Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

Some forms of "creation" are still a possibility I guess. Did God kick off the big bang?However, most of the forms of "creation" that people are fighting to have in schools are not a possibility at all any more. What form did you want?

---

Common sense isn't

Yea welcome aboard.Somewhere there is a whole thread saying how much fun it would be if there was time to really examine creationism in school classes.Rumage, rumage, ah here is one of them:http://EvC Forum: What if creationism did get into the science class -->EvC Forum: What if creationism did get into the science classthat will dump you into the middle of it.

See the new thread to discuss your ideas about the flood. Evidence for and against Flood theoriesWe'd just love to have you take each of Hovind's ideas and defend them here. You can perhaps start by defending your own claims regarding the flood in the above thread.You did, if I recall correctly, claim to know a lot about science. Myself, I suspect you have a lot to learn. You might start by learning not to use phrases and words like "everything" and "totally irrefutable".However, you can start simply, lol, and be prepared to talk about all those mountain climbing sea shells.

d yankee, you'll have to be more careful about what sources you use and/or just making up numbers.You actually think that the number of scientists who (abe removed don't) accept evolution as the only explanation we have for the form of life on earth is only around 50%? You are way off.It is more like 99%. (I'm being generous to you of course - the nearest 3 sig figs number is 99.9 % ) ABE If you want to make engineers and just anyone a "scientist" the number if still over 9 out of 10. /ABEYour 50% number is a bit more representative of the US public if you include those who accept evolution but think that God had a hand.See:
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creationYou should then note that the US is particulary uneducated in this regard and the numbers are, I suspect, much different in Europe. They are here in Canada too.I note that you still haven't applied your immense scientific knowledge to the shells in the mountains. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-28-2004 12:23 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-28-2004 03:41 PM

You state that "most" evolutionists are atheist? Please give an approximate percentage so we know what "most" means. Then supply sources for this. I do, btw, expect that more than half would be and that the number has remained pretty much the same for decades.You then state that evolutionists are beginning to sway over to an intelligent designer.What does "sway over to" mean? Where did you get this idea? You have yet to do anything but make assertions. It is time you learned that you need to do better than that if you want to have any credibility.I am still waiting for you to explain the sea shells.see:
Evidence for and against Flood theories

I think that brings us back to something I may have posted here in the first page or so.I'd love to see creationism treated in science class. There would, of course, be a huge roar of outrage from those asking for it since it would be held up to the same examination based on evidence as the other topics.A few days would rip it to shreds.