Should Children Learn "both" Theories?

[truefusion 3]

No, I didn't answer my own question, and you completely missed the point. If God created the rules, what makes you think He'd interfere with the world and us after said creation? Also, you can't prove that the basic physics rules which govern the universe had to be created by God. You can only believe it. You can however, prove that these rules existed ever since the dawn of Time, which has nothing to do with God.

Laws and rules are maintained, otherwise they'd be useless and fall apart. Therefore God is required to intervene even after setting things up. I already said that laws have a beginning and that they are established. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, for it is not hard for me to prove that laws and rules are established. Only a conscious being can establish something, for it is through a desire or will that things get established. And if the rules existed since the dawn of time, then that is a perfect starting point for my arguement, which i have so used.

 

Well, you can't prove anything of what you just said You can only believe what you said, and I have no problem with that. However, certain things are impossible, like the earth being made in 6 days (even if it did exist before those 6 days). Also, the Bible implies that the Sun appeared after the Earth. Nah... it just doesn't fit.

I can prove that the Bible says that the earth existed before the six days, so there is something i can prove. And it is not impossible for God to cause things into existence within a very short period of time. He could have done it instantly, but apparently He did it in six days for the sake of the law of the Sabbath. But that entire section you quote from me was not intended to prove but rather to cause an open mind, as it provides an explanation as to why appearances can be deceiving. It is fully possible for the earth to be ~6,000 years old while appearing as old as whatever method for dating used says. But you have to prove that the earth being before the sun is not possible or "doesn't fit."

 

1. It simply isn't. Just like you can't write a book on someone and have everyone believe that everything written on it is true.

2. Very imaginative people.

3. No one. But the point is, that the Bible isn't a Book. It is JUST a book filled with metaphors. That's the difference.

4. The Big Bang does contradict the scripture because if it happened, many other things happened (such as the Sun having nearly 5 billion years, and the Earth having much much more than 6000 years). [...] [5]You should respect if someone doesn't share the same view you have about the Beginning of Time

[1]That goes for every book, so by your standard simply saying, "Science says so, so it must be true!" isn't enough of a justification. When you read something without verifying the data presented, you are running off of blind faith. This is very common in every day life, regardless of a person's stance in anything.

[2]Heh. You implied that you were willing to believe in visionaries in your previous post, but that is not the case, it seems.

[3]You have to prove that it is just a book of metaphors. Review my other post for some Biblical science proof (though there are more verses than that).

[4]I already explained why a (the) Big Bang doesn't contradict scripture if it were true. But to add to it, there could have been multiple bangs in different sections of the universe. They don't have to necessarily be big ones, and they don't necessarily have to cause a large expansion across space.

[5]Define "respect," for i can't see the following definition for it (for more than one reason—try not to assume things): "Accept."

 

No, the belief of the Earth having 6000 years is what is irrelevant when we consider the solid proof we have that the Earth is much older than that.

Although i already mentioned that it is uncertain just exactly how long the earth was left hanging there before the six days, consider the following: God creates the earth. The present carbon He gives it an extremely low concentration state—something beyond datable by radiocarbon dating. Immediately afterwards, He starts the six day creation. Due to chemical interactions, the carbon present becomes more concentrated. The previous form of the present carbon was what made it possible for humans to live as long as Adam and Eve, etc, did (and probably other factors included). Over time as more chemical interactions happened in the atomsphere, that decreased the lifespan of living organisms.

 

1. Yes, they have, and just so you know, tumors can regress and disappear naturally. This was "predicted" by our good friends, the scientists! On the other hand, many God fearing people die because of them^[1:2], and believe me, they pray, believe, and love God. I guess somethings are just up to doctors. Perhaps this is how it should be? Who said that God had to interfere and save those people? Why shouldn't we be saving ourselves if we have the knowledge to do so?

2. Yes, it is also much more incorrect. Do you go to the doctor? Do you by any chance benefit of anything modern science created? You shouldn't. You should ask God. Maybe He'd give you a computer and leave every atheist scientist playing with rocks. Wait a minute... those scientists invented the computer!

3. Again, do you go to the doctor? Please don't! Also, everyone dies, not just those who believe in doctors.

4. Poor many people.

5. LOL. So, you call everyone who doesn't believe in God as you do a sinner. It is strange that someone who makes use of modern technology isn't a great sinner himself. Well, whatever... such labeling doesn't really have much effect. I also believe that there is Commandment that says "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor", but that's ok. I'm used to discuss this with many people. It's pointless though. They always say they are right just because they are... And everyone knows what happens when we discuss with denialists...

[1]"Can," "'predicted'"—not absolute. We wouldn't need therapies or help if they eventually disappear. How a person dies is irrevelant to their salvation. All of a doctors' efforts are in vain if God chooses to prolong the tumor. Death is inevitable. If we could spare ourselves from death, we would not be human.

[2]God has already provided before even asking. If it weren't for the matter that was caused into existence, the ability to think beyond that than any other living organism on the planet, we would not be able to do anything. Humans can't create anything, we merely manipulate our surroundings. And you're asserting that those that "made" the computer were atheists.

[3]Good: you acknowledge that death is inevitable.

[4]People were experimented on, used as "guinea pigs," in the name of science? Then, yeah, poor people, too.

[5]You never defined "people" as "all those that don't believe in God," so it is you that is calling everyone who doesn't believe in God a sinner. My statement included those that believe in God also. This is in no way false testimony.

 

1. Because as incredible as this may sound, many people don't realize that religion is subjective! Hence my posting.

2. No it doesn't LOL. As for the assuring part, I can really assure you. The word "probably" was referring to the after-life part. Put in other words: "You'll never know, at least probably not in this life, I assure you."

[1]If religion was entirely subjective, then there would be nothing objective about it.

[2]If religion is as subjective as you say it is, then it affects us all. In trying to understand the other part, as you asked, "Perhaps God intended it this way?" crossing things out doesn't help me much in understanding. But what i can get out of it is that you're assuming that there is no afterlife, therefore you state the assurance.

 

[1]After replying, I just realized myself that I am confronting a personal belief with scientific proof, which is just plainly wrong. [2]Please reply *only* if you aren't going to start offending people (by calling them sinners) or [3]if you aren't gonna say things whose validity equal that of a: "It is because it just is and it was written in a metaphor." [4]Oh, and by the way, be sure to skip the doctor next time. [5]If you do go to the doctor, at least don't tell him "You are not gonna save anyone, they will all die!!!" because doing such a thing is pure Evil. It shows no respect for him.

[1]Actually, we're all asserting things. Some provide references and logic for their assertions, others do it afterwards or they don't do it at all. But in order for something to be greater than the other, it must be shown to be. If you say that science has proven something, but without providing any backing for your statement, then your statement is equal to mine if i provide no backing to my statements. But if you want to discontinue this discussion, then the choice is your's.

[2]I already called myself a sinner in my previous post, for "people" includes me. It would only be hard to prove that a person is a sinner if they are lying. But that within itself proves that they are a sinner, so they would have to be truthful. It is wrong of people to say that they haven't done anything wrong if they did, as it only continues problems that could have been avoided.

[3]You still have to prove that it is a metaphor. And i don't recall saying that one or more of my statements are a tautology.

[4]I don't like going to a doctor; i haven't been to a doctor in years. I don't like medicine, due to their side effects, taste and because they can be hard to swallow. I don't like needles, for they hurt. I avoid the doctor as much as possible. However, this in no way means that i prevent others through force from going to a doctor. I merely suggest organic and natural alternatives for them or to perhaps go to a nutritionist instead. Of course, prayer helps too.

[5]Your statement excludes female doctors. But i wouldn't do it to either anyway. But the statement would be more accurate if said, "You can only attempt to prolong a person's life." This should be motivation to do and be better.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

^[1:2]"Them" here implies the scientists. But i shall go with tumors instead.

[pedro-kun 0]

Laws and rules are maintained, otherwise they'd be useless and fall apart. Therefore God is required to intervene even after setting things up. I already said that laws have a beginning and that they are established. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, for it is not hard for me to prove that laws and rules are established. Only a conscious being can establish something, for it is through a desire or will that things get established. And if the rules existed since the dawn of time, then that is a perfect starting point for my arguement, which i have so used.

Well, that is just what you believe in. Just because rules exist it doesn't mean they must be established by someone. Also, we're not discussing whether God exists or not. We're just talking about creationism vs evolution.

 

I can prove that the Bible says that the earth existed before the six days, so there is something i can prove. And it is not impossible for God to cause things into existence within a very short period of time. He could have done it instantly, but apparently He did it in six days for the sake of the law of the Sabbath. But that entire section you quote from me was not intended to prove but rather to cause an open mind, as it provides an explanation as to why appearances can be deceiving. It is fully possible for the earth to be ~6,000 years old while appearing as old as whatever method for dating used says. But you have to prove that the earth being before the sun is not possible or "doesn't fit."

Well, I can also prove you that many books say the Bible is wrong, and that it is impossible for that to have happened. Again, belief, not real proof.

 

[1]That goes for every book, so by your standard simply saying, "Science says so, so it must be true!" isn't enough of a justification. When you read something without verifying the data presented, you are running off of blind faith. This is very common in every day life, regardless of a person's stance in anything.

[2]Heh. You implied that you were willing to believe in visionaries in your previous post, but that is not the case, it seems.

[3]You have to prove that it is just a book of metaphors. Review my other post for some Biblical science proof (though there are more verses than that).

[4]I already explained why a (the) Big Bang doesn't contradict scripture if it were true. But to add to it, there could have been multiple bangs in different sections of the universe. They don't have to necessarily be big ones, and they don't necessarily have to cause a large expansion across space.

[5]Define "respect," for i can't see the following definition for it (for more than one reason?try not to assume things): "Accept."

1. No, what science says it is true, science usually is able to prove it is true! Like the already mentioned PET scans, or even quantum physics, which you make use of everyday.

2. I didn't imply it, that's why it is not the case

3. Then prove me all the other books on specific scientific subjects aren't correct. Also, the Bible is ambiguous.

4. It does contradict. I'm not the right person to explain this to you, of course, some theoretical physicist would do fine... but a single Bang implies a whole space-time construct, and thus, a separate universe for each bang.

5. Accepting is good.

 

Although i already mentioned that it is uncertain just exactly how long the earth was left hanging there before the six days, consider the following: God creates the earth. The present carbon He gives it an extremely low concentration state?something beyond datable by radiocarbon dating. Immediately afterwards, He starts the six day creation. Due to chemical interactions, the carbon present becomes more concentrated. The previous form of the present carbon was what made it possible for humans to live as long as Adam and Eve, etc, did (and probably other factors included). Over time as more chemical interactions happened in the atomsphere, that decreased the lifespan of living organisms.

You have a whole lot of imagination, my friend. Did you read that up in the Bible?

 

[1]"Can," "'predicted'"?not absolute. We wouldn't need therapies or help if they eventually disappear. How a person dies is irrevelant to their salvation. All of a doctors' efforts are in vain if God chooses to prolong the tumor. Death is inevitable. If we could spare ourselves from death, we would not be human.

[2]God has already provided before even asking. If it weren't for the matter that was caused into existence, the ability to think beyond that than any other living organism on the planet, we would not be able to do anything. Humans can't create anything, we merely manipulate our surroundings. And you're asserting that those that "made" the computer were atheists.

[3]Good: you acknowledge that death is inevitable.

[4]People were experimented on, used as "guinea pigs," in the name of science? Then, yeah, poor people, too.

[5]You never defined "people" as "all those that don't believe in God," so it is you that is calling everyone who doesn't believe in God a sinner. My statement included those that believe in God also. This is in no way false testimony.

1. But if we can save someone and don't we're not humane.

2. Prove it. God made some people to be atheists too, then. And somehow you want to convert them even though God created them for the sole purpose of being atheists. You make a very void point.

3. You'll have to tell me where I said I didn't believe that death was inevitable. Oh! the part where doctors save lives? Well, don't hide behind linguistic trenches.

4. Yes, people died because they opposed religious beliefs when heliocentrism was introduced too. Poor people! Dying for the ignorance and closed-minds of others.

5. Man, I'm sick of you hiding behind language. And by the way, I didn't call a sinner to anyone, *obviously*.

 

[1]If religion was entirely subjective, then there would be nothing objective about it.

[2]If religion is as subjective as you say it is, then it affects us all. In trying to understand the other part, as you asked, "Perhaps God intended it this way?" crossing things out doesn't help me much in understanding. But what i can get out of it is that you're assuming that there is no afterlife, therefore you state the assurance.

1. Is there anything objective about it?

2. Crossing things out generally means we take something back. Language trench again!

 

[1]Actually, we're all asserting things. Some provide references and logic for their assertions, others do it afterwards or they don't do it at all. But in order for something to be greater than the other, it must be shown to be. If you say that science has proven something, but without providing any backing for your statement, then your statement is equal to mine if i provide no backing to my statements. But if you want to discontinue this discussion, then the choice is your's.

[2]I already called myself a sinner in my previous post, for "people" includes me. It would only be hard to prove that a person is a sinner if they are lying. But that within itself proves that they are a sinner, so they would have to be truthful. It is wrong of people to say that they haven't done anything wrong if they did, as it only continues problems that could have been avoided.

[3]You still have to prove that it is a metaphor. And i don't recall saying that one or more of my statements are a tautology.

[4]I don't like going to a doctor; i haven't been to a doctor in years. I don't like medicine, due to their side effects, taste and because they can be hard to swallow. I don't like needles, for they hurt. I avoid the doctor as much as possible. However, this in no way means that i prevent others through force from going to a doctor. I merely suggest organic and natural alternatives for them or to perhaps go to a nutritionist instead. Of course, prayer helps too.

[5]Your statement excludes female doctors. But i wouldn't do it to either anyway. But the statement would be more accurate if said, "You can only attempt to prolong a person's life." This should be motivation to do and be better.

1. Well, I can provide you with links to many studies which present the thought process and results of many investigations. Many of them are free, you know? They show all kinds of stuff including how to reproduce the tests! And please, I do want to discontinue the discussion. My english skills aren't advanced enough for me to skip all the language gaps you somehow managed to hide in.

2. There are different kinds of "wrong things" to do. Plain "sinner" for all is an awful classification.

3. Well, prove me otherwise. Also, not quite a tautology, but close to it. More like having the Bible as the only argument.

4. What do you know? Medicine can often be tasty and administrated by oral means! But whatever, keep on skipping the doctor. Also, alternative medicines are good, too, especially due to their "low" prices and truly magnificent results (which include people's stomachs being washed out, after realizing something didn't really work, for example).

5. Are you serious? "Your statement excludes female doctors" <-- there we have it, another language-trap!

 

 

Well, truefusion, it has been a nice discussion on how to write correctly and all that. But I am afraid I haven't got the time to reply to any more of these colossal answers filled with language-traps. Sorry. Anyway, creationism shouldn't be taught. Whether God exists or doesn't, it is a whole different question. Don't confuse things.

[truefusion 3]

Well, truefusion, it has been a nice discussion on how to write correctly and all that. But I am afraid I haven't got the time to reply to any more of these colossal answers filled with language-traps.[...]
Then prove me all the other books on specific scientific subjects aren't correct.
[...]
2. Prove it.

I do not believe that the reason for not continuing is because you lack time, as you are a hosted member and require to post to maintain your hosting. But if you were going to discontinue the discussion, then you did not need to tell me to prove anything. Telling me to prove something implies that you would return.

Well, that is just what you believe in. Just because rules exist it doesn't mean they must be established by someone. Also, we're not discussing whether God exists or not. We're just talking about creationism vs evolution.[...]
Whether God exists or doesn't, it is a whole different question. Don't confuse things.

Without God what is creationism?

Well, I can also prove you that many books say the Bible is wrong, and that it is impossible for that to have happened. Again, belief, not real proof.

You may be able to present books that say the Bible is wrong, but that within itself doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong.

1. No, what science says it is true, science usually is able to prove it is true! Like the already mentioned PET scans, or even quantum physics, which you make use of everyday.[...]
3. Then prove me all the other books on specific scientific subjects aren't correct. Also, the Bible is ambiguous.
[...]
5. Accepting is good.

[1]Usually? Regardless, science being able to prove something does not necessarily disprove the Bible altogether.
[3]The burden of proof is still on you to prove that the Bible is just a mere book of metaphors. Redirecting a matter when the burden of proof is on you is known as a "red herring."
[5]Define "respect."

You have a whole lot of imagination, my friend. Did you read that up in the Bible?

I only added to the explanation i once heard from a Christian scientist. But that would mean that if we fix up or repair our atmosphere, we could increase our lifespan on earth.

1. But if we can save someone and don't we're not humane.2. Prove it. God made some people to be atheists too, then. And somehow you want to convert them even though God created them for the sole purpose of being atheists. You make a very void point.
[...]
4. Yes, people died because they opposed religious beliefs when heliocentrism was introduced too. Poor people! Dying for the ignorance and closed-minds of others.
[...]

[1]Correct, but that tends to be common of humans.
[2]I have already provided much reasoning why God was the cause of all of this; you still need to disprove much of my reasoning. But you have to prove that God created atheists. Atheism is a decision made by people to become atheists. A baby lacking knowledge of something does not mean that they are an atheist, nor does it mean that what they lack knowledge of doesn't exist.
[4]You said doctors save lives because of the DNA links found between two species. That implies that primates were used in the name of science in experiments so that human lives would be saved. But here you are talking about another matter.

1. Is there anything objective about it?2. Crossing things out generally means we take something back. Language trench again!

[1]Refer to my post found here: link.
[2] I still don't fully understand your previous post concerning this.

1. Well, I can provide you with links to many studies which present the thought process and results of many investigations. Many of them are free, you know? They show all kinds of stuff including how to reproduce the tests! And please, I do want to discontinue the discussion. My english skills aren't advanced enough for me to skip all the language gaps you somehow managed to hide in.2. There are different kinds of "wrong things" to do. Plain "sinner" for all is an awful classification.
3. Well, prove me otherwise. Also, not quite a tautology, but close to it. More like having the Bible as the only argument.
4. What do you know? Medicine can often be tasty and administrated by oral means! But whatever, keep on skipping the doctor. Also, alternative medicines are good, too, especially due to their "low" prices and truly magnificent results (which include people's stomachs being washed out, after realizing something didn't really work, for example).
5. Are you serious? "Your statement excludes female doctors" <-- there we have it, another language-trap!

[1]Yes, provide them.
[2]"Sinner" is just a summation. If morality is relative, then the world is worse off.
[3]The burden of proof is still on you.
[4]Concerning doctors, i know through experience.
[5]You did say "him." "Them" is gender neutral.

[pedro-kun 0]

To start this off, let me say that this thread is about Creationism, not Christianity. Having said that, I may as well tell you that the existence of God has nothing to do with creationism, even if the Bible says it has. Even though I have to post to maintain hosting, I didn't come to Xisto for hosting... I was just looking for a general-purpose forum to post in I took advantage of the hosting because I could... and it may come in handy sometimes. Anyway, the burden of proof lies with you to prove Creationism is right! Because creationism was never proved right (it was in fact, proved wrong). Also, remember that evolution is a set of separate theories which have all been proven already. (like allele changing and mutations, etc) Regarding the Bible itself, the burden lies with you again... You need proof that the Bible is right... and if the Bible implies Creationism is true, and said theory has been proven wrong, then we must assume the rest of the Bible is or may be wrong as well (I'm using here the same technique creationists like to use, which is to deduce the veracity of the whole science from single scientific failures). I want to introduce a new concept as well. Before adequate proof, every theory is FALSE. Which means you have to prove your reasoning to make it valid, because it is already false, when you start. Concerning doctors, you know nothing more than doctors themselves (however, they know a whole lot more than you! even about yourself). By the way, without God, creationism is nothing. However, even with a God, it still remains nothing. I'd like to change the statement where I said the only argument you use is the Bible. As all creationists, you also make heavy use of the "define <word>" (like "respect") or even the classic "proof of burden is on you". The problem is creationists don't accept refutation (they think they don't need it, obviously) and that's why such theory will always remain false. Despite all the evidence of it, creationists keep trying to convince people. Conclusion: In order to prove creationism, you have to prove evolution is wrong. And to do it, you will have to have in-depth knowledge of every field it encompasses and every evidence there is in favor of it. The burden of proof is on you. Oh!, and you can go to https://www.plos.org/or even http://www.nejm.org/action/cookieAbsent/ or many other sites filled with proven scientific knowledge. About the gender neutrality of "him" vs "them", I was referring to a single doctor, hence the "him". If there is a non-plural gender-neutral form, please tell! Again, my english is not quite the best! (PS.: Creationism has been proved wrong already. See this also: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/71024083652.htm ) Thank you for your attention, and by the way, I accept no refutation (therefore I quit discussion due to endless repetition of creationism's false "arguments")

Edited November 21, 2016 by OpaQue (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

i can say it and i DID say it. there is so much time in the day to learn the BASICS. beliefs and religions has no place in public schools whatsoever. it's not a matter of prioritie or what is most important. it's a matter of what do we teach children with the limited time we have while they are in school. if the child has a need to learn a belief or a religion, there are specialized schools for that. that is why they are there becasue they don't teach everything in public schools from k-12th grade. now the parent has the choice to have a voice in what a child is taught and so does the child. if anything deprives a child from learning everything a child wants to learn at any given time, he/she can go to the library or google the information on the internet.

seperating church and state IS DEFINATELY relevant. the constitution is what we are bound by right or wrong but in my opinion, religion has no place in public schools even when most people in this world believe in god. if you teach one religion or belief, you have to teach them all truefusion? that is absurd and ridiculous and i'm glad you are not a decision maker in our public schools because to make time to teach all that, you would have to illiminate math or reading or english or some other class. darwin's theory is based on SCIENCE. creationism isn't based on anything but faith and belief. further more, creationism is open to interpretation so who's interpretation do we go by to teach it? too many different beliefs and faiths out there my friend.

again, you want to argue for the sake of creating an arguement, and again, you do not type in your own personal beliefs but rather try to discredit others who ARE open in what they believe. now i didn't contradict myself, you dig your own hole your own self the more arguements you make because you obviously can't believe in everything you argue about....so let's talk about contradictions because i can quote you in your own contradictions.

there are CHURCHES to learn about this stuff. the church is the school to learn about creationism. it's seperate from the public because people shouldn't be forced to learn about something they don't believe in. the churches don't force people to go to their churches. it's free will. not like our public education which is mandatory wether you go to school or home schooled learning the basics of education. if people were forced to learn about god and creationism, then we might as well live in those countries that demand us to put our religion on our drivers license too which i read about here on trap in another thread. how ridiculous that a government forces people to choose a religion. our government in the united states does not force this on anyone thank god and gives us free will to believe in anything we choose to by allowing us to CHOOSE wether or not we want to study or learn about any 1 religion/belief/faith.

grade school/jr. high/high school focuses on basic education. the education we recieve then are based on the rules that govern the english language and the facts behind the theories, and the mathmatical structure of adding and substracting and multimlication and division and the formulas and algorythms. religion/beliefs/faith doesn't even fit in to any of what are public schools are trying to accomplished based on the constitution of the united states to seperate church and state. oh. believe me, the constituation IS relevant unless your one to throw the constitution in the trash because you don't believe in it. so is that what it is? you don't believe in the constituation of the united states?

if you don't understand what others are saying to respect what they are saying, then continue quoting others til your blue in the face and show your own ignorace in non understanding. until you step up and post ONE message in this thread in what YOU believe, you will not hold my resepct here at all when all you are trying to do is discredit everyone. i mean, i respect others that don't have my opinion. i may disagree and argue and that should be ok. problem i got is you have no opinion at all yet are trying desperately to discredit others. that is not only disrespectfull but RUDE

so don't be a chicken here.....should creationism be taught in public schools? if so, why? and if so, explain how you would structure it so there is enough time to learn the other important subjects. maybe the children should study philosophy as we are at it too teaching the the theory that there was no big bang and there is no god that created us. let's just teach them what is, IS.

you know how many problems there would be if we taught just one interpretation on creationism? you'd even te parents of the children who beieve in god taking their children out of the schools and teaching their child their own self because even they don't agree with any one interpretion. nothing is based on fact why there are so many religions and beliefs out there.

bottom line, there is no special school for math or science or english and what not....but there IS a special school that kids can go to learn about god and creationism. it's called SUNDAY SCHOOL. enough said....

You can't say that both should not be taught then go on to say that people should be able to choose. For in order to be able to choose either or, both would have to be taught. Also, separation of church and state is irrelevant here. But the schools would be limiting the children if none teach either or. The children would have to look else where, if they even bear knowledge of it.

[truefusion 3]

Since i expect myself to run out of quote bbcode, consider my responses aligned to the same structure as the one in the quotes.

 

To start this off, let me say that this thread is about Creationism, not Christianity. Having said that, I may as well tell you that the existence of God has nothing to do with creationism, even if the Bible says it has.

 

[...]

 

Anyway, the burden of proof lies with you to prove Creationism is right! Because creationism was never proved right (it was in fact, proved wrong). Also, remember that evolution is a set of separate theories which have all been proven already. (like allele changing and mutations, etc)

Regarding the Bible itself, the burden lies with you again... You need proof that the Bible is right... and if the Bible implies Creationism is true, and said theory has been proven wrong, then we must assume the rest of the Bible is or may be wrong as well (I'm using here the same technique creationists like to use, which is to deduce the veracity of the whole science from single scientific failures).

 

I want to introduce a new concept as well. Before adequate proof, every theory is FALSE. Which means you have to prove your reasoning to make it valid, because it is already false, when you start.

 

[...]

 

I'd like to change the statement where I said the only argument you use is the Bible. As all creationists, you also make heavy use of the "define <word>" (like "respect") or even the classic "proof of burden is on you". The problem is creationists don't accept refutation (they think they don't need it, obviously) and that's why such theory will always remain false. Despite all the evidence of it, creationists keep trying to convince people.

Conclusion: In order to prove creationism, you have to prove evolution is wrong. And to do it, you will have to have in-depth knowledge of every field it encompasses and every evidence there is in favor of it. The burden of proof is on you.

 

Oh!, and you can go to https://www.plos.org/ or even http://www.nejm.org/action/cookieAbsent/ or many other sites filled with proven scientific knowledge.

About the gender neutrality of "him" vs "them", I was referring to a single doctor, hence the "him". If there is a non-plural gender-neutral form, please tell! Again, my english is not quite the best!

 

(PS.: Creationism has been proved wrong already. See this also: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/71024083652.htm )

 

Thank you for your attention, and by the way, I accept no refutation (therefore I quit discussion due to endless repetition of creationism's false "arguments")

Although creationism within itself can include any amount of gods, based on its history it appears to be publically preposed only by adherents to the Abrahamic religions, mostly Christians.

 

Have you referred to the post i have previously linked to? If you want more verses, you can ask for them. You already acknowledge the Big Bang theory (from what i got from your posts), so the part about the universe having a beginning and entropy from my post shouldn't require any referencing. As for the water cycle, i suppose the Wikipedia article on the water cycle may be sufficient for you.

 

I will accept your concept though i don't find it to be new, as i have said similar: Saying that something is false is not in itself a valid reason. You must provide sources, reasoning, etc, for it in order for your statement to be valid.

 

Even if you see patterns from me that you say you have seen from other creationists, do not automatically conclude that i am just like them. The main reason why i do not accept manyâif not mostâof your statements is because from what i have been receiving from you have been, "this and that is already proven to be false," "that is what you believe," and that you have been reverting the burden of proof unto me regardless of any reasoning i have provided. I don't mind providing my reasons after reason, for in the end they will be there. But i do not necessarily need to disprove the theory of evolution in order to prove creationism. Simply by proving creationism i would in turn disprove the theory of evolution in the same way you would say that by proving the theory of evolution, one would disprove creationism. In case you have included micro evolution into the term "theory of evolution" wherever i have so mentioned it, let it be knowned that whenever i say "theory of evolution," i mean "evolution on a macro level through natural means that benefits the organism that is evolving, which causes one species to become another species." For i have no problem accepting micro evolution. You may use this a starting point if you want.

If science is so dependant on the theory of evolution, then you should hope that the theory of evolution is not ultimately brought down. Although your thought on this may be similar to, "Don't worry, it won't be," i will say that most of the scientific advances which you have been talking about, like medicine, have been from the study of things from a microscopic level. The theory of evolution involves macro as well. Although micro evolution may open the possibility of a macro evolution to the extent that the theory of evolution bears mention of, that does not within itself prove that species have a common ancestry, etc. For that could be an appeal to probability.

 

I have looked at plos.org but could not find any articles concerning this topic. If you have any bookmarks, please provide. Nejm.org, as i see it, does not do you any good. What it tells me is that there are many problems that can and do occur on a microscopic level, and, if left on its own, can only cause the organism trouble. This to me contradicts the theory of evolution within itself, for many of these problems are life threatening and cause mutations that do not benefit the organism in any way. As far as i'm concerned, much, if not more, of scientific studies on organisms were done to try to solve and prevent problems that naturally occur within a species. And a change in environments, i would say, can only make things worse for the organism.

"You" can be taken as plural, so "them" should be capable of being taken as singular. English has many exceptions, so i wouldn't be surprised if even English teachers haven't mastered the language.

 

The article found on ScienceDaily does not disprove creationism. I am also willing to go as far as to say that it doesn't prove the theory of evolution either, for the theory of evolution requires natural means. The article talks about evolution that was human guided, where humans intervened. If anything, what you are telling me is really a mixture of creationism and the theory of evolution, in that an outside, conscious being was required in order to form a macroscopic change in a species (even though, in this case, they're still the same species). In either case, it was done outside of natural means, therefore supernatural is allowed.

 

You are welcome; however, you do not need to accept or deny anything to read something. But thank you for your time, too.

 

i can say it and i DID say it. there is so much time in the day to learn the BASICS. beliefs and religions has no place in public schools whatsoever. it's not a matter of prioritie or what is most important. it's a matter of what do we teach children with the limited time we have while they are in school. if the child has a need to learn a belief or a religion, there are specialized schools for that. that is why they are there becasue they don't teach everything in public schools from k-12th grade. now the parent has the choice to have a voice in what a child is taught and so does the child. if anything deprives a child from learning everything a child wants to learn at any given time, he/she can go to the library or google the information on the internet.

 

seperating church and state IS DEFINATELY relevant. the constitution is what we are bound by right or wrong but in my opinion, religion has no place in public schools even when most people in this world believe in god. if you teach one religion or belief, you have to teach them all truefusion? that is absurd and ridiculous and i'm glad you are not a decision maker in our public schools because to make time to teach all that, you would have to illiminate math or reading or english or some other class. darwin's theory is based on SCIENCE. creationism isn't based on anything but faith and belief. further more, creationism is open to interpretation so who's interpretation do we go by to teach it? too many different beliefs and faiths out there my friend.

 

again, you want to argue for the sake of creating an arguement, and again, you do not type in your own personal beliefs but rather try to discredit others who ARE open in what they believe. now i didn't contradict myself, you dig your own hole your own self the more arguements you make because you obviously can't believe in everything you argue about....so let's talk about contradictions because i can quote you in your own contradictions.

 

there are CHURCHES to learn about this stuff. the church is the school to learn about creationism. it's seperate from the public because people shouldn't be forced to learn about something they don't believe in. the churches don't force people to go to their churches. it's free will. not like our public education which is mandatory wether you go to school or home schooled learning the basics of education. if people were forced to learn about god and creationism, then we might as well live in those countries that demand us to put our religion on our drivers license too which i read about here on trap in another thread. how ridiculous that a government forces people to choose a religion. our government in the united states does not force this on anyone thank god and gives us free will to believe in anything we choose to by allowing us to CHOOSE wether or not we want to study or learn about any 1 religion/belief/faith.

 

grade school/jr. high/high school focuses on basic education. the education we recieve then are based on the rules that govern the english language and the facts behind the theories, and the mathmatical structure of adding and substracting and multimlication and division and the formulas and algorythms. religion/beliefs/faith doesn't even fit in to any of what are public schools are trying to accomplished based on the constitution of the united states to seperate church and state. oh. believe me, the constituation IS relevant unless your one to throw the constitution in the trash because you don't believe in it. so is that what it is? you don't believe in the constituation of the united states?

 

if you don't understand what others are saying to respect what they are saying, then continue quoting others til your blue in the face and show your own ignorace in non understanding. until you step up and post ONE message in this thread in what YOU believe, you will not hold my resepct here at all when all you are trying to do is discredit everyone. i mean, i respect others that don't have my opinion. i may disagree and argue and that should be ok. problem i got is you have no opinion at all yet are trying desperately to discredit others. that is not only disrespectfull but RUDE

 

so don't be a chicken here.....should creationism be taught in public schools? if so, why? and if so, explain how you would structure it so there is enough time to learn the other important subjects. maybe the children should study philosophy as we are at it too teaching the the theory that there was no big bang and there is no god that created us. let's just teach them what is, IS.

 

you know how many problems there would be if we taught just one interpretation on creationism? you'd even te parents of the children who beieve in god taking their children out of the schools and teaching their child their own self because even they don't agree with any one interpretion. nothing is based on fact why there are so many religions and beliefs out there.

 

[...]

What i meant by "you can't say ..." is that you can't say it and expect for your statement to remain valid from an objective viewpoint. I would say that it is of some, if not utmost, importance if it involves loved ones and what they learn. If it were a matter of choice, then creationism should be included in public schools, for what if the child wants to learn creationism in a public school? Or why not have a separate, specialized school for the theory of evolution where people can go to if they so want, without having to teach it in public schools? Indeed, let there be a section for each subject where the child so chooses to be part of, where they have full say in denying the remaining sections.

 

If the people have any say in where their money goes, then it should be allowed that creationism be taught in public schools. For unless the government is providing the financial support to these schools outside of taxes, then why should people not have a voice? Is it because you say that most people believe in God? Although i do not see how you obtained from my statement that you quote that i said that if one religion should be taught, all should be taught, i will ask, how is it absurd and ridiculous to play fair? And, no, you would not have to exclude all that you mention. Creationism does not need to involve religious doctrines, only the parts that are relevant to the understand of how the natural world works. A lot of what is already taught in schools would be included. But Darwin's theory is not based on science, for it was required that science come into the picture in order to see where Darwin's theory can actually be useful in. Darwin's theory was postulated through things which he considered while observing the world. (I do not in any way mean to imply any support from me concerning how Darwin constructed the theory.) But you're assuming that creationism has nothing testable or verifiable. I have already provided verses that prove that it does. Secondly, all evidence is interpreted, yet these interpretations are still taught: they're called "theories." Should we discontinue them?

 

It should be more than obvious what i believe in; though, this topic is whether or not both theories should be taught in public schools, not what i personally believe in. But what is it that makes me appear like i am arguing for the sake of arguing? Is it that i am not accepting what you say? Could you point to me the openness of everyone else that you say so exists? For i don't see it. If you're implying that in order to be seen as open you have to seek that creationism not be taught along side the theory of evolution in public schools, then i am fine being seen as closed. And, actually, i can believe in all that i talk about. I don't remember any change in my way of arguing, but if you could point that out to me, then i will agree that i can't believe in all that i talk about.

 

You're implying that the theory of evolution is basic knowledge. Why is it basic? What makes it basic? It can't be anything that can also be said about religion or creationism. But even though you say that people shouldn't be forced to be taught anything they don't believe in, you allow that the theory of evolution to be mandatory any way. If whether or not one should learn something was dependant on one's belief system, then creationism should be taught in public schools. Let them choose what they want and don't want to learn, right?

 

The only reason why creationism isn't taught in public schools is because it is seen as an advancement to religious doctrine, it contradicts the theory of evolution, and because people say it is not verifiable or testable. The first one can be avoided if no religious doctrine is taught. The other two are not valid reasons, for the second reason shows biasism and the third is false, as i have so shown in this topic. The government does not want to be seen to be supporting one religion. Ironically, that is inevitable, as it is all over America's currency. So as it is, all reasons for not wanting to financially support creationism in public schools are invalid.

 

If by respect you mean "accept," then you'll have to refute my reasoning for my statements. But at the same time, you say you show respect for others, but i only see the very same thing you are accusing me of. Therefore, "respect" does not mean "accept" by your standards. And i am still waiting for the definition of "respect" which you guys want me to follow. But i have already mentioned that this topic is not about my beliefs, but that it is about whether or not creationism should be taught along side the theory of evolution. I am not looking for anyone's respect.

 

I do not see how calling someone "chicken" is respectful or nice. But to answer your question: Yes, creationism should be taught along side the theory of evolutionâthis is a summarized form of all that i already mentioned in this topic. If you want my reasonings for it, you can read all my previous postsâthose not pertaining to you specifically. I have already provided some insight on how time could be made for creationism in this post. But a lot of things taught in school aren't required in life unless you choose to follow such an advanced subject as a career. Therefore, teach what is required for every day life in public schools. Let everything else be for colleges, universities, and spare time, where time is not really of a concern concerning education. Again, choice. And, no, i am not implying that what is required involves creationism.

 

Creationism is the explanation of how God created something to function. Since it involves the natural, the interpretations do not come from religious text, but from the evidence concerning religious text. As mentioned before, all evidence is interpreted. Because it is interpreted it does not mean that conclusions should not come from these interpretations of the evidence present. Otherwise there'd be no science.

[Posterchild 0]

I went to sunday school when I was a kid, I learned all about creationism, but the people who taught that never once said it anything about proof, testability or evidence. I went to school and learned all about evolution, the different periods of history, the types of life found on Earth throughout the many millions of years.. I was taught about famous scientists, about the scientific method, proof and evidence. I went on to study biology at university, and now I wonder about space and the prospect of life starting out there and merely seeding life here..Creationism, from my experience of it, is not aimed at teaching kids to think, to explore or to question, it is about acceptance, unquestioning faith and dogma.. for that reason, I do not think it is the best thing to teach in schools, it has a place in church and the people who fellowship in the churchs have the right to teach their kids what they like. But when it comes to the open, public schools, and a teaching method for all children, regardless of the parents religious views, then science is the way to go, and with science, comes evolution.Hey, if the Church of England has seen fit to publicly apologize to Darwin, I think its time to accept that evolution is the accepted believe of the majority of people across the broadest section of the global community, and that religion is not something with a great track record for uniting diverse peoples, whereas science is something that does it quite well.If a person with strong religious views objects so strongly to evolutionary teachings, then they are better raising and educating their kids at home.

[Forbez 0]

I have nothing against creationism being taught side-by-side with evolution. As long as the teachers teaching the subject aren’t biased in their opinion and don’t pressure the children to believe one over the other. But can you really get such a non-biased teacher like that? Every person on this planet either believes in religion or in science; sometimes a mixture of both. There isn’t a person who simply just doesn’t believe. A science teacher of mine, she taught us evolution. As a scientist herself, she would believe it in. But she also said something very simple which worked for me. “Evolution isn’t the only theory towards how the universe was created, if you’re really interested research the creationism theory as well.” She said that in a formal voice and a serious tone and I think everyone in the class understood evolution is just a theory; it’s up to us to decide whether or not we should believe in it.But there’s so much pressure on schools to teach this and that. Shouldn’t parents have something to teach to their children? People want schools to teach everything from sex education to the bases of all existence. Isn’t that asking quite a lot? Teachers don’t even get paid that much in ratio with how much responsibility they have. I personally think teach either sides or none at all.

[pedro-kun 0]

@truefusion:

Actually, the Big Bang theory does not mean the Universe had a beginning. Read up on it, okay?

 

But you're assuming that creationism has nothing testable or verifiable. I have already provided verses that prove that it does.

We too, provide "verses" from Darwin's work that prove evolution. And many other studies. Actually almost any Science book that talks about the origin of Life proves evolution right.

 

Also!, Science is not dependent on the theory of evolution... Science is mutable, as opposed to the Creationists thoughts. So, Science actually evolves with its own mistakes, while creationism will forever stay the same, always stating the same non-senses.

As for macro-evolution, read up on the study I already supplied. If you still don't believe it, I guess I cannot force someone to comprehend what they don't want to. If your mind is already closed, how can you accept other opinions? Waste of time. That said, it would be pointless to provide links to any other study. Oh!, and I don't care if you refer only to macro-evolution... the"theory" of evolution is much more than that.

 

The definition of theory is another problem, as well. Who cares if you think that by being called "Theory" of evolution you think it was not proven... Creationism isn't even a theory! It is a Tale. And actually, scientific "theories" have that status only after intense testing. Was creationism tested in any way?

 

The article found on ScienceDaily does not disprove creationism. I am also willing to go as far as to say that it doesn't prove the theory of evolution either, for the theory of evolution requires natural means. The article talks about evolution that was human guided, where humans intervened. If anything, what you are telling me is really a mixture of creationism and the theory of evolution, in that an outside, conscious being was required in order to form a macroscopic change in a species (even though, in this case, they're still the same species). In either case, it was done outside of natural means, therefore supernatural is allowed.

How inventive can you get? What a load of crap. Pseudo-Scientific-babble just sucks, you know?

Btw, read up on some science books with an open mind. You'll see that selection can be natural OR made by humans. It does not matter which one it is; evolution is proved right, and creationism wrong. I know you don't believe and will probably make something up to discredit people. It doesn't matter what kind of selection there is, as long as there is a type of selection. That's what the theory states. Learn it, don't make things up.

 

Therefore, teach what is required for every day life in public schools. Let everything else be for colleges, universities, and spare time, where time is not really of a concern concerning education

Great idea! Don't teach religion as well (no sunday schools). Teach only language and maths, and some basic "science" (like, what are plants, animals, etc..). Then when people reach 18, let them decide what they want to believe. Let them choose their religion. You'd be amazed to what the results would be.

 

I do not see how calling someone "chicken" is respectful or nice.

Define "respectful" and "nice". Also, define "prove" and "disprove". While you're at it, define "discredit" for me. Because I don't think it is nice for you to claim your respectful while you're simply not accepting other peoples thoughts. You don't worry about proving Creationism, but only about disproving any other theory, and discrediting anyone who has a different opinion than you in this thread. Your constant evasion of others' questions was irritating, and someone gave an opinion about that. It may not have been the most polite yet, but your posts haven't been better.

I just wonder how you can keep asking proof if your not going to accept them (or even consider them) in the first place. You simply grab what other people said and change the subject/answer indirectly to slightly turn the matter upside down. That's not nice nor respectful.

 

Thank you for your time as well. Creationism should not be taught in public schools. I'm glad my country doesn't even consider such a thing.

Edited September 21, 2008 by pedro-kun (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Actually, the Big Bang theory does not mean the Universe had a beginning. Read up on it, okay?

What would happen if i do the research, provide some sources^{[1][2][3][4][5] (to provide a few)}, and i still end up with the same conclusion: that the Big Bang theory means the universe had a beginning? Can you provide me where you got your information, that the Big Bang theory does not mean the universe had a beginning?

 

We too, provide "verses" from Darwin's work that prove evolution. And many other studies. Actually almost any Science book that talks about the origin of Life proves evolution right.

I have seen many studies about micro organisms provided by you, but i have not seen any of them that were attributed to Charles Darwin. A lot of books^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] (just to point out a few)} provide outdated material (without warning). Research should be done to see if it is still valid today and if any later editions still promote invalid information.

 

Also! Science is not dependent on the theory of evolution... Science is mutable, as opposed to the Creationists thoughts. So, Science actually evolves with its own mistakes, while creationism will forever stay the same, always stating the same non-senses.

You have just previously mentioned that almost every science book supports the theory of evolution. If it wasn't dependent, then it need not be mentioned in almost every science book. Regardless, i constantly hear from atheists that the theory of evolution is so highly supported by science that in order to disprove it, i would also have to disprove the following fields: biology, archeology, geology, etc. Like in this page. You say it is mutable, that page says that the theory of evolution is not absolute because contradictive data can still appear. Darwinists and the like constantly say that the theory of evolution is so widely supported by evidence (though they rarely, if at all, provide any sources). So, believing this, would one piece of contradictive evidence put an end to the theory of evolution? No, because the theory of evolution "is overwhemingly supported by evidence." People will just find a way to do away with this contradictive data. Creationism can be backed up and be friends with a lot of what is being taught in science books. And creationism is mutable, you just have to find something that it mentions in detail and show that that is not the case.

 

As for macro-evolution, read up on the study I already supplied. If you still don't believe it, I guess I cannot force someone to comprehend what they don't want to. If your mind is already closed, how can you accept other opinions? Waste of time. That said, it would be pointless to provide links to any other study. Oh! and I don't care if you refer only to macro-evolution... the"theory" of evolution is much more than that.

I have already provided my analysis on what you have showed me. I am waiting for your rebuttal—i have been waiting for it for a long time. And if the denial or non-acceptance of another's opinions is to be closed minded, what have you accepted from me? But choosing to not provide a rebuttal to my statements is to allow the continuation of my statements. The theory of evolution may be more than that, but without change on a macro level it cannot be itself.

 

The definition of theory is another problem, as well. Who cares if you think that by being called "Theory" of evolution you think it was not proven... Creationism isn't even a theory! It is a Tale. And actually, scientific "theories" have that status only after intense testing. Was creationism tested in any way?

I am still waiting for your proof that it is just a metaphor, a tale. And i have already shown how creationism can be tested.

 

How inventive can you get? What a load of crap. Pseudo-Scientific-babble just sucks, you know?

Btw, read up on some science books with an open mind. You'll see that selection can be natural OR made by humans. It does not matter which one it is; evolution is proved right, and creationism wrong. I know you don't believe and will probably make something up to discredit people. It doesn't matter what kind of selection there is, as long as there is a type of selection. That's what the theory states. Learn it, don't make things up.

I can get quite inventive, but that is irrelevant. Kindly refrain from placing emotion within posts—i don't place emotion within my posts except maybe when i laugh or use exclamation points. Everything that goes through my mind is subject to scrutiny—everything. You should have seen me arrive at my Christian faith. But i didn't make anything up, and i am still waiting for your rebuttal. Darwin himself defined "natural selection" in his book, the Origin of Species, in chapter 4:

Hidden

This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

To put it in more simpler terms, it means that anything that benefits the organism is kept, and anything that doesn't is rejected. This happens naturally, as the name suggests. However, although the name contains "selection," Darwin does not go into the kind of detail one would expect for the term "selection." He starts speaking metaphorically, suggesting that mother nature is the one that does the selections. This is quite paganistic. He could have stated that the organism itself, at a microscopic level, is what does the selection; however, he makes it clear that such a selection is done in an unconscious level:

As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection ...

So as it is it must occur naturally and unconsciously.

 

Great idea! Don't teach religion as well (no sunday schools). Teach only language and maths, and some basic "science" (like, what are plants, animals, etc..). Then when people reach 18, let them decide what they want to believe. Let them choose their religion. You'd be amazed to what the results would be.

The subject is still on public schools. Sunday schools is outside of that. But what you call "basic science" is not necessarily required knowledge for survival in today's day and age. Learning what plants and foods to avoid is. Learning about nutrition and health is. But i can only expect people to be similar to today.

 

Define "respectful" and "nice". Also, define "prove" and "disprove". While you're at it, define "discredit" for me. Because I don't think it is nice for you to claim your respectful while you're simply not accepting other peoples thoughts. You don't worry about proving Creationism, but only about disproving any other theory, and discrediting anyone who has a different opinion than you in this thread. Your constant evasion of others' questions was irritating, and someone gave an opinion about that. It may not have been the most polite yet, but your posts haven't been better.

Respect: to acknowledge the value behind something. (Your turn.)

Nice: not be hurtful.

Prove: to provide reasoning for one or more statements.

Disprove: to provide reasoning against one or more statements.

Discredit (the one without the bad connotation): to disprove.

I never claimed to be respectful, nor did i claim to be disrespectful. Accusations came from third parties. As i have mentioned before, everything that goes through my mind is subject to scrutiny before acceptance. Where i don't see the need for feelings, i leave it out. But weren't you the one that said that if i wanted to prove creationism to disprove the theory of evolution? In fact, you called it your conclusion (i have you quoted in my previous post). I don't see it just to accuse me of something that you have asked for. But i also don't see it just to accuse me of the same act you commit. This is science itself: science is filled with scrutiny. If this is how it is handled within science, that people are accused of things unjustly, then science needs to be cleaned up. Or maybe it isn't your field. I have merely been asking for rebuttals to my statements. If you want to put an end to my statements, you need a valid rebuttal. What has been mostly occurring is a lot of red herrings.

 

I just wonder how you can keep asking proof if your not going to accept them (or even consider them) in the first place. You simply grab what other people said and change the subject/answer indirectly to slightly turn the matter upside down. That's not nice nor respectful.

As i mentioned before, science is scrutiny. You may not like that fact, but i can't, apparently, do anything about it. I ask for your scrutiny, your rebuttals, for i have already provided mine.

[pedro-kun 0]

To put it bluntly:

 

I have merely been asking for rebuttals to my statements. If you want to put an end to my statements, you need a valid rebuttal. What has been mostly occurring is a lot of red herrings.

Yes, all I have seen from you is in fact a lot of red herrings. I need valid rebuttals. Go figure it out

 

Also, the Evolution's theory may be modified at any time, provided sufficient evidence is found to justify the change. And just because this Theory is open to change it doesn't make it wrong. What's wrong is not allowing for further evidence to change things, like Creationists do (and still believe the Earth is 6000 years old).

 

And btw, you can only prove that the universe as we know it had a beginning. You're missing the singularity from which it all spawned. Oh, and that does imply an older planet Earth.

 

Creationism can be backed up and be friends with a lot of what is being taught in science books

You must be joking.

 

I just love how science IS scrutiny. Creationism is *not* Science (even though you may not want to admit it). That's why people are choosing between Creationism OR Evolution (Faith OR Science).

[cangor 0]

Just to put in my two cents....I think that children should be exposed to both theories... because it my mind evolution isn't much more scientific than creationism...while I believe that organisms can "evolve" slowly, I don't believe that they can grow entirely new systems of bones and organs through mutation...that's just a ridiculous assertion. However, I don't think creationism should be taught as "science..." though I think if evolution is taught, it should be taught with a big asterisk, and it oftentimes isn't... children should be told that evolution is just a theory that kinda sorta explains some things. While a child doen't necessarily have the mental capacity to make such a decision, they're really impressionable, so only presenting one side of the argument is basically indoctrination.

[pedro-kun 0]

Just to put in my two cents....I think that children should be exposed to both theories... because it my mind evolution isn't much more scientific than creationism...while I believe that organisms can "evolve" slowly, I don't believe that they can grow entirely new systems of bones and organs through mutation...that's just a ridiculous assertion.

Slowly, they do evolve enough to have new organs and bones. And mutations are powerful... how do you think insulin for diabetic people is produced? It's a new species of bacteria, albeit artificially mutated, it exists only through mutation, and can produce insulin... you can compare that to having a new organ. Of course, we're talking about simple forms of life... When it comes to humans, for example, a mere mutation isn't enough, of course (because a single organ is controlled by an endless number of genes... mutating only a few typically results in malfunction rather than improvement)... but if you mutate a lot of them [genes], they can change the species to an entirely different one
Did you know you can mutate flies to have them be born with eyes on their legs? The same is theoretically possible with humans, even though no one tried it (not very ethic, as you may imagine). That was just a common example of mutating and having new "organs" and "bones"

However, I don't think creationism should be taught as "science..." though I think if evolution is taught, it should be taught with a big asterisk, and it oftentimes isn't... children should be told that evolution is just a theory that kinda sorta explains some things. While a child doen't necessarily have the mental capacity to make such a decision, they're really impressionable, so only presenting one side of the argument is basically indoctrination.

Many people make the mistake of considering evolution an unfinished explanation just because it is called "the Theory" of Evolution... That's not correct... Despite the name, only a few pieces of it remain unsolved (if any). Most scientific "theories" have a high level of veracity (reflect of the scrutiny they've been put through..)

[saitunes 0]

To Be completely honest, I believe children should learn both, Creationism and evolution. You raise an accurate point, They can't both be taught in science because creationism is a belief, not a theorem. And Evolution is a theorem. It was said that Darwin denounced on his deathbed evolution. But thats another argument. I think if evolution is taught in science, then creationism should be taught in Social science/Social studies.Just remember this:Scientific view on the beginning of existence: The big bang theoryChrisitian view on the beginning of existence: God said, 'let there be light'Does that sound simmilar to you? could it be a metaphor?

[joeblogg 0]

apart from the fact that creationism is a load of crap it is not science and should not be taught in science class. i am christian but i do not believe in some parts of it including cretionism. i think creationism should be taught in christian studies. whats science should be kept in science: science and religion doen't mix.