Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Inactive Member

Message 14 of 2073 (573290)
08-10-2010 7:03 PM

i hope this post belongs here, i had some computer trouble earlier so if this is a duplicate i am sorry. also,i am still trying to get used to this system it is different from the ones i normally use. look for the "".
in teaching creation or science in the science classroom, the following should be taken into consideration.
"Judge William his 1982 decision striking down Ark. 'balanced treatment' legislation adopted as a first approximation the position that science is whatever is 'accepted by the scientific community'. If that is all there is to it, then the old objectivity aim of science is in rather serious jeopardy. A self-certified group of humans -not nature- becomes the final arbiter of science. Worse yet, from the perspective of those who oppose creationism, should some future sociological tidal wave, political swing, massive fundamentalist revival or selective natural disaster result in the bulk of the scientific community holding creationist positions, then on this definition creationism would be science."
{Battle of Beginnings by Dr. Del Ratzsch pg. 161}
Which provides a very big loophole for creationists to walk through and i do not know if this decision has been overturned or not in the last 30 years or not but if it is still on the books then it, by this decision, is okay to teach creationism as science (taking into account minor details).
But the author goes on about this decision:
"But Overton did accept and advance the following as 'essential characteristics of science':
1. science is guided by natural law
2. science is to be explanatory by reference to natural law
3. science is testable against the empirical world
4. science's conclusions are tentative, i.e., they are not necessarily the final word.
5. science is falsifiable
This definition does not look particularly promising {now he discusses points 3,4, & 5 in the next few sentences and shows the problems with this definition but i will quote parts of what he said about point 2}
Requirement 2 is worth brief examination. The content of this requirement, that science must be explanatory by reference to natural law, depends on what 'explanation' means, which is a philosophical issue-- and a disputed one at that...But if that is what explaining involves, then according to some scientists, such as Nobel physicist Richard Feynman, there just is no explanation of quantum-level phenomena, by reference to ntural law or to anything else...Overton's criteria would rule significant and crucial parts of present physics out of science..."
{pgs. 161-2}
given that decision, all creationists have to do is get enough people to agree with them and they woould be allowed to put creation back into the science classroom as science. that decision did not exclude it form the classroom but made admission dependent upon humans and who agrees with whom.
for me, evolution should not be in the science classroom for it is not really science but based upon assumption, conjecture and hypothesis. prediction does not help it for the caliber of scientific prediction does not give the theory of ev. exclusive rights to results. in other words, predictions do not exclude other sources from producing the same results.
since science has been desogned to omit the supernatural it has rendered itself blind and points itself off in the wrong direction looking for the wrong answers. Creation does not meet the present day scientific model and it can't for the latter is a human construct and the former is a one time supernatural act which will not be repeated.
in fact evolutionary origins cannot be repeated either for scientists do not know the original conditions that sparked life nor how or when the process 'took over' developement of that life form. They can't even prove the process actually exists, let alone responsible for their claimed changes in life over millions of years.
extrapolation backwards is not proof nor evidence of existence. the science classroom should not be discussing origins but topics that are scientifically proven--photosynthesis, tectonics, silt movement in rivers and so on. origins, both creationism and evolution require faith and last i heard faith is not wanted in the science lab. yet the former has more proof than the latter and we can see that proof everyday and do not have to wait millions of years to see results.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 7:53 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 1:13 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 28 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 9:54 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 313 by Pressie, posted 10-05-2014 8:01 AM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 16 of 2073 (573346)
08-10-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2010 7:53 PM

"If creationists could show that they were right, their position should be taught and evolution shouldn't. It would certainly pass the Lemon Test, since there would obviously be a secular purpose in teaching something which had been proved to be true."
we are right but secularists do not want to teach something that tells them they are wrong.
"let's leave that one up to scientists, shall we?"
no. i am not a elitist and scientists do not have a monopoly on origins. scientists are not the final authority and do not provide any answers instead they are the blind leading the blind.
"And if someone could produce another theory with the same predictions it would be worthy of consideration."
predictions mean nothing and are not part of the equation so your comment is moot. creation doesn't run by secular scientific models thus those criteria do not determine what is true or not and preditions are merely a tool of the blind to deceive the blind.
all you have to do to see that creation is true is visit a human, animal, plant nursery and you have your evidence without predictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 7:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2010 12:38 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 2:54 AM archaeologist has replied

Inactive Member

Message 20 of 2073 (573381)
08-11-2010 8:19 AM

"There's a fish called Tiktaalik roseae. It lived 375 million years ago. It's an intermediate step between fish and tetrapods. Before it was discovered, a group of scientists predicted that a transitional species between fish and tetrapods lived between 363 and 380 million years ago. They found rock of that age and after several years of digging, discovered exactly what they predicted they would."
i just finished dealing with this example in another thread and so i will post the link and the part i quoted, here as well:
"Tikaalik roseae is a intermediary form between fish and modern amphibians."
{North-Central Texas Birds}
there is no way to prove that that fish is an intermediary simply because there is no observation of it coming from a lesser species and noobservation of it producing a superior one. itis merely a 3-6 inch partial skull and the rest is just hearsay. there is no way to prove the claim and no evidence to support the claim. prediction is not evidence but is subjective and open to manipulation, just like the dating systems are.
that partial skull, found in a cliff, could have been put there by any reason and you have no proof and no way to prove that it lived 300+ million years ago. it could have died while swimming between those rocks or left there by a bigger fish who ate too much.
sorry but that is not a good example to use but it does demonstrate how desperate evolutionists are because that is not a fulfilled prediction, but conjecture to make the prediction look true.
"please give just one example of a similar discovery by anyone using creation "science.""
what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science and God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.
all life goes according to genesis 1. as the hybrid experiments discovered there is no breaking the boundaries God set for reproduction {or any boundary} that alone is proof that evolution did not take place.
the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 8:33 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 8:48 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 10:12 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2010 12:09 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 1:53 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 22 of 2073 (573384)
08-11-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Huntard
08-11-2010 2:54 AM

thank you and everyone says that. i will only say that i am well educated.
"Niether do the vast majority of Christians. This is not about secularism or not, this is about who has the evidence on their side. I'm sorry to tell you, that's not the creationist side."
i can teach evolution but i would do it in a manner that states it is what som epeople believe but they cannot prove true. actually we have all the evideand evolutionists are desperate to find one.
keep in mind that not one discovery has been made in science and archaeology that disproves the Bible. all discoveriesprove it true and it is the conjecture and hypothesizing of the discoveror or scientist that contradicts the Bible not the evidence.
"Nothing useful has ever come out of science? What's that thing you're typing on? Do you think that didn't come about because of science?"
actually, the keyboard and other discoveries came from the intelligence God gave man at creation and science had nothing to do with it. people created things long before modern science came about. so you give credit unduly to a field that did nothing.
"Every scientific theory must make predictions that can be tested, that's the only way to determine if it's accurate or not."
predictions cannot be tested becuase as i explained in the other post, there is no way to prove the claim and no evidence to support it either. that fish is a partial skull and everything else is pure conjecture or hearsay not proof. anyone can make a prediction and turn anything they find into the result of same.
" this is not about secularism."
yet what you do not realize is that the lack of beliefs play a role in the results and analysis of those results. i love quoting wm. dever as he makes a big deal out of the impossibility of objectivity but then turns around and dismisses the bible because it writers were not objective. i quote:
"...contrary to the 'revisionists' biblical criticism, of any school i know, has never claimed to be 'objective'. The distinguished Oxford professor emeritus James Barr has pointed out that that is a caricature. And not since the death of 19th century positivism have any respectable historians been naive enough to think that they could be be entirely objective..." {pg.83}
but wait it gets better:
"This is a book that, although it hopes to be true to the facts we know, does not attempt objectivity; for that would be impossible and perhaps even undesirable." {pg. ix}
now for the best part:
"The perspective of all the biblical writers is a factor that limits their usefulness in another regard. itis no exaggeration to say that all the biblical literature...constitutes what is essentially 'propaganda'. The writers make no pretense to objectivity..." {pg. 71}
{all quotes taken from Did God Have a Wife Eerdmans 2005}
so which is it? is objectivitydesirable or not? is it possible or not? what Dever did was destroyhis credibilitywith those remarks as he plays by a double standard and hypocritical rules. much like the evolutionist does in science. they demand observation (among other things) but do not fill that demand themselves.
you cannot have it both ways.
"When I visit a nursery, I see what nice things nature produces. Where's the evidence for a divine creation?"
yet not one plant can reproduce outside of its kind, just like animals and humans. verses 12, 21, 24, 25 all mention this fact. the boundaries are set and cannot be broken.
sure there may be the odd offspring but they cannot produce a third or fourth generation it stops with them. the evidence is there if you are honest with yourself and will let yourself see it.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 2:54 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 9:14 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 08-11-2010 9:37 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2010 12:35 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 23 of 2073 (573386)
08-11-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Huntard
08-11-2010 8:33 AM

"It most certainly does."
sorry but it doesn't, they do not have the authority nor the right to do so.
"Predictions can still be made."
doesn't mean a thing. with creation there is nothing to predict, we already know what will take place and what we will find. notice that the sun and moon rule the day and night, respectively, just as genesis says. the proof is there.
"No it doesn't."
yes it does but i could have added chapters 2 and 3 and possibly 4 in there as well, if i wanted to be anal about it.
"No it isn't. It is proof however that you apparently don't know what evolution says. Hint: species incapable of reproducing with one another is exactly what evolution predicts."
another escape route for the evolutionist to continue believing in something that never existed. i know what evolution says and claims and it has to make up those fairy tales because the Bible beat them to it thousands of years ago.
like a ponzi scheme evolutionists have to continue to make stuff up or their house of cards will fall flat. have you noticed how over the years (i am talking about the last 40 or so) evolutionists are changing their theory to look more and more like creation?
"Plesae stop projecting."
what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science...
"It most certainly does."
and God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.
"Predictions can still be made."
all life goes according to genesis 1.
"No it doesn't."
as the hybrid experiments discovered there is no breaking the boundaries God set for reproduction {or any boundary} that alone is proof that evolution did not take place.
"No it isn't. It is proof however that you apparently don't know what evolution says. Hint: species incapable of reproducing with one another is exactly what evolution predicts."
the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.
"Plesae stop projecting."
not projecting, i have years of study and discovery to draw from. the evidence is there you just refuse to see or acknowledge it.
{i obviously do not know what i did as my own words got quoted and the quoted words were left alone. }
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 8:33 AM Huntard has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 25 of 2073 (573388)
08-11-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by bluescat48
08-11-2010 8:48 AM

i have already given some--go to the nurseries and see for yourself that life reproduces exactly as genesis said.
we have museums filled with archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record.
there is so much but if you only listen to those who tell you what you want to hear and are not serious about it then i could give you the ark (an example) and you would never believe me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 8:48 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 10:18 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 35 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2010 12:20 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 12:21 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 9:38 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 43 of 2073 (573511)
08-11-2010 6:47 PM

You say prediction is not helpful in science. But, being able to use a theory to predict what you will find in the future is a pretty good indication of the usefulness of the theory, isn't it?
Look at Tiktaalik again. You said they discovered a partial skull, but, in actuality, they discovered 3 skeletons, one of which included the entire animal except its hind limbs and tail.
discussed in the uranium dating thread in the dating forum.
I can’t understand why you think predictions are not important for science. The ultimate goal of science is finding a framework of understanding that gives us the best insights into the workings of the natural world, and allows us to make use of this understanding to improve the condition of life in the future. The best way to meet this goal is to develop theories that can guide future work (i.e. make predictions).
christians do not need predictions, we already know what is going to happen in the future. science has proven over andover that it cannot predict the future (i.e. weather forecasts) and it has a hard time even predicting the past.
the idea of 'predicitions is just anothe rtool to lead people away from the truth. since creation was a one time supernatural act, we do not need to predict anything, we know what will take place and how things came to be.
one just has to accept or reject it. it is that simple.
No, we don't. When I was an evangelical Christian, I went looking for this evidence as I had been told the same lie. I could not find it. I went to the Biblical Archaeological Review, the one serious evangelical Christian archaeology publication, and they showed that it does not exist. There is very little evidence consistent with the OT, never mind that actually supports the OT narrative.
biblical archaeology review is hardly evangelical christian. itis run by a total jewish person by the name of hershal shanks. please post it claims to being evangelical. perhaps you are thinking of ABR, associates for biblical research which is found at Home - Associates for Biblical Research. they claim to be christian and list many articles containing the proof you seek.
keepin mind, the christian belief is one of faith not physical evidence and to please God one must use faith not evidence. God will provide enough physical evidence to shore one's faith up but not destroy what pleases Him. which is why there is such limited physical evidence for most things of the Bible.
also remember that dating artifacts and mss. is very subjective and some items, like the Ipuwer paprus are misdated giving the idea that there is no evidence for anything. or if you listen to people like k. kenyon who ignored evidence at her digs or discovered by j. garstang then you will be listening to faulty conclusions which are based upon limited and missing data.
ABR has three jericho dvds if you want to watch something presenting you with evidence.
I have listened to these Bronze age myths for 62 years and that is why I say you still have shown no evidence. 5000 year old stories show no evidence nor do looking a plants & animals. If genesis was true there would be one species of cat, dog, horse, maple, oak, jellyfish, squid, lobster etc. How many species were on your mythical Ark? But to get back on topic. It is simple. Science should be taught in science classes and religion in social classes.
the evidence is there, go to that website and read some of those articles, you will get more evidence than i can list here. there is also many books out there which provide detailed accounts. one is Lost Treasures of the Bible by fant & reddish, eerdmans 2008 or 100 Reasons to trust Old Testament History by murray, wsc 2005 and many more.
Edited by archaeologist, : fixed quotes

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 6:50 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 53 by nwr, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:58 PM archaeologist has replied

Inactive Member

Message 45 of 2073 (573518)
08-11-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by subbie
08-11-2010 6:50 PM

But this is a forum for the discussion of scientific issues
yea yea, you all hide behind that idea but you forget that science does not own everything, is not the final authority and is not owned by the secular world and when you enter into topics relating to the Bible you give up that right to exclusively use your own rules for you are outside the scope of science and dealing with the topic of theology and religion
which means you are in God's realm and His rules apply. if you want to talk only science then stay out of theology and religion issues.(that includes origins)
Since you've simply dismissed science out of hand, there's really no point in you participating in this forum any longer.
what i dismiss is the lies and misinformation you think is science but until you realize you are basing your conclusions, theories and hypothesis on limited data and excluded information, you will always be looking in the wrong direction and get the wrong answers.
but that is the way it is with secularists, they do not want the truth so they use the field of science as a starwman to exclud contributions that upset their neat little applecart.
so all i have to ask is, what are you afraid of that you cannot let others participate who disagree with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 6:50 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 7:22 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 7:22 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 48 of 2073 (573527)
08-11-2010 7:41 PM

This, of course, is what differentiates science from religion. Science actually understands that its conclusions are based on incomplete information. That's why science considers all conclusions to be tentative. Religion, on the other hand, has even less evidence supporting it than science, but takes its conclusions to be beyond question
you forget that origins did not go according to modern scientific models. it was a one time supernatural act which means science is the blind leading the blind
You are free to participate, but will be expected to present evidence that can be supported. Stuff like "God said it" or "The Bible says" will carry no weight.
i can present evidence where there is evidence but do not expect me to pull something out of mid air. the Bible is an ancient document thus is evidence and if it says something then it carries as much or more weight as any other ancient document.
we have over 5,000 mss or partial mss. concerning the new testament alone with some written very close to the originals {Bruce: The NT documents: Are they reliable: pg 10}
let me quote:
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the NT is in mss. attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 & 50 BC) there are several extant mss but only nine or ten are good and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC- AD17) only thrity five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty mss of any consequnece, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books 111-vi, is as old as the fourth century. of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitius (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two mss, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh...The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400BC) is known to us from eight mss, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900 and a few papryus scraps, belonging to the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428BC) YET no classical wscholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their work which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals
(ibid. pg. 11)
so in terms of legitimacy, the Bible trumps all due to the extensive copies we have and the closeness to its original writing; which makes saying 'The Bible says...' very credible and legitimate.
the roblemis that the double standard held to by secularists, evolutionists, compromised christians is that it benefiots them when they want it to and then they discard it when it works against them.
if you want honest discussion then you must remove the double standards and agree to a set of criteria that allows all sources to be used in the same manner and it would be up to the opponent to refute the source withproof or a sound argument supplemented by legitmate and credible quotes or evidence
now this does mean i would accept the inclusion of the wingnut gfringe like van daniken or others like him but they may have a point or two worth discussing.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 7:48 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 52 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 7:50 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 71 by Kapyong, posted 08-12-2010 5:46 PM archaeologist has replied

Inactive Member

Message 49 of 2073 (573528)
08-11-2010 7:47 PM

to supplement dr. bruce's words here is a link to show more credibility to the Bible and its mss.:
so i submit that using the Bible is as legitimate and credible as using any other ancient document or modern scientific paper or article.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 7:49 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 61 of 2073 (573589)
08-12-2010 4:51 AM

All you have done, and keep doing repeatedly, is display your ignorance, and your unwillingness to learn.
actually all you are doing is decribing yourself as you do not stick to topic but go to the insult or personal attack. i posted good quotes and references and this is all you have to say--clearly the problem lies with you.
Why are you even here?
to present you with the truth so that you are without excuse come judgement day. this is the problem with dealing with evolutionists and atheists, they are so dishonest and cannot have a decent discussionwith those who disagree with them. as the Bible says-- men love darkness rather than light-- and you all prove it so true.
if you were correct then you would not be afraid of someone like me and would engage in a decent discussion sans the insults, personal attacks, et al and actually present real proof for your side. as it stands you show you do not have the truth and that evolution is wrong because you need to bully everyone who does not take your side.
The difference, of course, is that modern scientific papers are based on observations that anyone else can duplicate and either verify or refute. The bible is not.
science is not the standard, and i have shown that there is no real observation being done. what is observed is conjectured into a conclusion then extrapolated backwards to justify accepting a lie. or alternative to the Bible.
We know for a fact that life was not a one time creation event and that the Bible is factually wrong on many subjects such as the Biblical Flood, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan and so it certainly does not belong in any Science class and it is unlikely that it would be of anything more than peripheral interest in a history course.
so wrong and you have destroyed any claim of being a christian with that post. Jesus said, if you do not believe Moses how will you believe me. faith starts with genesis, hebrews 11
Did you forget the Creation Museum?
i did but i never use it as 'evidence' as i heard recently that ken ham and AIG have accepted micro-evolution. i never agreed with it being constructed but it is his choice and his money problem.
oh and thanks for the link, i have never visited their website.
the word is 'creationist' not 'creo' if you are goign to use english use it correctly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:00 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 120 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-28-2010 1:12 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 63 of 2073 (573592)
08-12-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Huntard
08-12-2010 5:00 AM

Wait, you're denying even micro-evolution? You do realize we can directly observe micro-evolution, don't you? I don't think you can find a single creationist on this site who will support your contention that micro-evolution doesn't happen.
you do realize that micro-evolution does not exist, right? what is observed is not evolution or any form of that theory/process but the results of God's genetic design at work under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin.
in reading most of the book called Genes, i forget the title as it is in my car right now, and it is a fascinating read, genetic research is showing that th efall of man is true as they come across so many little items (for lack of a better word) that corrupt the genes in the body.
oh and i do read secular books and find some of them really fascinating at what they discover unfortunately, like all evolutionary/scientific material they attribute the evidence to the wrong thing. the drawback of that particular book is that its agenda seems to be to make all humans robotic and a product of pre-programmed genes in a desperate attempt to relieve humans of the responsibilities that come with their choices.
one example thqat comes to mind is the so-called 'gay gene' or the attempt by some scientists to prove that homosexuality is not a choice but a pre-programmed response.
BUT getting back to topic, i made the comment that neither evolution nor creation should be taught in the science classroom and my reasoning behind thatis that origins is not a legitimate scientific interest. it is a theological/religious issue and science has intruded in on the discussion via disgruntled men like darwin and wallace.
the source of origins comes from the Bible alone as science has no history or roots in that topic. you may say it comes from the ancient 'stories' from the secular civilizations but guess where they got it from--noah and his sons and their wives.
the bible did not have to be in existence to be the first to tell the story. which means that for all nations to have a flood or creation tale Babel and the disporia that took place there is really true. there is no other reasonable explanation for that fact.
remember what sherlock holmes said, via his author, and i paraphrase, ...take away all the extra and what is left, no matter how impossible, how improable (and so on) is the truth. evolution does not fit the bill.
so i will stand with my earlier comments and say both creation and the theory of evolution should not be taught in the science classroom and those teachers can teach real science. creation is a one time supernatural act and evolution never existed thus neither belong in that room.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:00 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:42 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 08-12-2010 4:23 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-13-2010 9:44 AM archaeologist has replied

Inactive Member

Message 65 of 2073 (573640)
08-12-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Huntard
08-12-2010 5:42 AM

it does exist, very much so, just ask any creationist on this site.
if they believe that i doubt they are creationists. Gem 1:30 said that the universe and the earth were complete in all their vast array which elimiates even micro-evolution from existence and participation in life.
It's a result of mutations, so, yes, it is the result of evolution.
no. you attribute the wrong thing. even though evolutionists have altered there theory and now say that evolution simply means change the example i gave here is not evolution in action, in any form. for species do not change just the individual whose genes were more affected than someone else's. there is no evolution at work at any time.
You might be pleased to know then that evolution isn't about origins.
yes i already know about that but 40 years ago it was. you forget that evolutionists alter the theory when they come to problems they cannot solve. still doesn't allow science to teach evolution for they cannot produce the evidence that proves the process exists nor can the reproduce the exact conditions evolution came in contact with life and started 'altering' it.
then science can never find out how it happened anyway, so what's your problem here? Oh, and who gets to determine what is or isn't science? You?
i am sure you wish so you could attack me on my definitions. science as it is designed right now cannot accomplish that and it doesn't need to for we already know how it was done. all evolutionists are doing is wasting time and money that could be better spent helping people get fresh water, healthier drugs (no side affects) and so many other good things.
it's in the sacred Hindu writings, which are older than the bible.
not really as noah came before the hindus and their writings as did adam and others.
the rest of your post is not germane so i will let those comments pass. and speaking of chronology, if one is honest thenthey will see that God preceeds all writings and passed His words onto adam who passed them on to his childrenand so on. whenmen decided to break from God thenthe stories were altered so they could be 'fee' from the correct words and live as they please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:42 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by bluescat48, posted 08-12-2010 9:03 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 9:11 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 4:08 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 73 of 2073 (573818)
08-12-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
08-12-2010 3:58 PM

A perfect example of what happens when religion is allowed into the science classroom. Scientific method? Out the window. Only dogma is allowed here.
this is an example of the blind faith some people have in science and it shows that they do not want to know the bad things that take place in that field and that their 'scientific method' is at the whim of subjective, fallible humans.
to answer it i am going to liberally quote an article that demonstrates the weakness of the 'scientific method'. I will give you the details of the source after i finish quoting oh and do not let your bias blind you to the facts.
Evolutionists sometimes accuse Christians of restricting the free exercise of scientific endeavor, and sometimes this has been true. But it is not difficult to find examples of blindness on the part of scientists in the past, and of evolutionists throughout their history. About 200 years ago the Academy of Sciences of France declared: In our enlightened age there can still be people so superstitious as to believe stones fall from the sky. (Tomas 1971:57). Eyewitness accounts of meteor falls were summarily dismissed at that time, because science had spoken. Does this mentality still exist within the field of astronomy?
{to answer that question--yes it does}
Ernest Brown, past president of the American Astronomical Society, confessed that many of the beliefs regarding the solar system cosmogony, dynamics, and stability which he had held throughout his life were illusions, mere articles of faith, adhered to for non-rational reasons, and impossible of legitimate presentation as the logical consequences of observations and valid calculations.
Act 1 of this mighty Big Bang drama was announced in April 1992 at the meeting of the prestigious American Physical Society (Ann Arbor News 1992: A1). A discovery was made that was described in the following manner:
Explains how stars and galaxies evolved.
Shows evidence for the birth of the universe.
One of the major discoveries of the century, in fact, of all time.
Unbelievably important: its significance could not be overstated.
The Holy Grail of cosmology has been found.
Solved a major mystery and deserved the Nobel prize.
The discovery is like looking at God.
With more than 300 million measurements, the astronomers discovered ripples of matter near the edge of the universe. How did they know this? The measurements were all of temperature taken by sensors pointed in different directions from the earth. In averaging the 300 million measurements, astronomers found a temperature difference in different parts ofthe universe. How big was the difference? One report stated 30 millionths of one degree; another said 10 millionths of one degree.
The study cost $400 million and 28 years of work by many scientists. Shortly after the announcement there came an embarrassed silence. Apparently there is no instrument in the world that can measure such an infinitesimal difference. Presumably a gnat flying across a sensor 100 miles distant would create a greater temperature difference. All that had evidently happened in the study was averaging an almost infinite number of meaningless measurement errors.
All was not lost, however. Act 2 of the Big Bang drama was announced nine months later at the annual meeting of the equally prestigious American Astronomical Society (Ann Arbor News 1993: A1).
The great new discovery was described in these terms:
Strong new support for the theory that the universe began some 15 billion years ago with a Big Bang.
Precise measurements of remnant energy from the Big Bang gave results exactly as the theory predicted.
It was the toughest test yet of the theory.
The powerful new evidence verifies the textbooks
The results exactly match the theoretical curve of temperature energy decay that would be expected in the Big Bang theory.
We now learn that the 300 million measurements taken at a cost of $400 million dollars, described above, were just preliminary results prematurely released to the media a few months previously. The new study, hundreds of millions of measurements later, is 30 times more precise. What was found? Nothing! That is, no temperature differences at all, which is exactly what the first study should have concluded.
But read these studies again! Two opposite results are reported, and both claim to be exactly what the theory required.
Astronomy: technology, science, or speculation?
by Erich A. von Fange
Associates for Biblical Research. 2001; 2006. Bible and Spade (2001) Volume 14 (vnp.14.1.26). Associates for Biblical Research
this is from my personal library and i have not found a copy on the internet yet. is it no wonder christians and others do not trust scientists or the scientific method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:58 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 8:07 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 8:08 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2010 8:40 PM archaeologist has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 75 of 2073 (573827)
08-12-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kapyong
08-12-2010 5:46 PM

you confused two fundamentally different issues
no i didn't as i was specifically refering to the gap between origin and copies.and in reference to the illiad {and i should have been specific and said the word 'ancient'} let me quote the late dr. metzger:
next to the NT, the greatest amount of mss testimony is of Homer'sIlliad...there are fewer than 650 greek mss of it today. some are fragmentary. they come down to us from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and following. when you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800BC, you can see there's a lengthy gap.
{--a side comment. leave it to the anti-biblical person to distort the argument and try to alter what is being discussed by throwing in whatis not being discussed. modernprinting is not the issue here but the actual real mss copies from history that were not privy to modern publishingmethods. there is a big difference. this is to be expected from this crowd as the goals of EvC are not met by their own side because they either cannot or refuse tobe honest in their presenting their point of view}
considering that their is an 1100 year gap from original penningof the document and the earliest surving document, one cannot say that what we have is what homer really wrote and it is prone to editing, changing etc.
whereas with the NT and the Old, are mss. are so close that we can see that no changes have been mad even during the gap years making the Bible more credible than any other ancient document.
the dead sea scrolls have done this for the OT as has the silver scrolls discovered by Gabriel Barkay in a dig in the mid 70's.
i have not returned the insults nor personal attacks, ad hominems, et al and have presented my point of view as instructed by the rules of this board, it would be nice to see the people who side with the anti-biblical forces do the same.
after all by resorting to thenegative, all you are doing is demonstrating that you cannot back up your point of view as required by the rules, if at all and show that your character is very lacking.
{forgot to add the source of the quote, and i am sure many of you will dismiss it because of theauthor eventhough the person speaking the words was a very reputable scholar. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel pg. 60}
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kapyong, posted 08-12-2010 5:46 PM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 8:13 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 95 by Kapyong, posted 08-13-2010 2:26 AM archaeologist 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