God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

Originally posted by whirlysplat
To paraphrase Einstein, "perhaps I have seen a little further because I stood on the shoulders of giants", good research for anyone comes with references. Einstein did his best work as a patents clerk.

Srinivasa Ramanujan did a lot of interesting work without a degree.

http://www.dhool.com/ennangal/resources.htm

A body of knowledge is based on research.

😄

Epistemeology/Epistomology slight difference in emphasis is the basis of scientific thought see here. This site explains the concept ok.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/IE/caulder.html

Sorry to use web pages but they are a good resource 😄

A few are, very very few.

The problem with webpages is most of them are created by someone with an agenda. Pro-creationist webpages are created by people who are trying to convince readers that creationism is true and sound, as such, they intentionally leave out data that may hurt their side. This is known as cherry picked data, and is common in almost all webpages dedicated to a certain topic.

As for scientists, I'll trust them because they've done the research, they've discussed with other scientists about their research and beliefs, and they've also dedicated their life to science. A few people may be able to obtain similar amounts of credibility without being a genuine scientist, but they are a rarity.

When Jurassic park came out it was banned in Israel for portraying a view contrary to Creationism. this is the opposite end of tolerance 😄

All views should be taught so that they can be compared discussed and argued. Theories no matter what the evidence is are only theories. Evolution thanks to modern genetics has come a long way since Darwin. As has religious thought where many see cthe creation story as a metaphor. They are not mutually exclusive.

😄

Originally posted by Lana
Webpages can be good resources, but you have to check them out. A geocities site is not generally going to be the best source of information. A site that's a .edu or .org is much more likely to be a good source, though once again, you should always check it out and try to find THEIR sources.

So far the only thing you all have been able to prove is your ability to post more times than anyone else in a single minute..BWAHAHAHA..

Originally posted by BackFire
A few are, very very few.

The problem with webpages is most of them are created by someone with an agenda. Pro-creationist webpages are created by people who are trying to convince readers that creationism is true and sound, as such, they intentionally leave out data that may hurt their side. This is known as cherry picked data, and is common in almost all webpages dedicated to a certain topic.

As for scientists, I'll trust them because they've done the research, they've discussed with other scientists about their research and beliefs, and they've also dedicated their life to science. A few people may be able to obtain similar amounts of credibility without being a genuine scientist, but they are a rarity.

Circular argument..the same thing can be said of Pro - evolutionists..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Sorry sweety...but your proof isn't proof either...your belief is solely reliant on transitionary fossils..and no valid ones have been found..don't you just love circular arguments..

where is your proof for creationism? and don't go tell your lifestory 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So far the only thing you all have been able to prove is your ability to post more times than anyone else in a single minute..BWAHAHAHA..

🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Sorry sweety...but your proof isn't proof either...your belief is solely reliant on transitionary fossils..and no valid ones have been found..don't you just love circular arguments..

What did I say about people using such terms with me?

Hmmm....remember this post?

The following are 22 examples have complete dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps:

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.

Hmmm...a list of transitional fossils proving a dinosaur-to-bird link. I'm sorry, didn't you just say these things didn't exist? Apparently, they do. Next...

Now, give us some proof for creationism. Real proof, not something from the bible.

But you can't! Because you cannot prove an intelligent being exists, and as many people do not believe in such a thing, you're so-called argument completely falls apart!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Circular argument..the same thing can be said of Pro - evolutionists..

🙄 Well done 🙂

Originally posted by Lana
What did I say about people using such terms with me?

Hmmm....remember this post?

Hmmm...a list of transitional fossils proving a bird-to-dinosaur link. I'm sorry, didn't you just say these things didn't exist?

Wow..you know how to cut and paste..great job honey...but it doesn't prove a damb thing about your argument...

why should she? she isn't the one that has to proof anything

only thing you have done so far is ... well... nothing

Oh I'm sorry it also proves that you know how to use the html quote tags...good job!!

Originally posted by yerssot
why should she? she isn't the one that has to proof anything

only thing you have done so far is ... well... nothing

Which is better than I can say for yourself..so far I'd rank you a -2..0 is more than that..lol...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Oh I'm sorry it also proves that you know how to use the html quote tags...good job!!

🙄 What a gentleman 🙄 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Wow..you know how to cut and paste..great job honey...but it doesn't prove a damb thing about your argument...

Proves far more than you have.

I also know how to discern research from a valid source from crap.

And I said quit it with using such names with me. I find it condescending when people use such terms with me if they're not someone I'm on familiar footing with. You are not one of these people. So stop.

whob... you have to be 13 to be on this site... are you sure you're 13 or older?
up till now you have done nothing but acting like a 10 year old

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Oh I'm sorry it also proves that you know how to use the html quote tags...good job!!

You can't use HTML on these boards....boy, don't you look smart here.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Which is better than I can say for yourself..so far I'd rank you a -2..0 is more than that..lol...

Childish jabs now, huh? You're destroying your own credibility here with how you're acting.

Originally posted by Lana
Proves far more than you have.

I also know how to discern research from a valid source from crap.

And I said quit it with using such names with me. I find it condescending when people use such terms with me if they're not someone I'm on familiar footing with. You are not one of these people. So stop.

poorly don't rise to it 🙂 Ignore his flames

WOW! wait a minute here silver!... he had credibility? 😂

Originally posted by yerssot
WOW! wait a minute here silver!... he had credibility? 😂

Ooops, you're right.....😂

Originally posted by whirlysplat
poorly don't rise to it 🙂 Ignore his flames