Stop teaching erroneous creationism to kids

capitalist pig wrote:

Evolution is a fact. We have evidence of it everywhere. The origion of species is not. We still have no explaination of the origion of DNA, nor can we create DNA (we can alter it).
The evolutionists keep mocking me for saying this but the truth is you still do not have that missing link between man and lower species.
In fact science has no more provable theory of creation than creationists.
It is obvious that the forms of life that are on the planet today were no the original forms of life. How we got from there to here is theory. It might be scientific and educated, but it is still theory.
The real iroony of this debate is those who mock the religion of the creationists have made a religion out of evolution.

Your understanding of evolution, the scientific method and the spelling of "origin" are pathetic.

So pathetic as to be embarrassing. This information is available to you. If you'd like to discuss it, fine, ask questions. If you'd prefer to remain ignorant on the subject, that's fine too, it's your right. It's also your right to continue blabbering on as if you have something important or intelligent to add.

However, if you're wishing to be King Imbecile I'm afraid that position is currently firmly nailed down by a grossly undereducated know-it-all pastor.

Super Nifty Name wrote:

So you don't believe in a god. So other people do. So what? You surely can't believe that everyone who professes belief in a creator is intellectually deficient. That's the vibe I'm getting from the anti-theists on here.

No, I don't profess anyone w/ a belief in a creator is intellectually deficient. You have the right to believe what you want and to live your life accordingly. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me.

I frankly don't understand how that position could even be controversial in a secular society.

Pastor Matt E wrote:

<quoted text>

Notice none of your "theories" are considered "laws." If you can not figure that out, you can't really remain on this subject. A "Law" is considered a fact, not a theory.

Hey Flipper,

Is gravity a fact, a theory or a law?

Well there ya go wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I don't profess anyone w/ a belief in a creator is intellectually deficient. You have the right to believe what you want and to live your life accordingly. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me.
.

But you want YOUR beliefs imposed on everyone else.

Gravity is a law as it happens everytime you drop something. Evolution is not a fact. A monkey doesn't evolve into a human everyday nor does the rest of your liberal fictional story. Well there you go and Natalie are the same person, maybe like a worm it can reproduce without aid of the opposite sex.

Hehehe--I see Matt has been doing a lot of JUDGING and has enlisted some of his sheep.

Billy

Well there ya go wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I don't profess anyone w/ a belief in a creator is intellectually deficient. You have the right to believe what you want and to live your life accordingly. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me.
I frankly don't understand how that position could even be controversial in a secular society.

I'm just referring to the general hostility, name-calling, et cetera.

Well there ya go wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Flipper,
Is gravity a fact, a theory or a law?

You do not even understand the definitions you are using.
Scientific Law: is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.(Something Evolution ca not do.)

Theory: is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.(Again something YOU refuse to understand seeing as you ignore the concept of Macro Evolution being totally flawed within the evolutionary belief.)

So again, the THEORY of Gravity does not say Gravity is not TRUE, it states that within the confines of gravity the equations and methods may be changed, updated, or improved.

Same as Evolution. The Micro Evolution is agreed. Macro is the problem.

Again 12th time I said that. The 12th time you can not comprehend that.

The above post is another example of your shameless quote mining and plagiarism. It reads as if parts were lifted from the site I previously cited. In which case, you missed the final sentence:

"Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They can never be modified because they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method."

Also, I'm interested in your answer to the question from WTYG regarding whether gravity is a fact, law, or theory?

Well there ya go wrote:

<quoted text>
Your understanding of evolution, the scientific method and the spelling of "origin" are pathetic.
So pathetic as to be embarrassing. This information is available to you. If you'd like to discuss it, fine, ask questions. If you'd prefer to remain ignorant on the subject, that's fine too, it's your right. It's also your right to continue blabbering on as if you have something important or intelligent to add.
However, if you're wishing to be King Imbecile I'm afraid that position is currently firmly nailed down by a grossly undereducated know-it-all pastor.

I have the information and do not require your opinion or approval for what i believe. I dont know why you want to keep attacking me on this subject, when I have stated only facts. You can not prove where DNA came from and you can not reproduce it. There is no direct link between man and lower species. That requires a leap of faith in science; therefore you have made it a religion. As for spelling, put your little red pencil back in your pocket as the position of spelling police is also taken on here. It makes you look childish and silly. Let me know when your religion figures out how to create dna or finds that direct link. As far as something important to add, how long are you and Natalie going to keep posting the same things over and over as if you have added something new. Your smart ass comments dont change the facts. I stated that evoulution is a fact. The origion of species is a theory. Blather all you want and self congratulate yourself for your superior intellegence and that will still be the facts.

oh, excuse me, those will still be the facts. dont want to get the grammar police out also.

Natalie_ wrote:

.. I'm interested in your answer to the question from WTYG regarding whether gravity is a fact, law, or theory?

I answered that question in the above statement. The definition of FACT in science, and your definition of fact are the problem. They do not go together. Science calls fact, anything they say is truth, but it can also be improved, changed, or adjusted in theory in the future. Your definition of truth is just plain defnition FACT, that is not used in sceince unless it is called a LAW.

Again I am talking over your head. You and he use the definition of FACT, as if it were not scientific. You go back and forth using words implying one meaning, when in science their definition is not your definition... sigh.

And like CP stated, all you do is add insult after insult, making you feel superior. It is only a feeling.. your inability to read things, and then comprehend them without attacks, clearly shows a lack or superioirity in any discussion. You imply more than you verify.

Pastor Matt E wrote:

<quoted text>
I answered that question in the above statement. The definition of FACT in science, and your definition of fact are the problem. They do not go together. Science calls fact, anything they say is truth, but it can also be improved, changed, or adjusted in theory in the future. Your definition of truth is just plain defnition FACT, that is not used in sceince unless it is called a LAW.
Again I am talking over your head. You and he use the definition of FACT, as if it were not scientific. You go back and forth using words implying one meaning, when in science their definition is not your definition... sigh.
And like CP stated, all you do is add insult after insult, making you feel superior. It is only a feeling.. your inability to read things, and then comprehend them without attacks, clearly shows a lack or superioirity in any discussion. You imply more than you verify.

Is this your way of stating that gravity is a scientific fact, law, and theory? Because it is... so why not just state that plainly.

Just like evolution is a scientific fact, and theory. Which creationism, intelligent design, or whatever term you want to "dress-up" your biblical explanation with, is not.

It really is that simple.

Matt,

Your increasing use of the word "SIGH" apparently has been copied from me. I have been the only one on here that has used it.
That is a clear indication that you copy,you do not think for yourself.

Billy

capitalist pig wrote:

<quoted text>
I have the information and do not require your opinion or approval for what i believe. I dont know why you want to keep attacking me on this subject, when I have stated only facts. You can not prove where DNA came from and you can not reproduce it. There is no direct link between man and lower species. That requires a leap of faith in science; therefore you have made it a religion. As for spelling, put your little red pencil back in your pocket as the position of spelling police is also taken on here. It makes you look childish and silly. Let me know when your religion figures out how to create dna or finds that direct link. As far as something important to add, how long are you and Natalie going to keep posting the same things over and over as if you have added something new. Your smart ass comments dont change the facts. I stated that evoulution is a fact. The origion of species is a theory. Blather all you want and self congratulate yourself for your superior intellegence and that will still be the facts.

I won't address most of this post of yours, only the question you asked which involves me.

First, I'm responding to the repeated ignorance of a preacher who believes that creationism has a scientific basis--similar to that of biological evolution. It does not. It should not be taught in a science curriculum. Period.

As far as when I'll stop posting information, that depends on the aforementioned ignorant preacher. I've yet to see him post evidence that supports creationism as anything other than faith based, nonscientific, mumble jumble.

Pastor Matt E wrote:

<quoted text>
I answered that question in the above statement. The definition of FACT in science, and your definition of fact are the problem. They do not go together. Science calls fact, anything they say is truth, but it can also be improved, changed, or adjusted in theory in the future. Your definition of truth is just plain defnition FACT, that is not used in sceince unless it is called a LAW.
Again I am talking over your head. You and he use the definition of FACT, as if it were not scientific. You go back and forth using words implying one meaning, when in science their definition is not your definition... sigh.
And like CP stated, all you do is add insult after insult, making you feel superior. It is only a feeling.. your inability to read things, and then comprehend them without attacks, clearly shows a lack or superioirity in any discussion. You imply more than you verify.

Still no answer? Didn't they teach this in 6th grade science?

Is gravity a fact, a theory or a law?

Natalie_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I won't address most of this post of yours, only the question you asked which involves me.
First, I'm responding to the repeated ignorance of a preacher who believes that creationism has a scientific basis--similar to that of biological evolution. It does not. It should not be taught in a science curriculum. Period.
As far as when I'll stop posting information, that depends on the aforementioned ignorant preacher. I've yet to see him post evidence that supports creationism as anything other than faith based, nonscientific, mumble jumble.

I forget, what venue should it be taught in?...Mythology, History, or what?

Those things NOT proven whether "scientifically" based or not should not be taught in a science curriculum?...At least, that's what I have been getting from this exchange concerning religon.

One can have misguided ideas and opinions concerning science the same as those who may have misguided ideas and opinons concerning religion.

How many times has science been wrong concerning matters we ourselve were taught as fact in school?

Science doesn't seem to be as infallible as many think.. Maybe Science isn't an exact science:)

Shootist wrote:

<quoted text>
I forget, what venue should it be taught in?...Mythology, History, or what?
Those things NOT proven whether "scientifically" based or not should not be taught in a science curriculum?...At least, that's what I have been getting from this exchange concerning religon.
One can have misguided ideas and opinions concerning science the same as those who may have misguided ideas and opinons concerning religion.
How many times has science been wrong concerning matters we ourselve were taught as fact in school?
Science doesn't seem to be as infallible as many think.. Maybe Science isn't an exact science:)

Creationism can be taught as part of history, philosophy, or religion.

Science continues to advance/refine through testing, observation, and refinement. Is religion subject to that same standard?

capitalist pig wrote:

<quoted text>
I have the information and do not require your opinion or approval for what i believe. I dont know why you want to keep attacking me on this subject, when I have stated only facts. You can not prove where DNA came from and you can not reproduce it. There is no direct link between man and lower species. That requires a leap of faith in science; therefore you have made it a religion. As for spelling, put your little red pencil back in your pocket as the position of spelling police is also taken on here. It makes you look childish and silly. Let me know when your religion figures out how to create dna or finds that direct link. As far as something important to add, how long are you and Natalie going to keep posting the same things over and over as if you have added something new. Your smart ass comments dont change the facts. I stated that evoulution is a fact. The origion of species is a theory. Blather all you want and self congratulate yourself for your superior intellegence and that will still be the facts.

If I have your statement correct, you're saying

Everything on earth evolved except man. Which was poofed into existence, in adult form, and is exempt from the process of evolution. That's what you're telling me?

That is not what I said and you know it.
Since the average size of a soldier in the revolutionary war was 5'7", it is an observable fact that man inf fact evolves. There is no observable evidence that man came from a lower form of animal. What I said was that there is still the missing link where a lower form of animal became a man. Scientific evidence points us in that direction, but as stated before, it still requires a leap of faith (religion). Man wasnt poofed into existence, he was created. How he was created, I do not know. I do know that accepting that he was created by God requires no greater leap of faith than believing that anything can be created from nothing.(show me where else in history or science that has ever happened). If all life came from one single source of DNA and I am not saying that it didnt, we still have no explaination of where the original DNA came from. We are expected to believe that this big bang theory happened one time in history or that somewhow lower forms of life came in to being by random chance and evolved into man and the world around him was such that he could survive in that environment, when the planets around him are uninhabitable, yet you mock the possibility that God put of put all this in place.