Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I think it would be good to discuss why creationists believe evolution is a pagan religion! It would be a step forward stimulating the childs mind about the sciences.If you want to teach radiometric decay teach why Gentries primordial polonium halo's support a young earth. This would be a great way to teach radioactive decay happening within the earth and explain how a mobile radon polonium would support an old earth but the creationists have evidence of primordial polonium and how it scientifically supports the creationists model.What you see happening is evolutionists making fun of young earthers when the creationists really have the science to support a young earth. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary use the same easy to understand scientific terminologies to support the evolution theory.They should explain to the children why it concerns creationists that no transistional fossils in the known fossil record. Then explain how the evolutionists can date a rock to date a fossil indirectly and the creationists can date the fossil directly due advances in science that the ratio is still present that supports the creationists young earth. Then explain evolutionists believe no ratio is left after millions of years why they don't date the fossil by C14 and the RATE boys proving time and time again the fossil do have a ratio of carbon that gives an young age by directly dating the fossil.Then show them all the evidence of fossils still frozen in the artic circle and how they too all date thousands of years old supporting the creationists young earth. Just teach the science not the theology and you have a young earth. It should never be a child is ridiculed for believing in an young earth especially when the sciences support more an young earth than an old earth!!!!!!!To say a young earth is not supported by primorial polonium halo's., C14 dating, and the fossils still frozen in the Artic is one of the problems with teaching evolution in the public schools and one of the prime reasons evolution is believed to be a religion not based on true science. Kind of like how evolutionists here only quote pseudo science sites like talkorigins, as evidence withoout ever answering questions. It should not be that way in schools the teacher should be allowed latitude to question an old earth, young earth, age of fossil, without the teacher being threatened on losing tenure, etc... Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Thats not true Gentry is still waiting to be refuted by the national academy of Science. Just teach the science of both sides of the young earth and the old earth. What I see is kids being ridicules for their belief in a young earth when Gentry is still waiting to be refuted by the academy of sciences. If the acadamy of sciences can not refute the young earth should be no reason teachers should not at least be allowed to teach the earth is a young earth. Maybe its time to push outdated science like an old earth out of the classrooms? continue to teach evolution but not the old earth part, etc...Creationists believe in micro evolution, mendel was a creationists, mutations, its science but to say the earth is an old earth when you have proof to the contrary that your scientists at the academy of sciences has not refuted. They have been continually been asked for the last 15 years to back that what they say and they can't. Its the fact the earth is a young earth. Move on teach evolution minus the old earth. Teach our kids the truth!!!!!!!! Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

And evolution is not a pagan religion and associated ideas of an old earth are just based off assumptions of the atheistic religion of an old earth. Why teach its an old earth when this is only a pagan myth not a scientific fact given Gentry has proven its a young earth.Sorry, science is not in the "feel good" game. Science should not teach students pagan religious beliefs that the earth is an old earth if they can not publicly refute Gentry's Primordial polonium halos.Creation sciences should be taught that include, biology, genetics, natural selection, mutations, natural sciences, geology, soil science, math, computers, mechanical engineering but just omit any reference to an old earth stuff because saying its an old earth without refuting Gentry is proof that evolution is not grounded in science but grounded in myth! Myths might well make you feel good but thats not science either refute Gentry or take all references of an old earth out of the sciences, science is not a feel good game but about teaching our children the truth!!!!!!!Quit lying saying Gentry has been publicly refuted here is the link that Gentry seeks to be refuted publicly !!!!!!!!Enjoy,JF++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science AssociatesEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Teachers should beable to debate issues like the young age of the earth from sources like Walt Brown book In the beginning) is an excellent source of information for an young earth and the creationist point of view.Another book of interests for teachers to teach the differences like just why do creationists believe its an young earth.Thousands...Not Billions By Donald B. DeYoung, John Baumgardner, D Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling,++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Personally children should be taught the scientific reasons the earth is believed to be an young earth like the evolutionists inability to defend the theory of evolution.Like radiometric decay Primordial polonium halo's GENTRY, and how Gentry more than triple dog dared the academy of sciences to refute scientifically.Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++How Walt Brown too has challenged the evolutionists for near 30 years to a scientific debate but to limit the debate to the sciences to not include theology. Should not kids know evolutionists that promote evolution are themselves unable to scientifically defend the sciences behind the theory of evolution !!!!!!!One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 28 years:The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Then how the Rate boys dating fossil with advanced science and all bones dating young, how evolutionist say no ratio left after millions of years yet how the RATE boys continually have enough ratio in those bones to support the creationist young earth verses an old earth. Explain (teach kids why) no ratio should be present if those bones are old, and how the rate boys deal with insitu C14 contributions as meaningless, but didn't discount it happens, and yet truthfully it all comes out the earth is scientifically young !!!!!!!The book!!!!!!++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Thousands...Not Billions By Donald B. DeYoung, John Baumgardner, D Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling, Thousands...Not BillionsCreation science has been the Achilles heel to Darwinian Evolution its been said it was the paleontologist that challenged Darvins theory from the get go. Interestingly it seems we have two sciences here conflicting Creationist science and evolutionist science. Kids should be taught the Creationists point of view of the fossil record is like an Achilles heel to Darwinian Evolution.Darwin expected the fossil record would vindicate his theory. The fossil record interestingly has vindicated the paleontologists that told Darwin that the fossil record would not vindicate his theory. Why are kids not taught this that the paleontologist of Darwins day have been vindicated. Thus we have Evolutionist today afraid to debate science at the professional level but willing to take to court anyone that disagree's with teaching their lies about science in the public school to court. So we have in America teachers threatened of being sued for teaching truth and not being sued if they continue to teach the lies of evolution as if it were the truth. Such are the days that we are living the evolutionist who are afraid to debate in good faith the sciences.Children should be taught that creationists believe evolutionists are afraid to debate Walt Brown at the professional level. The academy of sciences as professionals are unable to refute Gentry's challenge that it is an young earth is because evolution is not based on science but is based on atheism. Its clothed a bit in the sciences but not enough to win an debate at the professional level. So they bypass the professionals that know its a lie and then brain wash our children that which is a lie as if its the truth! I'm not sure which is worse forcing teacher to teach this nonsense as truth or the kids having to listen to this garbage as if its the truth. Thankfully we have the internet and when I first came on this site thought it was an old earth and you have all taught me its an young earth. I also thought evolution was based on science then find that its only based on myth but clothed in creation science pretending to be evolution science. I suspect thats because there is not science too evolution that is not creation science. Evolution just stole from creation science like mendel a catholic monk proving traits from the bible are expressed by genes in plants. Creation Science from the bible that natural selection in respect to gene pools intermarrying like a gentile and a jew. The creationists bible says the gentiles genetic traits can be expunged after 10 generations if the offspring from thence comes from only the jewish gene pool. This science is whats used in genetic breeding to remove genetic mutations from a new gene pool, etc... Its kind of interesting how natural selection, mutations, genes, was founded from creation science and how its been stolen by those espousing Evolution.The link about Darwin not being vindicated by the fossil record that was supposed to vindicate his theory.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Darwinian Evolution's Achilles Heel: The Fossil Record OptionsWhen Darwin first proposed his theory, the most strident opposition came not
from Christian fundamentalists but rather paleontologists. Surely if Darwin
was correct we would see a clear fossil record demonstrating evolution, no?
He thought one would see "interminable varieties, connecting together all
the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." He
knew that the fossil record was "perhaps the most obvious and serious
objection" to his theory but figured that with more time and exploration,
the fossil record would vindicate him. After 150 more years of digging, the
record still opposes evolution. The verdict is in. One branch of science
contradicts another.http://groups.google.com/...e_thread/thread/473b7d564b4495c4Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

This is the problem evolution is such crap that the evolutionists are actually paranoid to stand up to the Gentry's, Baumgardeners, Browns. Its not because creationists arguments are crap but an evolutionists would have to be crazy to defend the scientific merits of the theory of evolution!!!!!!!!P.S. The kids should be taught this in the public schools and the teachers should not be threatened of losing tenure for refusing to teach lies as if it was the truth!!!!!!!Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Here's a short video link about the movie EXPELLED that the evolutionists are paranoid. Think the first video is Eric, then Kent then the short preview of the movie expelled. Hovind got a phD through a correspondence class in education. Kent talks about creationists like William Dembski losing their teaching aspect of his job, others losing their jobs, tenure etc ... for just questioning evolutionary theory. Is there any truth being taught in acadamia worth teaching in respect to evolution from the colleges these days. If the teachers can not question any points in respect to evolution how can a student question the validity of evolution. This is not science but yet its whats happening in acadamia here in america. Look what has been done to Dembski, and the other teachers that Kent talks briefly about the problem with professors if they even question evolution.Enjoy,http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=51Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Creation / evolution is at times like modern medicine / alternative medicine. When I asked a heart surgeon if he ever preforms chelation therapy instead of heart surgery to see his reaction.
I found he was unable to discuss in good faith an alternative idea because of how much he studied to become a heart specialists. I told him he was wrong and should consider it and his response was who in the heck are you to tell me about chelation therapy. He might be a good heart surgeon but the medicine of the 21 century might well include alternative medicine like chelation therapy. What an attitude of superiority!!!!!!!This is kind of what the creationists like Dembski are up against this refusal to discuss in good faith alternative ideas. This heart surgeon might well of been an intelligent man but his attitude of who in the heck do you think you are is the same attitude that is wrong with the teaching of the sciences in the public arena these days.I think shunning the idea is more like what how the evolutionists deal with people not under their authority like Gentry, Snelling, Baumgardener, Brown.The evolutionists have an attitude of bullying teachers but against the professionals that are not under their authority they shun because they would lose against the young earth folk!The creationists like Brown simply challenges any professional scientists to a debate on the sciences where attitude simply will not be tolerated. Gentry simply challenged to be refuted publicly but they shun those that they can not shut up with their attitude.P.S. I think its this attitude on the part of the heart surgeon is this same attitude that evolutionists use on any teacher parent that disagree's. However those they can not bully like Brown, Snelling, Gentry, Rate boys, Answers in Genesis folk, etc...they simply refuse to debate at all. It sounds a bit like Hypocrisy perhaps thats what evolution actually is when they bully teachers/parents/ students yet unwilling to stand up and prove their hypothesis of an old earth has any merit in a debate of their equals. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Your kind of proving the point that you don't believe creationists have ideas and when you discuss them you will only allow ridicule young earthers. If the acadamy of sciences is unable to refute Gentry move on, its a young earth. Lets move science forward teach the earth is young in the science classes, if the professionals can not refute Gentry science should move forward. Basically without the old earth the theory of evolution any micro evolution principles were they not basically stolen from the bible. Why lie to our kids tell them the truth that the evolutionists stole their theory from the bible but then switched young to old and refused to honor the bible as the source of their micro-evolution principles. That they switched the common creator to a common ancestor and on and on till evolution is a pack of lies that can not be defended in a scientific debate of their equals.P.S. Kent stands on principles think it was Lyndon B. Johnson that started a reinterpretation of these issues like the 501(c)(3) stuff to silence the church. If the evolutionists can not stand up and defend their own idea in a scientific debate of your equals then its time to replace evolution with those that are able to stand up and defend their ideas in a scientific debate. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.