Show of Hands

Absolutely 100% not. I would not trust my child's religious education to an elementary school teacher who hasn't gone to seminary, and for all I know, had never stepped in a church.

Probably just Christian seeing as about 80% of the country is of that diagnostic and another 15% is agnostic varying other religions don't make up a significant portion and besides of that 5% you cover Jews and Muslims whose beliefs follow it as well

I am personally not a creationist but wouldn't really care if it was taught in schools

I don't think that's what Jackie meant though.

We have our third winner in the "don't know the scientific meaning of theory" category.

Irony is fantastic.

Soup ... I'm guessing you wouldn't have a clue what is a fact and what is a theory.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Some highlights: "Well substantiated"

"repeatedly confirmed"

"testable"

" Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."

So now, who doesn't know what a theory is?

Currently the best scientific theory for where the universe came from is the Big Bang. This theory violates every law of thermodynamics and therefor is proven false without an exception being forced by a creator.

Very true! But part of a theory is refining and even the throwing out if bad ones. The Big Bang Theory may very well be a thing of the past one day. Are you trying to now suggest that all theories are therefore void/suspect? If so, I question what

If any science, you hold credibly. Cells are another theory. Do you think that perhaps we are not made of cells? Now, you may ask "but why is evolution more like cell theory and less like the big bang theory". It is because the big bang theory is an

Educated guess at an event that we cannot see and that happens billions of years ago. Evolution is something we can actually see, albeit very slowly. Science has answered so much that at one time was unanswerable. I am confident that at some point it

Will. Answer what is now unanswerable.

Soup ... you have missed the point. In your religious zeal for evolution, you missed the point that scientific theory is NOT fact.

You simply can't answer the question of what caused the set actions that resulted in life.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Abiogenesis my friend. Evolution is the growth of life, this is the birth.

Soup ... are you 12?

I was reply to that here also:

Did you know that if you leave a DVDr out in the sun, uv from the sun can burn pits in it much like a writing laser would. I believe this is where movies came from.

Soup ... anyone who relies on Wikipedia to provide "scientific" proof of their position needs to grow up!

You may have found the method of writing the first DNA sequences, but the human genetic sequence is 2.7GB. Where did the data come from?

Wikipedia is the most readily available source at the moment. Though I would wager a great sum that if you looked in any textbook the information would be the same. As for the human DNA sequence, that is where evolution comes into play.

And you mock my sources. What are yours pray tell? I'm the only one who can point to studies to back myself up.

Just like we have thousands of movies... As those DVDs in the sun evolved from one movie to another.

Again, I'd love to see your sources.

Wiki is ok for getting started with research and providing a quick link on a discussion board like this. I am not questioning your use of it for that, however you shouldn't get it confused with white papers and peer reviewed journals.

Oh, I agree. But I am asking for the Wikipedia page on the scientific evidence for creationism.

Soup ... you didn't answer my question. You suppose that Wiki is prof of science, yet you obviously don't understand it's source.

There is no scientific proof that turns the theory of evolution into fact. Period.

You have access to google don't you? I assume that's how you found the wiki on the miller experiment.

The Miller urey experiment? I already linked it above. No religion there. And for think, because above is the wiki:

people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Miller-Urey_experiment.html

ncse.com/files/pub/.../gishlick_icons1.pdf

Soup ... again, I ask ... are you 12? You obviously didn't read the articles you sited as the latest includes a disclaimer!

"There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment ..."

Grow up!

You also didn't read my last comment, or at least didn't accurately comprehend it.

And creationist like you *are* the wave of skepticism. I have yet to see you point to a single people of scientific evidence. Come back to me when you have some.

Soup ... you've proven nothing but your Flat Earth Evolution religiosity.

I think the argument that I posted above speaks for itself, and if you need to see it on a wiki page to be able to believe it, that's all the evidence I need to know that you are hopeless.

I'm not seeing any science guys.

Soup ... including the little kid in your mirror!

I know. It's annoying when people ask for scientific evidence to support your scientific claim.

Why not not?

Cause

Touche

; )

story as an analogy. It gives a correct order to his things would have started. when God spoke of creationism the people would not have understood evolution. That said, God sparked life. there is no way there was life in the energy initially...

given off from the big bang. That was God's doing. He made life. God follows the laws he made. He made science. Science and religion ARE ONE IN THE SAME. Rant over.

LOL. Strongly disagree.

Prove in any way how life forms post big bang. please. enlighten me. I implore you to tell me with your infinite knowledge of the universe.

I can't. But seeing there is no evidence to suggest a deity, I wouldn't assume that is the cause.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Sorry, but abiogenesis is possible.

Goalie, I find your train of knowledge very interesting. You are saying that both theories can coexist together.

There is a documentary made by the History Channel produced by James Cameron called EXODUS DECODED. It tries to explain thru science the story of Moses.

You will love it

I'll look into it

I bought the movie but I think you can find it on youtube.

Did you know that if you leave a DVDr out in the sun, uv from the sun can burn pits in it much like a writing laser would. I believe this is where movies came from.

What the frog are you talking about?

... creationism? You're free to home school your child or tell them what they learn in class is wrong (good luck explaining why...), but to force creationism into a classroom is just ... unAmerican.

Rino ... in your questionably "enlightened" state you miss the possibility that both theories are correct.

To suggest that only one can be taught in schools denies students the freedom to learn. That's sad!

That's where you are wrong.

How so Jurassic?

technically it would be the top 3 western religions. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism

Well that's unacceptable.

Evolutionary religionists are so small minded!

LMFAO! Sorry you're right. We should teach about Noah's flood, talking animals, man and dinosaurs co-existing, angles, demons, people can live in fish, dragons, zombies are real, and men can fly to the moon on a Pegasus and cut it in half.

Because that's the science the Abrahamic religions bring.

Prove your baseless assertion!

wolf.. we talk about angles in math all the time.

I has dem sausage fingers. Typos happen.

Think, I'm not sure if you're serious anymore.

Wolfy ... I wasn't aware that I was forced to choose serious or lighthearted and stick with it.

On this point, I'm quite serious. Supposed open-minded disciples of the book of evolution mock the rest of us as weak-minded religionists. I find ...

... just the opposite to be true. The evolution theory religionists are the most closed feeble-minded among us.

As a Christian, I believe the world evolved and that God was the catalyst. I believe that while science is weak adolescent, God ...

... is wise and consistent.

I believe that we can know God in the same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow. That the evidence of His handiwork is all around us, and that He is a loving and caring soul, from which we were crafted.

I also believe that the feeble-minded evolution religionists ignore what they can't explain, and only partially understand the evidence in front of all of us.

I am sad for the evolutionists who have no room for God. How empty they must feel.

LOL, I can't tell if you're fucking with me at this point.

Wolfy ... nope, completely serious.

Welp, Good luck with that then. LOL.

Teach it in history or mythology class, but not science class.

LOL, no they're not. Not even close.

So which ones are?

The only one with actual tangible evidence is evolution. Creationism is not even remotely close to a science and it should never enter the science classrooms.

Neither theory has been proven to be true or false. When I say they are the most accepted I mean by the people, not by Krazywolf or by most scientist.

So what about the vast amount of physical and DNA evidence that supports evolution?

And none that supports any creationist claims?

The Evolution theory has it's merits. There are a lot of things that support it. But is a THEORY. Maybe is true maybe not, we are not 100% sure. But we have to keep our minds open and explore other possibilities.

True. An open mind is good, but overwhelming evidence is better. ;)

Someone doesn't know the scientific meaning of theory.

No one ever seems to grasp that they're not competing or even mutually exclusive theories. We all know that babies grow and change. That's not an explanation of how they're created.

Evolution does not contain an explanation for *existence*

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Evolution and abiogenesis are different that's true. But that would be like pointing to a growing baby and claiming out knowledge of its growth doesn't explain its birth.

Krayzy,

I believe in evolution. It makes a lot of sense and has evidence to support it. But don't be as blind as the Religious nut-jobs that don't even want to here about science. There might be something more to it.

Knowledge if it's growth DOESNT explain it's birth. If you only knew it was growing and changing, how would you learn it had a mother?

Dude, in 2014 anti-science people only exist in your imagination.

3gun, did you check out the link? It explains the creation of life.

It's a theory for the existence of life. A creation theory.

Yes, if you want to be semantical, it is a theory of creation. But you and I both know that the question was referring to religious creation.

Chinito, I am open to real factual supported theories. I just don't accept a god did it as one, or even legit. I don't assume anything supernatural until someone provides evidence to support it. Evidence is everything.

Well you'll never get around the "god did it" theory, because it's a tautology. Whatever natural theory you propose could have been set in motion by god.

Nor do I think there will ever be any more "evidence" than is already available to us.

But we don't (I believe), and certainly shouldn't, teach tautologies in school. Just the opposite.

3gun, how would teaching that it was magical space elves was the first cause, be any different than teaching a god did it? The god "theory" and the space elves hold the same amount of evidence. Thus IMO god theories fall flat and shouldn't be taught.

I see no harm in saying that some people believe we were created by a supernatural being. It's true. Tens of millions of people believe it.

Kids need to learn that adults don't have all the answers, in fact some of those answers will come from them.

I don't think teaching bad info is a good thing because of beliefs. There are people who still actually believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, and everything revolves around earth. Should this also be taught because people believe it?

Do you know how much is missing from the evolution THEORY?

Someone else doesn't know the scientific definition of theory.

Well jackie, why don't you tell me what you think is missing, and I'll tell you why you're wrong. ;)

Soupy ... you're your own worst enemy. You suggest that when you make a mistake that it's just semantical, and then you go about doing all that you do, semantically.

A theory is fact. Evolution is one of several theories of the origin of the world

Pretty intellectually dishonest to change the premise of the point. I doubt you could find one person who believes that, while billions worldwide believe in creationism. The fact that you don't doesn't make it "bad info."

... a theory is NOT fact ...

Now hold on. In one comment you state theory is fact and in another you state it is not. Which is it? For the record, it's yes.

3gun, I stand by what I've said. There's no science in creationism, none. When I say bad info, I mean, not scientific, at all, no matter your or billions of others beliefs. Here at home millions believe in Astrology, should that be taught as well?

And I stand by my own belief in creationism, based on simple, rational deduction (not religion). Nothing exists that is not created. When you look at a photograph, there's no evidence of a photographer but it would be irrational to think it just

appeared from nothing. I accept evolution as scientific fact, but it doesn't explain existence.

We should teach creationism as the only working theory of existence.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Theory is NOT fact. The first statement was an autocorrect mistake.

Theory is just that ... non-fact. Theory is a supposition that can not be proven.

3gun, evolution doesn't try to explain existence. It speaks nothing of astronomy. It covers the path of how living organisms evolve over time. It requires zero supernatural involvement. I see no reason to bring deities as designers as it needs none.

www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Technically, no theory can be "fact" but cells are but a theory. Should we teach an alternative to them as well?

Yes! Honest scientist aren't afraid to admit what they only suppose. Flat Earth Evolution religionists can't abide differing views, and substitute supposition for fact, and attempt to silence decent.

OK, when you have some scientific evidence to back up your alternative we'll talk.

Soup you've proven nothing, except your narrow-minded non-scientific fear of theories that challenge your bias. You disproved nothing.

Oh if you have evidence for you claims I'd be all for it. But whether it's right or wrong, evolution has evidence backing up, creationism less so.