When it comes to Prayer 76% of Americans Don't Give a **** About the Constitution

[First Baseman]

Wrong.
What part?
The whole damn above quoted post.

Science is to be taught in science class.
Not wishful thinking.

Macro-evolution and abiogenesis are only theories and should be taught as such. And as long as you are going to teach unsubstabtiated theories why not also teach Creation? The first organism could very well have been created and that makes a lot more sense than any abiogenesis theory.

The truth is that you are afraid of anything that might suggest that God might be real. That's the truth of the matter.

 

[metis]

Scientific Theory [definition]:
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution. -- http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

 

[First Baseman]

Scientific Theory [definition]:
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution. -- http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

Refer to icr.org and you'll see Creation theory. It is also based on science. So teach it.

 

[Lyndon]

Science absolutely cannot prove in any way that no God or gods was involved in any way in the creation and evolutionary process, that should be taught in schools, it would take 5 minutes in a Science class to cover it, and it only fair, because among the theories of how life came to be what it is today, one of them is that a God or gods had influence in the process, no one cannot deny that and still claim to be rational.

 

[First Baseman]

Actually I think the science involved with Creation theory should be taught also. That would constitute several years of study to cover most of the science mentioned at ICR.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Macro-evolution and abiogenesis are only theories and should be taught as such. And as long as you are going to teach unsubstabtiated theories why not also teach Creation? The first organism could very well have been created and that makes a lot more sense than any abiogenesis theory.

The truth is that you are afraid of anything that might suggest that God might be real. That's the truth of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that you can't demonstrate/test/prove the existence of god(s) and other supernatural things; until we can, god stays out of the science classroom.

 

[metis]

Refer to icr.org and you'll see Creation theory. It is also based on science. So teach it.

In order to teach "creation theory", which obviously must rely on a creator-god or gods, one would have to establish beyond a doubt that one or more deities existed, and then they would have to provide evidence that these deities actually created that which we see. When you have objective evidence for this, please let us know. Maybe you can even post it here, and maybe someone might even be interested in what you post.

BTW, I'm retired, but I actually did teach my anthropology students about creationism, including bringing in a pastor or deacon from a nearby fundamentalist Protestant church.

 

[metis]

The truth of the matter is that you can't demonstrate/test/prove the existence of god(s) and other supernatural things; until we can, god stays out of the science classroom.

Ah, ya beat me to da punch!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, ya beat me to da punch!

Finally! I'm usually the one that's late for the party.

 

[Lyndon]

In order to teach "creation theory", which obviously must rely on a creator-god or gods, one would have to establish beyond a doubt that one or more deities existed, and then they would have to provide evidence that these deities actually created that which we see. When you have objective evidence for this, please let us know. Maybe you can even post it here, and maybe someone might even be interested in what you post.

BTW, I'm retired, but I actually did teach my anthropology students about creationism, including bringing in a pastor or deacon from a nearby fundamentalist Protestant church.

Sorry but you don't seem to have an understanding of what a theory is compared to an established fact, saying some people have a theory that God or gods were involved in the creation/evolutionary process requires no proof that God or gods exist, just requires proof that some people believe that God or gods exist, and that they are involved in the process.

The theory that evolution created our universe with no external help from God or gods is only that, a theory, no proof exists that no god was involved and that should be taught in schools.

 

[metis]

Sorry but you don't seem to have an understanding of what a theory is compared to an established fact, saying some people have a theory that God or gods were involved in the creation/evolutionary theory requires no proof that God or gods exist, just requires proof that some people believe that God or gods exist, and that they are involved in the process.

See post #383. In science, "theory" has a more elaborate definition than with the lay.

 

[First Baseman]

Hopefully you don't float off the Earth by not caring about the theory of gravity.

Hopefully one day you will take Creation science seriously. Do you really believe in abiogenesis?

I see no hypothesis/testing cycles. I see a load of supposition and claims.

Thats because you have never taken the time to study it in depth. There is a lot of science on the site. If you ever bother to read it you will see it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Macro-evolution and abiogenesis are only theories and should be taught as such.

Gravity is also a theory. So are germs. And tectonic plates. As is magnetism. There is also the oxygen theory of combustion. Heliocentrism and statistical mechanics are also theories. In reality, there are many theories in science, but the anti-evolution crowd only focuses on evolution when it being "only a theory." And as I've been stating abiogensesis is not taught as a real science. To the contrary, it is taught that Louis Pasteur proved life does not spontaneously generate.

Science absolutely cannot prove in any way that no God or gods was involved in any way in the creation and evolutionary process

There is no way to establish a scientific model that there is a god or creator. How do you propose we go about testing for a creator? What predictions can we assume will be true if your hypothesis is accurate? How do you prove one creator or god over another?

 

[First Baseman]

sticking your head in the sand does not make the truth go away.

Exactly. After you analyze the entire site come back and we will discuss it.

You seem to be so anti-religious that you are too biased to discuss the possibility of creation intelligently.

Which theory of abiogenesis do you believe and why do you place your faith in it?

 

[First Baseman]

Gravity is also a theory. So are germs. And tectonic plates. As is magnetism. There is also the oxygen theory of combustion. Heliocentrism and statistical mechanics are also theories. In reality, there are many theories in science, but the anti-evolution crowd only focuses on evolution when it being "only a theory." And as I've been stating abiogensesis is not taught as a real science. To the contrary, it is taught that Louis Pasteur proved life does not spontaneously arise.

Most of those theories are factual, at least in part. Macro-evolution is taught as fact in the US yet it is an unsubstantiated theory. This is due to simple anti-creation bias.

 

[Lyndon]

know what a theory is, its a postulation of reasons for an action to happen, gods involvement is one of several theories as to the evolutionary process, Gods non involvement or non existence in the process is another theory, Deism is a third theory for the process, all should be taught in school, but the main emphasis should by science as it is already being taught, not teaching students that there are other theories involving god is not science it is brainwashing, every student deserves to be taught that some people believe a God was involved, because no scientist in their right mind could prove that there wasn't a god involved, that it is an impossible situation.

What they don't need to be taught is religious mythology about "how" God created the world, and "how" the world is only 6000 years old and other nonsense like that.

 

[McBell]

Science absolutely cannot prove in any way that no God or gods was involved in any way in the creation and evolutionary process, that should be taught in schools, it would take 5 minutes in a Science class to cover it, and it only fair, because among the theories of how life came to be what it is today, one of them is that a God or gods had influence in the process, no one cannot deny that and still claim to be rational.

This is exactly why Creation is not to be taught in science class.
It simply is not science.

 

[Skwim]

Refer to icr.org and you'll see Creation theory. It is also based on science. So teach it.

Just so everyone else here is aware.

The "science" the IRC organization does is biased by its commitment to creationism: making certain all its conclusions are in line with its interpretation of Biblical scripture.

"After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation.

As an educational institution, ICR offers formal courses of instruction, conducts seminars and workshops, and presents radio and television lectures, as well as other means of instruction. With 30 years experience in graduate education, first through our California-based science education program (1981-2010), and now through the M.C.Ed. degree program at the School of Biblical Apologetics, ICR trains men and women to do real-world apologetics with a foundation of biblical authority and creation science."
source

​

Those of us who have actually "done science" know this is not doing science. It's doing religion under the guise of science. And, teaching religion under the guise of science in public schools is simply against the law.


.

 

[McBell]

Sorry but you don't seem to have an understanding of what a theory is compared to an established fact, saying some people have a theory that God or gods were involved in the creation/evolutionary process requires no proof that God or gods exist, just requires proof that some people believe that God or gods exist, and that they are involved in the process.

The theory that evolution created our universe with no external help from God or gods is only that, a theory, no proof exists that no god was involved and that should be taught in schools.

You should stop talking about things you know little to nothing about.

Any claim from you that you understand evolution is you admitting to flat out lying in the above quoted post.

Your call

 

[McBell]

Hopefully one day you will take Creation science seriously. Do you really believe in abiogenesis?

As soon as Creationism starts using science...
Until then it is not science.

Thats because you have never taken the time to study it in depth. There is a lot of science on the site. If you ever bother to read it you will see it.

you should learn what science is instead of propping up that strawman your Creationist site labels science.