Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[braalian]

Meh. Teach science in science classes and religion in history or philosophy classes.

 

[Hollie]

>>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<

I don't disagree with reading. It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.

We discussed the raven and the dove. Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. At the end of forty days when its mountain top was visible, what bird did Noah release first and what happened? Next, he released the dove and what happened? This is when the 7 days you mentioned comes in after which he releases the dove again and it finds the olive leaf.

That's enough time for the olive tree to grow and sprout its first leaves as you stated.

You have a need to invoke your gods to explain some rather glaring absurdities.

the gods did it™ is just a slogan used to side step any rational explanation for events that simply don’t occur in nature.

 

[JoeBlow]

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.

Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.

 

[james bond]

Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.

Creation science gives us the origins. The creator is easily found if one has faith. It's evolution that is the lie, so the atheists have something to believe in. The atheistic arguments are all one-sided and biased. Creation science demonstrates the creator with the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.

We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance. We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.

Since atheists can't figure this out, I made my own little example:

You can see someone made this gif. There is an intelligence behind it. You can look at a blank screen until you die and it won't pop into existence.

Finally, I gave you the evidence while evolutionists have nothing observable nor testable. I just lmao you and your kind off the board.

>>Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.<<

LMAO, you hypocrite. I got evidence while you got nothing observable nor testable.

 

[james bond]

How low can one go?

Here is the science of hypocrisy which the atheists practice religiously.

'

The Science of Hypocrisy​

Why we seem to despise hypocrites more than outright liars"​

"If you want to destroy someone, call them a “hypocrite.”

Hypocrisy typically involves criticizing or condemning the immoral acts of others while engaging in those acts ourselves. This can make us look worse than if we engaged in those immoral acts but didn’t criticize them at all, which might sound odd. But would you rather someone engaged in immoral behavior and criticized it or engaged in immoral behavior and didn’t criticize it? Diving into the psychology of hypocrisy can make how we feel about it make more sense.

Testing for hypocrisy​

An experiment in 2001 aimed to turn people into hypocrites in the lab. Participants were to assign a set of tasks to themselves and an unknown second participant. One type of task was exciting and offered rewards while the other was neutral with no rewards. A coin placed next to the participants had a written instruction explaining that most people believed flipping the coin would be a fair way to distribute the tasks. Indeed, practically all of the participants agreed that flipping the coin to assign tasks would be the most moral thing.

But when it came down to it, only half of them actually flipped the coin, with practically everybody in the non-coin-flipping half giving themselves the exciting tasks. Among the people who did flip the coin — which was labeled “self” on one side and “other” on the other — 85% to 90% still managed to assign the exciting task to themselves. Clearly, either the coin was a magical sycophant or the participants pretended the coin had landed in their favor when it really hadn’t.

People wanted to look fair by using a coin to make their decision, but behind the scenes, they were just as selfish as the people who did not use the coin at all (most of whom had agreed using the coin would be the most fair but didn’t do it). It’s all a perfect example of moral hypocrisy at work.'

 

[james bond]

Oh. Well.

If you dun’ seen it on the YouTube, it must be true.

Your side don't have one because nothing is observable. I know where your desperate feelings for ranting comes from.

 

[james bond]

You have a need to invoke your gods to explain some rather glaring absurdities.

the gods did it™ is just a slogan used to side step any rational explanation for events that simply don’t occur in nature.

No need for science as what happened after Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat was explained logically. It was alang1216 who was wrong in trying to find a contradiction in the Bible as atheists are usually wrong.

 

[james bond]

Meh. Teach science in science classes and religion in history or philosophy classes.

That's exactly what I am saying. Teach creation science as a science course. Evolution isn't science as nothing is observable nor testable, but atheists like to believe it is.

 

[Wuwei]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.

We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance. We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.

The cause of the origin of the universe is unknown. Call it God if you want, but that doesn't edify anything.

.

 

[Wuwei]

That's exactly what I am saying. Teach creation science as a science course. Evolution isn't science as nothing is observable nor testable, but atheists like to believe it is.

The major thrust of creation science is to discredit evolution. If it were in a science course it would be fair game for science to discredit creation science. That would be very easy. The opening chapters of the Genesis is severely out of order. An epic flood has no scientific rationalization.

.

 

[Colin norris]

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.

Science cannot link itself to creationism.
One is based on fact, the other is fact.

The irrelevance of religion is becoming obvious when the godbotherers attempt to link it to science.

There is no such thing as creation science. It's an oxymoron. There was no creator and all the other rubbish associated with religion. There is no God nor is there a need for one. It's all explained.

 

[alang1216]

That's exactly what I am saying. Teach creation science as a science course. Evolution isn't science as nothing is observable nor testable, but atheists like to believe it is.

Has anyone observed a 'creation'? I thought it was done before there was any man to observe it? How can we test creation science?

How do we teach creation science without being understanding the laws and mechanisms behind it and not being able to duplicate a creation in a lab?

 

[JoeBlow]

Creation science gives us the origins. The creator is easily found if one has faith. It's evolution that is the lie, so the atheists have something to believe in. The atheistic arguments are all one-sided and biased. Creation science demonstrates the creator with the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.

We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance. We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.

Since atheists can't figure this out, I made my own little example:

View attachment 566519

You can see someone made this gif. There is an intelligence behind it. You can look at a blank screen until you die and it won't pop into existence.

Finally, I gave you the evidence while evolutionists have nothing observable nor testable. I just lmao you and your kind off the board.

>>Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.<<

LMAO, you hypocrite. I got evidence while you got nothing observable nor testable.

I saw no scientific evidence in your response. It was more philosophical.

 

[Hollie]

Creation science gives us the origins. The creator is easily found if one has faith. It's evolution that is the lie, so the atheists have something to believe in. The atheistic arguments are all one-sided and biased. Creation science demonstrates the creator with the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.

We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance. We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.

Since atheists can't figure this out, I made my own little example:

View attachment 566519

You can see someone made this gif. There is an intelligence behind it. You can look at a blank screen until you die and it won't pop into existence.

Finally, I gave you the evidence while evolutionists have nothing observable nor testable. I just lmao you and your kind off the board.

>>Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.<<

LMAO, you hypocrite. I got evidence while you got nothing observable nor testable.

What you call “creationer science” is not in any way connected to science. Creationers simply put a burqa over their fundamentalist religious beliefs and add “science” with the hope of fooling the gullible.

What you fail to understand is that science is concerned with evidence. Creationer dogma is undeniably wedded to religious doctrine. The “statements of belief” required by various creationer ministries and the allegiance to Christianity made by individual creationers can’t be denied.

Creationer’ism is a matter of Biblical literalism. Facts from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian / totalitarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a rigid anti-science agenda.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument at all. Kalam’ism is a philosophical mess. The nonsense only had a short-lived emergence because of the religious extremist William Lane Craig. Kalam’ism argues that God exists because the universe must have a cause. There is never any indication of why this is and nothing other than “it’s true because I say so”. Kalam’ists simply use the same nonsense claim for Kalam’ism that religioners use for religion: “my gods exist because I say so”.

 

[Wuwei]

Your side don't have one because nothing is observable. I know where your desperate feelings for ranting comes from.

YouTube does have lots of videos on evolution

https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+videos&client=opera&hs=dyZ&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrf612Kf0AhWrRjABHeb1CPAQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1551&bih=1028&dpr=0.9

 

[Wuwei]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument at all. Kalam’ism is a philosophical mess. The nonsense only had a short-lived emergence because of the religious extremist William Lane Craig. Kalam’ism argues that God exists because the universe must have a cause. There is never any indication of why this is and nothing other than “it’s true because I say so”. Kalam’ists simply use the same nonsense claim for Kalam’ism that religioners use for religion: “my gods exist because I say so”.

Creationists say you can't create something from nothing.
One problem with the KCA is that they then go ahead and attempt to create an existential God out of nothing but words on a piece of paper.

.

 

[toobfreak]

Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?​

Simply, you can't. You can teach creationism just fine, but not as a science for the simple reason that the very nature of science dictates that the theory of claims can be TESTED repeatedly by different people giving the same result every time, and there simply is no valid way to "test" creation because unlike science which seeks to measure the phenomenal world around us, creation is not something directly around us that can be empirically felt or measured.

That said, this does not necessarily invalidate creation neither because not being a science in the strict sense, it does not need to meet the definition of a science.

 

[toobfreak]

they then go ahead and attempt to create an existential God out of nothing

That is wholly wrong because God was never "born." God has neither beginning nor end. He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself.

 

[Wuwei]

That is wholly wrong because God was never "born." God has neither beginning nor end. He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself.

I wasn't arguing about the nature of God. I was arguing about the nature of the KCA.

 

[alang1216]

That is wholly wrong because God was never "born." God has neither beginning nor end. He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself.

You say these things like they are facts. In truth they are solely based on your faith. Your scripture defines God and your faith allows you to accept it as truth. That is fine but you can't say someone is wrong, only that they don't share your faith.