Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 245 (164490)
12-01-2004 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 7:50 PM


Let's look at some of your assertions.
d_yankee asserts:
1) First answer. That is because most evolutionists are atheists.
That's an interesting assertion but do you have any evidence to back it up? It appears that every major Christian Church actually supports teaching the Theory of Evolution and opposes teaching Creationism.
quote:
Religions Supporting Evolution
These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school:
* American Jewish Congress
* American Scientific Affiliation
* Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
* Central Conference Of American Rabbis
* Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
* The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
* Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
* The Lutheran World Federation
* Roman Catholic Church
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
* United Methodist Church
* United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.
It appears that religiouos folk, particularly Christians, support Evolution.
2) Second answer. Yes. Through my studies of history, theology, science, and the Bible I take them literally when they mean it.
Okay. What does that mean? As a Christian, reading the Bible, it seems pretty obvious to me and many (see the list of Churches that support teaching TOE above) that the Genesis Creation tales were not meant to be taken literally.
So how does one tell if something should be taken literally?
edited to change sipport to support.
This message has been edited by jar, 12-01-2004 08:07 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 7:50 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
d_yankee
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 245 (164493)
12-01-2004 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
12-01-2004 12:51 AM


Froggy
First of all, the "FLOOD", not FLUD, explains it all.
The Bible states that before the flood the earth had a water canopy surrounding the earth, most likely ice...you can even see ice surrounding other planets in our solar system as well.
So the earth had a hyperventilated atmosphere of maybe double the oxygen we have today, something like the greenhouse effect. You can see in the fossils of plants and animals that show that they grew much, much larger than today. The frozen neanderthals(humans), mammoths, and other animals were humonguously larger as well.
Trees, today, that are given double the ventilation have grown up to quadrupal their size in some 20 year experiments.
Explaining why dinosaurs, or (dragons) as they were called before 1838, were so big and had such small snouts. Also explaining why humans, who were much bigger in that time, can live an average of 912 years, the Bible explains.
Remember, if the temperature is above a certain degrees or below a certain degrees...a prizm can not be seen. Explaining why there was no rainbow before the flood.
Most likely a comet broke through the canopy of ice or liquid water and hit the earth causing what we see as a seeming meteor hit the earth...but where is it? It was a comet most likely and played a part in some ice age effect...frozen mammoths, neanderthals,...etc.
The fossils show that there are trees that are standing upright and through "supposedly" different ages of rocks. LOL. It's obvious that they were buried by the mud and the shifting of the plates. Genesis states "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and 'Burst' open..."
Finally, you said "Species"... God never told him species....He said "KINDS"...
A male and female, obviously young if they were to replenish the earth, of every "KIND" of animal, not species.
There are 8,000 "KINDS" of animals in the world. God did not tell him the sea creatures...or fish...so minus that.
There are many different variations of dogs, wolves, but they are all dogs.
There are zebras, donkeys...but they are all horses.
Microevolution is obvious, macroevolution is obviously NOT.
Next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2004 12:51 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Coragyps, posted 12-01-2004 8:30 PM d_yankee has not replied
 Message 215 by Coragyps, posted 12-01-2004 8:36 PM d_yankee has not replied
 Message 216 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-01-2004 9:01 PM d_yankee has not replied
 Message 217 by DrJones*, posted 12-01-2004 9:07 PM d_yankee has not replied
 Message 223 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-03-2004 3:27 PM d_yankee has not replied
 Message 225 by MiguelG, posted 12-09-2004 10:10 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 213 of 245 (164494)
12-01-2004 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 8:27 PM


Re: Froggy
There's nothing whatsoever supported by a shred of evidence in that whole post, d_y. Most everything is contradicted by multiple observations.
Quit listening to Hovind. He lies continuously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM d_yankee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by CK, posted 12-01-2004 8:36 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 214 of 245 (164495)
12-01-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Coragyps
12-01-2004 8:30 PM


Re: Froggy
We seem to have had a rash of very simple-minded posters lately - is there a reason for this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Coragyps, posted 12-01-2004 8:30 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 215 of 245 (164496)
12-01-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 8:27 PM


Re: Froggy
The Bible states that before the flood the earth had a water canopy surrounding the earth,
Chapter and verse? It says there were "waters above the heavens," meaning above the solid dome that covered the plate-like earth like the lid of a cake server. No "surrounded" to it - the Bible has us sitting at the center of things, apparently floating on "the great deep," with the Sun going around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 216 of 245 (164509)
12-01-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 8:27 PM


kinds, kinds, everywhere kinds...
Hi, d_yankee,
There are 8,000 "KINDS" of animals in the world.
An assertion you've made. Now we need evidence to back it up before we start teaching it in a school.
The first step is to define "kind" specifically, so that we can make a rough census of the animals on the planet to see if they fit into approximately 8,000 "kinds".
So please take this first step and define "kind". In order to define the term, it needs to include the characteristics used to designate where one "kind" ends and another begins.
Please be specific, and the definition CANNOT include examples of animals or kinds.
This thread is about what should be taught in schools along side evolution. If you cannot define "kind", then how can the concept of "kind" be reasonably taught?
Once you've defined "kind", I'll be interested in discussing your other assertions, which frankly seem like mere speculation rather than anything based in evidence.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM d_yankee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by AdminNosy, posted 12-01-2004 9:12 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 217 of 245 (164513)
12-01-2004 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 8:27 PM


Re: Froggy
most likely ice...you can even see ice surrounding other planets in our solar system as well
What planets are surrounded by a shell of ice?
The frozen neanderthals(humans)
What frozen Neanderthals?
A male and female, obviously young if they were to replenish the earth, of every "KIND" of animal, not species
What is a kind?
As others have pointed out your entire post is full of assertions without any backing evidence. Bad form.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 218 of 245 (164516)
12-01-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by pink sasquatch
12-01-2004 9:01 PM


T o p i c !..
Not in this thread.
You can take the definition of kinds to another thread.
Maybe
Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-01-2004 9:01 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-01-2004 9:37 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 219 of 245 (164525)
12-01-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by AdminNosy
12-01-2004 9:12 PM


Re: T o p i c !..
You can take the definition of kinds to another thread.
Did you read my post? The point is that we can't teach undefinable terms as science (hence the challenge to actually define "kind").
In any case, it is more directly on topic, in my opinion, then the discussion of what percentage of scientists are atheists, or whether the Bible states the Earth is flat or not...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AdminNosy, posted 12-01-2004 9:12 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by AdminNosy, posted 12-01-2004 9:49 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 220 of 245 (164532)
12-01-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by pink sasquatch
12-01-2004 9:37 PM


Re: T o p i c !..
Sorry that post should have been general. I'm in too much of a habit of LLRBing.
Creation does need to be taught with evolution was the topic. The kinds definition is not well focussed on that topic.
The kinds issue should allow for enough focus to keep it in a different thread. If someone wants to start one that would be good too.
Let's just see if "kinds" can be defined, perhaps, using the thread I found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-01-2004 9:37 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 221 of 245 (164773)
12-02-2004 10:46 PM


A reason to discuss creationism
While going back through these posts I thought about another reason why it might be worth discussing ID concepts along with the ToE (I apologize if this has been said before and I missed it). This is to address the excellent point of Tim Berra (Evolution and the Myth of Creationism) as well as other people involved in science education who have mentioned that by ignoring creationism completely we feed the myth that evolution can only stand in a vacuum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2004 12:48 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 222 of 245 (164812)
12-03-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Lithodid-Man
12-02-2004 10:46 PM


Full circle
I think that brings us back to something I may have posted here in the first page or so.
I'd love to see creationism treated in science class. There would, of course, be a huge roar of outrage from those asking for it since it would be held up to the same examination based on evidence as the other topics.
A few days would rip it to shreds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-02-2004 10:46 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-03-2004 3:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 223 of 245 (164932)
12-03-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 8:27 PM


Re: Froggy
Wow!
I am really impressed with the amount of research that you must have undertaken to come up with all of these "facts". I haven't managed to find any of them during my studies.
On a more serious note, are you suggesting these these "facts" be taught in school?
d_Yankee writes:
Remember, if the temperature is above a certain degrees or below a certain degrees...a prizm can not be seen. Explaining why there was no rainbow before the flood.
The diffraction properties of light don't care what the temperature of the media through which it is passing is at. I routinely use light refraction properties every day to measure elements in samples. It happens under a pretty much complete vacuum where temperature is meaningless. The source of the light is at several thousand degrees.
A rainbow is made by sunlight striking raindrops. See here for a nice explanation of it.
All it takes to make a rainbow is the boundary layer between air and liquid water. Sure there are temperatures and pressures at which water is not liquid but those conditions are not very conducive to human life in general. Check THIS site out for a nice phase diagram showing quite clearly that at normal atmospheric pressure, rainbows will exist up to a boiling point at around 375 Kelvins. Way hotter than you could survive at to see it.
At the other end of the scale, it would have to be ice.
If my children were to be taught this garbage in US schools then I would be heading back to England on the next plane.
d_yankee writes:
The Bible states that before the flood the earth had a water canopy surrounding the earth, most likely ice...you can even see ice surrounding other planets in our solar system as well.
Where the heck do you get this crap from?
The bible certainly doesn't suggest a huge barrier of ice floating in the sky in defience of gravity.
I suppose it would explain the lack of rainbows though as these actually require sunlight.
As for the other planets with ice on them, I see no such thing and neither have the probes that we have sent to look for water on these other planets.
If this is the kind of total rubbish that the ID lobby want to get into our school system then I very strongly vote NO!.
However I strongly doubt that anyone who has even the slightest inkling of the way science works (IDs included) would even suggest such an utterly preposterous idea.
PY
PS Thanks for giving me such a good laugh. I could barely manage to pick myself up from the floor to read the next line after each of your "facts".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 224 of 245 (164934)
12-03-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by NosyNed
12-03-2004 12:48 AM


Re: Full circle
I would like to see it too.
I would really like to be there to see the laughter it would generate.
It would be better than Faulty Towers!
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2004 12:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 1975 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 225 of 245 (166755)
12-09-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 8:27 PM


Reply
I'm wondering if d-yankee could give some references for the folowing statement?:
d_yankee writes:
The frozen neanderthals(humans)...
As for this one:
d_yankee writes:
mammoths....were humungously larger as well.
"Humungously" larger?
Not really. The Imperial mammoth could reach approxiamtely 14 feet at the shoulder while the African elephant of today can attain approximately 13 feet at the shoulder.
Not what I would call a "humungous" difference in size.
d_yankee writes:
Explaining why dinosaurs, or (dragons) as they were called before 1838, were so big and had such small snouts.
What exactly do you mean by "small snouts"??? A "snout" is usually defined as a long projecting or anterior elongation of an animal's head; especially the nose.
Did you mean nostrils?
T. rex had an enormous olfactory organ for example, as did many of the hadrosaurids.
d_yankee writes:
Also explaining why humans, who were much bigger in that time, can live an average of 912 years, the Bible explains.
And where can we see fossils, artifacts and habitations of such 'giants'? Or is the evidence confined to your interpretation of Biblical scripture?
d_yankee writes:
Remember, if the temperature is above a certain degrees or below a certain degrees...a prizm can not be seen. Explaining why there was no rainbow before the flood.
Do you mean a quartz prism, or some other sort of mineralised formation?
Are you not actually referring to refraction?
Refraction is affected by atmospheric density, temperature & humidity,
but I doubt that conditions would exist over an entire planet that would prevent the formation of a rainbow everywhere.
In any case, I am puzzled as to your 'Biblical source' for this comment or its applicability to the argument at hand?
d_yankee writes:
Most likely a comet broke through the canopy of ice or liquid water...
And beneath this layer of water/cloud/ice, we are to believe that photosynthesizing plants, plankton and entire ecosystems dependent on them flourished?
d_yankee writes:
and hit the earth causing what we see as a seeming meteor hit the earth...but where is it? It was a comet most likely and played a part in some ice age effect...frozen mammoths, neanderthals,...etc.
There is a great deal of surmise and wishful thinking in this statement.
The fact that it inherently ignores basic physics, geology, palaeontology, climatology, cosmology, ecology and biology should be more than a clue to most people as to its efficacy even as poor
Christian apologetics.
d_yankee writes:
The fossils show that there are trees that are standing upright and through "supposedly" different ages of rocks. LOL.
Sudden deposition isn't the problem you seem to think it is.

In modern geology, it is a well established fact that single, local floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick.
In addition, trees buried in these sediments don't suddenly die and decay immediately and can remain there for years or even decades.
This was conclusively proved well over a hundred years ago by John William Dawson (c.1868) described upright giant lycopod trees at Joggins, Nova Scotia; of a few metres in height, preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones and dated to the Carboniferous era. These trees had extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrated into the underlying sediment, which were 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. Moreover, such polystrate fossils were formed at different periods of geological time - not at any one point (i.e. - various examples don't even share common strata) therefore creationists can't even point to a correlation in time to support their "single event flood" hypothesis.
d_yankee writes:
...It's obvious that they were buried by the mud and the shifting of the plates. Genesis states "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and 'Burst' open..."
Plates? Does this mean you agree with modern geology on plate tectonics and therefore continental drift?
d_yankee writes:
Finally, you said "Species"... God never told him species....He said "KINDS"...
Then define what a "kind" is please? This would make it easier to understand your argument.
Are all Insects of a 'kind' then?
Is a racoon a dog, bear or weasel "kind"?
How about a marsupial mouse, mole or possum? What 'kind' are they?
d_yankee writes:
A male and female, obviously young if they were to replenish the earth, of every "KIND" of animal, not species.
What is the creationist criteria for defining a 'kind'?
d_yankee writes:
God did not tell him the sea creatures...or fish...so minus that.
What happened to all the fresh-water fish then? Did they have some magical adaptation to protect them from the high saline levels generated by the flood?
d_yankee writes:
There are many different variations of dogs, wolves, but they are all dogs.
There are zebras, donkeys...but they are all horses.
Microevolution is obvious, macroevolution is obviously NOT.
So you believe in "microevolution"?
Why is macroevolution not possible in your opinion?
I'd be inteersted in your response.
Cheers & God bless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM d_yankee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2004 10:43 PM MiguelG has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024