If we are all descended from Noah ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: By sophistry I suppose you mean literally subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation? What I wrote is what the Bible reports.

---

You still don't get it. The net result is that you get to pick and choose whatever you want from the OT and from much of the NT.

quote:

---

What was added is what was replaced.

---

But you've argued that there is no longer any need to worship on the Sabbath, Christians choosing Sunday instead. Did the Pharisees add that commandment to the other nine?

quote:

---

WS: You might learn something.

---

Yes, I might. I wish only that I could say the same for you.

quote:

---

My guess is you have no idea what part the Pharisee sect had on facilitating the need to end the old covenant, having perverted it beyond possibility of recovery. They were the lawyers of that day, having assumed the role of enforcers of the religion, which had been so altered as to make the whole thing a great burden.

---

Yes I know. This is the part that is interesting to me. I'll try to start that topic today.

quote:

---

In order to discuss the topic you will need to first understand what God commanded, then compare that to what the Jewish community leaders were teaching and enforcing. It's a two semester course in most Bible colleges, and that only introduces the topic.

---

I love the condescension of christians.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
http://EvC Forum: People, let's show some restraint -->EvC Forum: People, let's show some restraint

​

Your method of using quotes is very hard to follow, Wordswordman.

​

Mark

​

---

This is one reason why I stopped talking with him, and of course he's nuts, IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Burial was Wednesday about sunset, the same time Thursday began.

---

Maybe you should read this: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: If you are referring to your strawman argument (".. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?"), then you are appearing desperate to wiggle out of the topic.

---

Not a strawman. A strawman would be a misrepresentation of your position. I posited an analogous position. It is valid.

quote:

---

WS: Since evolutionists often claim most people believe in evolution

---

I don't care. What most people believe often has little to do with what is supportable.

quote:

---

Listening to you one would have to conclude polls are useless since the results include input from non professionals.

---

I don't have much confidence in polls for that very reason. Polls can only give a vague idea of public opinion. But public opinion has little to do with what can be substantiated. As for statistical validity, in a country of 250+ million, a few thousand or even hundred thousand replies is statistically very unstable. You've covered many of the problems with surveys so I don't think I need to elaborate.

quote:

---

I think you take such argument much too far, requiring only reliance on actual empirical data.

---

Well damn me for wanting that.

quote:

---

In doing that, I think you selected a poll that went out of the way to misrepresent what is really going on.

---

I selected a poll?

quote:

---

Your appeal to authority was one that is deliberately false

---

I appealed to authority? To which authority was that?

quote:

---

You see, usually, a faulty argument can qualify for several different informal logical fallacies.

​

WS: I think you do a spendid job demonstrating that.

---

Really, this is just as bad as nos482's inane clothes pin jokes.

quote:

---

WS: Nope. It was an EXAMPLE of how people can benefit from the numerical analysis of situations, helping them avoid calamity.

---

The same fallacy again.

quote:

---

WS: Your appeal to a few pet anomalies doesn't support your premise.

---

And your avoiding the issue doesn't help your case.

quote:

---

For instance, the vast majority of Americans believe their liberty is precious and worth expenditure of vast sums of revenue to protect. Who can prove that liberty is the best lifestyle or not?

---

No one.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter, for most believe it enough to offer up their sons to preserve. For all practical purposes that makes the ideal true.

---

You are confusing cultural ideals with science. This is misdirection.

quote:

---

The fact is that people here are beginning to reconsider the validity of creation, whether it is proven true or not, believing the case for evolution is not settled enough to eliminate another perspective.

---

Argumentum ad populum. Try asking the scientists who study the phenomenon.

quote:

---

WS: The same rules apply to you, making your argument fallacy.

---

Wanna be more specific?

quote:

---

Evolutionists claim often their own have done a fine job, being in control of education, with academia overwhelmingly pro-evolution.

---

Evolutionists are not in control of education. Education is controlled by politicians ultimately, and they mostly profess Christianity.

quote:

---

What I have seen lately is a total rejection of any science opinion purely on the basis of its origination from a creation scientist, not upon its merits.

---

This is not fair, I agree. However, creationists have historically so mutilated data and theory that I understand this emotional knee-jerk reaction.

quote:

---

WS: A local highschool has distributed "Icons of Evolution" which is supplimental reading for HS biology. The ten questions are considered.

---

This paragraph completely dodged to challenge.And the arguments contained about the fossil record have been addressed countless times.

quote:

---

WS: Creationists have been trying to get evolutionists to tackle the issue of origin of life, but they insist on just picking up on only what became of the initial life form(s).

---

There is a group of scientists working on the problem. That evolutionary scientists do not want to deal with it is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Now evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the astrophysical side of the issue.

---

Creationism covers the origins of life and of the universe itself. You seem to have this idea that evolution is the same. It isn't. Wanna talk astrophysics, talk to an astrophysicists.I happen to be interested in a broad spectrum of things, but that's just me. Evolutionary scientists have chosen their fields. You cannot demand that they work in the fields you choose.

quote:

---

There are contributors to modern textbooks that are challenging the notion of evolutionary development of species without mention of religion, taking the position of stasis subject to deterioration through extinction and reduced gene pool information.

---

The implication being creation. Sneaky but still religious.

quote:

---

WS: I'm not finding any reference to textbooks that bring in the Genesis account. Where does that happen? Provide proof, please.

---

I never said that the Genesis account appears in textbooks. What I have been saying is that creationism is a religious explaination, not a scientific one.Science is an attempt to explain the world using observable data and reason. Creationism is an attempt to justify a religious conception of the origins of the world.

quote:

---

Have you not read some of the creation science webpages reporting opinions of 'creation' scientists whose articles are not based on the Bible, but upon science methods as valid as what is used by evolutionists?

---

I have seen many claims. And never have I seen good science.

quote:

---

WS:There are some compelling arguments out there that cast a dark shadow on evolution, coming from respected scientists.

---

Support this.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Really, this is just as bad as nos482's inane clothes pin jokes. Maybe, but look at whom they are directed at. Anyother reply is a waste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Maybe, but look at whom they are directed at. Anyother reply is a waste.

---

hmmm... I don't think you were around for Jet or for allen. Wordswordsman is a quite coherent in comparison. He's made a few good points, in particular, the one about Jesus breaking not the commandment to keep the Sabbath but the legalistic addition to that commandment.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-22-2002]

Originally posted by John:hmmm... I don't think you were around for Jet or for allen. Wordswordsman is a quite coherent in comparison. He's made a few good points, in particular, the one about Jesus breaking not the commandment to keep the Sabbath but the legalistic addition to that commandment.

​

If they were worse than you have a sympathies.

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Burial was Wednesday about sunset, the same time Thursday began.

quote:

---

Maybe you should read this:

​

Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

---

WS: I'm working on the format, not realizing someone was fixing the posts. Sorry for the troubles.I had aleady read that site and found their Wednesday crucifixion scenario to match up with other sources. Jesus could certainly have not been buried until Wednesday sunset, and he could have resurrected at sunset Saturday, the end of the sabbath, being available Sunday morning for Mary to encounter, leaving no partial night to deal with. Like the Blue Letter site says, it isn't stated, but there is no room for critics to say the days and nights don't add up. The tradition of accepting Friday as the crucifixion day is not a reflection of what the Bible reports, the error being in the chosen day if there is error, not in the Bible.Notice they leave out the fact that Joseph asked for and obtained the body of Jesus late afternoon towards evening or after dark, being Thursday night anytime after sunset. Joseph first asked at even, then Pilate had the body delivered. That had to take some time. He was evidently buried Thursday night, not Wednesday afternoon. I get that from the Greek for "even" in Mt. 27:57, from Gr. opsios; late; feminine (as noun) afternoon (early eve) or nightfall (later eve) :- even (-ing, [-tide]).Another point not considered was that Joseph had rolled a stone across the tomb that evening, leaving the two Marys on 'guard', part of their proper grieving. The next day the Jews got Pilate to set a Roman guard there which sealed the stone, so Mary's subsequent visits would have been prevented, unable to get past the stone. Besides, the burial was hasty and it wasn't reasonable for Mary to have the oils on hand for anointing the body so soon, and there was the problem of the next day being an automatic sabbath following the Passover. She might have obtained the oils quickly, but couldn't have used them until finding the guard gone. So the normal non sabbath day of Friday would not have been useful for her, being also prohibited from travelling or working on both Thursday and Saturday, leaving only Sunday as the first possible day she could maybe gain entrance, knowing eventually the guard would leave. Had she not been able to gain entrance by then the law would have prevented her touching the corruption of the 4th day. Jesus avoided that, saving Mary the daunting task of dealing with a body that would soon stink. Upon her arrival she found Jesus already out of the grave.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: If you are referring to your strawman argument (".. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?"), then you are appearing desperate to wiggle out of the topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Not a strawman. A strawman would be a misrepresentation of your position. I posited an analogous position. It is valid.WS: Certainly a strawman. The analogy was rediculous. Since nobody would consider polling a crowd or any other group to decide whether to take an injured child to a hospital, the scenario doesn't fit as an example. There are, however, valid reasons for people to poll opinions, but not for life or death decisions like that. By using that scenario you misrepresent my case as badly as can be.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Since evolutionists often claim most people believe in evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't care. What most people believe often has little to do with what is supportable.WS: But you do care, since your team brought in a doubtful poll (Mammuthus' lead) to counter the ones I quoted. You are making a case here in this post for us to accept from you that significant numbers of people who believe in evolution has little to do with what is supportable. That fits my belief, that many people say they believe in it, but probably couldn't explain why. (often) their belief is unsupportable.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Listening to you one would have to conclude polls are useless since the results include input from non professionals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't have much confidence in polls for that very reason. Polls can only give a vague idea of public opinion. But public opinion has little to do with what can be substantiated. As for statistical validity, in a country of 250+ million, a few thousand or even hundred thousand replies is statistically very unstable. You've covered many of the problems with surveys so I don't think I need to elaborate.WS: Statisticians have proven your assumption wrong about samples. As long as the samples are random, a few thousand do represent the 250 millions. Political races are based on polls, and the predictions were very close to reality in the last presidential race.
If the result is a "vague idea", the fault would be from vague questions getting vague answers. If the polls were so unstable there would not be a market for that industry. Many people have a well placed trust in the polls, especially marketing agents.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: In doing that, I think you selected a poll that went out of the way to misrepresent what is really going on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I selected a poll?WS: Your team-mate Mammuthus cited in #75 a poll result from pfaw.org, whose assertions are incorrect. It appears to me you two are working together and in agreement. If so, you are misrepresenting by association.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your appeal to authority was one that is deliberately false
----------------------------------------------------------------------I appealed to authority? To which authority was that?WS: I am not addressing individuals here, but the group that is opposite my platform. Ever been on a debate team? It is team against team, with mine a team of one, apparently. Or, are we not debating here? What do you call this exercise?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter, for most believe it enough to offer up their sons to preserve. For all practical purposes that makes the ideal true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are confusing cultural ideals with science. This is misdirection.WS: Wouldn't you be already guilty of that, confusing first aid for an injured child with use of a pollster to find out how many people believe creation science should be taught alongside evolution?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that people here are beginning to reconsider the validity of creation, whether it is proven true or not, believing the case for evolution is not settled enough to eliminate another perspective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Argumentum ad populum. Try asking the scientists who study the phenomenon.WS: What the scientists have to say about it is remote from what the public wants to believe. The polls demonstrate there is a gulf of incredulity between them. You see, I already know and could predict what those scientists say. It takes a poll to determine what the public is thinking.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Evolutionists claim often their own have done a fine job, being in control of education, with academia overwhelmingly pro-evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Evolutionists are not in control of education. Education is controlled by politicians ultimately, and they mostly profess Christianity.WS: Almost all public school and college textbooks in the sciences are overwhelmingly written by multiple contributing authors from the evolutionist pool, with probably not one article from a known creationist, until very recently.An example of what I'm referring to is this from the Nat. Assoc of Biology Teachers, Not Found"Courts have thus restricted school districts from requiring creation science in the science curriculum and have restricted individual instructors from teaching it. All teachers and administrators should be mindful of these court cases, remembering that the law, science and NABT support them as they appropriately include the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum."That and virtually all the other major associations that influence public school teachers are undeniably pro-evolution, anti creation-science. School administrators also heel to national associations that do the same, while some maybe do profess Christianity. The politicians mostly get the funding for education.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the astrophysical side of the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Creationism covers the origins of life and of the universe itself. You seem to have this idea that evolution is the same. It isn't. Wanna talk astrophysics, talk to an astrophysicists.WS: The Big Bang and Cosmology topic next door is typical of many other forums where evolutionists argue evolution is supported astrophysically.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are contributors to modern textbooks that are challenging the notion of evolutionary development of species without mention of religion, taking the position of stasis subject to deterioration through extinction and reduced gene pool information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The implication being creation. Sneaky but still religious.WS: I heard our state has allowed some school districts to use some new textbooks on that theme. I need to visit around and try to get a title. There is a political action group in Arkansas that has been pushing for a supply of suitable textbooks that could be inserted into the curriculum, bypassing the earlier attempt to legislate for required balanced treatment. It has cleared the courts, is now a matter of money, so they send out requests for support from time to time. I've seen their newsletters in the teacher's lounge over the years.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I'm not finding any reference to textbooks that bring in the Genesis account. Where does that happen? Provide proof, please.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I never said that the Genesis account appears in textbooks. What I have been saying is that creationism is a religious explaination, not a scientific one.Science is an attempt to explain the world using observable data and reason. Creationism is an attempt to justify a religious conception of the origins of the world.WS: Are you trying to state there is no "creation science" entity that is addressing science matters without reference to the Bible? I believe that is incorrect, and will search for some websites that report there are some "creation" science orgs that don't rely on the Bible, I think because that causes them problems. I know I've visited some websites that have many technical articles and not a hint of religion. If it were true that all or even most "creation science" orgs ignore science data and actual observation, relying on the Bible alone, they would have dried up many years ago, and there would be no debate. Seems to me the Dr. Dino site is close to what I'm taking about. I can't remember the names, but there is a guy that has a complete book on the creation science subject without a mention of the Bible or religion at all. It'll take a little time to search.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you not read some of the creation science webpages reporting opinions of 'creation' scientists whose articles are not based on the Bible, but upon science methods as valid as what is used by evolutionists?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I have seen many claims. And never have I seen good science.WS: So am I to assume you are a scientist qualified to judge the works put out by those "creation" scientists? Or do you go by what the websites say about them? Is your opinion first or second hand?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS:There are some compelling arguments out there that cast a dark shadow on evolution, coming from respected scientists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Support this.WS: I'm trying to visit and do some catching up reading in the neighboring topics, where some people are bringing that up quite well. The support is already available there. I've been slowed down checking out the many URLs they provide. There are MANY sound arguments 'out there', and I don't believe you are ignorant of them.I don't plan on getting too deep into the science side of this, even though I taught it from 1982-1999. My current primary interest is in Bible apologetics, countering claims the Bible is faulty in an apparent effort to discredit creation science at its supposed root. If these topics dry up, as I think "A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible" must due to the sponsor's refusal to meet my very fair challenge, I'll find time to dip into the science matters. I know what the evolution story is about, being formerly required to teach it, needing to catch up on what has been added/changed in the past 4 years. If I were to return to teaching it would be in a private school anyway, requiring considerable study of creation science, so I am at a crossroad with this. But for now I am enjoying a good living and peace of mind, neither possible for teachers in Arkansas public schools, taking a well deserved rest from an almost complete absense of order in the school classroom, extreme lack of support from Admin, and a new breed of spoiled parents mixed with apathetic people with offspring who just call themselves parents.I'm not purposely avoiding scintific discussion, just concentrating on what I consider far more important for now. I'll rest my case on the arguments put up by lots of convincing creationists on the forums, until I catch up.

quote:

---

WS: Certainly a strawman. The analogy was rediculous.

---

It is a very simple mater of deciding who to ask for information. Do you ask people who have been trained and work in the field? Or do you ask people who don't? Why is this so hard to understand?

quote:

---

WS: But you do care, since your team brought in a doubtful poll (Mammuthus' lead) to counter the ones I quoted.

---

uh.... I don't have a team.

quote:

---

You are making a case here in this post for us to accept from you that significant numbers of people who believe in evolution has little to do with what is supportable. That fits my belief, that many people say they believe in it, but probably couldn't explain why. (often) their belief is unsupportable.

---

And the point is? It also doesn't matter if significant numbers of people who believe in evolution cannot explain why they believe. What matters is that the belief is supportable, if one is knowledgable in the field.

quote:

---

WS: Statisticians have proven your assumption wrong about samples.

---

Ok. I'll drop this.

quote:

---

WS: Your team-mate Mammuthus cited in #75 a poll result from pfaw.org, whose assertions are incorrect.

---

I don't have a team-mate.

quote:

---

WS: I am not addressing individuals here, but the group that is opposite my platform. Ever been on a debate team? It is team against team, with mine a team of one, apparently. Or, are we not debating here? What do you call this exercise?

---

This is not a debate team. This is a debate forum.

quote:

---

WS: Wouldn't you be already guilty of that, confusing first aid for an injured child with use of a pollster to find out how many people believe creation science should be taught alongside evolution?

---

I don't care how many people believe creation should be taught along-side of evolution. If it cannot be supported by evidence it is not science. You are still confusing the issue. Or you have the belief that schools should teach whatever the general public wants, true or not. I hadn't thought of that. Is this your position?

quote:

---

WS: What the scientists have to say about it is remote from what the public wants to believe. The polls demonstrate there is a gulf of incredulity between them. You see, I already know and could predict what those scientists say. It takes a poll to determine what the public is thinking.

---

You are arguing that the schools should teach whatever the public wants, true or not. This is getting scary.

quote:

---

WS: Almost all public school and college textbooks in the sciences are overwhelmingly written by multiple contributing authors from the evolutionist pool, with probably not one article from a known creationist, until very recently.

---

Avoiding the issue. Evolutionists do not control education.

quote:

---

WS: The Big Bang and Cosmology topic next door is typical of many other forums where evolutionists argue evolution is supported astrophysically.

---

The time frame required by evolution is supported by astrophysical data. That doesn't change the fact that scientists specialize adn have a right to stick to thier specialty.

quote:

---

I've seen their newsletters in the teacher's lounge over the years.

---

Yikes.... you're a teacher!!!!

quote:

---

WS: Are you trying to state there is no "creation science" entity that is addressing science matters without reference to the Bible?

---

No. I am saying that there are no "creation science" entities addressing science matters with science.

quote:

---

WS: So am I to assume you are a scientist qualified to judge the works put out by those "creation" scientists? Or do you go by what the websites say about them? Is your opinion first or second hand?

---

ah..... that old stand-by ad hominem. It doesn't matter that I am no professional scientist. I have spent many many years digging and thinking. My opinions are my own, and I can support them or I'll retract.

quote:

---

WS: I'm trying to visit and do some catching up reading in the neighboring topics, where some people are bringing that up quite well.

---

Then your case is very bad indeed.

quote:

---

If these topics dry up, as I think "A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible" must due to the sponsor's refusal to meet my very fair challenge, I'll find time to dip into the science matters.

---

Do you mean the challenge to nos482? Yes, I'd like to see that challenge taken up.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well, if the biblical errors thread is all that's keeping you from addressing the science of evolution beyond the occasional "it ain't so" comment, I too hope it dies a quick and merciful death so we can get back to the point of the e/c debate.I would be absolutely tickled to death to discuss the relative scientific merits of your creationist position vs mainstream science whenever you feel up to presenting specific arguments. I personally find the biblical apologetics unutterably boring, but I know many people enjoy them (John being a notable example).Consider this an invitation whenever you get around to it...

Originally posted by John:It is a very simple mater of deciding who to ask for information. Do you ask people who have been trained and work in the field? Or do you ask people who don't? Why is this so hard to understand?Because to do this would show him up for what he is.I don't care how many people believe creation should be taught along-side of evolution. If it cannot be supported by evidence it is not science.It is because he doesn't actually know what science is and how it functions in the real world.You are arguing that the schools should teach whatever the public wants, true or not. This is getting scary.I agree. It's like teaching Astrology and Alchemy as alternatives to Astronomy and Chemistry because they are popular with the general public. Neither Astrology or Alchemy are vaild sciences, just like crstionism isn't.Avoiding the issue. Evolutionists do not control education.I agree.Yikes.... you're a teacher!!!!Or he could just be the janitor who cleans the room? That would explain the smell. No. I am saying that there are no "creation science" entities addressing science matters with science.Exactly.Do you mean the challenge to nos482? Yes, I'd like to see that challenge taken up.I already have. As I've stated these errors and contradictions stand because the vast majority of Christians aren't bible scholars with access to the so-called "original" scrolls and manuscipes in the "Original" Hebrew. All they know is what is told to them out of the current bibles in English. They know nothing of translations and the like. What is in bibles, such as the KJV, is what has been taught to them as being literal and inerrant for many centuries now. The "original" scrolls and manuscripts are irrelevant in this context.If the bibles were actually the inspired word of their god than there wouldn't have been any translation errors and the like. An all-knowning god would take into account the differing languages as well. What good is the so-called "Good News" if it is so easily distorted? Because there are so many errors, and the like, in the bible proves that it is in fact not the inspired word at all.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-23-2002]

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Certainly a strawman. The analogy was rediculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------It is a very simple mater of deciding who to ask for information. Do you ask people who have been trained and work in the field? Or do you ask people who don't? Why is this so hard to understand?WS: Here is the fallacy of your analogy, which I interpret to be a strawman argument, because you chose an unrelated example that is used to attack the real issue. I am proposing simply that the polls are useful to determine what people are thinking, not necessarily what is true or untrue about what is though about. If they think evolution is too weak to exclude creation science, then that is a reality evolutionists will have to deal with. It is evident a growing slight majority of Americans are favoring equal treatment, and that those more concerned about the issue are now becoming more involved in changing the situation in public classrooms. Because the samples are randomly generated within a statistically sound model of analysis, it can be postulated there is perceived truth in creation science itself, as much so if anyone postulates there is perceived truth in evolution believed by nearly half of the population.
Truth concerning nature is obviously a multiple entity with at least two versions in the minds of people, a false dualism at least. Its is very real, regardless of its source. People may correctly decide scientists are biased in their beliefs about empirical data, whether they do so or not, since it is known some do make mistakes in observations and conclusions about faulty as well as proper observations- nobody is perfect. Slight bias because of basic underlying beliefs can easily corrupt future use of science methods, if not just the analysis of data and asumptions made around the data. No rational person would step out saying the data itself is faulty if it passes statistical analysis standards, but it is fair to assume no human is always correctly interpreting the data. It may be that most people believe both creationists and evolutionists are misinterpreting the data. So what value is there in taking only the opinion of the scientists. It appears to me it is their responsibility to adequately present evolution in a way that suspicion of misinterpretation is not probable.Your scenario makes taking the advice of the professionals equal to a life or death choice, using an example of an injury to a child where there is no reasonable alternative but to seek medical help. There is no logical set of choices, the only alternative being criminal neglect. It is not criminal neglect for anyone to be an anti-evolutionist, nor is any life endangered, except maybe the ending of many academic careers devoted to evolution.Your case is a classic stawman argument.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: You are making a case here in this post for us to accept from you that significant numbers of people who believe in evolution has little to do with what is supportable. That fits my belief, that many people say they believe in it, but probably couldn't explain why. (often) their belief is unsupportable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------And the point is? It also doesn't matter if significant numbers of people who believe in evolution cannot explain why they believe. What matters is that the belief is supportable, if one is knowledgable in the field.WS: The point is you expect standards to apply to others but not yourself. It does matter what a majority of people believe, which preceeds legislation or becomes part of a culture. Most nations are full of people influenced by religion to the point they sometimes accept malnutrition in their children and shortened lifespans for all. They can't support their lifestyle scientifically, not explaining logically why they pour their milk over a stone elephant while babies are deprived of its nourishment.You believe evolution is supportable scientifically to the exclusion of anything creation scientists come up with? There is a large argument in that, especially if they omit religion from their claims, and those claims are generated by actual scientists whose works are published in peer reviewed journals. If they are found to be consistent practicioners of the science methods with approval of their peers in day to day science articles, what logic lies in the automatic rejection of opinions when science-based opinion is linked up with religion in a manner that just shows agreement between their professional opinion and what the Bible says? It appears to me valid science fact is disregarded if it agrees with the Bible. If that is acceptable, then western civilization should reject any laws on the books that agree with the Bible laws on the basis of the existence of agreement, not considering the merits of the laws in place. I think you agreed that practice is unfair, but retracted a little by commenting on the poor science generated by creationists. I agree, there are some creationist websites that offer up a lot of speculation. But I disagree that there is no valid creation science contribution.As to supportability of a belief, certainly almost any belief can be supported scientifically if enough effort is expended, though it should be admitted there are avenues of research that are ignored because certain paths could support competing perspectives. It's like the mode of medical research which plows vast fortunes into development of medicines that can be patented, ignoring the possibility there are natural foods and supplements that would work as well, which are prevalent and can't be patented, like vegetables and fruits from the backyard.Note that within narrow science fields like paleontology, biological systematics professionals are at odds with that crowd, and some paleontologists don't agree with each other. It is absurd to continue believing the opinions of those professionals are equal to the validity of their empirical data or amount to absolute truth to the exclusion of third or fourth perspectives, such as creation science opinions. If what they regard as immutable fact were just that, there would be no rift among those professionals. The reason there is disparity of beliefs is those beliefs are just that- beliefs-based on other beliefs, based on interpretations of data. The arguments are obviously over interpretations and conclusions, not the data. Faulty data is easily discovered and deleted, while the opinions born of such data can last beyond reason.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Wouldn't you be already guilty of that, confusing first aid for an injured child with use of a pollster to find out how many people believe creation science should be taught alongside evolution?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't care how many people believe creation should be taught along-side of evolution. If it cannot be supported by evidence it is not science. You are still confusing the issue. Or you have the belief that schools should teach whatever the general public wants, true or not. I hadn't thought of that. Is this your position?WS: That is a fatal flaw if you are serious about defending evolution-only teaching in classrooms. Public opinion could easily arise to totally exclude evolution, regardless its truths. Creation science NEEDS evolution around as a whipping boy. It should be evident there are many people, including a growing list of actual scientists, who believe there is scientific evidence for at least an anti-evolution position. If enough of the scientists say there is science truth in "creation science", then there probably is some science truth in it, else one must begin to believe that only scientists who believe in evolution are true scientists, even tough some are neutral. But I have read articles from respected scientists that doubt evolution, yet they refuse to speculate on alternative explanations of origin of species. That stance gets them published in the journals, as long as they don't make the religion connection.I do think it is culturally necessary to teach students about what is going on around them. I've been required to cover evolution in the classroom, and I saw to it my students learned what they were required to learn. I was quite timid about injecting doubt by introducing creation science opinions directly to students in the classroom, which wouldn't be the case should I return to teaching science. What I can say with confidence is that probably none of those students are prepared to deal with creationist theory, having only learned a little about evolution, easily thwarted by arguments that obviously engender great doubt and confusion for the holder of evolution-only knowledge. "Out there" the actual useful education about this issue begins if they pursue it. Most don't, chosing to allow that knowledge to vaporize as much as possible. It really doesn't matter how intensely the subject is presented in the classroom. If the students fail to find a good use for it, they lose it.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: What the scientists have to say about it is remote from what the public wants to believe. The polls demonstrate there is a gulf of incredulity between them. You see, I already know and could predict what those scientists say. It takes a poll to determine what the public is thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are arguing that the schools should teach whatever the public wants, true or not. This is getting scary.WS: I don't think you can rightly say I'm proposing that exclusive to other reasons for equal treatment. See above. Since this is a hotly debated subject, it should be plain as the nose on your face that students need to know both sides of the issue at least until one side or the other no longer exists. The current practice would be about equal to only presenting students with Amarican history with no mention of world history; only fiction novels to the exclusion of biographies in English-Lit. One reason equal treatment must be resisted is that evolutionists fear the students will relate to and believe that which they oppose. You can't say the public should completely trust the message of the one side, in view of frauds on the public such as Piltdown Man. I realize it was the scientific community that self-corrected that, but not until after people were deluded for 40 years (? +/-), and the lie remained in textbooks for years after the exposure, indelibly stamping minds with deliberate promotion of untruth. Those so affected won't be able to study it out enough to reverse the beliefs they formed, being beyond their active education phase of life. But that one event was, I believe, pivotal towards a concerted effort to raise up a growing body of anti-evolutionists. The logical solution is to arm students with all the facts and teach them process thinking rather than just memorizing facts. I think such students would be stronger academically, brought through a learning spiral that emphasizes constructive analysis of competing perspectives, including any challenge to standardized science curriculum.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Almost all public school and college textbooks in the sciences are overwhelmingly written by multiple contributing authors from the evolutionist pool, with probably not one article from a known creationist, until very recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Avoiding the issue. Evolutionists do not control education.WS: Not avoiding. People like me abdicated for valid reasons, leaving evolutionists in place over the past several decades. I was the last openly Christian science teacher in our school, and the only science teacher to openly discuss any belief in creation science among other teachers. Now that the courts are lining up to allow INCLUSION of voluntary teaching of creation science, it seems much more enticing, but other problems like salary are far from fixed.Teacher's unions and associations affect education far more than any other force besides funding. Union members are heavily involved in political races for the school board, sometimes unfairly influencing voters to support their candidate, and they influence education oficials through near terrorism with threats of lawsuits and defamation, virtual blackmail, and dirty politics. ALL major national and most state public school organizations are pro evolution, raising a furious objection to allowance of teaching of creation science in any form, at any level. Those that favor equal treatment or press for elimination of evolution, are too weak in numbers and finances to have an impact compared to the large ones.I believe the only reason I wasn't badgered over what I might be doing in the classroom, assuming things because they knew I was a Christian, was physical. I stay in shape and am athletic. Nobody there, including coaches, would bother me, but they persecuted other people who dared to admit they didn't like to believe evolution. It is just simply anathema to members of the teachers' unions, being completely opposite to what they promote. I engaged in some heated arguments in which people teamed up aainst me, but were unable to carry through with scientific support, relying on institutional directives. They find safety in their numbers and decrees, not in their understanding.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The Big Bang and Cosmology topic next door is typical of many other forums where evolutionists argue evolution is supported astrophysically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The time frame required by evolution is supported by astrophysical data. That doesn't change the fact that scientists specialize adn have a right to stick to thier specialty.WS: I'm glad to see you correct yourself. Sure they have that right, but I think they err in doing so if they are to be of assistance in supporting evolution against the rising tide of science opinion to the contrary. Many critics of evolution draw from many fields to make powerful arguments. I would point out that of the scientists that stick to their specialty, few are able to contend with scientists knowledgeable in multiple fields, accounting for the recent decade of serious debate losses by the best that evolutionists had to pit against creationists.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen their newsletters in the teacher's lounge over the years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yikes.... you're a teacher!!!!WS: Don't panic. I can no longer afford to remain a teacher. I have a retirement income to build. That $400 a month teacher retirement fund won't spread very far, even with SS added in.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Are you trying to state there is no "creation science" entity that is addressing science matters without reference to the Bible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------No. I am saying that there are no "creation science" entities addressing science matters with science.WS: Then you are either biasd or not paying attention.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: So am I to assume you are a scientist qualified to judge the works put out by those "creation" scientists? Or do you go by what the websites say about them? Is your opinion first or second hand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------ah..... that old stand-by ad hominem. It doesn't matter that I am no professional scientist. I have spent many many years digging and thinking. My opinions are my own, and I can support them or I'll retract.WS: Then you think your own "digging" is a suitable substitute for higher education in particular science fields mixed with years of practice and research and peer review? I would think the best of your opinions would be but a shadow of what is really available. I prefer to rest on the opinions of people who've paid the high price to be considered scientists whose opinions are more learned.At best you can only be a commentator, as I could be, though you are probably better armed for now concerning the particulars of most recent evolution theory developments. Again, my emphasis is concerning the assaults on the Bible for whatever reasons.

Quetzal, please tell me then why you were attracted to a forum labelled "If we are all descended from Noah ..."? It is obviously a thread concerning Bible apologetics, yet you find the subject "unutterably boring", inexplicably present and commenting.I am interested in geting involved on the science side of the issue, but I have a priority to demonstrate the Bible critics are ignorant of the Bible and don't know how to study it to fix their ignorance. Once that is established, I'll move on. However, I am already warned by reading ahead that I'll have to research answers besides employ personal knowledge of the sciences. My major was biology, but took many science courses, keeping up through mostly high school texbooks, lesson plans and the pressure of teaching facts, attending seminars, summer training camps, cotinuing ed. courses, some internet research and reading wihin websites devoted to both sides, and some personal live debating on and off the job there. But that wasn't enough to contend with some of the people that seem to really devote themselves to the debate. I am mostly a buyer/seller of timber now (timber broker) with almost no contact with people interested in the issue. But, I'll work at it.Thanks for the invite. Ya'll sho sound hospitable enough. I might just kick mah shoes off and sit a spell.

Nos: "I already have. As I've stated these errors and contradictions stand because the vast majority of Christians aren't bible scholars with access to the so-called "original" scrolls and manuscipes in the "Original" Hebrew. All they know is what is told to them out of the current bibles in English. They know nothing of translations and the like. What is in bibles, such as the KJV, is what has been taught to them as being literal and inerrant for many centuries now. The "original" scrolls and manuscripts are irrelevant in this context.If the bibles were actually the inspired word of their god than there wouldn't have been any translation errors and the like."WS: There are no "original" scrolls or manuscripts known to man. All we have are hand written copies of the originals, and most of those are fragments and partial copies that taken together present a good verification of full texts. The Septuagent is mostly complete, in the Vatican library museum, but it isn't anything close to the original Hebrew (Torah) scrolls that existed before 285 to 244 BCE. That Old Testament translation from Hebrew texts to Greek by Jewish scholars BCE is the main basis for most modern Bible versions of the Old Testament. It didn't include any of the Apocrapha, which were written much later in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. It can be said there is no possibility any of the Torah is falsified, but it is apparent Jewish commentators differ from Christian commentators over interpretations.One way we know what is presented in the New Testament translations is what was written originally is very simple. Copies of manuscripts abound, at least 4,000 certified sources, are still available in protected collections, photocopies of which abound. It is understood by scholars that the texts agree overwhelmingly, but again, as with the Torah interpretations that differ, there is difference of interpretations over the agreed upon texts. The premise is sound that it is easy to detect corrupted copies. There was one original letter from Paul to the church at Rome. Once it got to Rome, it would have been copied for distribution to members and other churches, and let's say only ten copies from that one original were made, though it is apparent hundreds weremade immediately, later thousands. It wouldn't take long for proof readers to detect omissions or errors, and in the Christian community there would have been an observation of any textual differences. But for the sake of integrity of analysis, lets say one copy had error. All ten are distributed, some going out of town. All reach their destinations, each copied ten times each. That means the faulty one is present as 11 copies. It's lineage is easily traced to the original copy assuming the erors were carried forward without changes. But keep in mind how many correct versions of copies are in circulation, no doubt the originals placed in safe keeping in many geographic locations, from which even more copies are made in different generations of men. How many in that second generation of copies? The other nine original copies from Rome plus ninety copies of the original copy received (99). The ratio is now 99 true copies to 11 false ones. Continue that copying scenario for about ten copy generations, and you will realize there is a sea of true copies compared to the relatively rare false ones. Anytime down the road scholars, secular or religious, must acknowledge the more prevalent versions are the true ones, enabling them to discard the false, which has happened ever since the first copies went out. They can resist the claim the "true" ones were fabricated in large numbers, because they know too many were ensconced in libraries all over the known world during the lifetimes of the original authors who would have recognized a major problem of errant copies, kept safe from detection and tampering, such as with the Dead Sea Scrolls and known protected manuscripts in historically verified museums and collections. It would have been impossible for anyone to go around taking up all the oldest manuscripts lost through wide distribution, replacing them with forgeries. And with the modern forensic methods of detecting frauds, inks and writing mediums are easily verified as to antiquity.
The problem of translations is compounded by literary difficulties from translations into languages other than Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the most troublesome being translations from Latin to any other language. But those are only difficulties that can be overcome through proper exegesis of contexts within the Bible first and foremost, followed by other sources of valid facts such as knowledge of cultures and history in Bible times. Bible archeologists (real scientists) are adding to that knowledge base almost daily. Another valuable source of authenticity of original texts is the many writings around the world that borrowed phrases from the Scriptures. It is said the entire Bible text is represented in the collective mass of related books of the world.