The Dangers Of Creationism In Education

Originally posted by Storm
religious fundamentalists

Shoot them all, problem solved. dancingman

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
However, the truth of the matter is that there is no evidence of creationism.

Fixed.

Evolution: Biology Class
Creationism: Theology Class

problem solved

How about the "dangers" of Education in Creationism? Could the latter survive?

Originally posted by Boris
Yeah, teach Evolution, which is science, in a science class.

If you want, teach Creationism in a religion class, and only a religion class, creationism is not scientific. Creationism has no place outside the realm of religion.

But (macro) evolution has not been proven so they should not teach it. At least there is abundant evidence pointing to the All-powerful, All-wise Creator (based on life's complication). Therefore, they should teach creationism.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But (macro) evolution [B]has not been proven so they should not teach it. At least there is abundant evidence pointing to the All-powerful, All-wise Creator (based on life's complication). Therefore, they should teach creationism. [/B]

Abundant evidence? What are you on about. What evidence is this exactly? Don't play the 'oohh we're so complicated card', please.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But (macro) evolution [B]has not been proven so they should not teach it. At least there is abundant evidence pointing to the All-powerful, All-wise Creator (based on life's complication). Therefore, they should teach creationism. [/B]

Evolution works, it's simple.. there is really no point in denying it. Get over the fact that it's yet another discovery that proves the bible is total horse shit.

And yes, go ahead and teach creationism... in a RELIGION CLASS, no where else.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Abundant evidence? What are you on about. What evidence is this exactly? Don't play the 'oohh we're so complicated card', please.

Don't be silly:

There is but one measuring stick required to determine the truth of any claim - how it compares with Holy Scripture. More precisely, how it compares with your personal reading of Scripture. So, if some secular humanist scientists dare to dream up a theory (or "wild guess", as it is more accurately known) that apparently conflicts with the teachings of the Bible, clearly these egg-head mad professors have made yet another idiotic mistake, possibly under demonic influence. How do we know they are mistaken? See "1 Inerrancy".

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html

Let's go for baby steps, guys:

JIA, as a Creationist, you have the inherent disbelief of evolution. However, it does make sense.

Natural selection is essentially "survival of the fittest." So the organisms with the characteristics that are positive survive to reproduce. It is seen all the time in nature, where a female selects the biggest mate or the mate that can construct the best nest or anything of the sort. Would you agree that this could cause a small change in a small isolated population if all of the organisms died off who didn't have the trait or multiple potential mates had the positive trait? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Boris
Creationism has not been proven.. in fact it's been DISPROVEN over and over.

Evolution works, it's simple.. there is really no point in denying it. Get over the fact that it's yet another discovery that proves the bible is total horse shit.

And yes, go ahead and teach creationism... in a RELIGION CLASS, no where else.

Question: has (macro) evolution been proven yes or no? No.

So then why is it the dominant view for the origin of life? It has not been proven yet it is being dogmatically taught in schools and universities (this is tragic for all those impressionable minds out there).

At least creationism has strong support for the Biblical view (science is discovering this as I write). In fact, the creationist view is more scientific in terms of the constants of physics.

Design and the Anthropic Principle
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Summary

"Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges....The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[COLOR=darkblue]Question: has (macro) evolution been proven yes or no? No.

Specification is when a species splits in two, something which happens all the time. So, your wrong my friend.

Originally posted by Mindship
How about the "dangers" of Education in Creationism? Could the latter survive?

What curriculum would Creationism fall under?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Specification is when a species splits in two, something which happens all the time. So, your wrong my friend.

Micro/Macro

"Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory."

Evolution: The Great Fairy Tale for Grownups
Why Not Believe in Santa Clause, too?
Written By

JOHNVENNARI

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/fairytal.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Micro/Macro

"Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory."

Evolution: The Great Fairy Talefor Grownups
Why Not Believe in Santa Clause, too?
Written By

JOHNVENNARI

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/fairytal.html

[/B]

JOHN VENNARI 😆 A qualified leading authority on what? 😆

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Micro/Macro

"Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory."

Evolution: The Great Fairy Talefor Grownups
Why Not Believe in Santa Clause, too?
Written By

JOHNVENNARI

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/fairytal.html

[/B]

That explanation is deceptive to say the least. At it's core, Mirco-Evolution is the variation of a population. Macro-Evolution is specification of a population that happens due to mutation, and Behavior.

Infact, do you even know what the definition of species is and how a species barrier forms?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JOHN VENNARI 😆 A qualified leading authority on what? 😆

I have posted plenty of people in times past with Phds, the one time that I don't you sidestep the facts and underscore that? That is puerile. In this case the facts are the facts irrespective of who presents them. If a 5 year old wrote that article the facts would still be true. So what is your point Shakyamunison?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have posted plenty of people in times past with Phds, the one time that I don't you sidestep [b]the facts and underscore that? That is puerile. In this case the facts are the facts irrespective of who presents them. If a 5 year old wrote that article the facts would still be true. So what is your point Shakyamunison? [/B]

Bad source = bad information.

I don't have a problem with your source, because that would be committing an Ad Hominem it's your information that's the problem.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That explanation is deceptive to say the least. At it's core, Mirco-Evolution is the variation of a population. Macro-Evolution is specification of a population that happens due to mutation, and Behavior.

Infact, do you even know what the definition of species is and how a species barrier forms?

A species is defined as a group of populations that evolve independently, are capable of interbreeding, but are reproductively isolated from other groups.

Macroevolution is simply where one species evolves into another species (bear in mind the above definition of a species). There is no evidence of macroevoution ever having occurred.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A species is defined as a group of populations that evolve independently, are capable of interbreeding, but are reproductively isolated from other groups.

Macroevolution is simply where one species evolves into another species (bear in mind the above definition of a species). [b]There is no evidence of macroevoution ever having occurred. [/B]

The lack of evidence is not evidence for the lack of something.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A species is defined as a group of populations that evolve independently, are capable of interbreeding, but are reproductively isolated from other groups.

Well, the second part is correct.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Macroevolution is simply where one species evolves into another species (bear in mind the above definition of a species). [b]There is no evidence of macroevoution ever having occurred. [/B]

That's where your wrong, a species does not have to completely change in order to be classified as Macro-Evolution. Evolution can be combared to a tree with each species branching off into different directions. Macro-Evolution is when that branch happens.