Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Upisoft]

would you say that the ToE is falsifiable if it is true?

I wouldn't, but I don't know if it is true, so that was a pointless speculation. All I know is it have not been falsified.

 

[Upisoft]

God however does not pressure anyone into believing in him. This is faith.

I agree, Hell is all about fun and joy.

 

[Goodbook]

LOL. There is nothing there. genetic variation within kinds, not progressive evolution to totally different species altogether. I know obfuscation when I see it.

evolutionists then claim- Oh no you're not a scientist? You don't understand it! Then why bother teaching it if nobody can understand it unless they have to subscribe to your point of view, or if you get insulted for questioning their dubious claims. They have lost my respect.

 

[Cabal]

LOL. There is nothing there. genetic variation within kinds, not progressive evolution to totally different species altogether. I know obfuscation when I see it.

Actually, they are to different species.

If by "different species" you mean a cow turning into an alligator or whatever, then hey presto, you misunderstood the basics of evolution, try again.

And quite frankly, your continual resort to tired creationist fallacies would imply that you don't have a clue about science. So you might want to resort to something more credible.

 

[Goodbook]

LOL. Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it. As Christians, we believe what Jesus says and does for us. He is not willing to let anyone perish. And we know this because it is revealed to us in the depth of our souls.

But it is up to you, if you want to go to hell and honestly believe it is fun and joy, nobody will stop you, but don't say you weren't warned when you find out later, how wrong you have been because you'd been deceived. God is longsuffering and patient though. And he will always answer you if you seek him with alll your heart.

 

[Cabal]

LOL. Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it. As Christians, we believe what Jesus says and does for us. He is not willing to let anyone perish. And we know this because it is revealed to us in the depth of our souls.

But it is up to you, if you want to go to hell and honestly believe it is fun and joy, nobody will stop you, but don't say you weren't warned when you find out later, how wrong you have been because you'd been deceived. God is longsuffering and patient though. And he will always answer you if you seek him with alll your heart.

Irrelevant to the science - and it's a false dichotomy to boot. Many Christians accept contemporary science just fine - and those at the back of the class do not get to redefine Christianity to exclude them.

Next.

 

[Hespera]

Just as I suspected. Nobody has convinced me of 'macro' evolution (yes it is so wrong they have to give it a special name) at all by their obnoxious replies, actually, their replies are further evidence that they are trying to prove something that is just speculation, and many times proven wrong. 'Educated scientists' are just that, and can be just as educated in perpetuating lies and given false evidence. I have no problem with people conducting science. Science is observation and experiment. People are free to interpret how they wish. If it goes against consensus, then so be it. I have learned science is as much a peer-pressure activity as any other field. Theory is still only theory. The problem is that people would teach it as FACT. The big bang theory is theory, not fact. People can't go back in time and claim that it happened the way that they think it did. This is impossible. As with evolution, people cannot observe it and claim that it happens the way they think it does, only infer or deduct using reason. As with reason and logic, if based on a false premise, turns out to be erroneous because of all the assumptions made. And nobody knows for sure what the basis of it is. That is why scientists who deny God will continue to grope in the dark. If you want to enter this field, then fine, whatever floats your boat. This wil flatter your ego. But science alone will never give you peace of mind.

God however does not pressure anyone into believing in him. This is faith.

Poor people who think lies are truth and the truth is lies. So why are people bothering to post on a Christian forum if they are not willing to learn about what Jesus teaches? Jesus says he tells us the truth. Science cannot rightly claim this. Science can only teach us human constructs that try and make sense of the world through observation, experiment, measurement. But this is only through our limited human perspective. It ignores the miraculous and dismisses the spiritual.
We cannot see with God's eyes, the purpose of creation, unless this is revealed to us.

That is why science takes a back-seat, and why Christians do not elevate it as a theory above God. Yes we can learn some things from scientific inquiry, but in all practical terms, the ToE is useless and we just see it as the myth that it is.

]Just as I suspected. Nobody has convinced me

its even predictable, characteristic as it is of a closed mind

That is why science takes a back-seat, and why Christians do not elevate it as a theory above God

your theory that you know exactly what the bible says is elevating yourself above your god. And above the works all about you, clearly writ on the earth, that you refuse to read or understand.

 

[Hespera]

I wouldn't, but I don't know if it is true, so that was a pointless speculation. All I know is it have not been falsified.

call it "has not" and Ill call it a day.

 

[Upisoft]

LOL. There is nothing there. genetic variation within kinds, not progressive evolution to totally different species altogether. I know obfuscation when I see it.

evolutionists then claim- Oh no you're not a scientist? You don't understand it! Then why bother teaching it if nobody can understand it unless they have to subscribe to your point of view, or if you get insulted for questioning their dubious claims. They have lost my respect.

Then don't open a textbook of Quantum mechanics. It is also full of obfuscation of much higher degree. Z-diodes use quantum tunneling effect, which is described by the obfuscations. And Z-diodes are internal parts of all chips in your computer and protect them from static electricity. You may say your computer is magically protected from static electricity.

If something is too obfuscated for you, then don't try to make sense of it. Claim magic. Goddidit.

 

[Upisoft]

call it "has not" and Ill call it a day.

OK, my error. My English stinks.

 

[Goodbook]

Its not that simple. Look again. Science is full of fallacies, with papers trying to prove stuff. It's publish or perish, even if what is published is complete rubbish. speciation is one of them.

/for example, humans speak different languages, are different skin colours, heights, eye colours, hair colours, features. Some of these humans will only mate with other humans of the similar kind. Does this mean some of them will become a different species from other humans?

ToE leads to all kinds of fallacies, including racist eugenics thinking.

 

[Split Rock]

Just as I suspected. Nobody has convinced me of 'macro' evolution (yes it is so wrong they have to give it a special name) at all by their obnoxious replies, actually, their replies are further evidence that they are trying to prove something that is just speculation, and many times proven wrong.

You were supposed to show us "evidence" that evolution is wrong. We are still waiting... where is it? You want evidence for macro-evolution? I gave you some already. You want more? Here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

'Educated scientists' are just that, and can be just as educated in perpetuating lies and given false evidence. I have no problem with people conducting science. Science is observation and experiment. People are free to interpret how they wish. If it goes against consensus, then so be it. I have learned science is as much a peer-pressure activity as any other field. Theory is still only theory. The problem is that people would teach it as FACT. The big bang theory is theory, not fact. People can't go back in time and claim that it happened the way that they think it did. This is impossible. As with evolution, people cannot observe it and claim that it happens the way they think it does, only infer or deduct using reason. As with reason and logic, if based on a false premise, turns out to be erroneous because of all the assumptions made. And nobody knows for sure what the basis of it is.

Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything in science. While we can prove nothing in absolute terms, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is why scientists who deny God will continue to grope in the dark. If you want to enter this field, then fine, whatever floats your boat. This wil flatter your ego. But science alone will never give you peace of mind.

Irrelevant.

Poor people who think lies are truth and the truth is lies. So why are people bothering to post on a Christian forum if they are not willing to learn about what Jesus teaches? Jesus says he tells us the truth. Science cannot rightly claim this. Science can only teach us human constructs that try and make sense of the world through observation, experiment, measurement. But this is only through our limited human perspective. It ignores the miraculous and dismisses the spiritual.
We cannot see with God's eyes, the purpose of creation, unless this is revealed to us.

So, your interpretation of scripture somehow rises above "our limited human perspective?" I would call that hubris.

That is why science takes a back-seat, and why Christians do not elevate it as a theory above God. Yes we can learn some things from scientific inquiry, but in all practical terms, the ToE is useless and we just see it as the myth that it is.

You see it as a "myth" because it conflicts with your fallible interpretation of scripture.

LOL. There is nothing there. genetic variation within kinds, not progressive evolution to totally different species altogether. I know obfuscation when I see it.

I bet you do... after looking at so many "Creation Ministry" websites, I bet you are now an expert at obfuscation.

evolutionists then claim- Oh no you're not a scientist? You don't understand it! Then why bother teaching it if nobody can understand it unless they have to subscribe to your point of view, or if you get insulted for questioning their dubious claims. They have lost my respect.

You don't have our respect either. But if you want a good website tailored to non-scientists that explains what evolution is, what the evidence for it is, and why it is important, I recommend this Berkely site: Understanding Evolution Another good reference is: "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," 2008, National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. You can buy it online, at many bookstores, or loan it from your Public Library.

 

[Cabal]

Its not that simple. Look again. Science is full of fallacies, with papers trying to prove stuff. It's publish or perish, even if what is published is complete rubbish. speciation is one of them.

And when you actually provide evidence for that, then we'll talk. So far, you've been given a list full of examples of speciation - that is, subgroups of a population becoming genetically different enough to no longer be able to interbreed.

Edit: Oh, and "papers trying to prove stuff" is kinda how science works. Y'know, including the bits that you think your holy book isn't telling you to argue against?

for example, humans speak different languages, are different skin colours, heights, eye colours, hair colours, features. Some of these humans will only mate with other humans of the similar kind. Does this mean some of them will become a different species from other humans?

No, because speciation typically involves physical separation to prevent interbreeding on the scale of a few thousand years. Now that humans have colonised most of the planet, it's unlikely that our species will speciate further. This is not a problem for evolution in the slightest, it's to be expected when a species fills all the available environmental niches.

ToE leads to all kinds of fallacies, including racist eugenics thinking.

Uh...no. Misunderstanding of ToE leads to eugenic thinking.

 

[Hespera]

Its not that simple. Look again. Science is full of fallacies, with papers trying to prove stuff. It's publish or perish, even if what is published is complete rubbish. speciation is one of them.

/for example, humans speak different languages, are different skin colours, heights, eye colours, hair colours, features. Some of these humans will only mate with other humans of the similar kind. Does this mean some of them will become a different species from other humans?

ToE leads to all kinds of fallacies, including racist eugenics thinking.

We dont do proof in science. But you dont even know that.

you are like a 2nd grader trying to criticize calculus because its not about adding and subtracting numbers.

 

[Split Rock]

Its not that simple. Look again. Science is full of fallacies, with papers trying to prove stuff. It's publish or perish, even if what is published is complete rubbish. speciation is one of them.

I'm sure you can give us some examples that directly affect the theory of evolution... other than Piltdown Man. You know, something from say, the last 50 years.

/for example, humans speak different languages, are different skin colours, heights, eye colours, hair colours, features. Some of these humans will only mate with other humans of the similar kind. Does this mean some of them will become a different species from other humans?

It is possible over time this could occur, yes. However, nowadays interbreeding is at such a high rate between societies, that it is becoming less and less likely.

ToE leads to all kinds of fallacies, including racist eugenics thinking.

Let me ask you this: Is it possible for a theory to be correct and still lead to racist eugenics thinking? Yes, or No.

 

[Goodbook]

I'm not giving evidence that macro-evolution is wrong. All the evidence you give that macro-evolution that supposedly supports it is actually supports that it is a false interpretation of the evidence, so again, fail to convince. And contrary to what people claim, I haven't been copying and pasting from any creationist website. Because I could easily give you that, just like you can give me your so-called scientific evidence from an evolutionist website.

But at least I've looked at both sides, and read the evidence from scientist themselves and come to my own conclusions. . Which evolutionist frequently fail to do because they are so indoctrinated into science that they are compelled to accept whatever the current paradigm is that fits with the consensus. (and that is why so many say..you misunderstand science! Only *we* can understand it. I have no respect for such elitism)

Read the Bible. God's word is enough. He can withstand any criticism people want to dish him, and a true Christian will always give a ready answer for the hope he/she has in Him. But woe evolutionists! Start questioning their claims, they start telling you you are too stupid to even criticise evolution.

But if you want to keep thinking that way, go ahead.
If your egotism is irrelevant to you, then you are irrelevant to God, for God resists the proud. God's ways and mind is so much greater than what human minds can conceive.

Why would this be irrelevant and hubris? Ask yourself, why are you on a Christian forum...? To educate the Christians? hmm...you won't get many converts to ToE with your elitist attitude.

While we can prove nothing in absolute terms, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, no. It is only been proven beyond reasonable doubt to scientists wanting to believe it and with a vested interested in believing in it, because that is their career/livelihood. If it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, there would be no such thing as pesky creationists. We would all believe it. Reality is, most people do not. Even many scientists do not believe in it. Evolutionists like to claim all scientists are in agreement. Actually, this is a false front. That would be like thinking all christians are catholics. And before you say christians cant reason even the Bible says 'come let us now reason together'. Our faith is not a blind faith.

I have family who study biology and medicine. Evolution, although taught, is largely irrelevant to their practice. If evolution is to be taught, then as a theory under naturalistic philosophy, rather than science. They don't believe in God, but even they aren't convinced about evolution as fact.

nobody's mentioned the pre-cambrian explosion..so far.. so passed over. still waiting on that one. Evolutionists are presenting a theory, it's up to us to critically examine the evidence to see if it actually supports what it is trying to claim.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not giving evidence that macro-evolution is wrong. All the evidence you give that macro-evolution that supposedly supports it is actually supports that it is a false interpretation of the evidence, so again, fail to convince.

Wrong. You said that speciation, i.e. macro-evolution is wrong. The list I posted showed that you were wrong. Stop moving the goalposts. False witness is a sin.

And contrary to what people claim, I haven't been copying and pasting from any creationist website. Because I could easily give you that, just like you can give me your so-called scientific evidence from an evolutionist website.

Regardless, your claims are the same tired out, incorrect arguments peddled by most creationists, which is hardly credit to your claims that you are independently concluding that evolution is wrong.

But at least I've looked at both sides, and read the evidence from scientist themselves and come to my own conclusions.

As have most evolutionists here. Creationism is laughably, incompetently wrong.

Which evolutionist frequently fail to do because they are so indoctrinated into science that they have to accept whatever the current paradigm is that fits with the consensus.

Lol, right. And if creationism is incorrect, that'd be just dandy with you, wouldn't it? Or would it cause your entire understanding of the bible to come crashing down?

Evolutionists have no great attachment to their claims, they are what they are. Your interpretation of the Bible on the other hand has to be right otherwise your whole belief system implodes. If you're going to criticise people for being indoctrinated, look in the mirror.

(and that is why so many say..you misunderstand science! Only we can understand it. I have no respect for such elitism)

Pointing out your many basic errors of comprehension of what it is you're actually attempting to refute is not elitism. In science it is not elitism to say you're wrong, and give reasons for why you are wrong - get used to it.

Read the Bible. God's word is enough.

Rubbish. If it was, we wouldn't need this discussion.

If your ego is irrelevant to you, then you are irrelevant to God, for God resists the proud. God's ways and mind is so much greater than what human minds can conceive.

It's funny that the best he can do is more and more creationist drones repeating the same garbage.

Oh, and if you want to talk about ego, take a look at Yahweh.

Why would this be irrelevant and hubris? Ask yourself, why are you on a Christian forum...? To educate the Christians? hmm...you won't get many converts to ToE with your elitist attitude.

Again, correcting misunderstanding is not elitist. I'm starting to think you don't actually have a clue what elitist means.

Actually, no. It is only been proven beyond reasonable doubt to scientists wanting to believe it and with a vested interested in believing in it, because that is their career/livelihood. If it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, there would be no such thing as pesky creationists.

Except creationism is a religious belief, and religious beliefs are pretty much by nature beliefs without proof, so they will persist even though proof has long been established.

We would all believe it. Reality is, most people do not. Even scientists do not believe in it. Evolutionists like to claim all scientists are in agreement.

They are. To deny otherwise is to deny reality.

Actually, this is a false front. That would be like thinking all christians are catholics.

Most Christians are Catholics, sweetheart.

 

[Goodbook]

I feel very sad for you and your false claims and you snide attude, I can see you are grasping at straws. Just who are you trying to convince? Again..why are you here? Hating God again huh? What's he done now?

I've already explained why speciation, if that is what you mean is exactly the same as macro-evolution is wrong. I don't need to give further evidence, because previous evolutionist posters are giving ample evidence that it's wrong, all the while asserting it's correct. We interpret the evidence differently that's all. The evidence that an evolutionist gives leads to support their conclusion, but the same evidence, for a creationist, gives proof that the evolutionist claim is incorrect. We have to look at all the variables. IMHO, it is the evolutionists who overlook the variables.



still waiting on the explanation for pre-cambrian explosion...natural selection cannot account for it.............

 

[Cabal]

I feel very sad for you and your false claims and you snide attude, I can see you are grasping at straws. Just who are you trying to convince? Again..why are you here? Hating God again huh? What's he done now?

Who are you trying to convince? You're the one who started pouring lists of points into the thread in desperation and are ignoring all the answers you've been given with pathetic excuses. And it's still not an either/or position between Christianity and science, y'know - as I pointed out, most Christians don't have an issue with science the way creationists do.

I've already explained why speciation, if that is what you mean is exactly the same as macro-evolution is wrong. I don't need to give further evidence, because previous evolutionist posters are giving ample evidence that it's wrong, all the while asserting it's correct. We interpret the evidence differently that's all.

Utter rubbish. You called macroevolution/speciation stupid and then when you were given evidence of it occurring you changed your tune. You haven't even given an alternate interpretation of the evidence to support your viewpoint, only asserted that you interpret it differently and expect that to be enough, which it is not.

Don't expect anyone to listen to you if you aren't even going to bother showing a shred of intellectual honesty. I mean, if your belief was convincing you wouldn't need to stoop to these low tactics, but I guess it can't be that good if you can't even be straight with people.

 

[Goodbook]

still waiting on pre-cambrian explosion evolution evidence...............