should creationism be taught in schools?

Again, Beretta, I would ask you to address the OP of my thread, How Can Biologists Believe in the ToE?Do you think PhD Biologists are stupid?

quote:

---

For these sorts of reasons, I say both sides of the debate should be allowed to present the evidence for and against their positions and people should be inspired to continue to search for the truth since the truth is historical and cannot be experimentally repeated and proven.

---

What makes you think that there is only one Creation story?

Hi Beretta,You're arguing that evolution is bad science, but this thread is discussing whether creationism should be included in science curriculums. I don't think, "Evolution is bad science, therefore creationism should be taught in science class," is a very good argument.In order to make a case for teaching creationism in science class you have to focus on its positive qualities with regard to science, not evolution's negative qualities.--Percy

See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for some evidence that the earth is older than any YEC scenario yet known can explain. See if you can be the first to provide an explanation for the evidence there, rather than end up in denial of it (like every YEC creationist so far).Because there is evidence for an old earth there is no evidence for a young earth that cannot be part of the old earth. A recent volcano can provide evidence of young rock, which would be evidence for a (very) young earth, IF it were the only rock. The problem (for YECs) is that there IS a lot of (correlated, corroborated, multiple kinds of) evidence for a (very) old earth, and having evidence of some young rocks does not explain the evidence of old ones.We should not teach falsified concepts in schools as anything other than falsified concepts. We do this with the flat earth concept, and we can do it for the young earth concept. So we should teach Norse creation as well as science? If this creationism is still wrong then you have wasted class time on a wrong concept (you said "both" didn't you?). What about hindu creationism (GOSH you mean there is MORE than ONE creationism?)?You want to present evidence that creationism is true? How about posting your best\favorite single piece of evidence on Discussing the evidence that support creationism, now over 100 posts with no such evidence.Evolution is a fact, it has been observed. Speciation has been observed. The evidence of the fossil record and genetics is consistent with the pattern of evolution that has been observed.In school science classes it is generally agreed that we teach science based on facts and validated theories, and not pie-in-the-sky concepts where there is no evidence that supports it.Without one piece of actual evidence that can only support creationism there is no need to teach this concept. Except there is evidence that evolution occurs daily.(abe)
Except that evolution is a science (one of many disciplines) that has nothing to do with social organizations.Except that this is a logical falsehood, an argument from fear, based on the logical fallacy of fear of consequences rather than facts.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : end

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Really? I don't think so . Who settled the debate and if it's settled, why is it still being disputed? Proven wrong by whom? Why is this debate ongoing if the debate is over??? What are your other old age dating methods? Are they based on as many presuppositions as radiometric dating?

This isn't a dating thread Beretta. You have been invited to join the 'correlations' thread to discuss dating. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Science works by trying very hard to show that something is wrong. You have an opportunity to show that the correlations above can be explained within a young earth. As noted no one has come close to doing that so far.

Simple answer #1: because some people aren't interested in the truth, and when confronted with it, don't accept reality and prefer to live with delusion.Simple answer #2: because some people can make a living conning gullible and ignorant people by telling them things they want to believe, depending on the ignorance and gullibility to con them. Some people will tell lies to sell a book.Simple reason #3: there is no evidence for creationism posted on Discussing the evidence that support creationism because there is no evidence for creationism.This last reason is ALSO the reason that this concept should not be taught in science class: science depends on evidence first, before theory.Among the people that honestly look at the evidence to understand the truth of reality with no filter of preconceptions there is no debate.That enough for starters? See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : reason #3

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Scientists. Because there are still religious cranks who are ignorant of science. Scientists. Because there are still religious cranks who are ignorant of science. Oh, stuff like racemization, dendrochronology, fluoride dating (the method used to prove that Piltdown man was a hoax) ... various things. Someone posted a list recently, and there was stuff that even I hadn't heard of.But I asked first. You claim to have "dating methods" that prove the Earth young. Please start a thread. Or at least have the guts to name them. Like radiometric dating, they are based firmly on the observable facts, rather than on the imaginary "assumptions" that you assume (without proof) must exist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, but it's the only one they've got.Imagine if we tried to prove evolution like that."Snakes can't talk, therefore evolution is correct."But of course we don't need to.

Scientists settled the debate, which is why the "debate" is really just a matter of those who are knowledgeable about the facts arguing with those who are mostly ignorant of them.Ignorance is why there's still a dispute. Not everyone is aware of all the different ways in which creationism has been disputed; and, even then, a fair number of people have been told by their churches that they have to ignore whatever evidence they see that contradicts their church's teachings. By the evidence. It's not. There is no debate. Creationists steadfastly refuse to take part in the scientific debate; rather, they prefer to use things like the court system to shoehorn a scientifically-disproven model into public school science classes.That doesn't sound like a debate to me. That sounds like what you do when you're trying to force acceptance of an ideology that can't be supported on its own merits.Your problem is that you assume that creationists are honest people motivated by a need to generate a model that best fits the facts.This is untrue. If they were like that they would be evolutionists. At one time they were like that, and that's how evolution was developed - by honest creationists who knew that a young earth and special creation simply couldn't be born out by the facts.Rather, today's creationists are people who are commanded to uphold their model regardless of what evidence is laid before them; because creationism is a position you have to take on faith, not on facts. Radiometric dating is not based on any presuppositions; rather it is based on sound science and observation. We have observations that confirm the reliability of the method back for at least 2 billion years. It's not any kind of a stretch to assume that the method works further back even than that.

You miss my point. The items aren't connected logically by their proximity. They're connected logically by their characteristics.We conclude that the links belong to the same chain because the links are the same size, have the same chemical composition, show the same tool marks, etc. Similarly, we conclude that the bones are from related species because they have similar characteristics.The question is: why would we logically conclude that similar structures are not related? Never mind humans and orangutans. Why would bats and whales have such similar bone structures in such different environments if they didn't have a common ancestor?Creationism fails the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others test by claiming that nothing is like anything else. So creationism shouldn't be on Sesame Street or in the schools.Edited by Ringo, : Spelllllling.Edited by Ringo, : Smore spellinge.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course that is simply another falsehood that you are repeating.There is a reason that Biblical Creationists do not participate in many of the threads here at EvC, and that is because they have no model that can explain the evidences which are available to everyone to see. No one assumes the universe is tens of billions of years old or that the earth is billions of years old, that is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. So far no one has ever been able to present a dating method that support a young earth other than using a Special Pleading.If you actually thought that there was a model that could explain the evidence, then it would seem reasonable that you would start a thread and present it. Please remember that even if you could show the current models wrong, that adds NO support to the Creationist model. The only way that Biblical Creationism can ever become anything more than a bad joke, something to laugh about, is if Biblical Creationists can present models that explain what is seen better than the current models.You could start by presenting the models for: The world and evironment 5767 years ago.
How to make sand.
Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found
Designed/created to fool science?
Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds)
Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.and once you provide the models for each of those we can examine your model and see if it actually does explain what is seen.AbE:You may want to begin by studying How can "Creationism" be supported? to at least learn what is needed to support Creationism or Young Earth.Edited by jar, : add link to help Beretta

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think there's only one story but I absolutely believe there is only one that makes sense, that has loads of historical and archeological verification in its favour and lines up with the evidence -not as well as evolution -better than evolution.

Whether it's history or science or English or math, schools teach the scholarly consensus, so it's good to hear you mention "historical and archeological verification," because all you need is evidence to convince the historical/archeological community that Noah's flood and the crossing of the Red Sea really happened. And you only need scientific evidence in order to convince the scientific community of flood geology and a young earth. Once the evidence causes these views to become part of the consensus then they can be taught in school.So probably the question you must address is why the evidence you say exists has failed to convince these respective scholarly communities.--Percy

This depends on the context though. I am guessing you subscribe to the Genesis creation story, and yes it makes sense, but only in a folk tale context.It makes no sense if looked at from science, history, or archaeology. We cannot really dispute this until you provide some of this 'archaeological verification' and other evidence.Any chance you could give us something to examine?