Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[james bond]

Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.

Greg

Like I said atheists are usually wrong, wrong, wrong. Yours is hypothesis based on what the atheist scientists told you based on their atheist religious principle of no God. None of can be observed nor demonstrated. This accounts for all the crackpot ideas we are subject to and how science has gone false since the 1850s.

 

[gtopa1]

Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.

Greg

Like I said atheists are usually wrong, wrong, wrong. Yours is hypothesis based on what the atheist scientists told you based on their atheist religious principle of no God. None of can be observed nor demonstrated. This accounts for all the crackpot ideas we are subject to and how science has gone false since the 1850s.

I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.

Greg

 

[ReinyDays]

I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.

Greg

I find that people who argue evolution vs. creation know very little of either ...

I use science to decide when and what to plant in my garden ... I use religion to decide who gets the food I grow ... both have rolls in our lives ...

 

[Hollie]

Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.

Greg

Like I said atheists are usually wrong, wrong, wrong. Yours is hypothesis based on what the atheist scientists told you based on their atheist religious principle of no God. None of can be observed nor demonstrated. This accounts for all the crackpot ideas we are subject to and how science has gone false since the 1850s.

All your usual bumper sticker slogans.

While you're repulsed by the advancement of science since the 1850’s, nothing requires you to accept the advances in health, medicine, exploration, knowledge, etc.

The next time you’re sick, rattle bones for a cure.

 

[ReinyDays]

All your usual bumper sticker slogans.
While you're repulsed by the advancement of science since the 1850’s, nothing requires you to accept the advances in health, medicine, exploration, knowledge, etc.
The next time you’re sick, rattle bones for a cure.

He's using the internet to condemn the internet ... the Bible warns us about hypocrisy ... hating on electromagnetism, too funny ...

 

[james bond]

I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.

Greg

I do not confuse religion and creation science. I use real science that backs up Genesis in the Bible.

Yet, you have done an excellent job with atheist science. That is fake science. The Earth and universe aren't billions of years old. Nothing lasts that long in space. The planetary bodies collide, explode, speed away, sucked into black holes, and face other gravitational effects. It is common sense that rocks and fossils do not last that long due to weathering, chemical reactions, and mechanical pressure. Just look at the catastrophes that happened on the planet already. Your atheist scientists claim AGW and large asteroid hits and comets brought megatons of ice to this planet to cover it with surface water. Even the supercontinent broke up and the remains are slowly drifting apart. We are in in entropy, so no system can last that long.

Before this, you thought the universe lasted forever , but that was proven to be pseudoscience.

 

[james bond]

All your usual bumper sticker slogans.
While you're repulsed by the advancement of science since the 1850’s, nothing requires you to accept the advances in health, medicine, exploration, knowledge, etc.
The next time you’re sick, rattle bones for a cure.

He's using the internet to condemn the internet ... the Bible warns us about hypocrisy ... hating on electromagnetism, too funny ...

Now, you mixing up what the posters said. You have been shook to the core and become confused.

 

[Hollie]

I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.

Greg

I do not confuse religion and creation science. I use real science that backs up Genesis in the Bible.

Yet, you have done an excellent job with atheist science. That is fake science. The Earth and universe aren't billions of years old. Nothing lasts that long in space. The planetary bodies collide, explode, speed away, sucked into black holes, and face other gravitational effects. It is common sense that rocks and fossils do not last that long due to weathering, chemical reactions, and mechanical pressure. Just look at the catastrophes that happened on the planet already. Your atheist scientists claim AGW and large asteroid hits and comets brought megatons of ice to this planet to cover it with surface water. Even the supercontinent broke up and the remains are slowly drifting apart. We are in in entropy, so no system can last that long.

Before this, you thought the universe lasted forever , but that was proven to be pseudoscience.

Science doesn’t back up the Bibles. That’s why you have never been able to support that comment.

 

[Likkmee]

Creation is obvious FACT. Science is timeline challenged

 

[Likkmee]

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Newtonian]

The OP is having a difficult time with what is "scientific" i.e. what is empirical, and what is not.

Synonyms of empirical | Thesaurus.com

empirical
[ em-pir-i-kuhl ]SEE DEFINITION OF empirical

• experimental
• factual
• observational
• empiric
• experient
• experiential
• observed
• pragmatic
• provisional
• speculative
  
  

And the opposite?

Antonyms for empirical

• conjectural
• hypothetical
• impractical
• theoretic
• theoretical
• unobserved
• unproved

Or, simply stated in the Bible - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV: "Prove all things."

In the U.S. generally there is separation of "church and state." Some things taught by creationists are actually religious doctrines. Those of my religion disagree with many of them on the length of a creative day in Genesis chapter 1 - clearly the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust were not deposited in one week - the geologic carbon cycle cannot proceed that fast.

However, schools go too far in teaching what are actually religious doctrines (or unproved speculations which they have faith in) as scientific facts.

Ice age models for one of many examples. The actual evidence in the arctic permafrost is a sudden and permanent (until the current global warming) change in climate - not a process involving thousands of years. Study of plant species which now extinct bison, horse and mammoth grazed on before quick and permanent freezing for example.

But those of my religion agree with separation of church and state - we teach our children the truth at home. And our literature is careful about accuracy of statement - though, or course, subject to human imperfection (which applies to all humans and all groups of humans including scientists).

 

[Newtonian]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

View attachment 327394

How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe did not come from nowhere. That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.

Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.

The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."

God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.

 

[ReinyDays]

The universe did not come from nowhere. That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.

Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.

The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."

God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.

These are well known issues with current theories ... among many many others ... and they're well documented, blind faith is unfair, we make assumptions ...

Obviously airplanes fly ... why would you say this belief is blind? ... yes, the properties of an airfoil are based on the assumption Navier-Stokes is true, and that's never been proven to be so ...

Singularities cannot exist under Quantum Mechanics ... why do you think they do exist? ... just curious ...

 

[Hollie]

Another affirmation that Christian fundamentalism has no place in public schools.

The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

“Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is in appropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education

​

 

[Hollie]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

View attachment 327394

How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe did not come from nowhere. That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.

Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.

The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."

God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.

Im not aware of any schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg. God created adult creatures including humans. The only baby was Baby Jesus. T

Even you started from an egg you moron!

You need to pull you head out of your dumb ass. Before the egg had to be a man and woman you dipshit. I can figure these things out while you just have to sit on your dumb ass and listen.

As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

View attachment 327394

How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe did not come from nowhere. That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.

Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.

The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."

God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.

Anything prior to the big bang is simply conjecture or shall I say theory. Theories are just that theories not fact. There is no proof other than some vague theories about what kick started the universe. It is much like creation that the Bible teaches that many people have faith in and the Bible is much more poetic about it...

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

*****SMILE*****

 

[james bond]

As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".

I've read many said the same thing of you and agree with them.

 

[Indeependent]

As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".

I've read many said the same thing of you and agree with them.

Relax...I've never met an athiest who has read any Bible verse word for word, let alone why the word has a prefix, a suffix and what the root of the words actually mean.