Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 331 (115609)
06-16-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by almeyda
06-16-2004 12:55 AM


actually, the hindu histories of catastrophism are highly aligned with science. they talk about the periodic destruction of the world -- ie: major exitinctions.
and there are a lof hindu scientists.
and there's a ton of muslim creationists. in fact, they're difficult to tell apart from the christian ones because they "borrow" bad christian creationist arguments wholesale. alot of their "source" is hovind.
Creationists show how fossils,
no, this argument fails all the time. fossil evidence does not fit your literal reading of genesis.
young earth,
every dating method agrees that they do not.
natural selection,
didn't you say they were ok with this?
complexity,
behe's argument fails. wanna read my paper on it?
flood evidence,
you mean, no flood evidence? the people who were alive at the time might be concerned that they were underwater for 40 days.
dinasaurs, [sic]
behemoth and leviathan are not dinosaurs. this can easily be shown by, oh, i dunno, reading the bible.
design,
see behe, above.
uniqueness of the Bible & Jesus
you argued the uniqueness of the bible and lost. i've personally read several other similar texts. and jesus was apparently not all that unique. we actually have records of messiahs that said more or less the same thing, died in a similar way, and just happened to have a different name: apollonius was one such man.
etc are all consistent with the Bible.
which is funny, seeing as how the bible itself is anything but consistent.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-16-2004 02:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by almeyda, posted 06-16-2004 12:55 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2004 11:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 331 (122021)
07-05-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
07-04-2004 11:37 PM


the only trouble hindus have is that the scientific age of the universe is not old enough ...
i seem to remember the hindu theology of constant destruction-rebirth cycles strongly mimicing a scientific hypothesis about big-bang cycles.
i wasn't aware age was a problem, but i never tried to line up the dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2004 11:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2004 4:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 331 (122022)
07-05-2004 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


Actually, no science disagrees with the Bible, only evolution
which has been observed. not to mention all the previously mentioned sciences that also disagree.
which is a theory on how things have came to be through natural processes without a designer.
evolution includes artifical selection, a process by which humans have input on animal "design" by selecting for various features. how is this NOT intelligent design, exactly?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-05-2004 03:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 303 of 331 (606915)
02-28-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by JRTjr
02-28-2011 11:27 PM


o rly? ya rly.
Rrhain writes:
you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild.
JRTjr writes:
Really, so you can demonstrate this hu?
yes.
Some one has actually seen a cow deliver a bat, or a cat bear a dog, or something like that? As far as I know, cats have always delivered cats; cows have always borne cows, etc, etc, etc.
no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 11:27 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by JRTjr, posted 03-01-2011 3:42 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 321 of 331 (608780)
03-13-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by JRTjr
03-13-2011 4:35 PM


Re: reality vs fantasy
JRTjr writes:
Great; so why, IF Congress {The only branch of the Federal government charged will making law} may not make a law with reference to, relating to, referring to, in connection with, concerning, or regarding an establishment of religion is the Supreme court restricting the established Christian heritage of the United States of America?
Let’s not forget the second Half Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And, again I ask; Where, in the Constitution of the United States of America is establishment Forbidden?
What you just correctly quoted states implicitly that the Government is not allowed to restrict an establishment of religion.
err, no. it means that congress is not allowed to formally establish a religion. this is, as you say, to prevent the restriction of religion by government: if one religion is mandated, any other group suffers. this issue is usually clouded in the minds of most christians, because they imagine that their particular sect would be the favoured religion.
JRTjr writes:
There are no restrictions placed on an establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution. This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion; There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government.
only in government from interfering with religion. and that includes the government establishing one (or, more loosely, favouring one over another). the best way to keep government out of religion, as it turns out, is to keep government neutral with regards to religion. and that means keeping religion out of government.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by JRTjr, posted 03-13-2011 4:35 PM JRTjr has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 328 of 331 (608788)
03-13-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by JRTjr
03-13-2011 5:34 PM


Re: ‘No Creation story/myth’ / ‘several Creation stories/myths?
JRTjr writes:
You and others keep claiming that there are ‘contradictions’ between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 but you still have failed to give any evidence for these supposed contradictions.
Crashfrog and I went round and round on this and the best he could come up with was saying that a word should have been added to the text {in Chapter 2} which would have made the text say what he wanted it to say.
there have been numerous threads on this in the past. i suggest you look for one. suffice it to say, the two present not only entirely different orders of creation, but different logic as well. in genesis 1, god creates everything mankind needs well in advance, to prepare the way for mankind. in genesis 2, god creates mankind first, and then creates everything else according to his needs. in both, mankind is the paramount creation, but they go about that point in two entirely different ways.
You prove that they are mutually exclusive and that the Genesis account(no ‘s’) {As Crashfrog pointed out in one of his posts: this is one document; broken up it to Chapters and Verses much later} is not factual then I will agree with you. Until that time I will consider it one, on going, missive not a collection of mismatched fables that do not hold up under honest scrutiny.
the two are stylistically quite different. aside from the above theological point, look at the writing styles. here is the openning verse of each section:
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
-- Genesis 1:1
quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
-- Genesis 2:4b
both begin roughly the same way: temporal dependent clauses, that reference god's creative act. one verse chooses ברא for the (infinitive) verb, the other עשה. as you may know, we've had many threads debating the different senses these verbs imply. one verse chooses definite objects, the other indefinite. and, more importantly, only one actually uses the name of god.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by JRTjr, posted 03-13-2011 5:34 PM JRTjr has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 329 of 331 (608789)
03-13-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Huntard
03-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Show Me!
Huntard writes:
Quite correct. Anything a fish will produce, will be a fish. Of course, you have to realize that with evolution involved, there might come a time when we no longer would refer to it's offspring as a fish, but then, neither would the parents be. There is no line one can draw and say "this is definitely a fish", and on the other side of the line "this is definitely an amphibian" (as an example). There will be many intermediary stages not quite fish and not quite amphibian, and only on either end can we call the creature a fish or an amphibian. Classifications are arbitrary, after all.
this is why we should use cladistics instead of linnaean taxonomy. "fish" are a paraphyletic group: all chordates excluding tetrapods. of course, if we just said "chordate", it would be true that every descendant of a chordate is also a chordate.
My parents, come to mind. Also, my little brother, he's quite the ape, as am I, of course.
yes. humans are apes the same way that we're mammals. and tetrapods. and chordates.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Huntard, posted 03-13-2011 5:39 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2011 6:37 PM arachnophilia 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