Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[james bond]

That's not true. As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. Obviously some life survived.

This is proof that atheists believe what they want even lies. It's just like evolution. It was Noah who sent his bird to seek dry land.

And one of the two greatest supernatural miracles, the resurrection, that only a few took notice of.

smh. Even more evidence that atheists believe what they want. Witnesses from both sides confirmed it. There were things that happened that could not be explained rationally. We still take notice today and this is the message.

 

[alang1216]

I am saying that you are not qualified to be a science teacher because you think in Black & White.

That's rich coming from someone with a B&W avatar from a century ago.

 

[Indeependent]

That's rich coming from someone with a B&W avatar from a century ago.

Who was more ingenious at nuance than anyone in history.

 

[alang1216]

This is proof that atheists believe what they want even lies. It's just like evolution. It was Noah who sent his bird to seek dry land.

If all living things died in the flood (does that include fish and bacteria) how could that bird find a fresh olive leaf?

Witnesses from both sides confirmed it.

What were the two sides?

 

[alang1216]

Who was more ingenious at nuance than anyone in history.

I don't know everyone in history so I'll have to take your word for it. I am a fan of his of course.

 

[Wuwei]

Flood stories exist all over the world and they most likely happened.

When James B. tries to use that as scientific proof, he forgets that real proof should be that the plethora of floods all happened within a very short window of 40 days at around 2304 BC. But those people around the world presumably drowned.

 

[Lysistrata]

The flood stories over the world from the ancient times back up the one true supernatural Noah's Flood. We also have the fountain of the deep ring around the world where the water from the oceans came up. It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest to rise and cover our surface with 3/4 water. That's hard evidence and real science. It's like the atheists go blind when presented with the truth.

The flood stories across the world only support a finding that there was extensive flooding. Of course, ancient writers in the Middle East would have some passed-down memory of flooding in their area. Look at the Bosphorus strait. They were locals who would have had no idea about other areas of the world that they didn't even know existed. People of all cultures have attributed things that they didn't understand to supernatural behavior. Remember that thousands of years passed after the writing of Genesis before people like the Vikings and Christopher Columbus accidently bumped into a large land mass, now known as the Western Hemisphere. They were probably quite surprised to find that other people were living there who had other beliefs.

Your "atheists" thing is nonsense, BTW. People may just not buy your version of things. They may have beliefs of their own.

 

[Lysistrata]

When James B. tries to use that as scientific proof, he forgets that real proof should be that the plethora of floods all happened within a very short window of 40 days at around 2304 BC. But those people around the world presumably drowned.

The Chinese and the Indians certainly don't have any stories about everybody drowning.

 

[james bond]

If all living things died in the flood (does that include fish and bacteria) how could that bird find a fresh olive leaf?


What were the two sides?

Now, you're changing your story. You need to own up to your wrongness. Atheists are usually wrong. 20 lashes should be reigned down upon you for every wrong lol. Why don't you continue this rewriting of a story BY YOU of what happened so Noah knew that he had found land and it was safe to disembark?

 

[alang1216]

Now, you're changing your story. You need to own up to your wrongness. Atheists are usually wrong. 20 lashes should be reigned down upon you for every wrong lol. Why don't you continue this rewriting of a story BY YOU of what happened so Noah knew that he had found land and it was safe to disembark?

You might want to read the Bible before you talk about it. If you were a better reader you'd see that my story has not changed.

Genesis 8:
10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.
11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

 

[james bond]

You might want to read the Bible before you talk about it. If you were a better reader you'd see that my story has not changed.

Genesis 8:
10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.
11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

>>That's not true. As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. Obviously some life survived.<<

Heh. So now you're confessing that you didn't read the Bible because you were so wrong and called what I said a lie. There was not only a dove that Noah sent out, but a raven. Thus, you were wrong again. No life survived, but you claim bacteria survived. You are trying so hard to find a contradiction. Instead, you have contradicted yourself. We should teach this Noah's Flood and creation science in schools as there is scientific evidence for the global flood. Then you would know the answers instead of contradicting yourself.

Let's talk about bacteria. How does it breathe? What does it breathe? Can you see that a flood would kill bacteria, too? I'm sick of explaining and showing proof to atheists, but they just can't believe it. smh lol.

You also mentioned the olive leaf. Now, that takes more explanation, but how fast do olive trees grow? Wouldn't there have been enough time for it to grow again?

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Religionism under a burqa of the phony label called creationism has been addressed repeatedly by the courts. “Cretinism” lost.

 

[Wuwei]

We should teach this Noah's Flood and creation science in schools as there is scientific evidence for the global flood.

Jeez. Try to get that past the Board of School Directors.

 

[james bond]

Religionism under a burqa of the phony label called creationism has been addressed repeatedly by the courts. “Cretinism” lost.

That's not true -- Can creation be taught in public schools?. My take is creationism can be taught in public school as creation science, i.e. Genesis only. The Bible can be used as a textbook, but rather see a textbook made specifically for its teaching. It could be creation vs. evolution, but that is too contentious. I've never seen a science class taught that way. I rather see creation science taught as an elective, at first. Regardless, we'll have to fight ACLU and teachers will have to check the local law.

 

[Hollie]

That's not true -- Can creation be taught in public schools?. My take is creationism can be taught in public school as creation science, i.e. Genesis only. The Bible can be used as a textbook, but rather see a textbook made specifically for its teaching. It could be creation vs. evolution, but that is too contentious. I've never seen a science class taught that way. I rather see creation science taught as an elective, at first. Regardless, we'll have to fight ACLU and teachers will have to check the local law.

I understand how desperate you are to force your religious view on others, especially in the public schools but that horse is not just dead, it’s a Montanan fossil.

Dover was perhaps the last gasp for fundamentalist Christians to force religion nto the public schools. Earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

 

[Wuwei]

Dover was perhaps the last gasp for fundamentalist Christians to force religion nto the public schools.

I remember the incident. I was able to refresh my memory from a long article at the web site:

Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania | National Center for Science Education

On December 14, 2004, eleven parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Dover Area School District in federal court. The matter at issue is a policy introducing "intelligent design" into the biology curriculum.

ncse.ngo

These are excerpts from the Dover, PA skirmish on the textbook Of Pandas and People.

Strangely, none of the [Dover school] board members seemed to have much familiarity at all with ID, and none gave anything resembling a direct, coherent answer about what they thought ID meant. For example, Buckingham was asked:​

​

Q: Do you have an understanding in very simple terms of what "Intelligent design" stands for? What does it teach? ​

A: Other than what I expressed, that's — Scientists, a lot of scientists — Don't ask me the names. I can't tell you where it came from. A lot of scientists believe that back through time, something, molecules, amoeba, whatever, evolved into the complexities of life we have now. ​

Q: That's the theory of "intelligent design"? ​

A: You asked me my understanding of it. I'm not a scientist. I can't go into detail and debate you on it. (Buckingham deposition, January 3, 2005)​

​

The irony is that Buckingham was describing evolution, not ID.

When asked about the "master intellect" suggested on pages 58 and 85 of Pandas, Superintendent Nilsen was somewhat more clear:​

​

Q: Do you have any explanation for what a master intellect could be referring to in terms of the creation or development of species other than to God?​

A: Yes.​

Q: What?​

A: Aliens.​

Q: Can you think of anything else?​

A: No.​

Q: Using master intellect in that context, it must mean God or aliens?​

A: In this context, yes. (Nilsen deposition, January 3, 2005)​

​

The school board simply didn't know what they wanted to teach the kids. The defense strategy was,

If [lawyer for Dover Sch.] Thompson wants to base his defense on "the science of ID," so much the better. It will be time for ID advocates to "put up or shut up" about the "scientific theory" of ID. We know that there is no science of ID, and we suspect this will become readily apparent to the court if [ID] expert witnesses testify.​

 

[Rogue AI]

If they can teach that boys can be girls, anything should be on the table.

 

[surada]

You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods. "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."

OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing. The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up. Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis. Thus, you are wrong.

The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time. From God himself. This is not a belief, but a finding. The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.

Science does NOT back up the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. Even the great sage Rambam deferred to science.

 

[Wuwei]

Science does NOT back up the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. Even the great sage Rambam deferred to science.

I said that many times, but he doesn't have anything further to say. He won't rationalize the out-of-order sequence of the 6 days of creation, and he makes up a weird and very incomplete story about the flood that is clearly not implied in the Bible.

 

[james bond]

I said that many times, but he doesn't have anything further to say. He won't rationalize the out-of-order sequence of the 6 days of creation, and he makes up a weird and very incomplete story about the flood that is clearly not implied in the Bible.

You're a troll and being ignored by me. Real science backs up the Bible while no science backs up evolution; It's not observable nor testable. Just stop discussing me with others as you should just ignore what I have to say since I'm the troll to you.