How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Cecilie1200]

.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

what it cannot ...

BW: I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ... evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes ... surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

I gave a response bond if you have nothing more than pseudo ad hominem quips I suggest you spend more time reading your book of forgeries, better passing your empty time than bothering others.

Let me clarify. Creationism doesn't require evolution to be false in order to work, but evolutionists require Creationism to be false in order to use it - evolution - to excuse the amoral behavior they wish to indulge.

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

what it cannot ...

BW: I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ... evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes ... surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

I gave a response bond if you have nothing more than pseudo ad hominem quips I suggest you spend more time reading your book of forgeries, better passing your empty time than bothering others.

Let me clarify. Creationism doesn't require evolution to be false in order to work, but evolutionists require Creationism to be false in order to use it - evolution - to excuse the amoral behavior they wish to indulge.

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

.

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

the above is as far as I got reading your book of forgeries, humanity is not the template of life on earth but only one avenue ... evolution is nothing more than a roadmap.

 

[james bond]

.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

what it cannot ...

BW: I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ... evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes ... surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

I gave a response bond if you have nothing more than pseudo ad hominem quips I suggest you spend more time reading your book of forgeries, better passing your empty time than bothering others.

Let me clarify. Creationism doesn't require evolution to be false in order to work, but evolutionists require Creationism to be false in order to use it - evolution - to excuse the amoral behavior they wish to indulge.

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Evolution has natural selection and so does baraminology which is part of creation science. Natural selection was first discovered by creation scientist Edward Blyth. The other part of evolution that has come into vogue is genetic mutation or genetic modification. Darwin was right about both of these subjects, but was wrong about his other hypothesis. As for mutation, creation scientists stay away from it because they do not think it adds any new information to the genome and that mutation causes greater harm than good.

 

[james bond]

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

Evolution is more religion than science. Maybe science is a religion the way things have turned out. Myself, I don't care what you want to call it as long as it leads to the discovery of truth and further enhances our knowledge of the world because God wanted it that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

Evolutionists create a quandary with creation by trying to make it do what it cannot, and free them from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization.

Give it up BW. Cecilie1200 hit the nail on the head.

what it cannot ...

BW: I'm unsure you have stated just what that is ... "what it cannot"

I agree, evolution is required to explain its progression over time - "from any moral responsibility or requirements to civilization" ... evolution is dictated by the metaphysical axioms that span the universe unrestrained by any physical attributes ... surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

I gave a response bond if you have nothing more than pseudo ad hominem quips I suggest you spend more time reading your book of forgeries, better passing your empty time than bothering others.

Let me clarify. Creationism doesn't require evolution to be false in order to work, but evolutionists require Creationism to be false in order to use it - evolution - to excuse the amoral behavior they wish to indulge.

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

.

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

the above is as far as I got reading your book of forgeries, humanity is not the template of life on earth but only one avenue ... evolution is nothing more than a roadmap.

Evolution is not a religion (assuming you're not an insane leftist twit desperately trying to use it as an excuse), so of course it's religion-free. But there's a difference between "not directly having religion involved" and "being diametrically opposed to religion". It's not that, either.

And evolution's inability to disprove religion - precisely because it is NOT religiously related - IS a fact, and says nothing about me except that I'm exponentially more educated and informed than you are.

If anyone needed more proof, they need only look at your pathetic attempt to make a point by quoting the Bible with no understanding of what it means.

Yes, the Bible says God made everything. If you'll notice - if you CAN notice - it says nothing about HOW He did it, just that he did. There is nothing in the Bible that requires Christians to reject the possibility that evolution was a natural procedure put in place during the Creation. And there's nothing about evolution that requires it to NOT have been.

 

[Foxfyre]

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

Evolution is more religion than science. Maybe science is a religion the way things have turned out. Myself, I don't care what you want to call it as long as it leads to the discovery of truth and further enhances our knowledge of the world because God wanted it that way.

I don't think evolution is a religion at all. I'm quite sure Darwin did not intend for it to be. But I think there are those who make a religion of it and worship it to the point they do not allow themselves or others to question it in any way and/or allow themselves or others to consider any possibilities outside the science of evolution. The Christian, the Jew, the Buddhist, and probably others all allow for the unknowable and the unknown within the realm of both science and religion. And they know that evolution can coexist quite rationally and peacefully alongside other explanations and theories for how it all got from point A to here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It sounds highly physically addictive without much pleasure.

In a way, that's absolutely right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

is more religion than science.

Utter bullshit. It is the most well-founded scientific theory in the history of mankind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Well, I disagree with the "explains nothing", but it's not really intended to predict anything. As for science, I guess that depends on whether or not it's true.

Be that as it may, it's never been in the way of science. It's only in the way of people who define "science" as "rejecting and silencing religion as having any validity in life".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Well, I disagree with the "explains nothing", but it's not really intended to predict anything. As for science, I guess that depends on whether or not it's true.

Be that as it may, it's never been in the way of science. It's only in the way of people who define "science" as "rejecting and silencing religion as having any validity in life".

I have never met one single person who defines science that way. Let me give you some free advice: when you have to invent people and events to whine about...you dont actually have anything to whine about.

And no, saying "God did it!" does not explain anything at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Well, I disagree with the "explains nothing", but it's not really intended to predict anything. As for science, I guess that depends on whether or not it's true.

Be that as it may, it's never been in the way of science. It's only in the way of people who define "science" as "rejecting and silencing religion as having any validity in life".

I have never met one single person who defines science that way. Let me give you some free advice: when you have to invent people and events to whine about...you dont actually have anything to whine about.

And no, saying "God did it!" does not explain anything at all.

You may not know anyone who ADMITS to defining science that way, but I guarantee that you know some who do it without realizing that's what they're doing. Hell, there are people right here on this message board who do so.

Let me give you some free advice: don't be gullible enough to take people's words at face value.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... but I guarantee that you know some who do it without realizing that's what they're doing.

that's because not everyone is corrupt, the truth is its own guide christian the path to remission is a freed spirit.


* they've lost their copy of your book.

 

[james bond]

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

I would have to disagree. Compared to creation science, both can't be true. There isn't much overlap if any. For example, in the Bible Jesus says life begat life. In other words, it takes life already created by God to propagate further life. Evolution says we evolved from common ancestors -- fish, tetrapod, ape, human and so on. Another would be Noah's flood formed the earth versus evolutionary geologic layers. The differences are greatest in paleontology, geology and zoology. It's either atheist science of evolution or creation science. There is only one truth.

 

[james bond]

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

Evolution is more religion than science. Maybe science is a religion the way things have turned out. Myself, I don't care what you want to call it as long as it leads to the discovery of truth and further enhances our knowledge of the world because God wanted it that way.

I don't think evolution is a religion at all. I'm quite sure Darwin did not intend for it to be. But I think there are those who make a religion of it and worship it to the point they do not allow themselves or others to question it in any way and/or allow themselves or others to consider any possibilities outside the science of evolution. The Christian, the Jew, the Buddhist, and probably others all allow for the unknowable and the unknown within the realm of both science and religion. And they know that evolution can coexist quite rationally and peacefully alongside other explanations and theories for how it all got from point A to here.

Evolution is a religion in the way that people believe it based on faith. It's not about going to church on Sundays type religion. It's based on faith in atheism and not so much on actual science or facts, reasoning and historical truths. For example, geologic claims of Charles Lyell who was an atheist and wrote a book, Principles of Geology, in 1854, about his uniformitarianism hypothesis, to counter Christian geological thinking of catastrophism during the time. He also mentored and influenced his pupil Charles Darwin. Thus, evolution was born from atheist roots and foundation and why it's the polar opposite of creation science.

 

[Foxfyre]

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

Evolution is more religion than science. Maybe science is a religion the way things have turned out. Myself, I don't care what you want to call it as long as it leads to the discovery of truth and further enhances our knowledge of the world because God wanted it that way.

I don't think evolution is a religion at all. I'm quite sure Darwin did not intend for it to be. But I think there are those who make a religion of it and worship it to the point they do not allow themselves or others to question it in any way and/or allow themselves or others to consider any possibilities outside the science of evolution. The Christian, the Jew, the Buddhist, and probably others all allow for the unknowable and the unknown within the realm of both science and religion. And they know that evolution can coexist quite rationally and peacefully alongside other explanations and theories for how it all got from point A to here.

Evolution is a religion in the way that people believe it based on faith. It's not about going to church on Sundays type religion. It's based on faith in atheism and not so much on actual science or facts, reasoning and historical truths. For example, geologic claims of Charles Lyell who was an atheist and wrote a book, Principles of Geology, in 1854, about his uniformitarianism hypothesis, to counter Christian geological thinking of catastrophism during the time. He also mentored and influenced his pupil Charles Darwin. Thus, evolution was born from atheist roots and foundation and why it's the polar opposite of creation science.

I don't question your facts here and, assuming you are correct, your post is quite informative and thought provoking. I myself try to look at the issue with a different and simpler pragmaticism. (Is that a word?)

The fact is science exists. And I am quite confident that evolution is a valid science that studies how various life forms on Earth have evolved over time. Where it becomes a religion these days, in my point of view, is when the Atheist or whomever refuses to acknowledge that evolution cannot answer all questions on how life forms evolved and/or rejects intelligent design as any possibility in the equation. When they demand that Evolution be taught that way, I object as strenuously as I do when Evolution is not taught at all.

Atheists who attempt to use evolution as a means to discredit the possibility of some form of intelligent design, along with their quite absurd dogma that if science cannot prove there is a God, then there is no God, are absolutely inserting their own religion into the mix because they are certainly not being scientific.

The theist of course understands that if there is a God, then that God is the author of science along with everything else and there is no conflict.

 

[james bond]

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

Evolution is more religion than science. Maybe science is a religion the way things have turned out. Myself, I don't care what you want to call it as long as it leads to the discovery of truth and further enhances our knowledge of the world because God wanted it that way.

I don't think evolution is a religion at all. I'm quite sure Darwin did not intend for it to be. But I think there are those who make a religion of it and worship it to the point they do not allow themselves or others to question it in any way and/or allow themselves or others to consider any possibilities outside the science of evolution. The Christian, the Jew, the Buddhist, and probably others all allow for the unknowable and the unknown within the realm of both science and religion. And they know that evolution can coexist quite rationally and peacefully alongside other explanations and theories for how it all got from point A to here.

Evolution is a religion in the way that people believe it based on faith. It's not about going to church on Sundays type religion. It's based on faith in atheism and not so much on actual science or facts, reasoning and historical truths. For example, geologic claims of Charles Lyell who was an atheist and wrote a book, Principles of Geology, in 1854, about his uniformitarianism hypothesis, to counter Christian geological thinking of catastrophism during the time. He also mentored and influenced his pupil Charles Darwin. Thus, evolution was born from atheist roots and foundation and why it's the polar opposite of creation science.

I don't question your facts here and, assuming you are correct, your post is quite informative and thought provoking. I myself try to look at the issue with a different and simpler pragmaticism. (Is that a word?)

The fact is science exists. And I am quite confident that evolution is a valid science that studies how various life forms on Earth have evolved over time. Where it becomes a religion these days, in my point of view, is when the Atheist or whomever refuses to acknowledge that evolution cannot answer all questions on how life forms evolved and/or rejects intelligent design as any possibility in the equation. When they demand that Evolution be taught that way, I object as strenuously as I do when Evolution is not taught at all.

Atheists who attempt to use evolution as a means to discredit the possibility of some form of intelligent design, along with their quite absurd dogma that if science cannot prove there is a God, then there is no God, are absolutely inserting their own religion into the mix because they are certainly not being scientific.

The theist of course understands that if there is a God, then that God is the author of science along with everything else and there is no conflict.

>>F: The fact is science exists. And I am quite confident that evolution is a valid science that studies how various life forms on Earth have evolved over time.<<

Sorry, a bit long, but finally had time to write it.

Today, atheist science exists and that is what is taught in schools. The scientific establishment has systematically eliminated the supernatural, the Bible, God, intelligent design as theories from science and schools by saying one is a religion while the other intelligent design isn't a valid science. We could not be created in any way shape or form because the aforementioned can't be testable nor falsified. When I went to school, this isn't the way I was taught science works.

I learned evolution through my Alma Mater's website evolution.berkeley.edu and thought this was what happened for a couple of decades. A couple things got my attention. First was the concept of an eternal universe or the Steady State Theory being rendered pseudoscience and it was replaced by the Big Bang Theory or the universe had a beginning. Second, was the media always telling me how old things were in their "science" articles. If the ages of the universe and earth were facts, then why keep telling me these things? Why keep telling me dinosaurs became extinct 245 million years ago? Facts are things we all know to be true and use them. Third, I started to look at creation science and what they were saying because circa 2011, evolution wasn't panning out like I thought, e.g. Monarch butterflies were not gone from California due to global warming. I remembered they hibernated and migrated for the winter. To challenge evolutionary thinking was unquestionable because prestigious science institutions like The Smithsonian, Nature and Science, top universities, Encyclopedia Brittanica, top scientists from the 90s and today and so on all subscribed to it.

Yet, what they were saying didn't pan out in biology such as coelacanth and the common ancestor theories of tiktaalik, tetrapods returning to the sea to become whales, birds descending from dinosaurs, and even the theory of how dinosaurs all became extinct due to volcanoes were challenged and changed. It was like challenging the theories of the earth being the center of the universe or that Columbus discovered America. The theories of Charles Darwin had been all proved wrong except for natural selection and genetic modification. OTOH creation scientists based their theories on Genesis from the Bible and that we were created in 7 days and formation of the earth was based on Noah's Flood. This was what people believed in the 1800s before uniformitarianism took over against catastrophism. What they were saying didn't change. Only that science provided further evidence for what they were saying. On creation's side, there were famous scientists which I was studied in school like Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Carolus Linnaeus, Michael Faraday, Samuel B. Morse, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, James Joule and others. Sir Francis Bacon is the father of modern science. I started to look at what they were saying and that was from the Bible. What it said was incredulous like people lived to over 900 years old in the old days and we are descendants of Adam and Eve.

Yet, if one looks at the evolutionary thinking and the origins of life, we see that the BBT started from compressed gases and invisible quantum particles from a single point. This seemed just as incredulous. The universe is just primed for life and that multiverses can pop into existence. Life came from primordial soup after it was hit by lightening. Well, that experiment didn't pan out in the 50s. Where was this life? Where were the parallel universes? I read the Brief History of Time and its followup A Briefer History of Time from Stephen Hawkening during the 90s and early millenium. Where were the multiverses and time machines? How can something like that happen or work? Even the theories of quantum mechanics went against the traditional physics of Newton. It went against the laws of thermodynamics. All these invisible particles were doing something, but we couldn't see them because they were too small. All of the aforementioned were disavowed by creation science.

 

[Foxfyre]

evolution is religion free ... "because it can't" is more an admission about yourself than fact.

Evolution is more religion than science. Maybe science is a religion the way things have turned out. Myself, I don't care what you want to call it as long as it leads to the discovery of truth and further enhances our knowledge of the world because God wanted it that way.

I don't think evolution is a religion at all. I'm quite sure Darwin did not intend for it to be. But I think there are those who make a religion of it and worship it to the point they do not allow themselves or others to question it in any way and/or allow themselves or others to consider any possibilities outside the science of evolution. The Christian, the Jew, the Buddhist, and probably others all allow for the unknowable and the unknown within the realm of both science and religion. And they know that evolution can coexist quite rationally and peacefully alongside other explanations and theories for how it all got from point A to here.

Evolution is a religion in the way that people believe it based on faith. It's not about going to church on Sundays type religion. It's based on faith in atheism and not so much on actual science or facts, reasoning and historical truths. For example, geologic claims of Charles Lyell who was an atheist and wrote a book, Principles of Geology, in 1854, about his uniformitarianism hypothesis, to counter Christian geological thinking of catastrophism during the time. He also mentored and influenced his pupil Charles Darwin. Thus, evolution was born from atheist roots and foundation and why it's the polar opposite of creation science.

I don't question your facts here and, assuming you are correct, your post is quite informative and thought provoking. I myself try to look at the issue with a different and simpler pragmaticism. (Is that a word?)

The fact is science exists. And I am quite confident that evolution is a valid science that studies how various life forms on Earth have evolved over time. Where it becomes a religion these days, in my point of view, is when the Atheist or whomever refuses to acknowledge that evolution cannot answer all questions on how life forms evolved and/or rejects intelligent design as any possibility in the equation. When they demand that Evolution be taught that way, I object as strenuously as I do when Evolution is not taught at all.

Atheists who attempt to use evolution as a means to discredit the possibility of some form of intelligent design, along with their quite absurd dogma that if science cannot prove there is a God, then there is no God, are absolutely inserting their own religion into the mix because they are certainly not being scientific.

The theist of course understands that if there is a God, then that God is the author of science along with everything else and there is no conflict.

>>F: The fact is science exists. And I am quite confident that evolution is a valid science that studies how various life forms on Earth have evolved over time.<<

Sorry, a bit long, but finally had time to write it.

Today, atheist science exists and that is what is taught in schools. The scientific establishment has systematically eliminated the supernatural, the Bible, God, intelligent design as theories from science and schools by saying one is a religion while the other intelligent design isn't a valid science. We could not be created in any way shape or form because the aforementioned can't be testable nor falsified. When I went to school, this isn't the way I was taught science works.

I learned evolution through my Alma Mater's website evolution.berkeley.edu and thought this was what happened for a couple of decades. A couple things got my attention. First was the concept of an eternal universe or the Steady State Theory being rendered pseudoscience and it was replaced by the Big Bang Theory or the universe had a beginning. Second, was the media always telling me how old things were in their "science" articles. If the ages of the universe and earth were facts, then why keep telling me these things? Why keep telling me dinosaurs became extinct 245 million years ago? Facts are things we all know to be true and use them. Third, I started to look at creation science and what they were saying because circa 2011, evolution wasn't panning out like I thought, e.g. Monarch butterflies were not gone from California due to global warming. I remembered they hibernated and migrated for the winter. To challenge evolutionary thinking was unquestionable because prestigious science institutions like The Smithsonian, Nature and Science, top universities, Encyclopedia Brittanica, top scientists from the 90s and today and so on all subscribed to it.

Yet, what they were saying didn't pan out in biology such as coelacanth and the common ancestor theories of tiktaalik, tetrapods returning to the sea to become whales, birds descending from dinosaurs, and even the theory of how dinosaurs all became extinct due to volcanoes were challenged and changed. It was like challenging the theories of the earth being the center of the universe or that Columbus discovered America. The theories of Charles Darwin had been all proved wrong except for natural selection and genetic modification. OTOH creation scientists based their theories on Genesis from the Bible and that we were created in 7 days and formation of the earth was based on Noah's Flood. This was what people believed in the 1800s before uniformitarianism took over against catastrophism. What they were saying didn't change. Only that science provided further evidence for what they were saying. On creation's side, there were famous scientists which I was studied in school like Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Carolus Linnaeus, Michael Faraday, Samuel B. Morse, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, James Joule and others. Sir Francis Bacon is the father of modern science. I started to look at what they were saying and that was from the Bible. What it said was incredulous like people lived to over 900 years old in the old days and we are descendants of Adam and Eve.

Yet, if one looks at the evolutionary thinking and the origins of life, we see that the BBT started from compressed gases and invisible quantum particles from a single point. This seemed just as incredulous. The universe is just primed for life and that multiverses can pop into existence. Life came from primordial soup after it was hit by lightening. Well, that experiment didn't pan out in the 50s. Where was this life? Where were the parallel universes? I read the Brief History of Time and its followup A Briefer History of Time from Stephen Hawkening during the 90s and early millenium. Where were the multiverses and time machines? How can something like that happen or work? Even the theories of quantum mechanics went against the traditional physics of Newton. It went against the laws of thermodynamics. All these invisible particles were doing something, but we couldn't see them because they were too small. All of the aforementioned were disavowed by creation science.

In fact I don't want 'creation science' to be taught in schools as science because it isn't. It is faith based and therefore not science as science is technically defined. But I don't want any science teacher telling students that science has disproved all creation theories and/or any form of intelligent design because that would be incredibly erroneous as it has done no such thing.

And when the child from the fundamentalist church/family inquires of the Biblical six days to create the heavens and the Earth or a 6,000 year old Earth, I want the teacher to explain that most scientists believe the process took much longer and over a much longer period of time but they are discerning based on the best available information but they weren't there themselves. The student will be required to know the information in the textbook and in the class lectures, but he/she can then compare what s/he learns in class with what s/he has been taught in Bible class and decide for himself or herself. No public school should ever give the impression that a child's faith is inappropriate in school or that the child's God is unwelcome there.

When we return to that kind of teaching--the kind I in fact grew up with--we will have returned to teaching real science again, teaching students to think critically and thoughtfully about it so that they are actually educated instead of indoctrinated. And that will be a very good thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Well, I disagree with the "explains nothing", but it's not really intended to predict anything. As for science, I guess that depends on whether or not it's true.

Be that as it may, it's never been in the way of science. It's only in the way of people who define "science" as "rejecting and silencing religion as having any validity in life".

I have never met one single person who defines science that way. Let me give you some free advice: when you have to invent people and events to whine about...you dont actually have anything to whine about.

And no, saying "God did it!" does not explain anything at all.

You may not know anyone who ADMITS to defining science that way, but I guarantee that you know some who do it without realizing that's what they're doing. Hell, there are people right here on this message board who do so.

Let me give you some free advice: don't be gullible enough to take people's words at face value.

And I am convinced that you are actually Muslim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Compared to creation science, both can't be tru

There is no such thing as creation science. Period.