Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[Split Rock]

Why should only one faith-based creationist viewpoint be taught in schools in the guise of science?

Please answer the question I asked. Once again:

What else should be taught in schools?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why should only one faith-based creationist viewpoint be taught in schools in the guise of science?

I just gave you the evidence for evolution, and that evidence meets your own criteria.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, God 'built' a man with no soul until He imputed the soul into His creation.

Verse please. You can't just make statements that the Bible doesn't support. That would be wrong. Not that it would bother you, but it would still be wrong.

 

[Dizredux]

Really, you have to work on your reading skills.

I have brought this up a number of times. I strongly suspect Just has a moderate to severe issue with reading comprehension. Assuming he really believes what he is saying, a lot of his confusion and misstatements could come from misunderstanding what he reads.

It is suggested by the evidence that an evaluation for this might prove beneficial to Just.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

Use the same definition you use when you ask creationists for evidence. We'll see if that suffices.

Fine, let's see if we can force feed justa's brain.

I am going to use a justa approved site, these are not my words. These are the words of the all wise Wikipedia:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By that definition we have mountains of evidence.

The last time I checked creationists had none.

What evidence for creation do you have that fits that definition?

 

[Split Rock]

You brought up 'populations'. I asked about humanity.

Humanity is the human species, Homo sapiens. The mechanisms that apply to other species apply equally to our species.

 

[justlookinla]

Please answer the question I asked. Once again:

What else should be taught in schools?

Nothing concerning the creation of the complexity and variety of life should be taught if it's a faith-based viewpoint. That's the issue. That's the problem.

Why should faith-based atheistic creationism be taught to the exclusion of other faith-based creationist viewpoints?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing concerning the creation of the complexity and variety of life should be taught if it's a faith-based viewpoint. That's the issue. That's the problem.

Since we have already shown you evidence for evolution that meets your criteria for evidence, then evolution should be taught.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should only one faith-based creationist viewpoint be taught in schools in the guise of science?

Aah, but now I have submitted a definition for scientific evidence. That is what evolution is based upon. It is not based upon faith. So since this last claim of yours went kerflop can you try answering the question of what else should be taught in schools?

 

[justlookinla]

I just gave you the evidence for evolution, and that evidence meets your own criteria.

You've given nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing concerning the creation of the complexity and variety of life should be taught if it's a faith-based viewpoint. That's the issue. That's the problem.

Why should faith-based atheistic creationism be taught to the exclusion of other faith-based creationist viewpoints?

All you are doing now is illustrating your ignorance of evolution. You can't win an argument that way.

 

[justlookinla]

Verse please. You can't just make statements that the Bible doesn't support. That would be wrong. Not that it would bother you, but it would still be wrong.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
​

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
​

 

[justlookinla]

I have brought this up a number of times. I strongly suspect Just has a moderate to severe issue with reading comprehension. Assuming he really believes what he is saying, a lot of his confusion and misstatements could come from misunderstanding what he reads.

It is suggested by the evidence that an evaluation for this might prove beneficial to Just.

Dizredux

Ouch!

 

[Split Rock]

Nothing concerning the creation of the complexity and variety of life should be taught if it's a faith-based viewpoint. That's the issue. That's the problem.

Why should faith-based atheistic creationism be taught to the exclusion of other faith-based creationist viewpoints?

What is taught in science classes is naturalistic mechanisms, since science is the study of nature. Scientists use naturalistic mechanisms in their research and only naturalistic mechanisms. If one is teaching science, therefore, one should stick to naturalistic mechanisms. That is common sense.

What else should be taught in science classes?

Do you really want religious beliefs taught in science classes?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nothing concerning the creation of the complexity and variety of life should be taught if it's a faith-based viewpoint. That's the issue. That's the problem.

It's not a problem because a faith-based viewpoint is not being taught. If you don't agree all you have to do is show us somewhere in an approved lesson plan or textbook a faith-based statement.

Why should faith-based atheistic creationism be taught to the exclusion of other faith-based creationist viewpoints?

Again with the oxymoronic terms. English is your first language, correct?

 

[Split Rock]

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
​

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
​

Is this what you want taught in public school science classes?

 

[Dizredux]

Ouch!

In all sincerity, I mean what I said and I am qualified to suggest such an evaluation.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Aah, but now I have submitted a definition for scientific evidence. That is what evolution is based upon. It is not based upon faith. So since this last claim of yours went kerflop can you try answering the question of what else should be taught in schools?

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.​

Start with the alleged single life form from long long ago and go forward with your scientific evidence.

(I expect this to be yet another shovelful of nothing)

 

[justlookinla]

In all sincerity, I mean what I said and I am qualified to suggest such an evaluation.

Dizredux

Ok. Thanks.

 

[justlookinla]

What is taught in science classes is naturalistic mechanisms, since science is the study of nature. Scientists use naturalistic mechanisms in their research and only naturalistic mechanisms. If one is teaching science, therefore, one should stick to naturalistic mechanisms. That is common sense.

What else should be taught in science classes?

Do you really want religious beliefs taught in science classes?

Nothing concerning faith-based beliefs, including atheistic creationism, should be taught in schools.