Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 90 of 100 (691620)
02-23-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by NoNukes
02-23-2013 12:05 AM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.

Actually none of us are calling Genesis vague. Most of the people you are arguing with have a specific meaning of the literal words of Genesis in mind. For example, I understand that Genesis describes a global flood of water actually lifting the keel of Noah's ark above the highest mountain.

But you also are arguing that this "flood" is impossible and hence means that if the Bible writers were either dead wrond,... or that they meant that as a Simile.

Either the Bibke is wrong or the writers could not directly reported facts so unbelievable that they were setting down as such.

You are choosing to make the bible wrong.

But if one chooses to double check the idea, there is supporting factual evidence the they did this.

If one chooses to assume the writer used the Literary Arts to send forth this information into such a future tiime as our own, when we (the wise), would understand, he would also somewhere say that was the case:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2013 12:05 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2013 7:29 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 91 of 100 (691621)
02-23-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Eli
02-22-2013 8:17 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

Changing ideas in science to conform to what the context of the bible is

What part of: "ONE OR OTHER OF THE KINGDON-LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS IS STILL WIDELY EMPLOYED AS A USEFUL WAY OF GROUPING ORGANISMS"... don't you hard heads understand???
.
.
.
.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Eli, posted 02-22-2013 8:17 PM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 12:44 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 92 of 100 (691623)
02-23-2013 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by DBlevins
02-22-2013 4:48 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.

So if we were to believe your version of things, Pangea formed on the third day and Rodinia on the first? Does the bible talk of a third iteration of supercontinent?

If you don't believe my version then you opt to insist that the Bible does not correspond with scientific facts, while if you do accept my comparisons with what science says, tne scripture is amazingly correct about things like "all the water gathered together into one place" as part of the geological history of the Earth found in the six rock layers that corrpond to the six days of creation in Genesis.

Supporting that this first gathering together took place with Rodinia, during the late Archean and early Proterozoic eras is that this would correpond to the Third "day" in Genesis:

Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-

… and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 4:48 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 95 of 100 (691668)
02-23-2013 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Eli
02-23-2013 12:44 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

What part of "the Linneus model is not employed whatsoever becuase it has been found to be in error and thus, useless to tell us anything about the natural relationships of living things to each other" don't YOU understand?

Not according to he scientists who say "ONE OR OTHER OF THE KINGDON-LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS IS STILL WIDELY EMPLOYED AS A USEFUL WAY OF GROUPING ORGANISMS"...

... and who add "not withstanding problems with this approach, such as Bacteria,... which are rejected by the phylogenetic classification systems."

But the point is that the Bible writers were not electing which Kingdom applied to Genesis, but simply never mentioning anything but Plants and Animals which we therefore realize is using the Two Kingdom System, NOT CERTIFYING IT nor recommendeing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 12:44 PM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 11:08 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 96 of 100 (691669)
02-23-2013 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
02-23-2013 7:29 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.

I haven't argued any such thing. Your two proposals are not the only options. I can easily think of several others. My personal belief, which I have not made any attempt to argue for, is that the flood story is meant to describe man's relation to God, and that the story need not be true to accomplish that goal.

Of course it is that too.

It is a divinely revealed piece of information that corresponds one-to-one with the extinction of all other kinds of men that os=ccurred 40 thousand years ago.

That coorespondence is no coincidence.
The previous chapters in Genesis, 4, and 5, tell us of the 22 previous humanoids that actually correspond to those 22 now extinct humans which is also factually true.

This is no coincidence either.

Genesis tells us that there was hybridizations before the "flood of modern man Out-of-Africa."
That too is true, since we all carry the genes of Neanderthal man today.

That is no coincidence.

The whole tale corresponds directly with what science is telling us today.
The ONLY axiom needed in order to see the two stories are one and the same is to understand the necessity for writing the tale in analogy to water instead of people.

It is no coincidence that the mention of the Ark refers to the skull of Modern man which contained the visions of all the animals nd carried them into the New Heaven and New Earth that began 40,000 years ago for us, the sons of God to come.

The ONLY possible "Ark" that could carry all the animals into this new world of Modern man was our own skull:

That is why Moses continued this tale:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2013 7:29 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 11:12 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 99 of 100 (691697)
02-24-2013 1:08 PM


...so,... POINT MADE
These posts in this thread demonstrate how much information and knowledge is presented by discussing the three points of view concerning Genesis:

1) Atheistic Denial of Creationsim Interpretations
2) Creationism/ID Genesis Interpretations
3) Theistic evoution Synthesis of Science with a different Genesis Explanation

NOTE:

Religion did NOT have to be mentioned as evidenced here in these responses.
The entire discussion is merely about Reading Comprehension and Factual Information.

There has been no requirement that one be religious, or a particular denominational member of any organization.

Religion and State was not involved here, merely science and English.

Hence, my point has been made de facto:

"Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught as Public Education."


Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Eli, posted 02-24-2013 2:03 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019