Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

Is the great flood an example of love and forgiveness or anger and vengeance?

Did god forgive adam or did he allegedly curse the entire human race with a so called "original sin"?

Yeah drowning the entire world (including millions to billions of innocent animals) at once because an isolated pocket of humans were not following his laws, is totally showing love and forgiveness. What a nice guy.

God had a higher purpose for us than what we now are. The process is on-going. Perhaps the nature of the problem/s at the time warranted the response, considering the loftiness of the outcome of the plan.

God doesn't waste stuff, it wasn't pointless vindictiveness.

It is clear from scripture that humanity is to become immortal entities in complete unity not only with each other, but also with the mind of God, and where pain and suffering are no more.

But we are now straying from topic.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

Is the great flood an example of love and forgiveness or anger and vengeance?

Did god forgive adam or did he allegedly curse the entire human race with a so called "original sin"?

Yeah drowning the entire world (including millions to billions of innocent animals) at once because an isolated pocket of humans were not following his laws, is totally showing love and forgiveness. What a nice guy.

God had a higher purpose for us than what we now are.

Because, when in doubt, "Gods work is beyond our understanding"

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

Is the great flood an example of love and forgiveness or anger and vengeance?

Did god forgive adam or did he allegedly curse the entire human race with a so called "original sin"?

Yeah drowning the entire world (including millions to billions of innocent animals) at once because an isolated pocket of humans were not following his laws, is totally showing love and forgiveness. What a nice guy.

God had a higher purpose for us than what we now are. The process is on-going. Perhaps the nature of the problem/s at the time warranted the response, considering the loftiness of the outcome of the plan.

God doesn't waste stuff, it wasn't pointless vindictiveness.

It is clear from scripture that humanity is to become immortal entities in complete unity not only with each other, but also with the mind of God, and where pain and suffering are no more.

But we are now straying from topic.

no, by all means, keep proving krazysh0ts point. you are doing such a marvelous job of it.

a reply to: Barcs

Once again I shall take the time to explain that it is impossible to separate the scientist from the science. It is a basic Quantum Mechanics principle so I can understand if your not familiar with it. The same applies here it is impossible to separate Darwin from evolutionary theory.

The Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is still as stated quite clearly a 'theory'. Once this theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly using the scientific process achieving consistent results this will then become an accepted truth. Given that it is currently and possibly always will be completely impossible to practically test evolutionary theory than I guess it will always remain theory.

I'm assuming at this point that you understand the difference between evolution an natural selection?

I'm not denying science. I'm denying ignorance. Scientific fact once told us that the world was flat however I'm supposed to believe that evolution is infallible? Please, don't be silly. Evolution a just a theory to try and explain a pointless argument about where we came from and debunk creationism. If you want a source for that open your mind and do some objective research into creationism. You and I are both smart enough to know that no matter how much we argue about it we are not going to change each others mind so please stop wasting my time.

You'll have to excuse me for thinking that creationist and evolutionist are as bad as each other and both peddling off assumptions as fact.

There is no absolute proof to support evolution or creationism and why do we all have to be so narrow minded and naive as to believe that these are the only two options... Or that in fact our origins may actually be a culmination of facts and ideas coming many differing theories and philosophies.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

congratulations on having an opinion. get in line...although its a rather long one at this point. now, if you feel like sharing actual science, that is something we could always use more of around here.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: peter vlar

Please show me one example of evolution being repeatedly tested and confirmed? Did you even read and understand what you have posted?

Question was not for me, but let me share some examples and explain why and how...

As time is quite a problem in observing evolution, scientist use animals with short life cycle. Some examples you can find on following link:

www.decodedscience.com...

There are many examples and experiments are repetable and true...

I really enjoyed the article thank you. This I believe is highlights are large portion of the issue. I believe that natural selection and evolution are quite different. I read in the article about three excellent illustrations of natural selection. The rub is this... People often interpret the same data differently to support their point of view. What I failed to see in the article was any evidence of any NEW genetic material being created. That I would believe is true evolution. What I perceive from the article was simply natural selection at work.

Of course that fact that we are unable to monitor an animal for millions of years to see if it does evolve in the way that we think, for me, puts evolutionary theory into the same category as the currently unprovable theory that life was created.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

if you enjoyed that article, then you should also enjoy this thread as well, courtesy of the very same member who started the thread we are currently participating in.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i think if you actually read and absorb, you will find your confusion is largely cleared up. and whatever is left should be easily dealt with through further investigation via the numerous resources supplied around ats, readily available to the daring adventurer.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
The Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is still as stated quite clearly a 'theory'. Once this theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly using the scientific process achieving consistent results this will then become an accepted truth. Given that it is currently and possibly always will be completely impossible to practically test evolutionary theory than I guess it will always remain theory.

You're mixing up the scientific use of 'Theory' with the proposed-example use of 'Theory'.

In order for a scientific theory to become a scientific theory it is first a scientific hypothesis. Once enough evidence accumulates to support the hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

To gather evidence what do scientists do? That's right! They do experiments. and there are thousands upon thousands of experiments that directly support the theory of Evolution.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm assuming at this point that you understand the difference between evolution an natural selection?

Will you STOP asking that?!?!? How many times do we have to say that no one is claiming evolution and natural selection to be the same thing. How about you respond to all the posts that explain that instead of skipping the record your mind lives on?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm not denying science. I'm denying ignorance.

What's ironic is that you're on massive ignorance is both denying science and denying it's own state of ignorance at the same time...

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
Scientific fact once told us that the world was flat however I'm supposed to believe that evolution is infallible?

Uh, no. science didn't claim that....

"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies."

What science did is prove that concept wrong.

And no one said that Evolution is infallible! To be scientific it MUST BE FALSIFIABLE!

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
If you want a source for that open your mind and do some objective research into creationism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No more needs to be said about that claim.

We are still talking about Last Thursdayism creationism, right?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
You and I are both smart enough to know that no matter how much we argue about it we are not going to change each others mind so please stop wasting my time.

You're the one asking questions. You are more than welcome to leave this thread. You don't even respond to the people who respond to your comments anyway, so why are you still here?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
There is no absolute proof to support evolution or creationism and why do we all have to be so narrow minded and naive as to believe that these are the only two options... Or that in fact our origins may actually be a culmination of facts and ideas coming many differing theories and philosophies.

Because all the evidence... as in ALL the evidence, suggests that life evolves. The reason we don't look into the other options is because all the other options have been thoroughly debunked, save Evolution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really don't have the time to convince people that I am correct. What I say will either resonate with a person or it won't. If the individual really wants to know the facts of my point of view it is far more beneficial for them to do futher research themselves and ask themselves the important questions.

I did read read the material that you provided. What I did not see was any proof that any one of the animals that Darwin refers to evolved from something else. Only the fact that it was different. Lots of things are different. Where is the proof of evolution? I see no new genetic material here. Only the refining of existing genetic material through natural selection.

originally posted by: chr0naut
All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

I don't believe that anyone is contesting natural selection.

If you really like confirmation for evolution, you have too look into genetics and DNA.

For example, dinosaur DNA in chicken, and possibility for building of dinosaurs out of chicken by changing DNA make up.





a reply to: hudsonhawk69
Really??

So how do you explain all humanoid remains and fact that from different time they look different... and you can see progress and make prediction for example what will be find based on size of brain?!

Reason we don't see your facts is simple - there are no facts, just fairy tale that you believe based on NOTHING, NADA. Today people require bit more then fairy tale to believe something, and science does fair job at explaining our surrounding, life, cosmos, atoms...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!

History isn't science. Nice try.

www.talkorigins.org...

I'll post this again for you. Please debunk the evidence itself without redefining terminology or posting fallacies. Good luck. You have the opportunity to shine, don't blow it!

History isn't science... However science based on a disputed history becomes fact? How do you know god didn't create us? Were you there? How do you know that anything ever evolved into something else? were you there?

You ask for facts and evidence where there are none. Their is no absolute truth to prove creationism or evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

Think about what you just said. Pre existing traits. Where did they come from? Answer this and you'll have a better understanding of evolution. Hint, it has to do with genes changing over time, something that is undisputedly agreed upon in science and biology. If nobody is disputing natural selection, are they disputing the accumulation of genetic mutations? I sure haven't seen it.

Genomes carry unexpressed traits. Recessive and epigenetic traits are evidence of this.

Variation need not 'arise' if it is already there.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I really don't have the time to convince people that I am correct.

then we dont have the time to consider your...how shall i phrase this...Ludicrous Online Lies. LOL!

see ya bud.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I did read read the material that you provided. What I did not see was any proof that any one of the animals that Darwin refers to evolved from something else. Only the fact that it was different. Lots of things are different. Where is the proof of evolution? I see no new genetic material here. Only the refining of existing genetic material through natural selection.

Your own ignorance on the subject is preventing you from learning about the subject. The reason you didn't see 'proof' of what you asked for is because you asked "Show me proof of evolution"

Which a number of members did.

Now you're asking something totally different (again, due to your ignorance), by asking "Show me proof of something evolving into something totally different"

Yet you don't understand that evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution isn't about one Family or Genus magically becoming another Family or Genus. It is a very slow, very gradual, process that takes millions of years to achieve that.

The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is timescale. That is it. Get it through your head.

We can't prove anything to you not because we don't have the proof, but because you have such a vast number of misconceptions and your so unwilling to realize just how misconceived your concepts are that no matter what we show you it won't do a thing. Not because it isn't substantial, obvious proof. But because you are so ignorant on the subject that you can't understand that it's proof.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!

History isn't science. Nice try.

www.talkorigins.org...

I'll post this again for you. Please debunk the evidence itself without redefining terminology or posting fallacies. Good luck. You have the opportunity to shine, don't blow it!

History isn't science... However science based on a disputed history becomes fact? How do you know god didn't create us? Were you there? How do you know that anything ever evolved into something else? were you there?

You ask for facts and evidence where there are none. Their is no absolute truth to prove creationism or evolution.

Science doesn't need to function through personally viewed incidences to be accurate.

We know the age of stars not because we were there when they formed, but because we have other means of measuring, which are pretty damn accurate.

We know that the Earth rotates around the sun, not because we have sat out in space and witnessed it, but because we have other means of proving it does.

We know the geological time scale is accurate not because we watched all the sediment accumulate, but because we understand the process in which it does through other means.

We HAVE actually witnessed speciation (which is a term in evolution when one species evolves far enough to be considered a different species than it's ancestor). But that doesn't seem to matter to you because you have this intrinsic inability to understand Science in general.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

Think about what you just said. Pre existing traits. Where did they come from? Answer this and you'll have a better understanding of evolution. Hint, it has to do with genes changing over time, something that is undisputedly agreed upon in science and biology. If nobody is disputing natural selection, are they disputing the accumulation of genetic mutations? I sure haven't seen it.

Genomes carry unexpressed traits. Recessive and epigenetic traits are evidence of this.

Variation need not 'arise' if it is already there.

So when two separate people have two specific genes, and they reproduce with each other, and those genes create, not a mix of the old genes, but new functions all together, that is not new information?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

Is the great flood an example of love and forgiveness or anger and vengeance?

Did god forgive adam or did he allegedly curse the entire human race with a so called "original sin"?

Yeah drowning the entire world (including millions to billions of innocent animals) at once because an isolated pocket of humans were not following his laws, is totally showing love and forgiveness. What a nice guy.

God had a higher purpose for us than what we now are.

Because, when in doubt, "Gods work is beyond our understanding"

In this case, not, as the rest of the post detailed.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

Think about what you just said. Pre existing traits. Where did they come from? Answer this and you'll have a better understanding of evolution. Hint, it has to do with genes changing over time, something that is undisputedly agreed upon in science and biology. If nobody is disputing natural selection, are they disputing the accumulation of genetic mutations? I sure haven't seen it.

Genomes carry unexpressed traits. Recessive and epigenetic traits are evidence of this.

Variation need not 'arise' if it is already there.

So when two separate people have two specific genes, and they reproduce with each other, and those genes create, not a mix of the old genes, but new functions all together, that is not new information?

Mendelian genetics.

Surely when two genes mix, they produce a mix of the two genes, regardless of if the genes are expressed or not?

If both parents have a recessive trait, despite both parents not having the trait expressed in themselves, the recessive trait in the offspring trumps the dominant trait and is expressed. It did not 'arise', it was always there.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

I don't believe that anyone is contesting natural selection.

If you really like confirmation for evolution, you have too look into genetics and DNA.

For example, dinosaur DNA in chicken, and possibility for building of dinosaurs out of chicken by changing DNA make up.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69
Really??

So how do you explain all humanoid remains and fact that from different time they look different... and you can see progress and make prediction for example what will be find based on size of brain?!

Reason we don't see your facts is simple - there are no facts, just fairy tale that you believe based on NOTHING, NADA. Today people require bit more then fairy tale to believe something, and science does fair job at explaining our surrounding, life, cosmos, atoms...

I was not nay-saying evolution in my post. I was just pointing out that the linked examples were evidences only of natural selection.

... and are you suggesting that epigenetics and recessive genes (my "facts") are not seen?

From my point of view, it would appear you are arguing against a point I did not make.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think you're fully visualizing what I'm attempting to prove.

Most people think that HIV can infect everyone. What those people do not know is that when a person has two parents with the delta 32 mutation in the gene CCR5, then double-dosage creates a new function. That child is now totally immune to becoming infected with HIV.

The parents can still have the chance of being infected with HIV if they are exposed, but because those two genes came together, they created something entirely new.

Not a recessed mutation that their whole lineage has, but a brand new function all together.