Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

[RegGuheert]

With due respect Reg, your understanding of Informal Logic is as bad as your math.

 

An argument from authority (especially when it represents the consensus reasoning of recognized authorities in a field) is not, ipso facto, a "fallacy".

 

The consensus of expert opinion on a matter doesn't prove "truth". Consensus can (and has) proven to be incorrect (or partially incorrect), so any proposition has to be open to question and rethinking.

 

But appeals from authority, when the credentials of those authorities are well-established and they are recognized as experts on a matter under discussion, such appeals are fully valid under the rules of argumentation.

 

Bill

The point here is that I believe the so-called experts in consideration ALL have the same bias, based on the decades-old practice of excluding people with conflicting views from that group, as we have discussed previously. As such, it is not at all unreasonable to assume they all suffer from the same fallacious beliefs.

[KingM]

It is not a science text, but it is far from primitive. Is this primitive understanding where the Bible says that the earth hangs upon nothing, when most other religious texts at the time had turtles, gods and elephants holding it up? Is it where it instructs God's people to stay away from dead bodies, wash their hands before eating, bury their excrement outside of camp, isolate sick people, refrain from sexual acts during menstruation? Is it where the Bible describes the water cycle, or the formation of mountains and valleys?

 

How about where it says to stone people who don't obey their parents, tells us not to eat shellfish, that when we conquer a city we should massacre every male and non-virginal female within its walls, while taking the virgins as booty? Are talking snakes and donkeys scientific? How about the Tower of Babel as an explanation for language differences?

 

In Genesis, God divides the light from the dark on the first day but doesn't create the sun and moon until day 5. The moon is an independent light source. He spends all of day 2 creating something called the Firmament, which does not appear to exist. At least, we've zoomed through it several times in rockets without noting its existence.

 

Leviticus 14 explains how you can cure leprosy with the blood of a bird another elaborate rituals. Leviticus 20 says that hares chew their cud. Also in Leviticus it claims that bats are birds.

 

Not such great science.

 

Or should we take a stanza of a poem and decide that the author of the Bible thought the world was flat? I wonder if Harry Warren who wrote the song That's Amore really thought the moon was a big pizza pie?

 

Like a big pizza pie. Simile. ;)

[Satori]

Hehe, exactly, KingM. I'm having just as much fun simply reading this thread, and finding out the posters who I really respect and value what they say.

[Lovedtodeath]

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; — (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7)

[Lovedtodeath]

Hehe, exactly, KingM. I'm having just as much fun simply reading this thread, and finding out the posters who I really respect and value what they say.

I am finding out who I respect as well...

 

I told myself that I was done with this thread and that I needed to help end it. ::Sigh. I just can't read without replying.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[BillieBoy]

It has been proven to me that the Bible was written by God, and that evolution by chance is mathematically impossible.

 

With all respect and no smugness in tone, please share your proof that God in fact wrote the bible. I would be interested in this.

In my mind’s eye, based on factual physical evidence, the bible is a selective collection of “man’s†interpretations of stories and events put forth by a régime attempting to unite a group of people with “selective†laws based on fear.

 

Now I am not saying that this book has not provided wonderful life parables, teaching basic right and wrong along with giving worthy good-living guidelines, not dissimilar by the way with all major books of beliefs. It has. But rather to assume one multi-translated, non inclusive collection of stories is fact would be “to me†against the grain of my entire premise of educating my child. Probably not unlike yourself, I nurture my child’s thirst for knowledge and her quest for truth. My job, as I see it, is to cultivate her deduction and reasoning skills so that she can make informed decisions.

 

So again with no disrespect and with all inquisitiveness, please share your proof so that I can present another fact for my daughter to consider.

[asta]

Asta,

 

To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith, but must find his brand of intolerance.

 

-- Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)

 

:iagree: I love this!

 

Thanks. I found it during another 30+ page evolution thread...

 

 

a

[Lovedtodeath]

Noazart, a great deal of what convinced me is the great lengths that men have gone to in order to destroy the Bible yet they have been unsuccessful. It is also the world's best seller. I will PM you later with more details.

 

And considering that hellfire is a manmade idea not found in the Bible (and yes, poetic language and misinterpetation is involved), I very much believe that it is not based on fear, but rather love. Much in the same way we provide guidance and discipline for our children.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Plucky]

Thanks. I found it during another 30+ page evolution thread...

To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith, but must find his brand of intolerance.

 

-- Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)

 

a

 

Do you think this signature line really follows board rules? This kind of signature usually speaks louder than any point you are trying to make and deafens others to your view.

[asta]

Do you think this signature line really follows board rules? This kind of signature usually speaks louder than any point you are trying to make and deafens others to your view.

 

As far as I have read, it does not break any rules.

 

I'm not trying to make any point.

 

It is a good quote.

 

So is the other one.

 

If you feel I am a rule-breaker, please feel free to report me to the moderators.

 

a

[RegGuheert]

I just can't see using the Bible as a science text, when it was clearly written with a primitive understanding of the natural world, as has been pointed out in this thread.

I don't think of the Bible as a science text. I consider it to be the history book of the Universe written by the Author of the Universe. It records many, many events, people and dates. For those events, people and dates that can be independently verified, the accuracy is quite impressive. In many cases in the past where the history of the Bible was in question, such as the existence of Pontius Pilate, subsequent research has shown it to be correct. As such, I have decided that it makes sense to trust the Bible as authoritative in terms of all the events, people and dates that it records.

 

Given that worldview, there is an additional constraint placed on any scientific theory, hypothesis, etc.: It must be compatible with the events, people and dates given in the Bible. If it is not, I give Authority to the Bible. This is not anti-science as some here would imply. Instead, I see it is a way of constraining science to find the correct answer sooner.

 

Consider this: If you wanted to know the history of the United States, including events and times, would you be better served by starting by reading books by eye-witnesses or would you be better off just digging up what's left of Boston and Philadelphia and carbon dating what you found? IMO, it makes sense to start with the recorded history that you have and build from there. Otherwise, you will make many more mistakes as you try to piece together what has happened.

 

Granted this all hinges on having accurate history in the Bible. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

[theresatwist]

Do you think this signature line really follows board rules? This kind of signature usually speaks louder than any point you are trying to make and deafens others to your view.

 

True Blue,

 

Although I like Asta's quote. I agree with you that it's probably inappropriate for these boards. That said, Asta is far from alone. I know there are signatures that are pro-life (moral issue, yes, but also a political one), anti-Hillary Clinton (doesn't get any more political than that), anti-feminist (for lack of a less judgmental term), and one that is attributed to Margaret Thatcher, but clearly a thinly veiled stab at Obama.

 

I don't intend this to be a critique of the moderators. I think they do an amazing job. I just don't think Asta deserves to be singled out.

[RegGuheert]

With all respect and no smugness in tone, please share your proof that God in fact wrote the bible. I would be interested in this.

In my mind’s eye, based on factual physical evidence, the bible is a selective collection of “man’s†interpretations of stories and events put forth by a régime attempting to unite a group of people with “selective†laws based on fear.

 

Now I am not saying that this book has not provided wonderful life parables, teaching basic right and wrong along with giving worthy good-living guidelines, not dissimilar by the way with all major books of beliefs. It has. But rather to assume one multi-translated, non inclusive collection of stories is fact would be “to me†against the grain of my entire premise of educating my child. Probably not unlike yourself, I nurture my child’s thirst for knowledge and her quest for truth. My job, as I see it, is to cultivate her deduction and reasoning skills so that she can make informed decisions.

 

So again with no disrespect and with all inquisitiveness, please share your proof so that I can present another fact for my daughter to consider.

It's a good question! I'm not an expert in this area, but I have seen some interesting presentations on this subject. I'll give a short answer based on my understanding and would be happy to provide some references if you like.

 

One belief is that the Bible itself that is the proof that the Bible was written by God. In other words, it is self-testifying. If you are like me you will probably find this to be a strange concept. I cannot do it justice because I don't fully understand it, so I will not try here.

[theresatwist]

I don't think of the Bible as a science text. I consider it to be the history book of the Universe written by the Author of the Universe. It records many, many events, people and dates. For those events, people and dates that can be independently verified, the accuracy is quite impressive. In many cases in the past where the history of the Bible was in question, such as the existence of Pontius Pilate, subsequent research has shown it to be correct. As such, I have decided that it makes sense to trust the Bible as authoritative in terms of all the events, people and dates that it records.

 

Given that worldview, there is an additional constraint placed on any scientific theory, hypothesis, etc.: It must be compatible with the events, people and dates given in the Bible. If it is not, I give Authority to the Bible. This is not anti-science as some here would imply. Instead, I see it is a way of constraining science to find the correct answer sooner.

 

Consider this: If you wanted to know the history of the United States, including events and times, would you be better served by starting by reading books by eye-witnesses or would you be better off just digging up what's left of Boston and Philadelphia and carbon dating what you found? IMO, it makes sense to start with the recorded history that you have and build from there. Otherwise, you will make many more mistakes as you try to piece together what has happened.

 

Granted this all hinges on having accurate history in the Bible. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

 

With all due respect, I totally disagree! Records are written by people with biases. Artifacts don't have biases. We may not be sure of the whole story from artifacts, they leave many more holes, but the little bit of the story they do tell is more accurate.

 

I also do not think the Bible is an accurate historical source. This is a whole different argument, but I think our difference of opinion has the same root. I do not see the Bibles as an accurate scientific or historical text. I see it as a theological text. I think the Bible can be useful as a supplementary text for studying history, but in the same way that works of fiction written at the time help us to understand history, and not as artifacts do. I would not buy a history book that referenced the Bible as its only or primary evidence that an event took place.

 

Having no reason to believe the Bible is an inaccurate source isn't proof. You can have no reason to believe that somebody has lied to you (they've never lied to you before, they have always gone out of their way to help you), but that isn't proof that that person isn't deceiving you this time.

[BillieBoy]

Do you think this signature line really follows board rules? This kind of signature usually speaks louder than any point you are trying to make and deafens others to your view.

 

Goodness folks, it is a quote from a notable American philosopher. The Eric “Hoffer†Award, named so in his honor, is given to freethinking writers of exceptional merit. Don’t you just love America? The quote merely states his philosophical opinion on understanding someone with different beliefs, I believe in reference to his studies of mass religious movements and their relationships with concurrent religious movements. It’s just a course of thought. That’s all. IMHO a good one.

[KingM]

One belief is that the Bible itself that is the proof that the Bible was written by God. In other words, it is self-testifying. If you are like me you will probably find this to be a strange concept. I cannot do it justice because I don't fully understand it, so I will not try here.

 

It is true because it tells us it's true. You kept bringing up logical fallacies, but I believe this is one of them: Begging the Question or Circular Logic.

 

Your arguments about the truthfulness of the the Bible are very similar to those used by apologists for the Quran and the Book of Mormon. Do you also accept these as truth?

 

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science text. It is intended for moral instruction. If I want answers about how the universe works, I should look to science for the answers.

[Marylou]

With all due respect, I totally disagree! Records are written by people with biases. Artifacts don't have biases. We may not be sure of the whole story from artifacts, they leave many more holes, but the little bit of the story they do tell is more accurate.

 

I also do not think the Bible is an accurate historical source. This is a whole different argument, but I think our difference of opinion has the same root. I do not see the Bibles as an accurate scientific or historical text. I see it as a theological text. I think the Bible can be useful as a supplementary text for studying history, but in the same way that works of fiction written at the time help us to understand history, and not as artifacts do. I would not buy a history book that referenced the Bible as its only or primary evidence that an event took place.

 

Having no reason to believe the Bible is an inaccurate source isn't proof. You can have no reason to believe that somebody has lied to you (they've never lied to you before, they have always gone out of their way to help you), but that isn't proof that that person isn't deceiving you this time.

 

 

 

There surely is bias in the Bible; that part is true :001_smile:, but it is because it is God speaking--

 

• "You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:35).

• "There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God" (1 Samuel 2:2).

• "How great you are, O Sovereign Lord! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears" (2 Samuel 7:22).

• "So that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other" (1 Kings 8:60).

• "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me" (Isaiah 45:5).

• "For this is what the Lord says — he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited — he says: `I am the Lord, and there is no other’ " (Isaiah 45:18).

• "Declare what is to be, present it — let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22).

• "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).

ETA: Maybe this could be a good bookend for a wonderful thread!

Edited June 30, 2009 by dmmosher

[dangerdad]

But you fail to acknowledge that the scientific creation model ALSO predicts you will find Lucy.

"Scientific Creation" is not a coherent hypothesis as far as I've read. It's a collection of ad-hoc reasoning and anti-scientific arguments. You fail to acknowledge that the prediction about Lucy was pointing to specific rock of a certain age. That's the kind of prediction that an actual theory makes.

 

However, scientific creation does not require you to imagine that species change into each other or that life springs from non-life in order to make this prediction.

 

You apparently don't know what evolution is. It's entirely separate from the origin of life. Once life exists, evolution applies.

 

Occam's razor says that the scientific creation model, being simpler, is the more likely explanation of finding Lucy there.

 

You apparently don't understand Occam's razor, which states "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It does not say "the simpler, the better"--rather the fewer assumptions, the better. Simply saying the "God did it" is not simpler, and it's not very helpful. The time was that people said the planets were kept in their orbits by angels. I believe that God is the author of the laws of the physical world, and I want to understand those laws.

 

Again, finding Lucy gives less credence to evolution than to the creation model. So why not accept the scientific creation model for the origin and speciation of life? It's purely because of a belief among evolutionists that there is no God and doing so would require so many to change their worldview.

 

Now this I find to be childish and offensive. I have a deep belief in God, and accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. And yet as I read the evidence I've concluded that however God made me, He used evolution, and that He cannot be threatened by scientific inquiry.

 

BTW, the scientific creation model also predicts things in the fossil record such as polystrate fossils that the old-Earth models upon which evolution depends rejects.

 

Wait, you're also claiming the Earth isn't billions of years old? You have to ignore tremendous physical evidence for that. As for so-called "polystrate fossils", it seems to be an argument of young-earth creationists born from a lack of understanding of geology.

 

Some creationist presentations include claims about "polystrate fossils". From the description, this term is used for fossils which intersect several beds (layers), usually in sedimentary rocks. Although often used in creationist literature, I have been unable to determine the origin of the term -- it is not a standard geological term. This makes it difficult for the uninitiated to find conventional literature about these fossils. This presentation attempts to explain what "polystrate fossils" are, and offers a critique of claims made about them. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the author via e-mail. I have seen plenty of examples of "polystrate" fossils in the field.

 

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

 

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

 

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

[RegGuheert]

 

Now this I find to be childish and offensive. I have a deep belief in God, and accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. And yet as I read the evidence I've concluded that however God made me, He used evolution, and that He cannot be threatened by scientific inquiry.

My apologies for this offense. That was not my intent. I made in incorrect assumption and am sorry for that.

[theresatwist]

There surely is bias in the Bible; that part is true :001_smile:, but it is because it is God speaking--

 

• "You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:35).

• "There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God" (1 Samuel 2:2).

• "How great you are, O Sovereign Lord! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears" (2 Samuel 7:22).

• "So that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other" (1 Kings 8:60).

• "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me" (Isaiah 45:5).

• "For this is what the Lord says — he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited — he says: `I am the Lord, and there is no other’ " (Isaiah 45:18).

• "Declare what is to be, present it — let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22).

• "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).

 

ETA: Maybe this could be a good bookend for a wonderful thread!

 

You're entitled to your own religious views. I'm not going to argue with them, but they're also not the main source I'm going to use to understand history. (Obviously other people's religious views are necessary for understanding history and for that reason I do study the Bible.) I don't see your God as God. However, even if I did I do not think I would use His word as historical evidence.

[BillieBoy]

There surely is bias in the Bible; that part is true :001_smile:, but it is because it is God speaking--

 

While I respect your beliefs, this does not show conclusive proof. These are quotes written by man, interpreted by man, translated by man, sieved through by man for his purposes. We can all agree, I think, that man has his own faults and innate nature.

 

I cannot argue a belief book as a source of reference. There are philosophers, clergy, and scholars from all walks of life and eras that have dedicated their lives to this argument.

 

I can argue my beliefs, if even just to myself. For instance, I believe (have faith) that the sun will rise on my perspective horizon tomorrow. Now I believe that not because it is written in Hieroglyphics that Ra will be traveling by boat across the sky. Nor do I believe it because it is written in ancient Greek script that Helios will chariot it across the sky or even because a 4,000 year old Chinese text said that 10 firebirds decided to fly at once. While it is my opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow I cannot say with 100% certainty that this is fact. I believe it will because we know by scientific study that the sun has not run it’s star cycle. I believe it will because statistically it has every day of all of mankind’s recorded history. But it is not to say that some giant projectile the size of Saturn isn’t barreling towards it and has somehow escaped our observation. My beliefs allow for new and undiscovered knowledge and the systematic testing and verifications of these perspectives. Now on the other hand I could argue (to myself of course) that justification works through falsification not verification. Oh my, I’m off on my own tangent now……:willy_nilly:

[RegGuheert]

 

It is true because it tells us it's true. You kept bringing up logical fallacies, but I believe this is one of them: Begging the Question or Circular Logic.

It's not as simple as that. Brian Edwards is one of the experts on the historicity and authority of the bible. His thesis is covered in the book Nothing But the Truth. I've heard him speak, but I have not yet read this. I don't expect this to be an easy read, but it has just moved up on my reading list!

Your arguments about the truthfulness of the the Bible are very similar to those used by apologists for the Quran and the Book of Mormon. Do you also accept these as truth?

No. These three religions are mutually exclusive, IMU. Pick one or none.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science text. It is intended for moral instruction. If I want answers about how the universe works, I should look to science for the answers.

I happen to believe all those dates are in the Bible for a reason. And I do not think they are incorrect.

[Lovedtodeath]

There are numerous examples of archaeology proving the Bible wrong, until oops! we found new archaeological evidence that Sargon, Solomon, Belshazzar, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus did exist. There are plenty more but those are what come to mind easily. There are always cases of the Bible proving true. I know of no casesin which new evidence has proven the Bible false. I do know of archaeological findings that have proven historical documents of other ancient civilizations false or unreliable. The Bible writers did not attempt to erase all records of former kings or defeats in battle. It did not attribute a great victory or monument to subsequent generations or dynasties making it impossible to determine who was really responsible. Yet, no one refuses to consider these other ancient documents in their history study.

 

(No, my curriculum does not rely on the Bible at all. Secular is what the market needs.)

Edited June 30, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[theresatwist]

There are numerous examples of archaeology proving the Bible wrong, until oops! we found new archaeological evidence that Sargon, Solomon, Belshazzar, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus did exist. There are plenty more but those are what come to mind easily. There are always cases of the Bible proving true. I know of no casesin which new evidence has proven the Bible false. I do know of archaeological findings that have proven historical documents of other ancient civilizations false or unreliable. The Bible writers did not attempt to erase all records of former kings or defeats in battle.

 

There are many biblical scholars who dispute that claim. One of those would be James L. Kugel. He makes many arguments that that is simply untrue in his book How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. Kugel, by the way, is an Orthodox Jew and biblical scholar at Harvard.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you for the book suggestion.

[WishboneDawn]

It has been proven to me that the Bible was written by God, and that evolution by chance is mathematically impossible.

 

I think it's more that it's mathematically improbable-That the odds are vanishingly small or at least that's what I've always seen asserted. Of course, I disagree. :)

[Melinda]

We plan on teaching both evolution and creation as theories. :)

[WishboneDawn]

How about where it says to stone people who don't obey their parents, tells us not to eat shellfish, that when we conquer a city we should massacre every male and non-virginal female within its walls, while taking the virgins as booty? Are talking snakes and donkeys scientific? How about the Tower of Babel as an explanation for language differences?

 

In Genesis, God divides the light from the dark on the first day but doesn't create the sun and moon until day 5. The moon is an independent light source. He spends all of day 2 creating something called the Firmament, which does not appear to exist. At least, we've zoomed through it several times in rockets without noting its existence.

 

Leviticus 14 explains how you can cure leprosy with the blood of a bird another elaborate rituals. Leviticus 20 says that hares chew their cud. Also in Leviticus it claims that bats are birds.

 

Not such great science.

 

But not primitive. I may disagree with Lovedtodeath on the science to be found in the Bible but the Bible does describe a lot of very basic and a lot of very complicated human truths and there's nothing primitive about that. We haven't evolved enough (or at all) for those truths to be dismissed as primitive.

[WishboneDawn]

Noazart, a great deal of what convinced me is the great lengths that men have gone to in order to destroy the Bible yet they have been unsuccessful. It is also the world's best seller. I will PM you later with more details.

 

And considering that hellfire is a manmade idea not found in the Bible (and yes, poetic language and misinterpetation is involved), I very much believe that it is not based on fear, but rather love. Much in the same way we provide guidance and discipline for our children.

 

I think you should look into taking an Education for Ministry course. You may find a local group if you check out a local Episcopal church (it's Episcopal but is open to all denominations) or you can try an online course but man, I have a feeling you would LOVE the course. It would either challenge you deeply or you would challenge it deeply but either way I think you'd have a lot of fun and you would come out of it with a lot of new questions to explore.:D

[lamerehouse]

WOW!

I feel smarter & dumber at the exact same instant!;)

 

I also feel fortunate & very small.

 

Smarter because of the INCREDIBLE education I have recieved from all of my fellow WTM friends.

 

Dumber because I may be more confused now than ever.

 

Fortuate because this thread was here when I was seeking information.

 

Very Small because 'God' is BIG!

 

I will DEFINATELY be teaching my girls as much about as many views as I can fit in in our homeschooling years. (pray for me!;))

 

Bottom line I'll be expecting them to learn Respect & Love for others/Build Bridges...whereever & whenever we were created/made/evolved...we'll never really know until we know...

 

Thank you all again! :001_smile: :grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

(ok, this picture is over 2 years old but I look great in it so it's staying!:))

 

 

LOL! I can't get away with that. I would try, but then my son isn't in the picture.

[Marylou]

Hehe, exactly, KingM. I'm having just as much fun simply reading this thread, and finding out the posters who I really respect and value what they say.

 

And many, many universities do this too! It's their prerogative, and I understand that. And it is called "granting or withholding tenure" :001_smile:

 

It's also the reason other folks (even those with monotone voice!) make movies to expose what's going on. hehe

[theresatwist]

[/b]

 

And many, many universities do this too! It's their prerogative, and I understand that. And it is called "granting or withholding tenure" :001_smile:

 

It's also the reason other folks (even those with monotone voice!) make movies to expose what's going on. hehe

 

Dmmosher, I definitely agree with you on that one. I guess I'm fortunate to agree with (the overwhelming majority of) universities on the issue of evolution. But the tenure process is political in other ways that I don't agree with.

[Peek a Boo]

In Genesis, God divides the light from the dark on the first day but doesn't create the sun and moon until day 5. The moon is an independent light source. He spends all of day 2 creating something called the Firmament, which does not appear to exist. At least, we've zoomed through it several times in rockets without noting its existence.

 

no, the moon is not listed as an independent light source: it is simply listed as a light. The Bible does not elaborate on how the moon reflects light.

how do you "zoom through" something w/o noting its existence? what do you mean we haven't "noted its existence"? Are you telling me that we haven't had to do anything special to "zoom through" this alleged firmament? That there are no scientific concepts we must employ to safely "zoom through" something that we can't note?

 

Leviticus 14 explains how you can cure leprosy with the blood of a bird another elaborate rituals. Leviticus 20 says that hares chew their cud. Also in Leviticus it claims that bats are birds.

 

 

Not such great reading comprehension :)

Leviticus 14 explains the rituals for cleansing, not for curing. The leprosy must already be cured before cleansing can begin.

 

‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day.

 

it does not claim that bats are birds --it is listing flying critters ["among the birds"-- look up the definition for among] that are NOT to be eaten. It's not saying "here's a list of birds." :)

[Peek a Boo]

If I want answers about how the universe works, I should look to science for the answers.

 

sure-- and science has a history of being wrong too. :)

[RegGuheert]

how do you "zoom through" something w/o noting its existence? what do you mean we haven't "noted its existence"? Are you telling me that we haven't had to do anything special to "zoom through" this alleged firmament? That there are no scientific concepts we must employ to safely "zoom through" something that we can't note?

To me, the idea of making scientific measurements *today* to try to shed light on the firmament makes little sense. I say this because I believe the firmament, whatever that may have been, was probably removed during the great flood of Noah's time. I see no reason to believe otherwise. It is clear from the Bible that many, many things on Earth were different after the flood compared with before the flood. Many people think that the firmament may have been a significant factor in explaining these differences.

 

Another way to say this is that uniformitarianism is not a Biblical concept. Catastrophism IS a Biblical concept. It seems that many scientists, regardless of their belief system, are acknowledging that catastrophism appears to be a better explanation for many geological formations.

[Lovedtodeath]

To me, the idea of making scientific measurements *today* to try to shed light on the firmament makes little sense. I say this because I believe the firmament, whatever that may have been, was probably removed during the great flood of Noah's time. I see no reason to believe otherwise. It is clear from the Bible that many, many things on Earth were different after the flood compared with before the flood. Many people think that the firmament may have been a significant factor in explaining these differences.

 

Another way to say this is that uniformitarianism is not a Biblical concept. Catastrophism IS a Biblical concept. It seems that many scientists, regardless of their belief system, are acknowledging that catastrophism appears to be a better explanation for many geological formations.

:iagree:I was just reading up on the great flood. Humans had much longer lifespans before the flood. One hypothesis as to the reason for this is that the firmament and the extra water shielded people from radiation in the atmosphere. This hypothesis also puts forth the idea that radiocarbon dating for anything that existed before the flood would then be rendered useless.

 

I have also found information about Archaeological digs in which numerous animals and species all died and were swept into one location by flood waters. (Hyenas, ancient elephants, mammoths, polar bears, big cats similar to leopards) Archaeologists usually say it was flood waters... in the general sense, not the great flood.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Spy Car]

no, the moon is not listed as an independent light source: it is simply listed as a light.

 

But it is not a light, it is a reflector. Big difference.

 

The Bible does not elaborate on how the moon reflects light.

 

It sure doesn't. Like the rest of the books this passage show no understanding of the physical universe beyond the (often wrong) beliefs of people at the time. Were there some sort of "divine authorship" one would expect better.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

It sure doesn't. Like the rest of the books this passage show no understanding of the physical universe beyond the (often wrong) beliefs of people at the time. Were there some sort of "divine authorship" one would expect better.

There is a reason that Jesus spoke in illustrations. Many in that day got fed up and left off listening to him. In addition to the fact that the Bible never claims to be a science text book, God is not interested in forcing anyone to believe and serve. He doesn't want it to be too easy. He wants us to stick around long enough and put the effort into understanding the illustrations.

[Spy Car]

There is a reason that Jesus spoke in illustrations. Many in that day got fed up and left off listening to him. In addition to the fact that the Bible never claims to be a science text book, God is not interested in forcing anyone to believe and serve. He doesn't want it to be too easy. He wants us to stick around long enough and put the effort into understanding the illustrations.

 

Well we were talking about Genesis. And while you and I may agree the Bible is not a science text book, there are people who treat it as such.

 

And it's not about "forcing anyone", but some people claim that the Bible is the work of a of an omnipotent supernatural author, not human beings. But the text shows no understanding of the physical universe beyond human understanding (and mis-understanding) of the time. One would expect more if "divine authorship" is the claim.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Am I getting Deja vu? There were things that showed advanced understanding over the peoples of the time. I listed specific examples in a previous post.

 

I was dismayed when I saw this thread bumped up. Peek did have good points however.

 

over and out

Edited July 6, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

But it is not a light, it is a reflector. Big difference.

 

again, Bill, you fail to comprehend the purpose of the passage: it is describing what people SEE, not what something may actually BE. That IS a "big difference."

 

Like the sphere instance, if someone sees a shadow that looks like a circle, they can logically deduce that the shadow is cast by either a circle or a sphere. But without more evidence, it would be an assumption to call it only a circle or only a sphere. Same w/ the moon: if you see a light in the sky, you call it "a light in the sky." Without more information it would be an assumption to call it a reflector or a source.

 

The entire passage focusses on what people SEE in creation, not the science behind it. Altho, as some have already pointed out, the chronology tends to match what we believe scientifically pretty closely.

 

 

It sure doesn't. Like the rest of the books this passage show no understanding of the physical universe beyond the (often wrong) beliefs of people at the time. Were there some sort of "divine authorship" one would expect better.

 

 

LOL! This coming from someone who can't figure out the testimonial difference between describing what one sees vs the scientific/mathematic explanation of what something IS?

You seem to have a poor grasp on not only the religious purpose of the Bible, but its literary devices as well. i would posit that you are likely not an objective nor accurate source of information on its contents OR purpose.

 

"expect better?" I'm sorry -- I didn't realize you had the monopoly on what "divine authorship" should be like ;)

[Spy Car]

Am I getting Deja vu? There were things that showed advanced understanding over the peoples of the time. I listed specific examples in a previous post.

 

I was dismayed when I saw this thread bumped up. Peek did have good points however.

 

over and out

 

I don't know any examples where the Bible has "told us" anything that people of the times didn't already know about the physical universe and/or didn't reflect the mis-conceptions of the times.

 

Are there any?

 

Bill

[Lizzie in Ma]

I don't do formal science until 7th or 8th grade. Once we get to it we cover evolution in-depth. I don't understand why someone wouldn't at least go over the basic ideas.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know any examples where the Bible has "told us" anything that people of the times didn't already know about the physical universe and/or didn't reflect the mis-conceptions of the times.

 

Are there any?

 

Bill

she listed some in #346.

 

here's a site that lists and explains others.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

 

not that i agree with all their interpretations, but there are a few gems there ;)

[Spy Car]

again, Bill, you fail to comprehend the purpose of the passage: it is describing what people SEE, not what something may actually BE. That IS a "big difference."

 

Like the sphere instance, if someone sees a shadow that looks like a circle, they can logically deduce that the shadow is cast by either a circle or a sphere. But without more evidence, it would be an assumption to call it only a circle or only a sphere. Same w/ the moon: if you see a light in the sky, you call it "a light in the sky." Without more information it would be an assumption to call it a reflector or a source.

 

The entire passage focusses on what people SEE in creation, not the science behind it.

 

So, again, you are making the point that the Bible reflects "human perception" and not the actual state of the physical universe. It's a big concession.

 

LOL! This coming from someone who can't figure out the testimonial difference between describing what one sees vs the scientific/mathematic explanation of what something IS?

You seem to have a poor grasp on not only the religious purpose of the Bible, but its literary devices as well.

 

I fully understand this work as "literature". Or in the sense of mythos. I further understand many (most?) religious people understand the Bible in that context. As "mythos" rather than "logos".

 

But I'm aware there are "literalists" who believe every word is historical and scientific Truth.

 

i would posit that you are likely not an objective nor accurate source of information on its contents OR purpose.

 

As opposed to whom?

 

"expect better?" I'm sorry -- I didn't realize you had the monopoly on what "divine authorship" should be like ;)

 

Who said I had a "monopoly"?

 

But I do have to reason for myself. So if a book reflects only human knowledge (including errors and/or omissions) and offers nothing else about the physical universe that wasn't known or mis-understood, how do I make the leap to "divine authorship"? It doesn't stand to reason.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

she listed some in #346.

 

here's a site that lists and explains others.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

 

not that i agree with all their interpretations, but there are a few gems there ;)

 

A commandment not to have sex during menstruation tells us something about the physical universe?

 

Staying way from dead bodies? Knowing feces is something unclean?

 

Really??? This is the best you can do?

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Bill, you are being inflammatory.

[Spy Car]

Bill, you are being inflammatory.

 

How so? I've done nothing but apply logical thinking to claims made by others.

 

Bill

[asta]

Bill, you are being inflammatory.

 

And... no one else is?

 

A person should be allowed to disagree with an argument (as in, someone arguing for or against something) without having to deal with the

 

YOU'RE WRONG!! BECAUSE I SAID SO!

 

crap that seems to permeate these threads every time evolution, religion, or... bikinis comes up.

 

sheesh

 

 

a