Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Brightmoon]

Baraminology is pseudoscience. They have these arbitrary breaks in the family tree . They break off humans at a few species and wrongly put other members of the Hominidae in another baramin. Even that is arbitrary as some creationists don’t consider Neanderthals to be human.

 

[jamesbond007]

It would help a lot if you understood the fossils or the terminology you constantly ,unendingly and ignorantly complain about. Transitional doesn’t have to mean direct ancestors. It could mean distant cousin . Archaeopteryx is a transitional . It might or might not be a direct ancestor of modern birds. Arboreal just means that they lived in trees.

Why don't you answer my questions:
1. When are you going to claim birds are land animals and not flying animals of the air like God stated in Genesis?
2. Does the archosaur fit that description (of being arboreal)? You're the one who said Feduccia thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs.
3. Your reply does not fit my reply and questions to you. Thus, you'll have to explain what the transitions are. I explained that Fedducia said birds descended from arboreal animals. He found most of the theropod to birds fossils were 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. How could they be common ancestors then?
4. Feduccia also said birds feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than to help catch insects. How is the latter related to dinosaurs?

You may not be able to answer all my questions because you're not an ornithologist.

To this post, what terminologies are you saying that I a misusing? Is it from the OSU study? I would think you would address what they found. When you say Archaeopteryx is a transitional, where does it fall in your transition from earlier to later? It would help to have an idea of a few of your transitions as earlier birds before Archaopteryx were found by Chinese discoverers.

 

[jamesbond007]

Baraminology is pseudoscience. They have these arbitrary breaks in the family tree . They break off humans at a few species and wrongly put other members of the Hominidae in another baramin. Even that is arbitrary as some creationists don’t consider Neanderthals to be human.

Here's what creation.com's Jonathan Sarfati says about the biblical creation model, "Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."

How can it be pseudoscience when we can see and test that two creatures were hybridized and their successive generations lived?

Response to PBS/Nova Evolution series -- Episode 1: Darwin's Dangerous Idea - creation.com

 

[jamesbond007]

If you're right, then there's is a huge problem with dinosaurs. They may as well all been birds.

 

[Hawkins]

Genesis states there was a lot of water vapor surrounding the Earth Water is an universal solvent, so if abiogenesis is true, it does not want water. It's ironic that water is necessary for life, but to amino acids, it is the enemy. If we end up 2H2 and O2, then if we have free hydrogen, that is unstable and cause for an explosion. Thus, if we want abiogenesis, we do not want free hydrogen nor water. From the assumption that the early universe just had water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane, then the amino acids do not form under Miller-Urey.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/on_the_miller-u_1/

That says science is not an efficient tool for the researching of one time events happened in the long past. However it could be the only tool humans have in the hope that it can help to make our past evident.

Overall, we humans don't have the capability to confirm a past, science as the only tool we have could possibly direct us to a wrong answer. What today's people failed to accept is the incapability of science in terms of reaching the truth of the one time occurrences happened in the long past.

We may try to get to an answer seems to be acceptable to us, however unlike the repeatable phenomenon, there could be a gap (possibly a huge one) between such an answer and the truth itself.

 

[jamesbond007]

That says science is not an efficient tool for the researching of one time events happened in the long past. However it could be the only tool humans have in the hope that it can help to make our past evident.

Overall, we humans don't have the capability to confirm a past, science as the only tool we have could possibly direct us to a wrong answer. What today's people failed to accept is the incapability of science in terms of reaching the truth of the one time occurrences happened in the long past.

We may try to get to an answer seems to be acceptable to us, however unlike the repeatable phenomenon, there could be a gap (possibly a huge one) between such an answer and the truth itself.

I'm not criticizing Miller-Urey trying to demonstrate spontaneous generation in a new way from the 17th century. To them, they actually produced amino acids. They thought that it was dissolved into the oceans to produce primordial soup. That's a far cry from leaving meat to spoil and cheese and wheat in a jar for mice to get. The big deal was them not having O2 in their atmosphere when we know rocks had plenty of O2 in them from the same period.

Now, if you believe creation in 7 days, then the O2 was there from the early universe. There is no doubt about it if animals and humans were to live and the abundance of O2 in the rocks backs it up.

However, Miller-Urey was looking at an early universe after the end of the eternal universe theory and before the proposal for big bang. Their findings fit nicely into the big bang once it was hypothesized. Regardless, for the Miller-Urey experiment, the presence of O2 caused a big problem, so they had to eliminate it. Secular scientists still believe it today with no O2 to show that primordial soup was made. They've changed the mixture of gases to fit that of volcanic gases, but have added other gases to produce even more amino acids. This now takes us into today's abiogenesis. They have the primordial soup from Miller-Urey, but now are using geysers instead of lightening to form a cell. This also eliminates the problem with the O2.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why don't you answer my questions:
1. When are you going to claim birds are land animals and not flying animals of the air like God stated in Genesis?
2. Does the archosaur fit that description (of being arboreal)? You're the one who said Feduccia thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs.
3. Your reply does not fit my reply and questions to you. Thus, you'll have to explain what the transitions are. I explained that Fedducia said birds descended from arboreal animals. He found most of the theropod to birds fossils were 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. How could they be common ancestors then?
4. Feduccia also said birds feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than to help catch insects. How is the latter related to dinosaurs?

You may not be able to answer all my questions because you're not an ornithologist.

To this post, what terminologies are you saying that I a misusing? Is it from the OSU study? I would think you would address what they found. When you say Archaeopteryx is a transitional, where does it fall in your transition from earlier to later? It would help to have an idea of a few of your transitions as earlier birds before Archaopteryx were found by Chinese discoverers.

. ( sigh) this is exactly what I meant when I said you don’t understand scientific terminology .
Archosaurs are dinosaurs , pterosaurs crocodilians and birds . Birds are also theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx retained both the ancestral characteristics of dinosaurs and the more derived ones of birds . It’s mosaic traits makes it a transitional between the 2 lineages even though there might be birds older than it.

There are 2 main theories of how birds originally achieved real flight: 1 birds glided down from perches after climbing up. 2 birds got a running start while flapping on the ground which threw them into the air . They basically took longer and longer leaps .

Arboreal only means that it lives in trees . Squirrels are arboreal too

And the first part of your post , yes birds are land vertebrate tetrapods .

 

[jamesbond007]

( sigh) this is exactly what I meant when I said you don’t understand scientific terminology .
Archosaurs are dinosaurs , pterosaurs crocodilians and birds . Birds are also theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx retained both the ancestral characteristics of dinosaurs and the more derived ones of birds . It’s mosaic traits makes it a transitional between the 2 lineages even though there might be birds older than it.

There are 2 main theories of how birds originally achieved real flight: 1 birds glided down from perches after climbing up. 2 birds got a running start while flapping on the ground which threw them into the air . They basically took longer and longer leaps .

Arboreal only means that it lives in trees . Squirrels are arboreal too

And the first part of your post , yes birds are land vertebrate tetrapods

1. Last point first, that's another contradiction and fits my Satan's rebellious nature theory. Birds are flying animals.
2. The Archosaur fits the description of arboreal.
3. Since you avoided Fedducia "found most of the theropod to birds fossils were 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. How could they be common ancestors then?" I'll assume that he was right.
4. I'll assume you don't know.

Your bird theories about flight do not sound very scientific when compared to what creation scientists claim.

I found another fraud. This is getting embarrassing for you by the minute. I think you need to admit your erroneous thinking or get help .

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before? We had Piltdown Man and Haeckel's false embryo drawings based on Darwin's OoS book fool an entire generation.

Now, we had a Chinese farmer glue together fossils to create the fake Archaeoraptor. The composite fossil was purchased by a United States museum and was prominently written about in National Geographic in 1999 despite the evidence against it. The fake was not stopped. Can you explain why it was not stopped ?

The 5 Greatest Palaeontology Hoaxes Of All Time #3. Archaeoraptor

 

[jamesbond007]

Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day. This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.

We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon. The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23

The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs. Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals. Thus it fits the days of creation chart. Science backs up the Bible. Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird? God states they are flying animals. How does this work for the evos?

Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.

 

[Brightmoon]

Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day. This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.



We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon. The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23

The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs. Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals. Thus it fits the days of creation chart. Science backs up the Bible. Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird? God states they are flying animals. How does this work for the evos?

Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.

. Every modern vertebrate that flies evolved from a land tetrapod. ( since you seem to not understand science terminology I’ll translate, tetrapods are vertebrates with 4 limbs) Birds, bats, and extinct pterosaurs had land vertebrate ancestors. The aquatic reptiles weren’t all dinosaurs but they were all diapsids ( vertebrate with 2 holes in the skull : dinosaurs including birds, crocodilians,lizards ,snakes ,tuataras ) . Aquatic reptiles all evolved from land vertebrates too. Neither the fossil record , geological layering nor the DNA of modern vertebrates agrees with biblical beliefs.

 

[Brightmoon]

1. Last point first, that's another contradiction and fits my Satan's rebellious nature theory. Birds are flying animals.
2. The Archosaur fits the description of arboreal.
3. Since you avoided Fedducia "found most of the theropod to birds fossils were 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. How could they be common ancestors then?" I'll assume that he was right.
4. I'll assume you don't know.

Your bird theories about flight do not sound very scientific when compared to what creation scientists claim.

I found another fraud. This is getting embarrassing for you by the minute. I think you need to admit your erroneous thinking or get help .

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before? We had Piltdown Man and Haeckel's false embryo drawings based on Darwin's OoS book fool an entire generation.

Now, we had a Chinese farmer glue together fossils to create the fake Archaeoraptor. The composite fossil was purchased by a United States museum and was prominently written about in National Geographic in 1999 despite the evidence against it. The fake was not stopped. Can you explain why it was not stopped ?

The 5 Greatest Palaeontology Hoaxes Of All Time #3. Archaeoraptor

As far as your last pointless complaint . Nat Geo discovered the problem with “archeoraptor” just before the magazine went to press but it was too late to change the cover . IIRC they did pull the article. They immediately put a retraction on the website BEFORE the magazine got mailed . In the following month’s issue they also printed a retraction. So why are you bringing this up? They goofed , they admitted that they goofed and they tried to correct it. I remember this because I had that particular magazine.” Archeoraptor “turned out to be at least 2 dinosaurs , one of which was new to science . So the fossils weren’t fake . The mistake was in having an amateur put the pieces together and in not waiting for that to be checked thoroughly .

I’ve already explained about Feduccia thinking that birds are archosaurs. Archosaurs are dinosaur ancestors. I’ve also explained to you that arboreal just means that the animal lives in trees . Again squirrels are arboreal and they certainly aren’t archosaurs.

 

[Queller]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.

No, it isn't. There is no way to scientifically test the claim that "God did this" or "God did that".

Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world.

That's not a problem, it's a strength. As I said above, there is no way to test supernatural claims scientifically.

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.

Today's science is most definitely firmly based in empiricism. It can't be otherwise.

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.

Science only "allows" what is testable. Perhaps you could demonstrate an empirical way to test the claim that God made the earth stand still for an day for Joshua's army?

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.

Perhaps you've seen me say this before, but science only deals in what is testable in the natural world.

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.

The Cosmological Argument is born of logic, not science.

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.

"Historical truths" eh? Who decides which "historical truths" are correct? The Christian "truth" that the earth and all life is only 6,000 years old? The Hindu "truth" that the earth and life is trillions of years old? Something else? Who decides and what basis do they use to make that decision?

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation?

His premise is flawed from the third sentence on: "The basic assumption of modern evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural Being has ever been involved in this universe,"

This is not a basic assumption of modern evolutionary theory. Neither evolutionary theory nor any other area of science can assume anything about whether a Creator was/is involved in this universe because, as I've said above, there is no way to empirically test whether God exists or does not exist, much less whether He is involved in the universe. Many scientists are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, etc. and many (Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller just to name two) are quite vocal about how their scientific findings reinforce their belief in the majesty of God's 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.

Feel free to read a rebuttal of Stobel's ideas here:

Another Case Not Made: A Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator

 

[Brightmoon]

Science can only examine natural phenomena. Why don’t Creationists get that ?

 

[Halbhh]

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.

The only place to build faith -- the foundation for faith that Christ says we must have (or else will be destroyed) --

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

So, if you are doing what Christ says to us to do: "Love one another", "forgive seventy times seven", "pray then this way..." and His instructions to us in general -- then you will make it. And if you don't do these, then you won't make it.

Notice there is nothing there about knowing a particular theory about how God created!

You don't need that knowledge to be saved. Not even 1%. But there is something we all need!

 

[grasping the after wind]

We should not teach religion as science or science as religion.

 

[nolidad]

The only place to build faith -- the foundation for faith that Christ says we must have (or else will be destroyed) --

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

So, if you are doing what Christ says to us to do: "Love one another", "forgive seventy times seven", "pray then this way..." and His instructions to us in general -- then you will make it. And if you don't do these, then you won't make it.

Notice there is nothing there about knowing a particular theory about how God created!

You don't need that knowledge to be saved. Not even 1%. But there is something we all need!

But God put it in His Word for us to know and learn. And He clearly told Adam that He created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days approx 6-10K years ago! The Wordl can believe what it wants but we who dare call on the name of Jesus as Savior should adhere to Gods Word instead of mans opinion!

 

[nolidad]

We should not teach religion as science or science as religion.

Well as Evolution in the from microbe to man via mutations preserved by natural selection is untestable, unprovable and far far outside the scientific method of validation- it should not be taught as science either, no matter what some say!

 

[JacksBratt]

But God put it in His Word for us to know and learn. And He clearly told Adam that He created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days approx 6-10K years ago! The Wordl can believe what it wants but we who dare call on the name of Jesus as Savior should adhere to Gods Word instead of mans opinion!

I agree.. 100%

 

[JacksBratt]

Well as Evolution in the from microbe to man via mutations preserved by natural selection is untestable, unprovable and far far outside the scientific method of validation- it should not be taught as science either, no matter what some say!

Absolutely.

 

[Halbhh]

But God put it in His Word for us to know and learn. And He clearly told Adam that He created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days approx 6-10K years ago! The Wordl can believe what it wants but we who dare call on the name of Jesus as Savior should adhere to Gods Word instead of mans opinion!

A couple of the common assumptions (added ideas not in scripture) that young Earth theories in effect add on top of scripture:

1) that little or no time passed when God created all the Universe during Gen 1:1 before the moment in Gen 1:2. In reality we are not told in scripture how much time passed during the events in verse 1 before verse 2.
Why aren't we told? Because we do not need to know for our souls and for our relationship with God. It's not the point of scripture to teach us mere physics and mere geology and mere biology sciences -- all of which are ultimately trivial compared to God and our relationship with Him.

2) that the Tree of Life in the Garden (chapters 2, 3, and in heaven forever: Revelation last chapter) had no effect (!??!), and thus that Adam was aging in the Garden before he ate the fruit that would make him subject to death (!??!) (Genesis chapter 2), and therefore that the time in Garden for Adam was part of his total years of life. (every notion that we can just assume the Garden of Eden time was little or no time are using this kind of assumption)

This assumption/added idea clearly contradicts the sense of chapters 2 and 3, where Adam is warned not to eat that fruit or he will become subject to death after eating it (not before!). In reality we have no idea how much ordinary time passed in the outside Earth while Adam walked with the Eternal One and with the Tree of Life nearby!

--------

While YEC disobeys direct commands from God not to add to scripture, it also distracts people away (including the lost that don't yet have Christ) from seeking God and learning of Christ, their only hope of salvation.