Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 31 of 331 (141918)
09-12-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
09-12-2004 8:20 PM


I apologies for putting off replying to your postings
Dear Crashfog,
I apologies for putting off replying to your postings, I have started responding to several strings.
Another reason I have, as of yet, not responded to your rebuttals is that your argument do not run along a logical line of reason I can respond to in a logical manner.
For instance:
I stated:
"Actually, I doubt that anyone is wasting their time trying to figure out whether or not the law of gravity, or any of the other basic laws of physic is still true/factual."
You respond by stating:
Do you think that, if they changed or stopped working for an hour, no one would notice?
Which has no bearing on whether or not the law of gravity is true/factual.
Buy the way; I am sure that everyone would notice immediately if the laws of gravity all-of-a-sudden changed. But the point I was making is that the laws of gravity are unchanging and therefore true/factual; we can depend on them.
As you have noted, I do repeat things from previous posting, because the material is relevant to the subject I am on.
To refute someone’s arguments you have to be able to give evidence that what that person has said is incorrect. You stated in a previous strings, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. If this is true (which is what I was refuting) then, again, as I have stated before, there is no way to be sure, after all we can’t know facts. Can we?
If facts where forever inaccessible to us, then there would be no way for us to know that they where inaccessible because that it itself would be a fact.
Only if there are facts, and we can know them (at least some of them) can one position be correct and the other incorrect. Otherwise there are no correct or incorrect positions.
Please, do not be offended, but with out being able to present facts there is no way to determine who is right, and what is wrong. I am here to present the facts, if you want to rebut what I state as a fact, then, by all means, give me evidence that contradicts what I have said. You may find something that I have missed or miss understood.
If reality where unreal, how would we know it was not so.
Refute: 1to prove (a person) to be wrong.
Rebut: 1 to contradict, refute, or oppose, esp. in a formal manner by argument, proof, ect., as in a debate.
(Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)

John3: 16, 17

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 8:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 10:27 PM JRTjr has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 331 (141919)
09-12-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JRTjr
09-12-2004 10:03 PM


Why don't you respond to that message in that thread, please?
While you're at it, please read my posts closer. Saying things like this:
I stated:
"Actually, I doubt that anyone is wasting their time trying to figure out whether or not the law of gravity, or any of the other basic laws of physic is still true/factual."
You respond by stating:
Do you think that, if they changed or stopped working for an hour, no one would notice?
Which has no bearing on whether or not the law of gravity is true/factual.
indicate that you have not read my posts sufficiently closely to respond to them yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 10:03 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JRTjr, posted 09-20-2004 3:48 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 33 of 331 (142144)
09-13-2004 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-15-2004 3:30 AM


You say evolution belongs in thev clasroom and religion elsewher.
Fine so do creationists. However the origins of things and beings is a subject that now attackes and without rebuttal the Christian religion.
Toe is saying the Bible is wrong and then rebuttal is prohibited.
Toe has contrevened the separation of church and state in your country and so must and willed be overruled.
Let the truth be contended over and keep the government and courts out of it except to ensure the truth is not interferred with.
Why should Toe,ers be afraid of competition in the market place of ideas.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-15-2004 3:30 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 6:26 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 35 by jar, posted 09-13-2004 9:02 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 36 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2004 9:26 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 331 (142152)
09-13-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 6:04 PM


quote:
Toe is saying the Bible is wrong and then rebuttal is prohibited.
The ToE is saying that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not match up with what is seen in the Creation. Rebuttals to the ToE are permitted, but they must be based in emperical evidence (it is science class afterall).
Also, Hindu's claim that the Bible is wrong, yet I don't see you arguing for the Bible to have equal time in Indian temples. Or maybe we should do the opposite, have the government force Hindu teachings on Christians.
quote:
Let the truth be contended over and keep the government and courts out of it except to ensure the truth is not interferred with.
And the truth is this. That the ToE is the most accurate theory and that a young earth is falsified by the evidence. Until the ToE is shown to be wrong AND YECism is shown to be correct through evidence then creationism does not belong in publicly funded science classrooms. The only fair way to teach creationism in this context is to teach all creation stories from all cultures since they all have the same amount of evidence (scientifically speaking, none).
Added in edit:
quote:
Why should Toe,ers be afraid of competition in the market place of ideas.
Firstly, there is no competition since creationists do not base their arguments on emperical data. Secondly, creationism is kept out of the science classroom for the same reason Larmarckism is kept out. Because it has been falsified by the data.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-13-2004 05:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 6:04 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 331 (142178)
09-13-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 6:04 PM


You say evolution belongs in thev clasroom and religion elsewher.{sic}
Correct.
Fine so do creationists. However the origins of things and beings is a subject that now attackes and without rebuttal the Christian religion.
Incorrect on so many levels it's silly.
First, Creationism is both lousy science and worse theology. That is why every major Christian and Jewish Church have come out supporting teaching the TOE and opposing the teaching of creationism. It is a subject that cannot get support even within the Christian community except from small splinter sects that can't afford snakes to dance with. Mainstream Christianity wrote creationism off even before Darwin published his theory.
Toe is saying the Bible is wrong and then rebuttal is prohibited.
The TOE does not say the Bible is wrong. Facts showed that the account in Genesis was wrong long before the TOE was written.
Toe has contrevened the separation of church and state in your country and so must and willed be overruled.
Nonsense. Again, that is why all major Christian and Jewish faiths have come out in support of Evolution and opposing teaching creationism. Creationism is simply nonsense and is rightly, ignored both as science and as theology.
Let the truth be contended over and keep the government and courts out of it except to ensure the truth is not interferred with.
No problem. Since there is NO truth to creationism, it is excluded as the crap it is.
Why should Toe,ers be afraid of competition in the market place of ideas.
They aren't. Should a creationist ever have one, please let us know.
Robert, you need to realize that creationism is a joke. Not a good joke, not even a well done pun, more like a shaggy dog story, you know, the kind where the punchline is obvious from the beginning and it's so silly you know that there has to be a kicker in there somewhere. So you listen all the way through only to realize at the punch line that that's all there was. There really was no meat, no point, nothing original, nothing worth waiting for. Nothing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 6:04 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 36 of 331 (142188)
09-13-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 6:04 PM


You are repeating yourself!
Robert you have been warned about simple repeating things which have been answered before. You talk as if no one had commented on these statements before. You are down to only a few more posts like this before losing most of your posting priviledges. Maybe only one more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 6:04 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2004 3:43 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 37 of 331 (142373)
09-14-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AdminNosy
09-13-2004 9:26 PM


Re: You are repeating yourself!
I don't understand your reasoning. I only responded. And they also responded to me. Repeating things is the essence of these discusions. i know it seems to me most of what is said to me is what is always said. I'm fine with that.
Anyways I'll leave this particular discussion since theres a problem.
However it would be better if more creationists were involved but it needs to be more creationist-friendly in process.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2004 9:26 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 38 of 331 (143284)
09-20-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
09-12-2004 10:27 PM


Just to be sure I have not missed something
Dear Crashfrog,
I downloaded, printed, and reread everything you have written in response to my postings as of 9/12/4'.
In your posting dated 09-12-2004 07:20 pm, you say, you repeat these refuted arguments as though you haven't even read my posts.
The problem is not that I haven’t read your posting, it is that you keep insisting that, in your words, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. (Taken from your posting dated 08-08-2004 06:20 pm)
You state that, and us it, as if it were a fact. "{Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them?}" (Taken from the same posting dated 08-08-2004 06:20 pm)
If, in fact, it were a fact (that we cannot know facts), then we could not know that it was a fact, because we would be incapable of knowing facts. Only if we could know facts could we know we can’t know facts, so if we know facts then we must be able to know facts, because, after all, if we could not know facts, we would be unable to know we did not know them.
Oooo, my heads starting to spin.
Ok, where were we, O’ ya.
I have given ample evidence that we can, and do know facts. We may not know fully all-ultimate facts. But, as I’ve said before, there are facts; we can know them.
So, to answer your question, we are still talking about facts because science deals in facts, and if you want to talk about science you have to deal in facts.
Please note here, I did not say, science is the search for facts. What I am saying is that science has to have facts to do what they do so well.
You state, quite correctly, that science deals in models. However, modals are based on observations of the thing(s) you are modeling. If you do not have facts about the thing(s) you’re modeling then how would you model it?
Take for instance a Seven-Forty-Seven. If I wanted to make a model of a Seven-Forty-Seven, and have it anywhere near accurate, I must know a few facts about it.
For instance:
What is a Seven-Forty-Seven?
What is its wingspan?
How many engines does it have?
And so on and so forth; these are facts about the 747.
Now, you support your hypothesis by stating, "But nobody's saying that absolute truth doesn't exist.
It's just that we can't know it. The fundamental truths of the universe are not directly accessable to our minds, partially because of the nature of thought itself, and partially because sophistry cannot be refuted.
It might not exist, though. That's the point of sophistry. There's no way to tell if we live in an actual reality or just a perfect simulation.
But the scientific method - the search for the accurate model - works no matter if sophistry is true or not, because it doesn't purport to find the truth, just the most accurate model."
Please note that this is not Philosophy class; this is Science One-O-One. Philosophy is one web page over, and down the hall. :-)
Science does not deal in what might be found in the future. That’s left up to the philosophers and the fiction writers. If you’ll look at the definition of Science (given below) Science deals in making sense of the data we have here and now.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that science does not look forward and try to figure out how to do new things.
What I am saying is that science does not, or rather should not, base its models on what we think may, one day, be proved or disprove.
Good science looks at the evidence, forms a hypothesis based on that evidence (evidence available there and then), and then tests the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations. After that, adjustments are made to fit any new facts observed/uncovered or any facts overlooked.
After the scientist has, somewhat substantiated his finding they are then retested by other scientist to see if they get the same results.
Once refined and tested exhaustively, if the general principle(s) still holds water (fugitively not literally) it is then set up as a law. (I.E. the Law of gravity, the laws of physics, and so on) When they get to this point there is usually no more experimentation done on them, though from time to time there may be adjustment made in light of new discoveries. These laws become the bases for testing other ideas and hypothesis.
Please note here, I’m not saying that once something is considered a Law that there will be no room for refining our understanding of that law.
We will never fully know all the facts in all their glory, this side of creation. 9For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect), and our prophesy (our teaching) is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect). 10But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded).
(I Corinthians 13: 9 — 10 The Amplified Bible)
But that, in no way, means we cannot know facts in part. No, we cannot see, understand, and know all things in their fullness. However we can see, understand, and know some, even a lot of, things in part.
Also note, if you will, that just because our understanding of a law or a truth changes, this, in no way, change’s the fact itself.
For instance, lets go back to the Seven-Forty-Seven. What I do or do not know about it now, in no way alters the facts I can learn about it in the future.
If I go online and look up the dimensions for a typical Seven-Forty-Seven and it states that the wingspan is 37 feet. (just a guess) Then I go to an airport and measure the wingspan of a specific 747 and it come to 36’ 11 7/8. Is the encyclopedia wrong? Of course not, it’s just imprecise.
I can still state that the wingspan is 37 feet, and be telling the truth. If I said that it was exactly 37 feet, on that particular plain, then I would be telling an untruth (I.E. I would be lying)
Science helps us refine our understanding of the unchanging facts that are all around us. It also helps us uncover more facts. {Please note here: Our understanding of the facts (of this universe and how it works) changes; not the facts themselves.}
In your posting dated 08-11-2004 01:34 pm. You state, We can know which ones are wrong; we can't know which ones are right.
If we can know which ones are wrong; then, by process of elimination, we can come to know which ones are right.
In the same posting you state, If you think you "know" these facts to be true, you're overreaching.
If you think that these are not facts (and that we cannot know facts), then your not facings the facts.
By the way, I do not live in Sophistry’s universe; we live in a universe designed and created by The Great I Am (Exodus 3: 14), The Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1: 8).
In this universe there are facts, we can know them, they are measurable, confirmable, and provable.
Here again, we cannot know all of the facts fully, but as you state, Don't make the mistake of assuming that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. This is true, not just for knowledge in general, but for facts as well.
In your posting dated 08-13-2004 03:19 pm you state, How can we know anything for sure if our conclusions are based on fallacies?
Well, the obvious answer to that one would be, ‘you can’t’. However, you’re committing the fallacy of assuming that the conclusions are based on fallacies in the first place.
One final thought, you state in your posting dated 08-11-2004 01:34 pm that, Because everything you observe about reality may not be real; it might simply be hallucination. It might be an illusion created by a demon to confuse you. It might be that you're in the Matrix.
It might be any number of other things besides reality that you experience; that's why truth is inaccessible to us.
I would have thought this was obvious.
Well ya, we might all be turkeys thinking we’re chickens, we might all be hogs thinking we’re dogs, we might all be Goa’ulds, we all may be dreaming. This whole universe could be one man’s nightmare on Elm Street, or we all could be part of a test to see who will chose well, and who will chose poorly.
The question is, if reality isn’t real, then what is reality? Or, if you assume reality is not real, and it turns out to be real, then what justification are you going to have for living as if it were not?
Philosophy can be a lot of fun, however science and man’s philosophies do not play well together.
Also, if you strip away all that we know about the universe, and deny that we can know the true facts thereof then anyone could come up with the stupidest most asinine-cockamamie stories and no one would be able to prove them wrong.
Only with verifiable, provable facts can you correctly state that anything is wrong, or right for that matter.
So, if someone lives their life as if they can’t know facts, and they therefore decide anything’s permissible (after all who could correctly tell them that they were wrong?), what are they going to say when they stand before the Creator of the universes to answer for their life?
O’, a, well, a, Sir, I, well, I didn’t believe it was true!?
I do not know who Sophistry is, but I think I’ve just proven him wrong.
Footnotes
Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this.
1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2) Determine the initial conditions.
3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4) Note the final conditions.
5) Form an hypothesis.
6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
Resolving Paradoxes
Contradiction: Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.
Paradox: A seeming contradiction that can be resolved by any one or more of the fallowing means:
1) Establishing the true frame of reference, or point of view, of a given passage or passages.
2) Establishing the correct definition of a given system or systems under consideration.
3) Observing over a longer or shorter range of magnitudes.
4) Observing over more or other dimensions.
5) Gathering more detailed and/or complete information.
{Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Br. Hugh Ross}
Definitions
According to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the following are defined as such:
Contradiction:
2a statement in opposition to another; denial. {Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.}
Paradox:
1[Archaic] a statement contrary to common belief 2a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact {a seeming contradiction that can be resolved.}
Omnipotent:
adj. [OFr < L omnipotens < omnis, all + potens: see potent] Having unlimited power or authority; All-powerful — the Omnipotent God.
Truth:
2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect.
Knowledge:
1the act, fact, or state of knowing; specifically, a) acquaintance or familiarity (with fact, place, etc.) b) awareness c) understanding 2 acquaintance with facts; range of information, awareness, or understanding.
Know:
1to have a clear perception or understanding of; be sure of or well informed about [to know the facts].
Fallacy:
3a false or mistaken idea, opinion, ect.; error 4a) an error in reasoning; flaw or defect in argument b) Logic an argument which does not conform to the rules of logic, esp. one that appears to be sound.
Fact:
2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy].
Science:
1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
According to the Webster’s II New College Dictionary, 1999 the following are defined as such:
Real:
1Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL.
Reality:
The quality or state of being actual or true
In the definitions given above, the definition in brackets like these {} are taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Dr. Hugh Ross. Also, the reason for the two different Dictionaries is that I was in a different place when I looked the last two and could not get to my regular dictionary.

For God so greatly loved
and dearly prized the world,
that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son,
that whoever believes in
(trusts in, clings to, relies on)
Him
should not perish
(come to destruction, be lost),
but
have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son
in to the world
in order to judge
(to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on)
the world,.
But that the world
might find salvation
and be made safe and sound
through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 10:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:11 AM JRTjr has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 331 (143321)
09-20-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by JRTjr
09-20-2004 3:48 AM


I don't understand why you've replied in this thread to messages that were in another thread.
Please, take this to that thread. Here it is, for your reference.
Also, your message formatting leaves much to be desired. In the message composer window, if you observe to the left, you'll see where it says "UBB Code is ON"; clicking this link will show you the UBB codes and their use. The use of these codes (especially the QUOTE or QS tages) is recommended because that way, we can tell the difference between your posts and the posts of mine that you are quoting.
And again, you're going to have to do better than to simply repeat your argument, or to simply state that because you want to know facts, you must be able to know them. As it stands this post addresses none of my arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JRTjr, posted 09-20-2004 3:48 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JRTjr, posted 10-04-2004 8:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 40 of 331 (143725)
09-21-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by custard
06-15-2004 4:43 PM


wait. there's a difference between babylonian myths and the bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 4:43 PM custard has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 41 of 331 (147291)
10-04-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 11:11 AM


Dear Crashfrog,
quote:
I don't understand why you've replied in this thread to messages that were in another thread.
Please, take this to that thread. Here it is, for your reference.
I was using things from your other posting to answer your question in the posting I replied to.
quote:
Also, your message formatting leaves much to be desired. In the message composer window, if you observe to the left, you'll see where it says "UBB Code is ON"; clicking this link will show you the UBB codes and their use. The use of these codes (especially the QUOTE or QS tages) is recommended because that way, we can tell the difference between your posts and the posts of mine that you are quoting.
Thank you, I’ll try it when I post this, so, since your reading it now, you’ll know whether or not I figured it out.
By the way, I use quotation makes to show that I am quoting something someone else wrote. I know, it’s old fashioned, but, what can I say.
quote:
And again, you're going to have to do better than to simply repeat your argument, or to simply state that because you want to know facts, you must be able to know them.
I’m not simple repeating my argument. If you’ll read my last posting a little closer, I am expounding on the point, not just repeating what I’ve said earlier. Also, I am still on this subject because you keep repeating, in one form or fashion, that, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. And Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them?.
And, by the way, I never said that because I wanted to know facts, I must be able to know them.
Please, forgive my bluntness here; however, your argument is the one based on what you want to believe, and what might be, maybe, someday, some how. My argument is based on things like logic, the scientific method, word definition, and what is here and now. I have provided evidence; things that can be observed, cataloged, tested, and verified.
quote:
As it stands this post addresses none of my arguments.
Yes, it does, you argue, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us.
You’re wining about me repeating myself, and yet we can’t seem to get past the fact that there are facts; we can know them. This is why I took so long to respond in the first place. (As I have already stated in my previous string.)
Since your notion that facts are forever inaccessible to us is the basses of all of your other comments, it is only logical to deal with this one first. If we could get past this point, then we could start on other points of interest.
I do not wish to be rood, and yet, I am not going to deny the fact that we can know facts, and it appears you're unwilling to except that fact, so what more is there to discuses?
We all believe in, trust in, cling to, and rely on certain ideas and ideals to our gain, or our peril. If you are secure in your belief, and chose to live and/or die by it, there is no reason for me to argue with you over it. It is not my mission in life to make you believe the facts, only to show them.

For God so greatly loved
and dearly prized the world,
that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son,
that whoever believes in
(trusts in, clings to, relies on)
Him
should not perish
(come to destruction, be lost),
but
have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son
in to the world
in order to judge
(to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on)
the world,.
But that the world
might find salvation
and be made safe and sound
through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:11 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 10:10 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 43 by AdminNosy, posted 10-04-2004 10:22 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 331 (147322)
10-04-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JRTjr
10-04-2004 8:18 PM


I'd really love to address these things, but you're off-topic.
Reply to my post in the thread in which it appeared and I will participate. I cannot do so until you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JRTjr, posted 10-04-2004 8:18 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 43 of 331 (147328)
10-04-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JRTjr
10-04-2004 8:18 PM


Two "suggestions"
1) Do stick to the topic of the thread
2) Shrink your signiture to a single line or two.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JRTjr, posted 10-04-2004 8:18 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 44 of 331 (147394)
10-05-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-15-2004 3:30 AM


I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
America is going down the slippery slope because they are not honoring the constitution, in respect to evolution, you have Thomas Jefferson one of the founding fathers defining the separation from the government freedoms to include all sects, including the infidel, this means that the infidels were not suppose to be allowed to preaching TOE's godless doctrine of origin happened by chance, while not allowing the Christian Religions equal time, the Evolutionists are given the same separation freedoms from the government, as the church separation from the government powers, meaning the infidel by the bill of rights was not supposed to be given favored status by the government, it violates the infidels freedoms by giving them more freedom than the Church, it in essense has been sanctioned as the state religion, which violates the Bill of Rights.
P.S. If your going to teach Creationisms, might as well teach the science part that is now called Intelligent Design, that only teaches the sciences, without the state illegally sanctioned religion of the infidel, the solution is to simply replace TOE with ID. If you must teach from Genesis, you would have to teach it more literally than the creationist interprete genesis, you'd have to include 2 peter 3:8 that clarifies that one day to God is as a thousand years, and you have to clarify that the earth can be interpreted to be billions of years old, but the fossils, and the sun are no older than 13,000 years, from this perspective the creation genesis event makes total sense, that on day one the sun became a light, on day 3 algae, plants, started growing, but on day 4 the sun became visible in the day sky(atmospere cleared)GEnesis chapter 2 talks of the mist that went up from the earth, on day 4 this mist cleared so the sun and the stars became visible in the sky, the atmosphere cleared for the animals to beable to see, that God created on day 5 &6, creationist should teach that God always was, but Genesis is talking about when the Earth being made habitable, not the actual age of the rocks, because the rocks of the earth were created in the beginning when he created the other stars, planets, etc..., but in Genesis the creation week, the earth was being molded, the sun became a star started at this point giving light, life was being created this creation week that took 7,000 years, so the fossil record can be taught that it is actually quite young, and the dating methods void, when debating from this perspective, Evolutionistic scientist will cry foul, but the creationists have reasons to believe that the rock dating is not accurate, and dating a rock is not dating the fossil(C14) or fossil imprint, check Andrew Snelling finding a petrified wood sample, that was between two basalt layers, that dated millions of years, while the wood sample dated thousands of years, that argon is rising up from the earth, affecting basalt rock dating, meaning dating the rocks is not all that accurate(likely like trying to be dating a fly on a truck scale), for the petrified wood sample Snelling talked about can not be both young and old. This is a problem with the religion of the state teaching as if its a fact that you can date fossils by the sediments that buried them(its not a fact)(its an belief based off an assumption), and this is violating the peoples constitutional Bill of Rights, to force a state godless religious belief's upon the children as if they are facts cast in concrete, the infidels was never suppose to have this power by the state to teach their beliefs(we now know that its a common creator and not a common ancestor), while the infidel are free to believe whatever they believe, they were never suppose to be empowered above their separation freedoms from the government to believe whatever they wanted to believe, what they did was became the state religion, which violates the constitution saying they were not to be empowered above the other religious beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-15-2004 3:30 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 10-06-2004 7:49 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 45 of 331 (147733)
10-06-2004 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by johnfolton
10-05-2004 2:31 AM


Re: I'd teach Genesis from the authorized KJV
quote:
TOE's godless doctrine of origin happened by chance
That's why evolution is taught and not abiogenesis. Maybe you should have actually attended a school before criticizing the education system.
quote:
If your going to teach Creationisms, might as well teach the science part that...
The science part of creationism is already taught in school, that is no part.
quote:
If you must teach from Genesis, you would have to teach it more literally than the creationist interprete genesis
You would also have to teach from every other creation myth from Hindu to Yaqui Indian.
quote:
Evolutionistic scientist will cry foul, but the creationists have reasons to believe that the rock dating is not accurate
You mean blind religous dogma and poor education? The creationists should be crying about their ignorance in an age where information is so easily accessible.
quote:
we now know that its a common creator and not a common ancestor
There is evidence from multiple disciplines for a common ancestor...there is nothing but ignorant assertions from carpet chewing fundamentalists for a creator/creators/pink unicorns/giant galactic omnipotent goats.
quote:
while the infidel are free to believe whatever they believe, they were never suppose to be empowered above their separation freedoms from the government to believe whatever they wanted to believe, what they did was became the state religion, which violates the constitution saying they were not to be empowered above the other religious be
That is why those funny classes you obviously skipped or slept through called science classes are taught in school and your brand of whacko fundamentalism is confined to your church. That way non-religious material is taught in school and you are free to worship parsely if you want.
Funny, not only have you basically asserted that legalizing gay marriage would force you to be gay, you now claim that teaching science in school forces you to give up your religion...sounds like you lack conviction....or should be a convict

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by johnfolton, posted 10-05-2004 2:31 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 1:43 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 56 by MangyTiger, posted 10-06-2004 5:35 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024