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

[McBell]

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?

Careful, your hypocrisy is showing.

Interesting how you make assumptions in order to beat up on strawmen.
Sad really.

 

[McBell]

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.

how many times does one have to retell a falsehood before it becomes a lie?

 

[McBell]

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.

Teaching kids that non-science "theories" are science is a bad idea.
I understand that theists feel they have to get their beliefs into the class rooms because church attendance is down, but lying to children in order to protect your beliefs is as despicable as it gets.

 

[First Baseman]

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.


.

Good try. Now refute every scientific claim made on that site. Guess what? You can't so you spout off posts like the one above. Use your science and refute theirs. You can't.

 

[crossfire]

How's about just having one of these in the science classrooms and let the students ponder for themselves? The material this sculpture is carved from is stromatolite, which is fossilized bacterial colonies that grew in sediment, mostly during the precambrian and the cambrian geological periods. I'm putting spoilers around it so as not to be too distracting...

Spoiler: we don't want anyone's brains exploding

"Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground"
Was it the dust, or what was in the dust?

 

[Lyndon]

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.

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?

Gravity and germs, tectonic plates etc are not theories they are established facts, evolution as taught in public schools is a theory, not a proven fact, evolution as a process existing in nature is a proven fact, but the idea that matter moves from a state of supreme primitiveness to more, and more, and more complicated and intricate life forms with out any external influence, just matter creating matter, is by no means possible a proven fact but a theory, that's why they call it the theory of evolution, just like the theory of creationism, or the theory of intelligent design. All three are theories because they are possible explanations for how our world came to be as it is, you may argue one theory is much more likely to be true than another, but you cannot prove 100% that either theory is false.

 

[First Baseman]

how many times does one have to retell a falsehood before it becomes a lie?

How many times do you have to lie each day to get people to believe you? Not enough.

 

[Skwim]

Good try. Now refute every scientific claim made on that site. Guess what? You can't so you spout off posts like the one above. Use your science and refute theirs. You can't.

Well, if they actually did science perhaps it would be worth my time. But they don't, so it isn't.


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Evolution is taught pretty much everywhere but America. The only other country that has more people who deny it is Turkey. Pretty much anywhere else you go, from the East to the West, North to the South, they teach and accept evolution without this creationism controversy.

What they don't need to be taught is religious mythology about "how" God created the world

I find it odd that you are arguing for teaching of a creator in science, when here you are sounding exactly like those who are saying it shouldn't. If we use a creator term, we don't even know if this creator is a god or not, let alone how to test for it and making predictions with it. Scientifically speaking, saying it just all happened as it happened is the only appropriate way to proceed as anything else is within the realms of metaphysics which have no way of being scientifically assessed, as for once you make a claim the burden of proof is on you, and there have been no compelling arguments that science can adopt, as the existence of this creator has yet to be revealed.

 

[Lyndon]

Teaching kids that non-science "theories" are science is a bad idea.
I understand that theists feel they have to get their beliefs into the class rooms because church attendance is down, but lying to children in order to protect your beliefs is as despicable as it gets.

Mestemia you're a troll that doesn't even know what science is, I've worked as a scientist in labratories, I think I damn well know what science is.

 

[Lyndon]

Evolution is taught pretty much everywhere but America. The only other country that has more people who deny it is Turkey. Pretty much anywhere else you go, from the East to the West, North to the South, they teach and accept evolution without this creationism controversy.

I find it odd that you are arguing for teaching of a creator in science, when here you are sounding exactly like those who are saying it shouldn't. If we use a creator term, we don't even know if this creator is a god or not, let alone how to test for it and making predictions with it. Scientifically speaking, saying it just all happened as it happened is the only appropriate way to proceed as anything else is within the realms of metaphysics which have no way of being scientifically assessed, as for once you make a claim the burden of proof is on you, and there have been no compelling arguments that science can adopt, as the existence of this creator has yet to be revealed.

All I can say is if a god exists, and no one can prove it doesn't, that would make you a fool, please tell me you're not so foolish as to claim you have 100% proof there is no God or gods in existence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Gravity and germs, tectonic plates etc are not theories they are established facts,

Scientifically, as theories, they are on the same level as evolution. A hypothesis only becomes a theory once it has been adequately demonstrated to be fact. In the case of evolution, if it were true that life originated from a singular point and branched outwards, as we see in the "Tree of Life," we can expect to find evidence of this in the record of life that has been preserved for us, and we find exactly this in the fossil record as we find life changing over the ages and gradually as we move backwards we find less and less diversity. We find members of the same species, but who are distinctively different in their own ways, which is explained by a species developing over time to better adapt to its environment. We've even found many unrelated species share some common DNA. What else can explain this other than that we all come from the same origin? And it is this "origin of the origin" where evolution stops, and science has no answers. They don't really teach any form of biogenesis because science has not progressed passed the point of hypothesis for biogenesis. They think maybe either life itself or the ingredients came here on a comet, but that is within the realm of "probably" because as of now there are no real ways to test for it.

 

[McBell]

How many times do you have to lie each day to get people to believe you? Not enough.

"I know you are but what am I"?
That the best you got?

Your god must be proud.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All I can say is if a god exists, and no one can prove it doesn't, that would make you a fool, please tell me you're not so foolish as to claim you have 100% proof there is no God or gods in existence.

I'm not an atheist so I do not claim there is no god. However, I do claim complete and total ignorance of the subject, because I could only feign knowledge and ultimately I'm only a three dimensional linear human. Because of that, the existence of God is just not something I concern myself with. But, I do know that philosophically if you make the claim of something's existence you have to prove it. And that is another reason I don't bother myself over it is because either way it can't be proven or disproven. I actually don't object to the idea that something may have created life on Earth, or maybe even the universe, but it's nothing more than a philosophical answer to questions of metaphysics that science cannot test for and currently has no answers for. I can't even tell if this creator exists whether it's a god or just a being much larger than us, as in bacteria to us type of bigger.

 

[Lyndon]

Scientifically, as theories, they are on the same level as evolution. A hypothesis only becomes a theory once it has been adequately demonstrated to be fact. In the case of evolution, if it were true that life originated from a singular point and branched outwards, as we see in the "Tree of Life," we can expect to find evidence of this in the record of life that has been preserved for us, and we find exactly this in the fossil record as we find life changing over the ages and gradually as we move backwards we find less and less diversity. We find members of the same species, but who are distinctively different in their own ways, which is explained by a species developing over time to better adapt to its environment. We've even found many unrelated species share some common DNA. What else can explain this other than that we all come from the same origin? And it is this "origin of the origin" where evolution stops, and science has no answers. They don't really teach any form of biogenesis because science has not progressed passed the point of hypothesis for biogenesis. They think maybe either life itself or the ingredients came here on a comet, but that is within the realm of "probably" because as of now there are no real ways to test for it.

You seem to be confusing fact with theory, once something has be 100% established to be true, it is no longer a theory, it becomes a fact, evolution has been proven as a fact to occur sometimes, to say that all life evolved purely through evolution is only a theory, not a 100% proven fact, sort of like the big bang, definitely a theory, not an established fact. Gravity on the other hand is a 100% proven fact, if you don't believe me, goodby as you fly off into space!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You seem to be confusing fact with theory, once something has be 100% established to be true, it is no longer a theory

Scientifically theories are facts. Germs, for example, the germ theory of disease, remains a theory even though all you have to do is look under a good enough microscope to see the germs.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm not an atheist so I do not claim there is no god. However, I do claim complete and total ignorance of the subject, because I could only feign knowledge and ultimately I'm only a three dimensional linear human. Because of that, the existence of God is just not something I concern myself with. But, I do know that philosophically if you make the claim of something's existence you have to prove it. And that is another reason I don't bother myself over it is because either way it can't be proven or disproven. I actually don't object to the idea that something may have created life on Earth, or maybe even the universe, but it's nothing more than a philosophical answer to questions of metaphysics that science cannot test for and currently has no answers for. I can't even tell if this creator exists whether it's a god or just a being much larger than us, as in bacteria to us type of bigger.

So why would you possibly be opposed to a not more than one page in the biology text book covering the beliefs of well over 50% of our population that a higher power was involved in the creation/evolutionary process presented as one theory, you can even say thoroughly denied by most scientists, why shouldn't people be given choices in what they believe. And you are flat out wrong if you belief you have to have proof to believe in something, that's nonsense,everyone has tonnes of beliefs in things that can not be 100% proven, that's just human nature.

 

[McBell]

I cannot help but wonder what is so hard about "non-science must stay out of science class"?

 

[Lyndon]

Scientifically theories are facts. Germs, for example, the germ theory of disease, remains a theory even though all you have to do is look under a good enough microscope to see the germs.

total BS, theories are never facts, facts are not theories, they are to distinctly different things with different definitions. Established facts like the existence of germs might start out as theories, but once you can see them under he microscope they become facts and are no longer theories. Ask a scientist.

 

[Lyndon]

I cannot help but wonder what is so hard about "non-science must stay out of science class"?

Because if God exists, God is part of science, so the existence of God is not non science at all, the existence of God/gods is ONE plausible hypothesis as to how life came to be so complex and didn't self destruct as one would predict by science.