Creation: Should it be taught in schools?

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

No.

Silver_Dragon17

Why, in your opinion then, do you think that 95%+ of scientists support the theory of evolution?

Because evolution is all that is taught, which is another reason why creation should be taught in schools.

And that percentage is over-exaggerated.

You can't just try to ram-rod pseudoscience into classes because a group of misguided people want to press their agenda. Homeopathy is a popular junk science than many would argue has scientific value, should we teach that and other bogus alternitive medicines in school too?

I've heard about this thing called the ubiquitous gene that is proof that we share a common ancestor somewhere. coulden't find it on wikipedia353535355353535

Yes. Technically it's called a ubiquitous protein, I made a mistake earlier when I was referring to them. It's not major though since your genes are what determine the proteins that get produced.

Anyway, the structure of a protein determines its function. It's kind of like a pair of scissors. The function of a pair of scissors to cut things is determined by its structure of two blades hinged together at a pivot point.

To kind of make this short, Cytochrome C is one of these ubiquitous proteins that are found in all living organisms. There are over 10^93 different amino acid (the basic unit of a protein) sequences that make up this protein. So, there is no reason other than heredity that two organisms should share the same amino acid sequence. After all, the number 10^93 is greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe. However, when we compare our genome with the genome of a chimpanzee, we find that the sequence is exactly the same. When we compare our genome to that of other mammals, the most we find is only about 10 amino acids different. This is expected since we split from other mammals much further back in the past.

If you want more details, read this.

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

No.

CptJSparrow

Why, in your opinion then, do you think that 95%+ of scientists support the theory of evolution?

Because evolution is all that is taught, which is another reason why creation should be taught in schools.

And that percentage is over-exaggerated.

silver dragon, can you give us one piece of evidense that points towards creation? one piece is all I ask for

1. Evidence for God from Cosmology
2. The Greatest Discovery (COBE, 1992)
3. Relativity vs. The Newtonian Universe
4. General Relativity - Einstein Discovers God
5. Origins of the Big Bang Theory
6. Hot Big Bang Model
7. Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
8. COBE DMR
9. Alternate Models
10. Infinite/eternal Universe Problems
11. Steady State Universe
12. Oscillating universe
13. The Universe as an Engine
14. The Hartle-Hawking Model
15. Problems in Quantum Cosmology
16. Implications of Big Bang
17. Objections to the Big Bang
18. Evidence for God's Existence from Design
19. New Watchmaker Argument
20. A "Just Right" Universe
21. A "Just Right" Galaxy
22. More Watchmaker Arguments

I have to go.

dont get me wrong,I definitely believe in God, I just dont buy the whole universecreated in 7 days thing.

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

No.

CptJSparrow

Why, in your opinion then, do you think that 95%+ of scientists support the theory of evolution?

Because evolution is all that is taught, which is another reason why creation should be taught in schools.

And that percentage is over-exaggerated.

silver dragon, can you give us one piece of evidense that points towards creation? one piece is all I ask for

1. Evidence for God from Cosmology
2. The Greatest Discovery (COBE, 1992)
3. Relativity vs. The Newtonian Universe
4. General Relativity - Einstein Discovers God
5. Origins of the Big Bang Theory
6. Hot Big Bang Model
7. Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
8. COBE DMR
9. Alternate Models
10. Infinite/eternal Universe Problems
11. Steady State Universe
12. Oscillating universe
13. The Universe as an Engine
14. The Hartle-Hawking Model
15. Problems in Quantum Cosmology
16. Implications of Big Bang
17. Objections to the Big Bang
18. Evidence for God's Existence from Design
19. New Watchmaker Argument
20. A "Just Right" Universe
21. A "Just Right" Galaxy
22. More Watchmaker Arguments

I have to go.

Basically it makes poor assumptions, including that Einstein and Hawking were avoiding the existence of God. None of this addresses the Earth really.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

No.

353535355353535

Why, in your opinion then, do you think that 95%+ of scientists support the theory of evolution?

Because evolution is all that is taught, which is another reason why creation should be taught in schools.

And that percentage is over-exaggerated.

silver dragon, can you give us one piece of evidense that points towards creation? one piece is all I ask for

1. Evidence for God from Cosmology
2. The Greatest Discovery (COBE, 1992)
3. Relativity vs. The Newtonian Universe
4. General Relativity - Einstein Discovers God
5. Origins of the Big Bang Theory
6. Hot Big Bang Model
7. Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
8. COBE DMR
9. Alternate Models
10. Infinite/eternal Universe Problems
11. Steady State Universe
12. Oscillating universe
13. The Universe as an Engine
14. The Hartle-Hawking Model
15. Problems in Quantum Cosmology
16. Implications of Big Bang
17. Objections to the Big Bang
18. Evidence for God's Existence from Design
19. New Watchmaker Argument
20. A "Just Right" Universe
21. A "Just Right" Galaxy
22. More Watchmaker Arguments

I have to go.

Don't even bother.. He always links a completely incrediable site, that is immensely bias that matchs his views..

why teach kids fairy talesLedZeppelin1977

Because evolution is all that is taught, which is another reason why creation should be taught in schools.

And that percentage is over-exaggerated.

Silver_Dragon17

That isn't really a satisfactory answer. After all, evolution hasn't always been taught in school.

Why do you think evolution is taught so much now, when before it wasn't?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Because evolution is all that is taught, which is another reason why creation should be taught in schools.

And that percentage is over-exaggerated.

Decessus

That isn't really a satisfactory answer. After all, evolution hasn't always been taught in school.

Why do you think evolution is taught so much now, when before it wasn't?

I stopped when you said the tailbone is vestigial. . . .try falling down, or even sitting down, without one and you won't say that.

Silver_Dragon17

A vestigial part does not mean useless. That seems to be a mistake on your part, and likely on the part of any Creationist equating it with useless.

A vestigial trait is one that can still be usefull in its current form even if a transitory feature or it may simply be inactive/non-functioning. It's like the silly argument of "what good is half an eye". A vestigial eye would at that point simply be an eye, and would be transitory toward a better or poorer functioning eye depending on the environment the overall organism is adapting to.