The science of creationism: where is it?

[Washington]

No.

We should teach science in class. But we should also teach student that science is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular scientific contents. In this structure, the theory of evolution is welcome.

We should teach cooking in class. But we should also teach student that food is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular food preparation contents. In this structure, the art of seasoning food is welcome.

We should teach history in class. But we should also teach student that historical events are watched over by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular historical contents. In this structure, the lost lessons of history are welcome.

We should teach English in class. But we should also teach student that the the ability to write is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular English contents. In this structure, the theory of proper punctuation is welcome.

We should teach metal shop in class. But we should also teach student that metal ore was created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular metal working contents. In this structure, the theory metallurgy is welcome.

 

[Split Rock]

No.

We should teach science in class. But we should also teach student that science is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular scientific contents. In this structure, the theory of evolution is welcome.

Why should we teach your religion in science class? Isn't that what churches are for? Doing so would violate the Separation of Church and State, in any case.

 

[juvenissun]

But that would make it not science. Religion isn't science after all.

Why not? In a 300-page book, 280 pages are trying to teach science. Why is it not a science book?

 

[juvenissun]

We should teach cooking in class. But we should also teach student that food is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular food preparation contents. In this structure, the art of seasoning food is welcome.

We should teach history in class. But we should also teach student that historical events are watched over by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular historical contents. In this structure, the lost lessons of history are welcome.

We should teach English in class. But we should also teach student that the the ability to write is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular English contents. In this structure, the theory of proper punctuation is welcome.

We should teach metal shop in class. But we should also teach student that metal ore was created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular metal working contents. In this structure, the theory metallurgy is welcome.

 

[juvenissun]

Why should we teach your religion in science class? Isn't that what churches are for? Doing so would violate the Separation of Church and State, in any case.

The idea of God and creation is a common concept. It applies to any religion.

Church is not the place to teach knowledge. Church is trying to build up faith.

Teaching creation science has nothing to do with church.

 

[uke2se]

Why not? In a 300-page book, 280 pages are trying to teach science. Why is it not a science book?

Religion isn't science. Do I really have to explain why?

 

[uke2se]

The idea of God and creation is a common concept. It applies to any religion.

Church is not the place to teach knowledge. Church is trying to build up faith.

Teaching creation science has nothing to do with church.

The idea of your personal god is your personal concept. It does not belong in any secular institution, and indeed, any government institution. Forcing doctrine on anyone breaks the US constitution, as well as most western constitutions I'm aware of.

Teaching creation "science" may not have anything to do with church, but it has everything to do with religion, and thus, does not belong in science classes.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a very simple question. Do you have a Ph.D? Are you a professor? Given that the definition of those terms are pretty unambiguous, you should be able to provide an answer instead of dancing around, and risk being called a liar.

It is a simple question and the answer would also be simple. But the interpretation may not be.

If I said yes, how much will you believe?
If I said no , how much will you believe?
Are those two numbers the same? If not, why not?

 

[uke2se]

It is a simple question and the answer would also be simple. But the interpretation may not be.

If I said yes, how much will you believe?
If I said no , how much will you believe?
Are those two numbers the same? If not, why not?

More dancing around the issue. The amusing thing is, though, that most of us already know the answer, as it is apparent from your posts. What is interesting is if you'll continue to squirm, outright lie, or tell the truth. The last would, of course, be the Christian thing to do.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is the whole research paper. Your question is answered in the "results" section but I would recommend reading the whole thing.
The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny ? Proceedings B

The caiman mitochondrial genome consisted of 17 875 nucleotides.
The iguana mitochondrial genome consists of 16 633 nucleotides.
The also used phylogenetic analyses from 33 other species.

I read the article. There are A LOT to talk about on what's said.

But I like to ask this first:

One genome has 16,000 to 18,000 nucleotides, so 35 genomes has many many nucleotides. This article was seeing 3500 nucleotides among those many, which is about less then 3% of the nucleotides.

No matter what's said in the conclusion, how meaningful is the study?

 

[juvenissun]

More dancing around the issue. The amusing thing is, though, that most of us already know the answer, as it is apparent from your posts. What is interesting is if you'll continue to squirm, outright lie, or tell the truth. The last would, of course, be the Christian thing to do.

So, keep reading what I said, if you have no better things to do.

 

[uke2se]

So, keep reading what I said, if you have no better things to do.

Can you give me a straight answer? It's a yes-or-no question. Do you have a Ph.D? Are you a professor? For the record, do you have any degree in life sciences?

This is important for your credibility, not because you cannot speak on issues outside your field, but because you have indicated in the past that you are, in fact, a professor, and that you have a degree.

 

[juvenissun]

Religion isn't science. Do I really have to explain why?

Yes, you do. Because 90% of the book is about science, why is it not a science book?

 

[juvenissun]

Can you give me a straight answer? It's a yes-or-no question. Do you have a Ph.D? Are you a professor? For the record, do you have any degree in life sciences?

You said you already have the answer.
I can tell you this: I do not have any degree (no more than one course!) in life science. If I do, you people will be blown away.

 

[uke2se]

You said you already have the answer.
I can tell you this: I do not have any degree in life science.

Do you have a degree in any other scientific field? If so, which field and what kind of degree? The most important question: Are you a professor.

I already have a strong suspicion of the truth of the matter. What is important is if you are going to tell the truth, lie or continue squirming. So far it's not looking good for you.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, you do. Because 90% of the book is about science, why is it not a science book?

Because 10% isn't science. A science book, especially one designed to teach children about science, cannot contain religion. Religion isn't science, and thus, the book would be unscientific, if only 10% unscientific. It would also be unconstitutional, which I believe is an equally grave issue.

I hope you realize this: What you are asking for is against the US constitution, and most other western constitutions.

 

[Naraoia]

Thank you very much for the info.

It is a surprise to know such a large percentage of genes are shared by all animals. (can't help to think about this: how about plants? How much gene shared between plants and animals?)

So, let me thrown out some wildly guessing numbers: there are 90% genes shared by croc and bird, but there are 88% shared between croc and lizard. Would you say that croc is so much related to bird but not to lizard?

If you throw out "wildly guessing numbers", there's no point in answering the question...

No.

We should teach science in class. But we should also teach student that science is created by God.

No, we shouldn't. Unless you are prepared to give the evidence that supports this?

A science book should only teach as facts things that are, you know, established as facts. "Establishing as fact" is done by presenting tons of evidence. Where is that evidence for ANY supernatural entity?

I read the article. There are A LOT to talk about on what's said.

But I like to ask this first:

One genome has 16,000 to 18,000 nucleotides, so 35 genomes has many many nucleotides. This article was seeing 3500 nucleotides among those many, which is about less then 3% of the nucleotides.

I'm pretty sure it's 3500 nucleotides per genome.

 

[Hespera]

Juv sez...
Originally Posted by uke2se

Can you give me a straight answer? It's a yes-or-no question. Do you have a Ph.D? Are you a professor? For the record, do you have any degree in life sciences?
​

You said you already have the answer.
I can tell you this: I do not have any degree (no more than one course!) in life science. If I do, you people will be blown away. QUOTE////////////


hespera sez... Juv, you have introduced your supposed education and teaching experience as evidence that your opinions should be given some weight.

You have had no luck introducing any data to support you notions, so that puts extra emphasis on your need to have credentials to gain a measure of credibility.

However, despite repeated requests for a simple yes no answer, or short explanation concerning your credentials, experience and qualificaitons, you have not done so.

There has been evasion, equivocation, stonewalling, partial answers, etc and so on.

This, combined with the evidence from your posts that you d ont know what you are talking about makes it APPEAR that you are being deliberately deceitful.

If you are a professor with the highest possaible degree of education you should be quite proud to say so. You are doing the opposite, which indicates the opposite.

Continuing to flop about like a young mackerel in an effort to avoid answering a simple question is itself compounding the original deception. Besides being horribly undignified.

It brings up another question: Are you actually a Christian? Not that they are the only ones with moral qualms about deliberate deception, but in the book, it is called a 'sin" apparently a serious matter.

Would you like to just clear all this up now, come clean and state the simple truth?

Are you a professor?
Do you have any college degree (s) at all?

 

[Split Rock]

The idea of God and creation is a common concept. It applies to any religion.

So, now you want the more fuzzy concept of "some god or gods" created science taught in science class? What about Deists, Agnostics and Atheists? Is your concept common to all of them as well? Man created science... and we have the written history to prove it. Why do we need to talk about some loosely defined defintion of "god" creating a human endeavor?

Church is not the place to teach knowledge. Church is trying to build up faith.

Church is where you teach about God. Do I really need to be telling you this??

Teaching creation science has nothing to do with church.

It has every thing to do with church. What is the one book that is the basis of creation science? The Bible. Are you going to tell me The Bible has nothing to do with church, now??

 

[Bombila]

The stupid thing is that it isn't necessary to have any relevant degree, or any degree at all, to educate yourself enough through reading, and learning from people who have degrees, in order to be able to converse intelligently and with a reasonable knowledge base in forums like this one.

What is the point of pretending to know things you really don't know? What is the point of being coy about your educational status?

I've stated before in this forum that I went to a Fine Arts institution, where I studied Fine Arts, not biology or geology or paleontology or any life science at all. But I've always been interested in those sciences, always read books about them, talked to people who worked in these fields about their work.

I've yet to run into anyone who dismisses my acquired knowledge on the basis of my having acquired it outside of standard education. I don't in any way expect to know as much about biology as a biologist, or about botany as a botanist, etc. I regularly ask people in those fields to explain various things I don't know, because that is a useful method of gaining information (thank you again, sciencey type people ;-)).

People ordinarily respect actual knowledge, not the format in which one has acquired that knowledge. It is just convenient that people with degrees are known to have gone out of their way to become knowledgeable in specific fields, so we expect them to know the facts.