Answers In Genesis on Facebook

[McBell]

Then why can't schools teach creation as an alternative to evolution?

For the exact same reason schools do not teach Stork Theory as an alternative to sex ed or Intelligent Falling as an alternative to gravity.

Because people want to leave God out and say life can be explained by science without God.

That your god is not required to explain life is not the fault of science.

That you think "GodDidIt" is any kind of "explanation" reveals the serious lack of education on this planet.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Believing that life came from non-living pond scum takes a lot more "faith" than any religion. Science has never shown or produced life from non-living matter. In fact it is a rule of science that life can only come from pre-existing life. So where did the first life come from? I am not saying anyone must be forced to believe it but students should at least have the chance to see that there are other ideas and then they can decide for themselves. Science wants to lock the doors and keep God out. Are they afraid of something? I am willing to hear both sides and students should have the same chance. Not teaching religion as a fact but as another explanation. Again science has never produced life from pond scum but they teach it as a fact and not as a theory which has other theories that are different.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Believing that life came from non-living pond scum takes a lot more "faith" than any religion.

Not really, because your qualifier of "non-living" is false - pond scum is literally teeming with life. Clay, on the other hand...

 

[McBell]

Believing that life came from non-living pond scum takes a lot more "faith" than any religion.

For you perhaps.
Certainly not for everyone.

Science has never shown or produced life from non-living matter.

And?

In fact it is a rule of science that life can only come from pre-existing life.

Source please

So where did the first life come from?

I do not know

I am not saying anyone must be forced to believe it but students should at least have the chance to see that there are other ideas and then they can decide for themselves.

Fine by me.
Just not in a science class.
Science class is for science, not religion.

Science wants to lock the doors and keep God out.

science does not "want" anything.

Are they afraid of something?

You are projecting.

I am willing to hear both sides and students should have the same chance.

Fine by me.
Just not in a science class.

Not teaching religion as a fact but as another explanation.

as a belief.
Yes I agree.

Again science has never produced life from pond scum

That is the biggest difference between science and belief.
Science has stringent requirements, beliefs have no requirements.

but they teach it as a fact

Really?
Where?

and not as a theory which has other theories that are different.

what are you talking about?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, science has stringent requirements. Like life can only come from preexisting life. So where did the first life come from? Science contradicts itself by saying that life can only come from preexisting life but the first living thing came from nonliving material. And they say it like there is no other choice and everyone must believe it or you fail science class.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Like life can only come from preexisting life.

Which excludes clay.

 

[DavidFirth]

Which excludes clay.

Life didn't come from the clay. Life came from God according to Genesis.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Life didn't come from the clay. Life came from God according to Genesis.

Who made a man from... clay.

Here's what's funny with this statement. You'll rail against the pond scum, yet not once think "Maybe god's leading evolution?" You just obstinately stick with "god made life from clay, and that's that."

 

[omega2xx]

Oh brother.

What's the matter? Couldn't you find something I said was insulting?

 

[omega2xx]

If you have no idea what the paper says, on what basis were you able to claim, "The paper did not say HOW. It just said it did"?

Prove me wrong or admit you can't.

 

[McBell]

Yes, science has stringent requirements. Like life can only come from preexisting life. So where did the first life come from? Science contradicts itself by saying that life can only come from preexisting life but the first living thing came from nonliving material. And they say it like there is no other choice and everyone must believe it or you fail science class.

You keep making the claim that science states life has to come from life, but you have completely ignored all requests for your source.

 

[McBell]

Prove me wrong or admit you can't.

No need to prove wrong someone who flat out admits they would not know the difference anyway.

 

[omega2xx]

No need to prove wrong someone who flat out admits they would not know the difference anyway.

You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't so you are not willing to take 5 minuets to do it. That yeLLs very loudly, YOU WOULD IF YOU COULD BUT YOU CAN'T.

 

[McBell]

You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't so you are not willing to take 5 minuets to do it. That yeLLs very loudly, YOU WOULD IF YOU COULD BUT YOU CAN'T.

*yawn*

You really need a new song and dance.
Your current one reveals your disposition towards dishonesty.

 

[Jose Fly]

Prove me wrong or admit you can't.

You're dodging the issue. Again, if you have no idea what the paper says, on what basis were you able to claim, "The paper did not say HOW. It just said it did"?

 

[omega2xx]

You're dodging the issue. Again, if you have no idea what the paper says, on what basis were you able to claim, "The paper did not say HOW. It just said it did"?

You are the one dodging the issue---evo links do not include evidence.. Why are you unwilling to take 5 minuets to cut and paste and show the whole forum I am wrong? It makes no sense to refuse to do such a simple thing.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are the one dodging the issue---evo links do not include evidence.. Why are you unwilling to take 5 minuets to cut and paste and show the whole forum I am wrong? It makes no sense to refuse to do such a simple thing.

I have nothing to dodge. In response to your demands that someone copy and paste evidence of evolution, I asked if I were to copy and paste from a scientific paper where scientists describe documented cases of populations evolving, would that "evidence of evolution"? You responded that it would if "they include the science that allowed it".

So I copied and pasted from a scientific paper that describes the observed evolution of a new species that is genetically different from its parent species, including what how it happened and the causes. Then in a bizarre fashion, you responded to that by claiming that my post showed I "don't understand what evidence is", even though soon after you admitted you have "no idea what [the paper] describes".

And now you're doing everything you can to avoid the obvious follow-up question.....if you have no idea what the paper even says, on what basis can you claim it's not evidence?

If you don't want to answer the question just say so and slink away. You have no credibility here anyways, so it's not like you'll be doing yourself any harm.

 

[omega2xx]

I have nothing to dodge. In response to your demands that someone copy and paste evidence of evolution, I asked if I were to copy and paste from a scientific paper where scientists describe documented cases of populations evolving, would that "evidence of evolution"? You responded that it would if "they include the science that allowed it".

So I copied and pasted from a scientific paper that describes the observed evolution of a new species that is genetically different from its parent species, including what how it happened and the causes. Then in a bizarre fashion, you responded to that by claiming that my post showed I "don't understand what evidence is", even though soon after you admitted you have "no idea what [the paper] describes".

And now you're doing everything you can to avoid the obvious follow-up question.....if you have no idea what the paper even says, on what basis can you claim it's not evidence?

If you don't want to answer the question just say so and slink away. You have no credibility here anyways, so it's not like you'll be doing yourself any harm.

You failed to cut and post the evidence the paper presented. Why are you unwilling to take 5 minuets to prove me wrong? You would if you could but you can't. Unless you cut and paste the evidence, it is you who has no credibility.

 

[Jose Fly]

You failed to cut and post the evidence the paper presented. Why are you unwilling to take 5 minuets to prove me wrong? You would if you could but you can't. Unless you cut and paste the evidence, it is you who has no credibility.

You're obviously not telling the truth, since I copied and pasted evidence of the evolution of a new species, including descriptions of the genetic changes involved and how it all occurred. The best you could muster in response was "Nuh uh" followed by an admission that you have no idea what any of it means. Now despite all that you're bizarrely trying to claim victory.

The only thing I wonder now is whether you truly are so delusional that you think this sort of behavior reflects well on you.

 

[omega2xx]

You're obviously not telling the truth, since I copied and pasted evidence of the evolution of a new species, including descriptions of the genetic changes involved and how it all occurred. The best you could muster in response was "Nuh uh" followed by an admission that you have no idea what any of it means. Now despite all that you're bizarrely trying to claim victory.

The only thing I wonder now is whether you truly are so delusional that you think this sort of behavior reflects well on you.

My behavior will never reflect well with fundamentalist evolutionists. It will with Christians and as long as it does that I am ok with it.