home school evolution questions

quote:

---

Then he includes himself as one who has chided against instant salvation, and says we're all stupid for doing so. In fact, no one really knows anything, not even Schraf the rocket scientist, who doesn't even really understand relativistic theory.

​

Then after including himself among us stupid people, he then tells us all the things he knows, including understanding the theory of relativity better than Schraf, so that we can all change our opinions to his.

---

heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee!(Just to set the record straight, I am NOT a rocket scientist, and I DON'T understand very much about Relativity, nor have I ever claimed anything like this.)

quote:

---

I was recently talking with someone here about the dark side of Christian history. I made the point that any "ideology of utter certainty", religious or otherwise, was what made atrocities like the 9/11 attacks and the Holocaust possible. What is your opinion?

---

Um...uh...I have to agree with you.We have some things we believe with certainty, so I don't know that I'm not incriminating myself and us by saying that. Although, one of the things we believe with certainty is that God really hated all our certainty and rudeness and worked very hard to get us to change.

quote:

---

I am wondering what the nature of your church's "belief" in evolution is? Is it something you accept provisionally, due to the evidence, or is it something that you believe because you have all decided to believe it?

---

You threw me with this one. I'm not sure what you mean. It's something we have accepted provisionally, due to the evidence. Isn't that the same as deciding to believe it?Do you mean made it a dogma or something? Our village is together, because we want to learn to follow Yeshua together. So, in order to live with us a person has to believe that Yahshua is really God's Son, or why would he be wanting to follow someone whose been dead for 2000 years? He also has to believe that God wants a people, not just some persons, because our whole focus is togetherness. You don't get to be alone here. Otherwise, we don't have any dogmas, not evolution nor much else at all. Everything else is provisional.Was that the focus of your question?

quote:

---

Just to set the record straight, I am NOT a rocket scientist, and I DON'T understand very much about Relativity, nor have I ever claimed anything like this.

---

I was wondering if he meant you were really a rocket scientist. I couldn't be sure.

Thought that I would reply to a few that seem to be dangling. I will have to space them out because of time constraints.
1) Moon Dust. There are many refutations to this one, all based on the same misinterpretations of the data. One good one is at this site
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'
another is in Penrocks "Tower of Babel".Essentially, the amount of dust was initially estimated by a totally inappropriate method and the number presented in your post was actually the upper limit by the original estimate, which was thought by the author to be at least 3 fold too high if not more than that. A few years before the launch of the moon landing mission a meeting in Hawaii was held by astrophysicists and it was concluded that dust was NOT going to be a problem. The original cites frome the meeting are in both the site I gave above and in Penrocks book.The fact that Morris and Gish continue to present this arguement, along with a number of other misrepresntations and outright lies, only goes to show the lack of moral standards at the ICR. If you want to look for support for creationism I would steer clear of the ICR if I were you.Anyway, I hope that this helps with that one, I will try some of the other ones later. Oh, and for the record, I am an anostic; however, my wife is a Baptist, was a scientist and understands that evolution has occured and that the earth is ~ 4.5 Byr old.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

I believe in a young earth, because this is what the Bible teaches. I know many people say the Bible isn’t literal, but if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, how can we trust it on anything, even on things like You shall not murder.

---

I'm confused. In other threads, you appear to no be a biblical literalist.

quote:

---

The Bible says, On the first day... and On the second day..., etc. Therefore, I believe that those things happened on those days.

---

Then you have some interesting problems with chronology, such as light ( Gen. 1:3 ) being created prior to the sun ( Gen. 1:16 ). Day and Night are also created independently of the Sun ( Gen. 1:5 ) -- the same day as the creation of light, day one. Yet the Sun, our orbit about which is responsible for day and night, does not show up until day four.Plus, the order of creation in Gen 1 varies slightly from the order of creation in Gen 2. Most notably, in Gen 1, man is created on day six after everything else. In Gen 2, man ( Gen 2:6 ) is created after the plants of the field ( Gen 2:5 ), but before the beasts of the field and fowl of the air ( Gen 2:19 ).Gen 1 lists seven days of creation. Gen 2 states "in the day" ( Gen. 2:4 )-- day singular, not plural. It is the same word used in Gen 1 to describe each of the various seven days of creation. I asked a Rabbi if the Hebrew YOWM could be used to mean "a length of time greater than a literal day, such as a week" and he looked at me like I was insane.

quote:

---

Also, I believe the creation week happened approximately 6000 years ago. The Bible says Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, and it gives Seth’s age when Enos was born. Why would it give years if it didn’t want you to know the time elapsed?

---

Why would it give a chronology that contradicts all external evidence? That is the important question. My answer to your question is that the authors were repeating a tradition but didn't really have any idea if it were literally true. Numerous mythologies include a mythological chronology or the world. The Bible is no different.

quote:

---

If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says when it gives dates and times, then it’s whole authority is undermined, for who knows where it’s literal and where it’s not?

---

Agreed. But again, I am confused. Understanding this point as you do, your objection to the title of "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" thread makes no sense. You state in post #1 of that thread: It seems that on the one hand you are arguing for inerrancy -- the Biblical timeline -- while on the other hand you are arguing that it isn't relevant. "What if the Bible contains messages from God and a lot of scientific errors--and plain ol' contradictions..."

quote:

---

Evolutionists offer evidence for an old earth, but it is notoriously unreliable. Their strongest evidence is the geologic column, which they say shows a succession of fossils.

---

I wouldn't call this the strongest evidence for an old earth, though it certainly is evidence. It is virtually impossible to account for the geological column within a 6000 year time frame, without resorting to magic. The strongest single bit of evidence, I think, is radioactive decay which has been shown to be very constant. There are quite a few threads related to these subjects so I am not going to go into details here.BTW, your understanding of how the geo-col is constructed is seriously flawed. What you present is the typical creationist misrepresentation of the process. There is an enormous amount of checking and cross-cmoparison that your scenario glosses over. Layers can be dated. Some fossils can be dated. But there are threads devoted to this topic...

quote:

---

Proof of this is found in polystrate fossils, which are fossils large enough to cross several supposed layers.

---

I've yet to see good evidence of these 'polystrate fossils.' Perhaps you have some? Also consider that trees can send roots through thousands of years of sediment. The deepest recorded root system is of a wild fig in Africa, with roots at a depth of 400 feet. That is a lot of years. Burrowing animals burrow through a great many years as well. Even earthworms make it to many meters deep. These could produce 'polystrate fossils' but they do creationists no good. Also consider what would happen if an animal were buried, exposed years later by erosion and then reburied. Instant 'polystrate fossil' but hardly proof of the creationist position.

quote:

---

Of course, we have all heard how unreliable radiometric dating is. It must be so. It is based on the presumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout history. Many such assumptions are made by science.

---

Yes, we have all heard that, but done properly it isn't true. There are forty or more radiodecay methods and they all agree with one another to within a few percent. These methods mess with dates gained from non-radiodecay methods such as tree rings, varves and ice cores.
Evidence from astronomy also suggests that decay rates are constant over billions of years.

quote:

---

The Bible lets us know, however, that life was much different before the flood. Men regularly lived to 900 years, and animals did not each other. Who can know how different the earth must have been at that time?

---

The 900 year lifespan has no evidence to support it, so arguments that hinge on the idea are useless.Nor has the Flood any evidence in its favor either.

quote:

---

This also properly explains the giant fossils that are found. Why aren’t those species alive today? They are! They are simply not as large.

---

Then why don't dinosaur fossils look like giant versions of modern species? This is like taking a spear and an m-16 and calling them the same.

quote:

---

Thanks for any help you can offer.

---

I hope you meant that. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John, you have posted earlier in this topic string, yet now you are responding to message 1. Have you totally lost track of what has transpired in this topic string?The creationist arguements presented in message 1 have been clearly exposed has not being the true beliefs of the author. They were "devils advocate" positions, presented to the authors students, for them to rebut.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

quote:

---

John, you have posted earlier in this topic string, yet now you are responding to message 1. Have you totally lost track of what has transpired in this topic string?

---

I don't remember how I arrived back at post #1, but it struck me that there were some things that hadn't been addressed. Maybe I could have phrased things a bit less directly... I also find TL interesting enough to quiz about his opinions, especially concerning his view of the Bible, but he can respond or not as he feels appropriate.Why adminnemouseus? Have I done something that requires policing?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-21-2003]

quote:

---

Why adminnemouseus? Have I done something that requires policing?

---

Just an attempt at general topic moderation, on my part. I guess I could have done it as minnemooseus.I seemed to me, that you were bringing up points that had already been covered (by Truthlover) upstring. Perhaps I was wrong.Truthlover has certainly made it clear, that he is not a YEC.In summary, my message was not intended as any sort of disciplinary warning message.Adminnemooseus

John,The admin person is right. Don't get confused. I presented post 1 in this thread to my science/debate class at the "group home school" I help teach. I also teach Algebra, which I am much more qualified to teach, although I do have the excellent qualification in evolution of really, really enjoying the subject.My students are being taught evolution, and they are being taught that it is impossible to defend a literal Bible. The views I espoused on other threads I've talked to you in are indeed my views. The views I espoused in this thread were to give my students something to refute.It was helpful, however, to get a full-fledged, point-by-point response, in a typical debate forum format.. I will show it to my class. I never did get one earlier.

quote:

---

It was helpful, however, to get a full-fledged, point-by-point response, in a typical debate forum format.. I will show it to my class. I never did get one earlier.

---

Well, good. I hope some of it does help.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

We have some things we believe with certainty, so I don't know that I'm not incriminating myself and us by saying that. Although, one of the things we believe with certainty is that God really hated all our certainty and rudeness and worked very hard to get us to change.

---

I suppose my point was that dogmatism and blind faith are are dangerous things. Not ever questioning is a dangerous thing.

quote:

---

You threw me with this one. I'm not sure what you mean. It's something we have accepted provisionally, due to the evidence. Isn't that the same as deciding to believe it?

​

Do you mean made it a dogma or something? Our village is together, because we want to learn to follow Yeshua together. So, in order to live with us a person has to believe that Yahshua is really God's Son, or why would he be wanting to follow someone whose been dead for 2000 years? He also has to believe that God wants a people, not just some persons, because our whole focus is togetherness. You don't get to be alone here. Otherwise, we don't have any dogmas, not evolution nor much else at all. Everything else is provisional.

​

Was that the focus of your question?

---

Well, you said that your wife hasn't done any reading at all about evolution, yet she believes it because the church she belongs to believes in it. To me, this is the wrong reason to accept any scientific concept, because scientific concepts stand or fall on the evidence rather than how many people or what kind of people believe they are true.That's why I asked about how your church, and the people within it, came to their acceptance of the ToE. I wondered if most of the people there just "believe" it on faith, and how many people have a more tentative, scientific way of thinking about it.

quote:

---

That's why I asked about how your church, and the people within it, came to their acceptance of the ToE. I wondered if most of the people there just "believe" it on faith, and how many people have a more tentative, scientific way of thinking about it.

---

Oh, now I understand the question. Um, most people here are not going to have the time or interest to pursue the evolution question. Some of the parents of teenagers are somewhat forced to, as their teenagers are studying it with me.On the other hand, in two weeks, everyone here will get some sort of introduction to the subject, because the 12 kids in my science/debate class are going to be debating two of the dads who are taking the creation side, and I'm pretty sure most of the adults are going to want to watch that.No one here is required to believe in evolution. When I first brought it up a few years ago, only two or three of the eighty or so adults here would really even have been open to it. On the other hand, we've had so many other of our basic beliefs shattered, that a lot of the old-timers were used to changing directions.Several of the men who were most bothered by the idea of evolution talked to me, and others sat in on those (informal) talks. It became clear rapidly that the scientific evidence was either overwhelmingly on the side of evolution or that I was interpreting the evidence that way and fooling everybody. Since we've never seen any good come from Bible literalism, I think our view became "evolution is true unless someone wants to study enough to prove Shammah wrong." (I'm Shammah.)Now, one of our men did come up with a Kent Hovind video, which made several of the men not want to be called a creationist ever.Also, one day I took the creation side in our living room with a couple of my students (way back at the beginning of the class), and when I told them that the flood laid the geologic column and sorted the fossils, with mammals above reptiles because they were able to get to higher ground, my wife about fell out of her chair laughing. She thought I was joking, and that I had made that argument up. I had to work hard to convince her that someone would really present such an argument.I tried to maintain my "devil's advocate" composure, but that's hard to do when someone's laughing at you like that.So, there's a certain amount of just taking things for granted here, because not everyone wants to have to take up science research, when their lives are busy enough as it is, but it is not just a "we say it, therefore it's true" kind of belief. Our people are probably too passionate to give in to that kind of thinking, anyway.

OK, I think I understand your position and your church's stance now, thank you for explaining.Hey, please let me/us know how the presentation with your class goes.Best wishes for a great success.

hello! I am a 16 year old student who is going to do a debate on the 16th. I belive in evolution but was wondering if anyone here had any pointers for me. Thanks Tami[This message has been edited by tamijudah, 03-08-2003]Note from Adminnemooseus: I have made this message its own topic, at http://EvC Forum: tamijudah - I am a student for evolution -->EvC Forum: tamijudah - I am a student for evolutionPlease respond to it there.Thank you - AM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-08-2003]