jrtjr1 writes:
What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence.
Impression of design?
Such as what?
The human eye? Piss poor design.
The inside of the human skull? Piss poor design.
The human ability to suffer depression and host of other psychological disorders? Piss poor design.
Reasons to believe writes:
Testing the Creation Model
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
transcendent creation event
cosmic fine-tuning
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
fossil record reversal
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
molecular clock rates
Care to explain (a) how these are any kind of test for this model and (b) how much research you have done to investigate these claims?
I put money on 'not a lot.'
To get this taught in school you would have to validate it and that won't happen because it is invalid, bollocks, just plain wrong.
jrtjr1 writes:
See, it is not that I am “irrelevant”, “of no worth”, or “of no importance”;
Quite so: but the ideas you are supporting are.
jrtjr1 writes:
The fact that there is a Creator is so well established that
Is it? The reason scientific theories are taught is because they are supported by the evidence. Creationism is not.
Unless you have some new evidence and can present it here?
You also seem to forget that science does not have an socio political agenda but creationism
is religion and so does.
Even your wacky US law agrees.
jrtjr1 writes:
I challenge you to look over the information I have provided.
Surely you know this has been debunked ad infinitum?