Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nonsens.Option 2.
Namely:
It is illegal to teach anything other than evolution in biology class because Darwinists have a totalitarian monopoly in our government education system. Identical to Nazi Germany.
No -- and I don't want to presume to speak for God, but in my opinion He did it on purpose, knowing that in the latter times, some would adhere to evolution as the prima facie explanation.But...why? To trick people? To "test our faith"?
Which is easier?
- An evolutionist to sit through Instant Creation 101.
- An instant creationist to sit through Evolution 101.
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.Nonsens.
Evolution is thaught because it is the best theory that unites everything in biology. Not only in biology, but many other sciences like geology, oceanography and atmospheric sciences are permeated by the theory of evolution. That's also why every university world wide.
As for your gouvernment being infested by darwinists: I wonder whether the Bush administration was so darwinian minded.
1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?
2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?
3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.
1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?
2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?
3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?
Why?
Of course you wouldn't know of any alternative theories because it is illegal to teach them because Darwinists are terrified of all hypotheses besides evolution.There are no other alternative theories.
Your logic needs more improvement than your English.
1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?
2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?
3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?
That's irrelevant because it is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution in public school and it is illegal to present any evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. E.g. it is illegal to teach the Second Law of Thermodynamics in biology class because it contradicts evolution.No one says you can't go do research on "alternative theories". Go get some funding, do some creation research! Then submit your theories to peer-review in respectable journals.
Then why is it illegal to teach in public school?No one is afraid of creationism.
LOL.creationists realize they can't do any research
LOL.If creationism was science and there were no other alternatives then i would be ok with it.
You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.however evolution IS science and it has no competing theories.
You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.
Of course, even if there were, you wouldn't know it because it is illegal to teach them because Darwinists are terrified of all hypotheses besides evolution.
If that's true, then why do you make the uneducated claim that evolution is the only scientific theory?Actually, I have a rather sound amount of education on the matter.
Exactly what part of the word "theory" don't you understand?There may well be Creationist hypotheses, but there are no Creationist theories.
If that's true, then why do you make the uneducated claim that evolution is the only scientific theory?
Exactly what part of the word "theory" don't you understand?
"... Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet." -- Francis H.C. Crick, molecular biologist, and Leslie E. Orgel, biologist, 1972
And 2+2=5.Because it is.
Reading comprehension fail?I understand the entire word, thanks.
This statement contradicts your claim that evolution is the only scientific theory.That's a "theory"
LOL.(though really a hypothesis) of panspermia, an alternative to abiogenesis, and has little to do with evolution.
That's irrelevant because it is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution in public school and it is illegal to present any evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. E.g. it is illegal to teach the Second Law of Thermodynamics in biology class because it contradicts evolution.
Then why is it illegal to teach in public school?
LOL.
According to you Isaac Newton did no research?
Evolutionists can't do any logic.
And 2+2=5.
Reading comprehension fail?
This statement contradicts your claim that evolution is the only scientific theory.
LOL.
If all life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials, you don't think that would contradict evolution?
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859
So any hypothesis or theory that contradicts evolution is not science?It's not science, that's why.
That is utter nonsense.We don't teach things in the science classroom that haven't been established in the scientific literature.
There is no legitimate evolution research out there.There is no legitimate creation research out there.
I take it you've never read Newton before.Newton didn't do any research on creationism. You know what I meant.
I take it you've never actually read Behe.People like Behe actually have done legitimate research in science, but that research doesn't have anything to do with creationism.
I know. It's a fact.Creationism is not a theory.
So according to you, no evidence can possibly falsify evolution. Therefore evolution is not scientific.Nope. It might alter our views on evolution, but it would not contradict it.
So evolution doesn't contradict creationism in your view?Evolution is about the change of life, not the origin of it.
No.The extraterrestrials that created life would themselves be subject to evolution.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -- Romans 1:20That is true. But no such complex organ has ever been found.
No one is "afraid" of alternate theories. Best scientific practice demands that the theory that best fits the available evidence is the one taught. That theory is evolution. Teaching theories other than the one that best fits the available evidence is something other than science. So by all means, teach creationism all you want, just be aware that what you're doing is not teaching science. Thats all.Your logic needs more improvement than your English.
1. Do you think it's a good idea to have creationism taught as the only valid scientific theory in biology class?
2. Do you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to teach Darwinism in school?
3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?