Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 1:01 PM
340 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, frako, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile (10 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,248 Year: 28,854/21,208 Month: 920/1,847 Week: 295/475 Day: 60/82 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 46 of 100 (690886)
02-17-2013 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 8:46 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

Lame.

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


Alternatively your phrasing really is confusing.

quote:

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.

In other words you were completely wrong to talk about the accretion disk which no more existed at that point than the modern planet did.

quote:

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.

Given that your "valid understanding" contradicts itself, rather demonstrates that you are simply trying to fit your limited understanding of science to the text.

quote:

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"...

I haven't commented on the meaning of the phrase "in the beginning". However, obviously a correct understanding of the verses cannot be reached by trying to force-fit them to a preferred meaning.

quote:

Lame and intellectually dishonst, IMO.

I think that you mean "intellectually honest", since that, at least is not an accusation that could be more justifiably thrown your way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 8:46 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 11:59 AM PaulK has responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 47 of 100 (690915)
02-18-2013 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 7:17 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
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.

And you have been told, seeing that you've tried to pass this crap off numerous times, that "deshe" does not mean "first sparks of life."

It means, as you are already well aware, "the first sprouts of the earth."

Sprouts... plantlings with root systems growing from dirt.

You also have tried to claim before that this is an error of "KJV translators" only to have it pointed out that the Jews also translate "deshe" as "sprouts" or "grass."

So, technically, Genesis never makes a claim about the "first sprouts of life" so it cannot be dead on in that respect. It makes a claim about simple plants ie: herbage coming before animals in which it turns out to be dead wrong.

I can go further by pointing out that "deshe" in the 14 other instances that it occurs in the OT is talking about fields or cattle grazing.

Ever heard this verse before?

Psa 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

Do you really mean to try to say that David is saying God makes him lay down in bacteria?

Do you really think that is what the chapter is about?

Come on, man. You have a brain. Time to start using it and give up making claims that you know are not true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:17 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 12:05 PM Eli has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 48 of 100 (690943)
02-18-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kofh2u
02-14-2013 8:41 AM


Psychology and Sociological research follows the scientific method; making them science.

Creationism does not fit the description of science.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 8:41 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 12:15 PM Larni has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11850
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(4)
Message 49 of 100 (690947)
02-18-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by kofh2u
02-16-2013 7:34 PM


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.

Yeah, but you've got more words in the brackets than you do from the Bible. You are forcing an a-priori interpretation into the text, rather than allowing the text to provide the interpretation.

All you are doing is smooshing your own understanding of modern science together with the words from the Bible. There's no reason whatsoever to think that your interpretation is the way its suppose to be understood.

You just want it to be your way so that the Bible doesn't get it wrong, but its not an honest approach to understanding what the Bible says. You could do what you're doing to almost any text and get it to line up with whatever you want when you get to add more words than were already there.

Check it out:

Jack and Jill (the first two people aka Adam & Eve) went up a hill (on which the Tree of Knowledge was sitting and which they ate the fruit from) to fetch a pail of water (that is to gain the knowledge from the tree to become like gods)

OMG look Jack and Jill is really about the Garden of Eden!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 7:34 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 50 of 100 (690953)
02-18-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
02-17-2013 10:45 AM


Re: all four are true...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

In other words you were completely wrong to talk about the accretion disk which no more existed at that point than the modern planet did.

You apparently infer some point in time from the simple true statement that in the beginning all matter that now occupies the heavens included the Earth.

What you people do is make these assumptions so you have misread Genesis and fail in reading comprehension because of you inferences.

If you use my inferences, then Genesis is straight forth correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 10:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2013 12:17 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 51 of 100 (690955)
02-18-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Eli
02-18-2013 12:01 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

And you have been told, seeing that you've tried to pass this crap off numerous times, that "deshe" does not mean "first sparks of life."

Yes, it means the "first" life to sprout on earth...

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 12:01 AM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Eli, posted 02-20-2013 12:30 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 52 of 100 (690957)
02-18-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Larni
02-18-2013 8:20 AM


Psychology and Sociological research follows the scientific method; making them science.

They are considered Soft Sciences because they are not Empirical.
They do not "follow" (?) the Scientific Method.

What they argue does not start with a hypothesis that is subjected to an empirical experiment to rule it a theory.
We can not predict the future in sociology, especially notable in the area of the economy.

The term “soft science” is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. “Soft science” is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from “hard science,” with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soft-science.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 8:20 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 12:40 PM kofh2u has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 53 of 100 (690958)
02-18-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 11:59 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

You apparently infer some point in time from the simple true statement that in the beginning all matter that now occupies the heavens included the Earth.

"In the beginning" is a temporal reference. But your statement is false because at the beginning there is nothing that can reasonably be called "the Earth"

quote:

If you use my inferences, then Genesis is straight forth correct.

It wasn't when you "inferred" that "without form and void" referred to the accretion disk.

And that is a very clear indication that your "inferences" owe far more to modern science than they do to the text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 11:59 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:43 PM PaulK has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 54 of 100 (690960)
02-18-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 12:15 PM


Of course psychology is empirical. What part of psychological research is not empirical?

Every piece of psychological research has a hypothesis. What piece of psychological research does not have a H0?

I find it astounding that you can use the word 'conjecture' without irony.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 12:15 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:35 PM Larni has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 55 of 100 (690985)
02-18-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Larni
02-18-2013 12:40 PM


LOL... conjecture...

Every piece of psychological research has a hypothesis. What piece of psychological research does not have a H0?
I find it astounding that you can use the word 'conjecture' without irony.


?
The SOURCE I provided a link for said "conjecture."
I think from reading your quick draw superior criticisms you are going to have a loy of surprises if you keep posting here.

NOTE:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soft-science.htm

The term “soft science” is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. “Soft science” is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from “hard science,” with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 12:40 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 02-19-2013 6:18 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 56 of 100 (690986)
02-18-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
02-18-2013 12:17 PM


In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.

1) "In the beginning" is a temporal reference. But your statement is false because at the beginning there is nothing that can reasonably be called "the Earth"

2) And that is a very clear indication that your "inferences" owe far more to modern science than they do to the text.

1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.

It has become clear that with the advent of modern science we now can see what the Bible writers inferred in the rather unique duality of the language used.

If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.

But don't pretend that makes the reader right and the bible wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2013 12:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2013 12:33 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2013 1:27 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2013 10:23 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 57 of 100 (691008)
02-19-2013 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 6:43 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.

"Minute" is not the word I'd have used for an error of billions of years. The Earth has simply not been around since the beginning. This is wrong.

It has become clear that with the advent of modern science we now can see what the Bible writers inferred in the rather unique duality of the language used.

Why don't you go see if you can convince some YECs of your interpretation of the Bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:43 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kofh2u, posted 02-21-2013 8:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 58 of 100 (691009)
02-19-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 6:43 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
quote:

1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.

Apparently telling the truth about your methods is considered "trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis". I have to point out the fact that neither you, nor your methodology are in Genesis.

quote:

If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.

Well that would be you in insisting that "in the beginning" did NOT refer to a particular time.

And of course, the fact that Genesis claims that the ocean existed at the beginning would rather negate any idea that it was intended to refer to any modern understanding of the existence of our universe. It would, however, work perfectly well in the time and place that Genesis 1 was written. Now these considerations are VALID considerations when interpreting Genesis 1 honestly. Your method of simply trying to find vague correspondences so that you can claim that the Bible is correct is both invalid and dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:43 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 59 of 100 (691010)
02-19-2013 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kofh2u
02-10-2013 12:58 PM


Apart from anything else, your attempt to interpret the Bible so that it agrees with science is not in itself a scientific endeavor any more than attempting to interpret The Wizard Of Oz as an economic treatise is an economic endeavor. It's an exercise in hermeneutics, not science.

And we can hardly have public school teachers teaching children how they ought to interpret the Bible, especially as your way of interpreting it seems to be unique to you. You'd have the secularists all over you for putting religion into schools, and the fundamentalists all over you for putting the wrong religion into schools.

This is why public schools don't offer classes in Biblical Hermeneutics.

Standard creationists have, in a way, a better justification than you for the teaching of their ridiculous piffle. At least they are being wrong about science. When they pretend, for example, that there are no intermediate forms, this is at least a claim within a scientific field, albeit a completely wrong claim made by morons who deserve to be poked with pointy sticks. But when you are wrong about how we should interpret the word deshe when it occurs in the book of Genesis, you are not even being wrong about science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kofh2u, posted 02-10-2013 12:58 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 60 of 100 (691013)
02-19-2013 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 6:35 PM


Re: LOL... conjecture...
Your sources are wrong. You ignore my questions.

Please show one piece of psychological research which is not empirical.

You do know I've been contributing to this site since 2005? I'm not sure what the 'keep posting here' remark refers too.

Thanks.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:35 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017