Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 2:42 AM
119 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,131 Year: 13,737/21,208 Month: 3,219/3,605 Week: 5/556 Day: 5/54 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught
Eli
Member (Idle past 905 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 31 of 100 (690645)
02-14-2013 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by kofh2u
02-14-2013 1:09 AM


Re: I agree with that...
And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.

Which is in absolute contradiction to biology and the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 1:09 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:30 AM Eli has acknowledged this reply

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 32 of 100 (690691)
02-15-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Eli
02-14-2013 8:18 PM


Re: I agree with that...
Bacteria which has cell walls falls into the category of the Plant Kingdom using the Two Kingdom System.

It is clear that none of the six different systems of Taxonomy is perfect, and the choice to use one or the other is subjectively a decision of the individual who might so do for purposes that seem satisfactory for their intend use.

We still do this in K-6 grades, because it is simple to grasp and generally correct to see living things as either plant of animal, separated by the respiration of CO2 in the former, cell walls, and use of chloroplast for photosynthesis.

The animals alway breath in oxygen, are absent cell wall, and must ingest protein and sugars they can not manufacture.

It is clear that Genesis mentions ONLY plants and animals, so it infers the Two Kingdom System.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Eli, posted 02-14-2013 8:18 PM Eli has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-16-2013 8:52 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 33 of 100 (690695)
02-15-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
02-14-2013 2:02 PM


all four are true...
Genesis clearly can and ought be read with the choice to understand it as corresponding with what we now know, rather than deciding to misinterpret the literal statements just to choose to make if seem false and non-factual.

Considered the first five Verses:

It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which was yet to congeal into a spherical planet) earth.[/B]

[Bhttp://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/step-by-step-guide-to-the-big-bang/]

A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede that advent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to flood the cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.
The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : and there was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).

Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).

Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

You can protest and even argue that the christians who are not theistic evolutioists say different, but an honest, fair minded read would have to admit this is a valid correspondence when examined the way written above... not that many intellectual oriented people care about honesty, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2013 2:02 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2013 11:54 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2013 11:57 AM kofh2u has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11349
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 34 of 100 (690699)
02-15-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kofh2u
02-15-2013 11:42 AM


Re: all four are true...
It should be a clue when you have to add more words than were originally there in order for it to add up, that you are forcing the conclusion rather than finding it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:42 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 7:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 35 of 100 (690700)
02-15-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kofh2u
02-15-2013 11:42 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

Genesis clearly can and ought be read with the choice to understand it as corresponding with what we now know, rather than deciding to misinterpret the literal statements just to choose to make if seem false and non-factual.

In other words, since Genesis 1 is badly wrong, it is necessary to misrepresent it to pretend that it is right.

But even your misrepresentations obviously fail. Any knowledgable person would know that the Earth did NOT exist, even as an accretion disk, until many billions of years after the "Cosmic Dark Age".

quote:

You can protest and even argue that the christians who are not theistic evolutioists say different, but an honest, fair minded read would have to admit this is a valid correspondence when examined the way written above... not that many intellectual oriented people care about honesty, of course.

Any honest and informed person can see that your "interpretation" is grossly strained, lacking support from the text, and far from scientifically accurate - and they will say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:42 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 7:30 PM PaulK has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 36 of 100 (690839)
02-16-2013 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
02-15-2013 11:57 AM


Re: all four are true...
a

But even your misrepresentations obviously fail. Any knowledgable person would know that the Earth did NOT exist, even as an accretion disk, until many billions of years after the "Cosmic Dark Age".

You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form

This changed as even the sun and the stars were intially accreation disks themselves, slowly cooling and taking the spherical form.

But you do seem to recognize the uncanny correctness of a 400 million year cooling down era where darkness existed just as the Bible reports.

These first 5 verse enumerate ideas that were not even suspect in 1362BC, and the Big Bang beginning was a shot in the dark by the Biboe writers who would have lost this whole debate for me had they said what was the politically correct point of view until 1940, that the cosmos has always been there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2013 11:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 4:07 AM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 37 of 100 (690840)
02-16-2013 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
02-15-2013 11:54 AM


Re: all four are true...

It should be a clue when you have to add more words than were originally there in order for it to add up, that you are forcing the conclusion rather than finding it.

Brackets are just the grammatically correct why of interjecting explantions into a paragraph so to indicate they are not part of that text.

One could take the ideas stated in parentheses out of the context, and write one's argument for what his own reading comprehension tells him is meant.
That is what most Bible commentary does.

But I include it in the context so that every phrase and expression is shown to be comprehensively included.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2013 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2013 10:40 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


(2)
Message 38 of 100 (690850)
02-16-2013 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by kofh2u
02-15-2013 11:30 AM


Is this what you propose to teach?
It is clear that Genesis mentions ONLY plants and animals, so it infers the Two Kingdom System.

The two kingdom system was abandoned because organisms could not be classified appropriately into only two kingdoms. Modern classification systems recognize 6 kingdoms organized into 3 domains. I don't think Genesis was intended to be a reference book on classification systems.

It is clear that none of the six different systems of Taxonomy is perfect, and the choice to use one or the other is subjectively a decision of the individual who might so do for purposes that seem satisfactory for their intend use.

No, it is true. No taxonomic system is perfect, not because of subjectivity but because of the extreme complexity and diversity of living things.

Bacteria which has cell walls falls into the category of the Plant Kingdom using the Two Kingdom System.

Wrong. Most bacteria use peptidoglycans in their cell walls while plants use cellulose. Two different structures.

The animals alway breath in oxygen,

You do realize that plants "breath in oxygen" too, right? Plants, animals and fungi all perform cellular respiration using oxygen.

separated by the respiration of CO2 in the former

Did you know that plants do not respirate CO2? They produce sugars through photosynthesis by fixing atmospheric CO2.

and use of chloroplast for photosynthesis.

There are some animals as well that use chloroplasts to fix carbon. Additionally several Protista do as well. Is a Euglena a plant or an animal?

and must ingest protein and sugars they can not manufacture.

Most bacteria (not all) are hetrotrophs (need to ingest food) so would they be classified as an animal? But they have a cell wall ... so maybe a plant?

Honestly, I am not sure what point you were trying to make here, but maybe you should learn some of these introductory level biological concepts before you try to tackle more difficult concepts

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:30 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Eli, posted 02-17-2013 2:10 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 41 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:00 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 905 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 39 of 100 (690858)
02-17-2013 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by herebedragons
02-16-2013 8:52 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
He's trying to say that bacteria are plants so that genesis is chronologically correct.

As always, he is shitting all over what we know in a failed attempt at making the bible literally correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-16-2013 8:52 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:17 AM Eli has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 40 of 100 (690862)
02-17-2013 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kofh2u
02-16-2013 7:30 PM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form

I wouldn't call a quark-gluon plasma "solid", and that's about as close as you'll get to normal matter close to the Big Bang.

quote:

This changed as even the sun and the stars were intially accreation disks themselves, slowly cooling and taking the spherical form.

I think that there is a huge difference between the existence - in some form - of the matter that would eventually form the accretion disk which became the Earth, and the accretion disk itself existing.

quote:

But you do seem to recognize the uncanny correctness of a 400 million year cooling down era where darkness existed just as the Bible reports.

You'd have to be outright insane to believe that. Even if the end of the Cosmic Dark Age represented a real creation of light it wouldn't be similar enough to deserve to be called a coincidence. But it doesn't.

quote:

These first 5 verse enumerate ideas that were not even suspect in 1362BC, and the Big Bang beginning was a shot in the dark by the Biboe writers who would have lost this whole debate for me had they said what was the politically correct point of view until 1940, that the cosmos has always been there.

No, they're just another creation myth with no relationship to modern science. That's why you have to add so much to what they say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 7:30 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:31 AM PaulK has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 41 of 100 (690868)
02-17-2013 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by herebedragons
02-16-2013 8:52 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

1) I don't think Genesis was intended to be a reference book on classification systems.

2) The two kingdom system was abandoned because organisms could not be classified appropriately into only two kingdoms. Modern classification systems recognize 6 kingdoms organized into 3 domains.

1) I already said, that since in 1362BC no one would have thought it useful to break down the various like forms further than into a simple and obvious Two Kingdom System.

2) Your own personal preferemce for the Six Kingdom System is a subject choice which might even be appropriate to your vocation related to the taxonomy of Biology.
But, as the Graphic explains in the legend under the Charts, none of the 6 possible choices for using one of the six makes that particular decision more scientifically valid since none of the six actually is totally definitive or comprehensive.

That the Bible writers rstionally spoke in terms of Two Kingdoms makes sense based on the audience the book was directed at, but in no way fais to conform with the facts, that the Plant Kingdom appeared before the Animal Kingdom.

Gen 1:11 And (The First Cause?), God, said, Let the earth bring forth (life in a Spontaneous Generation of Bacteria which shall found the evolving and complex members of the Plant Kingdom upon the Earth, i.e.; the Hebrew word "deshe" is not grass but means "first sprouts of life on Earth"), grass, (from which early roots shall evolve) the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, (I.e.; all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

9
The two kingdom system was abandoned because organisms could not be classified appropriately into only two kingdoms. Modern classification systems recognize 6 kingdoms organized into 3 domains.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-16-2013 8:52 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2013 9:19 AM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 42 of 100 (690870)
02-17-2013 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Eli
02-17-2013 2:10 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

He's trying to say that bacteria are plants so that genesis is chronologically correct.

Not exactly.
I am actually telling you that Genesis really says, by a Spontaneous Generation, God created "the first sparks of life," as the Hebrew word "deshe" says, from which all other life developed.

The KJV Bible translators called this first life, "grass," because to them, smaller organisms, things like bacteria or microbes were unknown yet.

So technically, Genesis is dead on with such a claim, that "the first sprouts of life," whatever one will apply that to, is correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Eli, posted 02-17-2013 2:10 AM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 12:01 AM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 43 of 100 (690871)
02-17-2013 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
02-17-2013 4:07 AM


Re: all four are true...

quote Kofh:

You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PaulK:
I wouldn't call a quark-gluon plasma "solid", and that's about as close as you'll get to normal matter close to the Big Bang.

That is what I also said,... "void in... solid form."

I use bracketed comments so people can see how I explain the statement in context.
I spot light comments to show that the whole passage conforms to the general explanations I recommend to one's reading comprehension.

You would have to be blind to miss the correspondences with the Big Bang as a beginning, and the uncanny truth about Cosmic Darkness, as stated way back, in 1362BC.
Until the Universe cooled enough for neutral Atoms to from and hold onto their electrons no visible light could be created.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 4:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 7:39 AM kofh2u has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 44 of 100 (690873)
02-17-2013 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 7:31 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

That is what I also said,... "void in... solid form."

That seems to mean that it was a void and had a solid form somehow... Which really doesn't make much sense.

quote:

I use bracketed comments so people can see how I explain the statement in context.

Yes, and we can see just how far you go beyond the text.

quote:

You would have to be blind to miss the correspondences with the Big Bang as a beginning, and the uncanny truth about Cosmic Darkness, as stated way back, in 1362BC.

When we see that the "coincidences" are almost entirely contained in your parenthetical comments then it doesn't look uncanny at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:31 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 8:46 AM PaulK has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 45 of 100 (690880)
02-17-2013 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
02-17-2013 7:39 AM


Re: all four are true...

That seems to mean that it was a void and had a solid form somehow... Which really doesn't make much sense.

Yes, and we can see just how far you go beyond the text.

Lame.

You are just repeating your position which is simply to oppose me.

That I told you the Plasma state of the Cosmos contained the elementary matter right from the first split second which would solidify, and though then void of geometric shape, take form from the formlessness and become recognizable as stars and at some point, the Earth.

That you can and do decide to ignore this valid understanding of what the first two verses in genesis means is simply your choice, with the intention of disparaging the bible, instead of granting my description is more valid than your own interpretations.

In other words, you CAN and DO insist that your way of explaining the two verses serves your argument, while subjectively attempting to disqualify any other interpretation of "In the beginning"...

Lame and intellectually dishonst, IMO.

Better to just concede that indeed, there has been a begining to the heavens and the earth and try to get the better of me further on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 7:39 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 10:45 AM kofh2u has responded

    
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017