Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

Curiously it doesn't matter in the slightest what name-calling you do, it just demonstrates more and more that you have no argument, that your belief cannot be supported with actual everyday evidence and that you are upset about that.Could be because what you believe is not worth believing if you have no argument and it cannot be supported with actual everyday evidence.When I look at evolution I can see it happening, and that is a very strong bit of evidence that evolution is occurring in the world ... the fact that you can see it everywhere.But please ... feel free to continue your example of how bad creationist beliefs are for intellectual development ... you are doing an excellent job.

But I haven't insulted your intellectual capacity, just noted it for what it is: you are the one who demonstrated that you don't understand it. And swearing doesn't make your argument any more intellectual.Sad but true.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Sadly for you, evolution is a science and not a belief system, and your inability to understand this once again is demonstrated, thank you.Children deserve to be taught knowledge and the ways to improve knowledge -- and that is how science works. They should be taught logic and critical thinking and how to explore knowledge without bias to beliefs.When you look around you everyday and see the process of evolution occurring and that understanding evolution leads to a deeper understanding of this fact, then that too is something that we should share with children.

So I take it that you don't understand set theory ... or the gish gallop ...Another shining example of creationist thinking and intellectual capacity.

You still have not addressed my message about primate skeletons.Why are skeletons among all the primates so similar, such that when you learn the skeletal anatomy of one you know them all?

Actually, it does, regardless of whether or not you, personally, accept the classification. You do not have the ability to decide that you don't belong to that classification.You also don't have the ability to decide that you are not an ape.

Sure you do. You also get to yell at the TV when some cartoon character does something you don't like. But scientists won't pay any more attention to you than your TV does. Creationism is a dead issue.

The creation part is for the creationists to provide. You tell us what the creationist model is.

What jaf could argue is that the classifications are not distinctive enough, that it either allows non-apes to be classified as apes (which is done by presenting evidence of this), or that it doesn't discriminate enough to exclude the jafs from the group (which would have to be some criteria that applied to the other apes would not result in their exclusion).That is what a proper scientific response would be, rather than the childish "I'm not but what are you" schoolyard taunt. But I doubt jaf is up to it, but I can wait to see.

As we saw in the Nye vs Ham debate the main reason Nye did so well was in his emphasis on the ability of evolution (in specific and science in general) to make predictions -- and that creationism was unable to make predictions. This of course is one of the main reason that creationism is not science.But there is also the problem of explanations that cover all the evidence.Let's look at some:

1. Number of zygotes needed to achieve a viable pregnancy: between 50% and 75% never implant on the uterus wall, and about half of the remaining end up with miscarriages of one sort or another (empty embrio sacks to non viable organs) ...
   ​
   Evolution explains this creationism doesn't
   ​
2. Fetal development through several stages with striking similarities for similar organisms ...
   ​
   Evolution explains this, creationism doesn't
   ​
3. Genetic similarity between similar organisms (see Message 40 from the debate thread) ...
   ​
   Evolution explains this, creationism doesn't
   ​
4. The fusion of gene 2 in humans
   ​
   is not predicted or explained by creationism, but evolution not only predicts it but predicts how we know that this fusion occurred -- telomeres in the center and two centromere locations with one being disabled (which means there is no rational reason for it from a creationist point of view)
   ​
5. Nested hierarchies
   ​
   are a prediction of evolution, with branches occurring at random times and without any apparent end well into the very deep past. which is observed in both the fossil record and the genetic record
   ​
   While creationists can claim that "after their kind" would predict limited nested hierarchies, with each kind having separate hierarchies ... and it also would predict a universal bottleneck in all kinds at the same time -- the purported flood event -- and none of this is observed in either morphological or genetic evidence, ...

This short list is just a sample of the evidence that supports evolution and the failure of creation to explain the evidence.Why should anyone want to teach a belief system that doesn't explain the evidence or make valid predictions?

It doesn't matter a titter the rubbish that you scrawl on the walls In here day in day out. There is way that seems right to RAZD but in the end it leads to death.

God created you and you don't accept that and you tell me I have accept what you say I am, dude get your head read. It's a free country until RAZD is president.

Oh look razd is arguing with himself now and schooling the others Lol. Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.

You tell me what it is chap its
your troll hole not mine.

and again the creationist quiver is empty ... nothing in the argument for what explains the evidence, nothing for predictions ... nothing worth teaching in science class and no approach for investigating or learning new information.