Why do creationists try to discredit evolution by making it look like their religious beliefs?

 

[Loudmouth]

They can praise the Creator while they work.
This would be a critical thing to do when they start a Mars mission.

Why would it be critical? Do they have to sacrifice a bull to Zeus as well?

 

[bhsmte]

They can praise the Creator while they work.
This would be a critical thing to do when they start a Mars mission.

Show how they incorporate it into their science. Do you see any of their peer reviewed papers citing creationism?