Replies

Multiple errors:

The belief that the evolution of man is a fact is nothing more than a belief and faith.

False. The theory of evolution is based on overwhelming evidence.

They won't admit it because, if they do, then they must respect our belief of creationism and give it equal standing in science with their own belief of evolution.

False. Creationism is a belief, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The former is based on divine revelation and scripture. The latter is based on evidence.

This would cause both to be taught to our children and most will believe in creationism when given the choice and proper education about both theories.

There are not two theories. Science uses the term "theory" far differently than do laymen. While a layman may see a theory as a guess or something similar, scientists see a theory as the current best explanation for a given set of facts. The status of theory is only achieved after withstanding multiple tests and making successful predictions.

Evolutionist know this all too well. That is why they want only their theory and not creationism in schools.

Scientists prefer that only science be taught as science. Ideas based on divine revelation and scripture, rather than scientific evidence, do not qualify as science. This should be obvious to all!

Only an atheist, or someone who has been force feed a glamorized version of Human Evolution in the educational system, would accept Human Evolution as a scientific fact or even a sound scientific theory proven true through the scientific method.

First, your use of "proven" is incorrect. It is more of the way a layman would use the term. In science nothing is considered proven. Theories are always subject to modification or falsification if new data arise that cannot be explained. In short, theories are supported by the data or they are not--but they are never "proven."

Second, the world's largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. It is only the fundamentalist religions (including Biblical literalists and Muslims) who are unable to accept the findings of science.

Finally, I cannot accept that fundamentalists such as yourself are an accurate judge of what science is or should be. When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method. At that point one's opinions on science are no longer meaningful, or even useful, to the conduct of science.

“Second, the world’s largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. “

And Thank God for that! (Gloria In Excelsis Deo)
For consider if the whole realm of ‘science’, which has enabled modern propserous life, was given over to the atheists. Why would we reject truths arrived at through scientific means? Would Christianity survive if it warred with science? Would we want that?

That would be a question for creationists. many scientists are Christians, do you not favor science?
Even if you disagree with one theory, it is a big mistake to carry that into an opposition to science itself.

Multiple Errors!

[[False. The theory of evolution is based on overwhelming evidence.]]

Nope- sorry- False. ONLY microevolution has “Overwhelming” evidence to support it- Macroevolution has zero

[[False. Creationism is a belief, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The former is based on divine revelation and scripture. The latter is based on evidence.]]

False! Creationism has scientific evidence to support it while Macroevolution has nothign but beleif in a supposed process that has no scientific support

[[While a layman may see a theory as a guess or something similar, scientists see a theory as the current best explanation for a given set of facts.]]

Correction: While a layman may see a theory as a guess or something similar, scientists with an a priori belief in Macroevolution see the Hypothesis as the current best explanation for a given set of assumptions.

[[Scientists prefer that only science be taught as science. Ideas based on divine revelation and scripture, rather than scientific evidence, do not qualify as science.]]

Well good news for you then because the scientific evidence supports Special Creation- Glad we at least agree on something- I guess you’ll now be pulling for Creationism to be taught in schools instead of hte religious beleief in Macroevolution eh? (Actually I’d prefer ID be taught- but that’s anotehr ballgame)

[[Theories are always subject to modification or falsification if new data arise that cannot be explained.]]

Good hting ya’ll leave yourself a massive out- because hte science is showing Macroevolution to be wrong- Phew!

[[Second, the world’s largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. It is only the fundamentalist religions (including Biblical literalists and Muslims) who are unable to accept the findings of science.]]

The pope can beleive little green men fathered footballs for all I care- unless he or anyone beleiving in Macroevolution can provide hte evidence to back it up- they are still practicing a religious belief- it woudkl appear hte pope has traded in one belief for yet another- But in NO way does his acceptance of it make it any more valid- You might think so, but hten again, you accept anyhtign that seems to bolster your particular worldview whether it has evidnece behind it or not.

[[When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method. ]]

We do? Oh please expalin, this aught to be incredibly rich and delicious-

[[At that point one’s opinions on science are no longer meaningful, or even useful, to the conduct of science.]]

you know, You apparently just can’t help yourself can you? Are you so full of loathing that you can’t even write soemthign without belittling those who dissagree with you? Particularly ID folks? I’ve expalined to you that Christian ID organization’s own particular statements of faith first of all do NOT stand in as the ultimate authority for ID, and secondly, Even their statements of faith have absolutely NOTHING to do with precluding htem from scientific investigation, because what we DO find in nature is that nature follows exactly what was written- It is folks liek you that deny this that can’t seem to get over you snotty superiority complex long enough to even ceede this point. When you have evidencel inking Dissimilar KINDS, and can falsify Discontinuity, then and only then can you state that Creationism has no place in science- until then, your little taunts are both unprofessional and childish, and I’ve received personal messages here attestign to the fact that people can’t stand arguing with you because of your unprofessionalism and childish taunts. Everytime you post something, it’s the same old disproven crap time and time again. It just nmever ceases with you!

False. The theory of evolution is based on overwhelming evidence.

You fail to read my posts closely, I said HUMAN EVOLUTION. Human Evolution has no evidence and is a false religion based on the beliefs of Darwin that was founded in order to disprove Creationism.

"Creationism is a belief, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory The latter is based on evidence."

You seem to completely ignore my dozens of posts were I clearly state HUMAN EVOLUTION. Human Evolution is a belief and is not founded based on evidence.

"The status of theory is only achieved after withstanding multiple tests and making successful predictions"

Thus you have proven that Human Evolution is not a scientific theory since it cannot withstand tests nor can it successfully predict anything. Then it must be a belief, correct?

"Scientists prefer that only science be taught as science. Ideas based on divine revelation and scripture, rather than scientific evidence, do not qualify as science. This should be obvious to all!"

I disagree, many scientists allow Human Evolution to be taught as sound theory because of their hatred for Creationism. That is obvious to me. Whether Creationism should be included in science is a whole other ball game. But if Human Evolution is, then Creationism should be as well since they are both beliefs.

In short, theories are supported by the data or they are not--but they are never "proven."

Thank you for that, many evolutionist will not admit that. There is no data for Human Evolution in the first place so I guess it doesn't fall in this category.

"Second, the world's largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. It is only the fundamentalist religions (including Biblical literalists and Muslims) who are unable to accept the findings of science."

Not true. There is no way that Catholics accept Human Evolution. They may accept plant evolution and maybe animal evolution, but not Human Evolution. Science has not found anything about Human Evolution and that is why I and others refuse to accept its false religion's lies.

"Finally, I cannot accept that fundamentalists such as yourself are an accurate judge of what science is or should be. When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method. At that point one's opinions on science are no longer meaningful, or even useful, to the conduct of science."

So basically what you are saying is that your an atheist. If you believe in the religion of Human Evolution, then your opinions on science are no longer meaningful or useful to the conduct of science.

When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method.

So who is it that requires accepting every word of the Bible as *literally true*?

For that matter, explain exactly what you mean by that term.