Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only in the discussion of science would a term created by another school of thought be considered cause to discredit someone. The definition of a term certainly, but the term itself?
I've also spoken to a non-Creationist about historical science vs observational science. They agreed that there is a difference.
Logically, it makes sense. If something happened in the past that cannot be duplicated and was not observed, an educated theory can be drawn up, but it is impossible to prove beyond a doubt.
Historical science would therefore include both Creationism and Macro-Evolution (not to be confused with Micro-Evolution).
Both have observable factors that can build the theories. Creationism often looks at the complexity of life (especially at the molecular level) and incorporates the mathematical impossibility that those complexities could come to be on there own, among other things. Macro-Evolution often looks at examples in Micro-Evolution and declares that with enough time changes like those seen could have brought about molecules to man evolution, among other things.
Each systematically goes through observable data to help explain what happened in the past.
Dictionary.com:
sci·ence
noun
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
I won't try to convince you of Creationism. Just know that, even though you don't agree, even though you think our logic is faulty or ignorant, it is, by definition, real science.
Should Creationism be included in Science classes at Public school? .
NO! NO! NO!
I don't even want to hear about it at church. I allowed a family member to take my children to Sunday school at the family member's church one weekend and my children brought home their "lessons" saying the Earth was 6,000 years old. This was Sunday school for small children! Coloring sheets! I didn't freak out, I just took the papers away and explained that God created the Earth many millions of years ago and He has never stopped creating it. (That was my way of saying evolution goes on, since they were just small children at the time.)
And I never allowed my children to attend that church again.
“... even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons... and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics.” (St. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis)
Dear fellow Christians, Genesis is not a science book. Quit trying to make it one.
The point of Genesis is theological, not scientific, and public schools shouldn't be teaching theology in science class.
No, I don't think creationism should be taught in school as it is a religious subject and should be learned at home if the parents desire them to know about the creator.
Creation is based on faith, belief and the teachings found in the bible and other religion books and therefore has no place in public schools.
It takes a greater faith to believe in evolution than it does creation ... for anybody can claim anything using circular cross referencing. One can't claim fact without controllable verifiable repetitive observation with similar results.
And with evolutionists, that is the one standard that is ignored .... controllable verifiable repetitive observation with similar results.
No, I don't think creationism should be taught in school as it is a religious subject and should be learned at home if the parents desire them to know about the creator.
Creation is based on faith, belief and the teachings found in the bible and other religion books and therefore has no place in public schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin
It takes a greater faith to believe in evolution than it does creation ... for anybody can claim anything using circular cross referencing. One can't claim fact without controllable verifiable repetitive observation with similar results.
And with evolutionists, that is the one standard that is ignored .... controllable verifiable repetitive observation with similar results.
I find it very easy to align my beliefs with scientific discoveries and facts.
I'm going to be the odd man out on this probably and say no. For one thing there is no consensus among Christians. You have the young earthe'rs, GAP'ers, day ager's, neo's, theistic evolutionists, intelligent designers, and progressive creationists to name a few. How do you decide who's view to teach?
Then you have other religions with their views.
Finally, I would not count on our public schools to get it right.
I appreciate what you're saying though, I really do.
How are you the odd man out? In the first three posts following the OP, one of which is yours, everyone says no.
I find it very easy to align my beliefs with scientific discoveries and facts.
Yes or no .... evolution bases on everything happened on random occurrences.
Then name a current "controllable verifiable repetitive observation with similar results" scientific discovery that took one species from one kingdom to another in a random setting .... which is what evolution bases everything on.
So why not try a simple experiment like this to test evolution's claim of random: ...
Yes or no .... evolution bases on everything happened on random occurrences
Twin,The difference between you and I seems to be that I have faith that God the creator gave some people more intelligence than others who are able to have enough faith to believe that everything "alive or once alive" on this earth including man and animals evolved. Where as your faith seems to be built upon trying to prove the creation story found in Genesis, and I truly respect your right to believe anything you want.. I really don't have reason to argue my beliefs are right and yours or anyone else s are wrong
The rest of your post I quoted from seems rather childish even to me with very limited higher education
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
