Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

no creationist in his right mind would call creation science.
that's totally idiotic.

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

then there are a lot of creationists that are not of their right minds.

there are many people who don't understand many things, either for lack of interest, or for lack of intellect. It's a matter of priorities, perhaps. Too many Christians don't even understand what they say they believe, they just go along with whatever sounds good to them. Fatal error.

essentially.this further corrobrates my theory that people are herd animals.

quote:

---

this further corrobrates my theory that people are herd animals.

---

No, pack animals.

social animals, a need to belong, for reasons of safety, etc. But that does not mean that individuality is, must be, should be, surrendered. I do not identify with herd or pack.

well that's the common thought, yes. but i'm arguing herd.

yet you've chosen a pack animal for your icon.

Hi David,
Before I start, are you the same David Fitch who studies Caenorhabditis nematodes? If so I used a reference of yours (as background) when doing my MS work on hermaphroditism and sex allocation in caridean shrimps.Anyway, I am intriqued by your statement: Are these two points or one? I have read Origin (although it has been some years since I have read it cover to cover) and have been trying to recall where Darwin discusses predictions from NS vs ID specifically. When discussing structures such as the eye (the archetype of ID design theory at the time) I think he wasn't discussing it in the sense of "Here is the eye, here are two hypotheses of origins, which holds up to predictions?". He sounds to me like he looking at complex structures, relationships, adaptations and the like as NOT supporting ID under scrutiny. I hope I can make my point in a clear manner (I am under the gun here, need to go in 15 minutes!).Intelligent design theory (as per Paley) doesn't make any predictions as to how a structure should look. The only 'prediction' inherent in design theory is that it is impossible to arrive at stepwise. "Structure X is irreducible in complexity and has no viable intermediate steps; therefore it can only exist as the product of intelligent design" The prediction is that ID is the ONLY mecahnism that can produce it. Not what the structure looks like. So Darwin states that structure X can easily be derived from slight changes in structure W which comes from V... and so on. He is nowhere (that I recall) looking at the complex structure of the eye and analyzing which theory best explains it. He says that the eye would be a problem IF no steps could be found, and btw here they are.I apologize if you intended those statements to be unrelated ("No one here has read Darwin" AND "People think that ID makes no predictions" as opposed to "No one here has read Darwin's discussion of how ID makes predictions"

---

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein

How do you figure untestable? Clarify what you are saying.Creation and evolution are both hypothesises of observations of nature and the cosmos.

I think that your statement was very idiotic. That's exactly what creationism is. Science. There are many "sciences": Biology, Physics, Cosmology..etc. Even History is a science.Science means knowledge. Evolution is a theory, that some-- watch this-- scientists, who are people studying something to find out in order to "know", think is what they observe happened. Creation is a theory, that some-- watch this-- scientists, who are people studying something to find out in order to "know", think is what they observe happened.

What concievable test could exist that would tell the difference between, say, two organisms of shared ancestry and two organisms created to appear that way, in every concievable fashion, by the Almighty?That's what I mean, untestable. The basic tenants of creationism are beyond scientific inquiry, on purpose. Neither creation nor evolution are hypotheses. Creationism is not a hypothesis because it is not science. Evolution is not a hypothesis because it enjoys the weight of enough evidence to be considered a model; another word for that is "theory."

No, it's not. The positions of creationism are arrived at not by the scientific method, but by looking up the "answers" in the Bible. Not quite. Science is that body of knowledge developed by the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and reporting. Since the conclusions of creationism are not developed by this method, but rather through theology and Biblical analysis, creationism cannot be considered a science.

Creationism is based on more than just the bible.Saying what you said is like saying the evolution theory is based upon pretty pictures painted in science text books.The bible is important yes there is no arguing that however science does easily point the way for a 6 day creation and a 6000 year time line for the earth (if you are open minded enough to subjectively put the evidence together). To proof is there. To say otherwise would simply be ignorant.The going back a few posts, I will also say that no evolutionist in their right mind will call evolution science.If you are open minded enough to truly view the creationism point of view from scientific data, feel free to view or download the free videos found on this site:
http://evolution.no-ip.net. I suggest downloading one of the files and fast forwarding past the stuff in the first 20 min of the file (that’s the introduction and Christian mumbo jumbo). After that point the speaker begins to cut the chase and display overwhelming facts that destroy the evolution theory in many ways and pretty much proves creationism as a viable history for the earth. The speaker uses pure science (like laws in physics) to show the approximate age of the earth and shares overwhelming scientific data that damages the evolution theory.I saw and downloaded all 20 hours of online videos and it drastically affected my mindset toward evolution (in a positive way).

Hi Dynamo, welcome!You aren't going to find many Hovind fans around here. We have had some threads revolve around him before:
Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help? is a good one. You can also utilize our search function and look for posts that mention him.The main threads that were focused on him are older threads. Maybe you would like to propose a new topic here - Proposed New Topics.I'm linking here to some pages that are very informative for our new members:
Our Forum Guidelines
Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
Style Guides for EvCOnce again, welcome to our little corner of the universe. Pull up a chair and get comfortable.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe