Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

I agree that current controversies connected with a topic should be discussed along with that topic. Creationism, being a hot political topic has a place in a biology class room. When presented against the theory of evolution, it will be seen as the pseudo-science that it is. Of course, that would require a biology teacher who knows her subject well, and can answer supposed "evidence" in favor of creationism given by the students. I'm assuming that this is your point.One problem would be high school teachers teaching biology who believe in creationism and would present it as an equally valid, competing theory against evolution, and presenting evolution as having many, potentially fatal flaws. So, what about this potential problem?

quote:

---

All Isaiah and other thinking fundamentalist folks of the Bible need do was observe the sun and moon to assume the earth also was a sphere.

---

That's assuming two things:that Isaiah and the others at his time realized that the sun and moon were spheres and not disks themselvesandthat they also realized that these bodies were in some way analagous to the earth.

quote:

---

You say kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation,yet shouldn't we answer them by showing that it is not scientists but evidence that show creationism to be hollow?

---

I think that this is what David Fitch is saying. Or am I misinterpreting him?

quote:

---

It doesn't say disk either, does it. Both a disk and a sphere are circular, so here we are back at square one.

---

I would never describe a three-dimensional object like a sphere as a circle, but the boundary of a disk is exactly a circle.

quote:

---

This belief would require a sphere so as for the flood to occur, especially for people of the Bible who believed it was worldwide, killing all

---

Did the Hebrews actually believe in a literal flood? Maybe they accepted the story as a metaphor.

quote:

---

Even if a world flood were somehow possible on a disk, Noah's ark would be in great danger of falling off the edge along with the overflowing water which would not be able to be confined to a disk.

---

Most of the descriptions of a flat earth describe the boundary being very tall mountains which would keep the seas in. Alternatively, this may not have occurred to the people who wrote the story.

quote:

---

Humans were able to observe that different parts of the moon were visible in different positions so as to know it was a sphere.

---

Did the people, at the time the story was composed, in the area in which it was compose, actually make this observation?

quote:

---

...it would be impossible for the sun, moon and earth, all to be disk circles and for the sun to light both the moon and the earth at the same time.

---

Didn't ancient people think the moon produced its own light? In Genesis chp 1 both the sun and the moon were created to be lights in the sky (Genesis 1:16).

David, there seems to be some uncertainty as to what you are advocating. Do you believe that creationism is a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, or are saying that creationism should be taught in order to expose it for the pseudoscience that it is?

Can you cite someone who claims the earth created itself? A link or a reference to a text book? Sure, that does sound like it's nonsense, but it doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand.And which god's theory would you have taught? Suppose that Hinduism was the dominant religion in the US and that your kid's teachers were taching the Hindu version of creationism, which does accept that the earth is millions of years old. Would you be so sanguine about it?Gesocentrism is another theory that has never been proved 100% wrong, and there are people who accept this as God's theory. Are you advocating yet another change in the science curriculum?It is not a waste of time to show kids varying ideas, I agree, but there are ideas that are such nonsense that is is a waste of time to dwell on them for any lenght of time. Except when the nonsense idea has a relatively powerful lobby, then I agree that time should be spent in showing why the idea is nonsense and why the lobby is wrong.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, I watch (cringing) the results of evolutionary teaching in school on the minds of the debaters here that want so desparately to believe that science actually supports the theory's plausibility. Who taught these people how to think? Those teachers ought to be taken out and horse-whipped!

---

Excuse me if I'm confusing you with someone else, but aren't you the one who keeps bringing up Bible codes?