Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science in church?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 17 of 35 (482980)
09-19-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Logic
09-17-2008 8:03 PM


Evolution should be taught in churches. Controversly, creationism should not be taught in science classrooms because science is held to a higher standard, like I said.
I agree fully, all I want to know is if everyone else on this bored agrees
No I don't agree for evolution teaches a lie that it took vast amounts of time for natural selection to make trillions time trillions times trillions of mistakes until the fossil record formed all these creatures in the museums that are fully formed fossils.
When the fossil record in the museums shows the fossil record came fully formed meaning the fossils sudden explosion of life came suddenly and fully formed more suggestive that its a young earth.
What we should do is teach the truth that the earth is an young earth. TAKE THE OLD OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASS not take religion into the science class. Teach ID instead like how complex are the genetic information and leave it up to the churches to give a name to the creator. Just teach science in the science classes like genetics, biology, physics, math, soil sciences, water sciences, natural sciences without teaching the earth is an old one when this is not a scientific fact . Heck the acadamy of science has not been able to disfute Gentry's primordial polonium halo's they won't go there because it only proves the earth is an young earth. If they can not refute Gentry scientifically then its time to take the old out of science. Rewrite Palentology, Geology as its the scientific thing to do when science like the old earth is proven false science should rewrite the science books. Teach the kids the truth instead of teaching them lies like the earth is old and that lie is only used to twists all the evidence even with all the twisting evolutionists are using transistion fossils are not evident. You still have the same species that formed suddenly in the explosion of life in the beginning. Why are not multitudes of new species not coming is why ID should be taught instead of evolution pseudo sciences in the public schools.
TAke the lies out of science and teach science instead of teaching the fully formed fossil record missing links supports science. It might support evolution but being they are still missing certainly are not supporting science! If the fossil record shows a sudden explosion of life then teach this not we have maybe one or two questionable transistional fossils. Weak is the theory of evolution, etc... Strong is the young earthers science but because of separation of church and state just take "the old out of science" and admit in science they have no evidence of fossils coming on the scene unfully developed and that it takes real information to go transistional and they can not support it by the fossil record. Teach ID in the classrooms without the old earth lies then let the children decide if God did or did not create life on this earth suddenly. Why lie to our children and pretend its an old earth.
Here's a link of creation science in church notice it does not teach the lies that evolutionists teach. Truth be told evolution is psuedo science and we all know its not the truth but for this reason evolution should never be taught in church but creation science taught thats based on scientific truths.
Video Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Logic, posted 09-17-2008 8:03 PM Logic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 09-19-2008 12:34 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 19 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2008 1:18 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 09-19-2008 4:34 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 24 of 35 (483068)
09-19-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Admin
09-19-2008 7:39 PM


Re: More clarification
The question was:
Evolution should be taught in churches. Controversly, creationism should not be taught in science classrooms because science is held to a higher standard, like I said.
I said basically no it should not be taught in the churches because of teaching untruths in evolution like an old earth and no transistional.
I then basically said creationism is held to a higher standard and should not be taught with the lies of an old earth, and with the missing transistional fossils.
What should be taught in the churches I said like what Gentry is saying to the church in one of those video in this link! The links supporting evidence why to a creationist evolution is lying about the old earth as if its science. Its all that like wrong in this world the truth being made out as a lie and the lie being promoted as in evolution as if its the truth. The church should always have the right to not be forced to teach lies as the truth, etc ...
Video Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 09-19-2008 7:39 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2008 8:45 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 26 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2008 9:27 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2008 10:37 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2008 11:20 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 29 of 35 (483108)
09-20-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
09-19-2008 10:37 PM


Re: You up to the challenge?
How about it johnfolton? Care to take up carbon 14 dating in the Dating forum? Care to try to show how it is inaccurate and fails to support an old earth?
Can you support your argument, for a change, instead of just making unsupported assertions? Can you debate the issue without relying on the falsehoods and misrepresentations common on the creationist websites?
How many times have I and others tried to explain to you that the RATE BOYS are dating all the fossils young because the fossils are young is enough of a ratio for advanced science to date these fossils thousands not millions of years old.
P.S. I don't mind tagging a bit on dating threads but not a challenge due you continually call all my sources liars and not scientists. ha ha don't take it personally not calling you a liar just the old earth part is a lie. If you believe the old earth then your not a liar even if the old earth is a lie! Its like the saying dead doctors don't lie.
We went over this before and you just say this is a falsehood that they are misrepresentating the facts. How about evolutionists are misrepresenting the facts. Here is the information we've went over several times now. So the next time we tag you might have something to say about how they are misrepresenting the facts. Seems the rate boys do quite well with just the facts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JOHN BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABRATORY*
D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
ANDREW A. SNELLING, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
STEVEN A. AUSTIN, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.
http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
Here's more bias about giving PH.D. by acadamia of what an acceptable point of view or not, etc...{thought police?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Creationist earns Ph.D., gets attacked by scientists
by Krauze
Why can't it be, "Scientist earns Ph.D. Gets Attacked by Athiest Thought Police."
Although his thesis advisor describes his work as "impeccable", some have "argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology",
Should Marcus Ross have been forced to sign a statement, pledging eternal loyalty to Evolution and an Old Earth? Should he have undergone a polygraph test, ensuring that he didn't harbor any counter-consensus ideas? Myers think that Ross carrying out research he didn't agree with justifies labelling him a "fraud":
Is that how Myers think you get a doctoral degree? Just by "echoing ideas" As for Ross not believing the statements about millions of years from his own dissertation, that's the beauty of science - it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not. As long as Ross' data and arguments hold up, it doesn't matter one bit what his beliefs are.
Is it a coincidence that Myers wants to force creationists to advocate their creationist beliefs in their scientific work? After all, he is also the one who thinks that researchers who are friendly towards intelligent design should be denied tenure. So if you privately have a telic perspective on the origin of life, you're a fraud, and if you openly advocate this perspective, you will be denied tenure. Head I wins, tail you lose.
Don't forget, PZ Myers and Michael Dini are both scientists. Or, as you also call them, peer reviewers.
http://telicthoughts.com/...ked-by-scientists/#comment-64650
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2008 10:37 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 09-20-2008 9:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024