Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

a reply to: Krazysh0t

no no no that is just they way you personally perceive the recipe laid out in the bible

what other creations does science rail against just because of lack of understanding

lack of knowledge does not equate to something being fake or a myth

read genesis as a process and you may begin to see what is being outlined

it is pathetic at the least to deny a process for lack of understanding of details

what is worse is that science has not even unlocked the secrets of the human body yet but they look down on any new thought brung to the table

a reply to: howtonhawky

It doesn't matter if Genesis is a "process" or not. It isn't using the scientific method. Therefore it isn't scientific. End of story.

Also, I never said this:

lack of knowledge does not equate to something being fake or a myth

a reply to: deadlyhope

Creationism is bogus, IT SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. Keep religion out of schools and we'll keep science out of your church.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't using the scientific method.

got proof?

have you decoded the bible or are you just another one of those deniers claiming stuff cause you are 100% right and every civilization before you is wrong.



old clip but summs up your science is settled way of life

It will be funny when knowledge expands again and all you suckers are shown to be short sided gate keepers

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't using the scientific method.

got proof?

Why do I need prove that Creationism isn't using the scientific method? The scientific method is a VERY specific process. If that process isn't followed then it isn't following the scientific method. It's just that simple.

have you decoded the bible or are you just another one of those deniers claiming stuff cause you are 100% right and every civilization before you is wrong.

I haven't claimed to be right or wrong. I just said that Creationism isn't science. Which it isn't. Maybe you should re familiarize yourself with the scientific method?

old clip but summs up your science is settled way of life

You are putting words in my mouth. I never used the word "settled", well at all, in this thread.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Which creationism would you like taught in school?

There are a bunch of creationist stories...so which one will you have schools make "official" by teaching it in class? Or perhaps we teach all of them, so that a large portion of the "well rounded" education is sunk into knowing countless trivial anthropological stories.

I don't mean to poo the idea...but its obviously concieved from a very eurocentric point of view.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I haven't claimed to be right or wrong

then let me help you

you are wrong and if someone creates something then even if you do not understand how they done it they have still created something and if science wants to claim all process to be science then that means science is just part of a larger creation process and is likely to be part of religion on a grand scale that we can not phathom YET.

the clues are right in front of you.

instead of seeking understanding and commonality most seek out differences automatically and that perpetuates the divide in our reality.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I am NOT wrong. Creationism is not scientific. Why you can't seem to understand this and keep arguing with me otherwise is baffling.

Steps of the Scientific Method
If your process doesn't follow those steps (and Creationism doesn't since it just assumes god exists) then it isn't scientific. HOWEVER, just because it isn't scientific doesn't make it false. Though Occam's Razor does suggest that it is likely false since saying god exists is an assumption.

In any case, the reason Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class is because it isn't science. You don't teach Math in English classes do you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i only post the truth here for you

they are the same but most can not understand creationism enough to see they are the same.

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Math in English classes do you?

not yet but one day we will see how the two are also the same

it all comes from one

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i only post the truth here for you

No you are arguing with me because you don't seem to understand what the scientific method entails.

they are the same but most can not understand creationism enough to see they are the same.

Ok, go through that link I provided and give me examples of how Creationism follows the scientific method for each step of the method.

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

repeating yourself three times doesn't make you three times more correct than before. You are still wrong that Creationism isn't science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you believe that we could ever recreate reality?

i am not saying that creationism is science but that science is creationism because it was created along with everything else.

Ok, go through that link I provided and give me examples of how Creationism follows the scientific method for each step of the method.

This is the first thought you have put forth in the thread that could one day bare fruit. It is a small baby step in the right direction.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i only post the truth here for you

they are the same but most can not understand creationism enough to see they are the same.

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

i suppose you will one day understand only when we have recreated creation

Which creationism are you referring to? Christian? Ainu? Cherokee?

Can we revive the Enuma Elish, and maybe make the Christians feel nostalgic instead?

Which kind of Creationism is the same as what science says? Ex Nihilo? Out of Chaos? Emergence?

You've made some bold and broad claims....are you familiar with the material being referenced?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you believe that we could ever recreate reality?

I don't know. That is a strange question.

i am not saying that creationism is science but that science is creationism because it was created along with everything else.

Irrelevant. This thread is about teaching Creationism in science class. If Creationism isn't science then it shouldn't be in science class.

This is the first thought you have put forth in the thread that could one day bare fruit. It is a small baby step in the right direction.

Yet you didn't comply with my request and gave me an empty platitude instead.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

well i agree that creationism in its current understanding would only confuse the paradigm science has put forth in order to separate itself from something it is afeared of. That would just further the divide i speak of and also the average believer in creationism just like the average believer in science are not quite ready to seek similarities but when the day comes where we as a society seek to bridge the gap we will then be onto greater things.

I would purpose though some form of education that bridges the two by way of understanding and the first step would be too seek out the major differences and form the basis of a working model of creation.

The first biggest hurdle i see is the timeline differences and that one is indeed an easy one to discredit with time dilatation.

Why not have some form of bridging the gap rather than fighting and ridicule on both sides.

UNLESS someone has us trapped in creation and is using the gap to enslave our minds.

The current education system seems to be more of a trap rather than a path to freedom of thought.

Every great wonder in the bible can one day be repeated again just as it was done in the past by Jesus.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Why not have some form of bridging the gap rather than fighting and ridicule on both sides.

That's on religion. If religion were to open itself up to the rigors of the scientific method and discard claims that it cannot prove then it would be more compatible with science. The problem is that religion spends pretty much all of its existence resisting the gains in science, especially when they contradict claims in the religion.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

well i personally believe that all forms of explanations have some merit in truth but again we lack the will to seek out the similarities and only seek to highlight the differences.

We currently look at all theses beliefs and say look at this difference but not often do we say perhaps it is referring to this or that and in my belief this is the basis of our grounding in current reality and a means much like gravity itself seeks to keep us here.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

*sigh* this thread was resurrected for no good reason, lol.

I've conceded something like a year ago that I was wrong, yet people want to discuss this more, I suppose. I'm not longer a part of this discussion really. Someone replied wayyyy later on.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol
mind firmly closed
you lose your own struggle for understanding that way.
indeed you could benefit from the teachings of jesus