Hey Creationists. Do you think that creationism should be taught in schools as science? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Jake966

Well...those are things that happen. But you'll need to go a little deeper than that if you want to make the argument that creationisms is science.

Let's start out by addressing the challenges i brought up in my original post.

@Pikachu they don’t “happen” they have been fearfully and wonderfully made and created to exist that way

@Jake966

Well, that's your faith claim, yes. But faith has no place in science.

So let's get back to my question.
Would you like to response to it, please?

@Pikachu faith ; the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen . I believe I’ve used it in science experiments in school , public school , so yes it should be taught . They teach the theory of evolution , so why not creation ?

@Jake966

Faith is a belief without, or in spite of evidence.
I'd be interested for you to supply a science experiment where faith is used.

[quote][quote]. They teach the theory of evolution , so why not creation ?[/quote][/quote]

Well that's exactly the topic of this thread.

The Theory of Evolution is taught in schools in the same way as the Germ THEORY of disease: It is the most consistent, coherent, complete and [i]predictive[/i] explanation for the evidence that exists.

The theory of evolution meets all the challenges i laid out in my original post.
So why not creations?
Answer those challenges.

@Pikachu I challenge you to provide your , so called , missing link .

@Jake966

Well i'd be happy to if you tell me what you think the "so called missing link" is.
But as a show of good faith, you'll first answer those challenges i gave you.
Otherwise i can only take this as a deflection deployed in order to distract from your inability to do so.

Your move.

@Pikachu to explain again the creation is taking two half cells , they bind together to form one cell , and eventually become a human . The missing link is a half human / half ape , I believe you knew that but wanted me to say it .
Anyway , no matter what I say you won’t believe anyway but some day you will but it may be too late .

@Jake966

Well let's not dig our heals in just yet, ok?
Let's have a discussion.

I genuinely did want to know what you thought the missing link was because we've identified a great number of hominid fossils leading up to modern humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

So given that this thread is examining whether or not creation can be considered a science, are you able and willing to describe how creation meets the criteria of scientific theory?

Or is it simply a faith claim and therefore ineligible to be considered as a science?

@Pikachu Actually there are no humanoid fossils leading anywhere. The last great discovery was little more than a saucer shaped piece of bone from which the evolutionist press drew a complete composite of a human looking ape. From the bone they found you couldn't even determine the shape of the skull or even if the fossil wasn't a cat.

@hippyjoe1955

I provided a link. You're welcome to show where it is in error.
An unsubstantiated denial is worthless, yes?

@Pikachu I don't follow your links. I prefer my own research.

@hippyjoe1955

Odd...
I follow any source provided because... how can i (with any intellectual integrity) argue against your source if i haven't even had the honesty to look at it?

But you're welcome to provide a source (which i will read) that shows that there are no linking hominid fossils

@Pikachu Shows your lack of research skills. Pity. But then I wouldn't expect anything more from an evolutionist.

@hippyjoe1955

Wait...my willingness to evaluate a source before i pass judgement shows my lack of research skills?
Or your refusal to read my sources shows [i]my[/i] lack of research skills?

lol one of your more clumsy insults, i'm afraid, joe.

But as usual, you deal in insults rather than debate the evidence.
Hit me up when you're willing to actually have the discussion.

@Pikachu Lmao the massive intellectual dishonesty inherent in this little back and forth 😂

@Jake966 [quote]I challenge you to provide your , so called , missing link[/quote]

The term 'missing link' is a pre-Darwinian term first used by the geologist Charles Lyall. It is based on the deistic notion of a 'great chain of being'... with single-celled life at the bottom and some sort of magical entity at the top, with humans right next to it (creationists seem to be hung-up on hierarchies). This is what is behind those silly pictures creationists draw of several creatures in a line slowly morphing from something lemur-like to a modern human. It is a static, non-evolutionary concept, and is irrelevant in any discussion of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which consistently and coherently accounts for the evidence that all primates (apes, bonobos, humans, and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor which lived from 70 million years ago until around 40 million years ago (I would be happy to discuss all that with you, should you so wish)

@QuixoticSoul

Intellectual dishonesty is pretty much joe's entire debate strategy lol
Which is really too bad for him because anyone who might be inclined towards his point of view is going to see how poorly he supports it.