Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
49 online now:
14174dm, caffeine, dwise1, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (9 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,266 Year: 5,014/23,288 Month: 135/1,784 Week: 22/211 Day: 22/20 Hour: 0/7


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 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 1 of 100 (690195)
02-10-2013 12:58 PM


There is hardly a soul not aware of the great divide in the culture between Science and the Institution of Public Education in genral while the Institution of Religion teaches a different point of view.

What is the purpose of Public Education if not to bring light and reason to such matter concerning the larger society?

Within the Institution of Religion, itself, the seven different perspectives are hardly acknowledged by the b-general opublic.
The effect of this is that children are raised in a paradigm that diuvides them, fails to inform them of the choices available, and allows adults to dispute one another blindly.

Just the sociological value of present ALL the seven views plus Evolution seems to be sensible behavior.

1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution
8) Scientific Evolution

Theistic Evolution by and large agrees with science, and differes only with the way other men like Smith, Wesley, Cambell, etc presented their interpretation of Genesis:

1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.
(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html

2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html

3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg

4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmo:
(Gen 1:3-5)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg

5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together
(Gen 1:9
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg

6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water
(Gen 1:10
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html

7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom
(Gen 1:11
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html

8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html

9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg

10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation

11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created

12) Paleotologists enumerate the same number of 22 now extinct species as listed in the 22 names of the Genesis genealogy from the first man, Adam, thru Noah and his 3 racial Stocks of Shem, Japheth, and Ham.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-10-2013 2:45 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2013 4:17 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2013 4:48 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2013 1:07 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 02-11-2013 8:43 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2013 11:38 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2013 2:20 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 20 of 100 (690521)
02-13-2013 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
02-10-2013 2:45 PM


Of course, that is the only reason to teach any of those things, other than the Theory of Evolution. Certainly none of the others belongs in science class, except as examples of things that aren't science

What are your thoughts on the present policies wherein teachers and textbooks usually mention Alchemy and discuss that subject, teach the history of the early roots of Chemistry in that now rather discredited field of inquiry, and applaud and credit those alchemist with the invention and manufacture of almost all our present chemistry glassware.

The test tube, beckers, evaoprating vessels, and comolex tubings and coper and glass apparati were all created long before John Dalton:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-10-2013 2:45 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 02-14-2013 12:00 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 21 of 100 (690522)
02-13-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2013 1:07 AM


If it would have value for our sociological understanding, then maybe sociology class would be a good place for it.

On the downside, that would give scientifically illiterate sociology teachers apparent license to teach creationist crap, so maybe it's best not to.

You make a good point that these others missed, here, in that Social Science Class of Behavioral Science Classes do not have the excuse for ignoring the Bible creation tale the way Chemistry or Physics teachers might.

But the Biology teacher seems sort of trapped between the hard place of pretending the kids don't KNOW their is an issue with his science and that "rock of the Ages," scripture, which he must either condemn or apply these ideas of Theistic Evolution which ameliorates the controversy with a compromise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2013 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 02-14-2013 12:03 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2013 1:59 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 24 of 100 (690535)
02-14-2013 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
02-14-2013 12:00 AM


I agree with that...

Moreover, I'd have no problem teaching the history of the development of the ToE, including the fact that before Darwin, most naturalists were creationists of some sort.

That makes sense in my book.

A curriculum designed to describe the history of the science related to cosmic evolution needs to be fair enough to emphasis that Genesis was the lone and sole claimant for a Big Bang in days when men puzzled over the possibility of a Static Universe that had always existed.

And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.

It also should be emphasized that Gen 1:9 noted correctly that once "all the waters under the heavens were gathered together into one place" called the Panthalassic Ocean, "and the dry land appeared," which was called Pangea.

It also is scientifically true that no visible light was present at the moment of the big bang beginning, but there was a delay of 400 million years, until the universe cooled down.
Then the First Cause said let there be light.

Whatever criticism the course might raise against the speculatins of the Bible writers, in all fairness, these few correct "hypothesis" did turn out to be true.

The only problem with biology is religious nitwits who insist on lying to children about science to protect their goofy ideas. Eliminate that and you eliminate the problem.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 02-14-2013 12:00 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 02-14-2013 8:21 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2013 2:02 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 31 by Eli, posted 02-14-2013 8:18 PM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 27 of 100 (690547)
02-14-2013 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
02-14-2013 1:59 AM



That didn't make much sense.

That paragraph addressed the fact that people complaining that Creationism ought not be a subject discussed in science classes forget that Social Science and Human Behavioral Science (Psychology) are also fields within science.

The assumption has been that the issue concerns biology only.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2013 1:59 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 8:20 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 28 of 100 (690549)
02-14-2013 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
02-14-2013 8:21 AM


I disagree with that...

Actually, that kind of garbage is exactly what needs to be kept out. Nobody ever interpreted the bible to be describing the Big Bang theory until science developed it. The same is true for the rest of the codswallop you posted.

What I observe is that we ARE discussing it on every religious site and in the media, like we do here.
Bill Maher is ridiculing Americans very week, and the comedians are having a Field Day getting easy laughs from a one-side audience.

But no one is defending the sex prudence once recommended by the churches that were previously attended by everyone.
What I see is that the Family in America has been under attack simply because the Institution of Religion has been undermined.

RThe consequences have been that in the vacuum where education does not even discuss sexual morals and the impact on Welfare and poverty, our birth rate has become 50% bastards every year, and the development of a two tiered cultural institution that is seeing America "Coming Apart."

And though the destruction of Black America is the real issue, the effect has also divided white America.

COMING APART
The State of White America, 1960-2010
By Charles Murray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 02-14-2013 8:21 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 02-14-2013 9:28 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 32 of 100 (690691)
02-15-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Eli
02-14-2013 8:18 PM


Re: I agree with that...
Bacteria which has cell walls falls into the category of the Plant Kingdom using the Two Kingdom System.

It is clear that none of the six different systems of Taxonomy is perfect, and the choice to use one or the other is subjectively a decision of the individual who might so do for purposes that seem satisfactory for their intend use.

We still do this in K-6 grades, because it is simple to grasp and generally correct to see living things as either plant of animal, separated by the respiration of CO2 in the former, cell walls, and use of chloroplast for photosynthesis.

The animals alway breath in oxygen, are absent cell wall, and must ingest protein and sugars they can not manufacture.

It is clear that Genesis mentions ONLY plants and animals, so it infers the Two Kingdom System.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Eli, posted 02-14-2013 8:18 PM Eli has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-16-2013 8:52 PM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 33 of 100 (690695)
02-15-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
02-14-2013 2:02 PM


all four are true...
Genesis clearly can and ought be read with the choice to understand it as corresponding with what we now know, rather than deciding to misinterpret the literal statements just to choose to make if seem false and non-factual.

Considered the first five Verses:

It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which was yet to congeal into a spherical planet) earth.[/B]

[Bhttp://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/step-by-step-guide-to-the-big-bang/]

A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede that advent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to flood the cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.
The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : and there was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).

Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).

Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

You can protest and even argue that the christians who are not theistic evolutioists say different, but an honest, fair minded read would have to admit this is a valid correspondence when examined the way written above... not that many intellectual oriented people care about honesty, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2013 2:02 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2013 11:54 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2013 11:57 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 36 of 100 (690839)
02-16-2013 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
02-15-2013 11:57 AM


Re: all four are true...
a

But even your misrepresentations obviously fail. Any knowledgable person would know that the Earth did NOT exist, even as an accretion disk, until many billions of years after the "Cosmic Dark Age".

You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form

This changed as even the sun and the stars were intially accreation disks themselves, slowly cooling and taking the spherical form.

But you do seem to recognize the uncanny correctness of a 400 million year cooling down era where darkness existed just as the Bible reports.

These first 5 verse enumerate ideas that were not even suspect in 1362BC, and the Big Bang beginning was a shot in the dark by the Biboe writers who would have lost this whole debate for me had they said what was the politically correct point of view until 1940, that the cosmos has always been there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2013 11:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 4:07 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 37 of 100 (690840)
02-16-2013 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
02-15-2013 11:54 AM


Re: all four are true...

It should be a clue when you have to add more words than were originally there in order for it to add up, that you are forcing the conclusion rather than finding it.

Brackets are just the grammatically correct why of interjecting explantions into a paragraph so to indicate they are not part of that text.

One could take the ideas stated in parentheses out of the context, and write one's argument for what his own reading comprehension tells him is meant.
That is what most Bible commentary does.

But I include it in the context so that every phrase and expression is shown to be comprehensively included.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2013 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2013 10:40 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 41 of 100 (690868)
02-17-2013 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by herebedragons
02-16-2013 8:52 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

1) I don't think Genesis was intended to be a reference book on classification systems.

2) The two kingdom system was abandoned because organisms could not be classified appropriately into only two kingdoms. Modern classification systems recognize 6 kingdoms organized into 3 domains.

1) I already said, that since in 1362BC no one would have thought it useful to break down the various like forms further than into a simple and obvious Two Kingdom System.

2) Your own personal preferemce for the Six Kingdom System is a subject choice which might even be appropriate to your vocation related to the taxonomy of Biology.
But, as the Graphic explains in the legend under the Charts, none of the 6 possible choices for using one of the six makes that particular decision more scientifically valid since none of the six actually is totally definitive or comprehensive.

That the Bible writers rstionally spoke in terms of Two Kingdoms makes sense based on the audience the book was directed at, but in no way fais to conform with the facts, that the Plant Kingdom appeared before the Animal Kingdom.

Gen 1:11 And (The First Cause?), God, said, Let the earth bring forth (life in a Spontaneous Generation of Bacteria which shall found the evolving and complex members of the Plant Kingdom upon the Earth, i.e.; the Hebrew word "deshe" is not grass but means "first sprouts of life on Earth"), grass, (from which early roots shall evolve) the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, (I.e.; all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

9
The two kingdom system was abandoned because organisms could not be classified appropriately into only two kingdoms. Modern classification systems recognize 6 kingdoms organized into 3 domains.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-16-2013 8:52 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2013 9:19 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 42 of 100 (690870)
02-17-2013 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Eli
02-17-2013 2:10 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?

He's trying to say that bacteria are plants so that genesis is chronologically correct.

Not exactly.
I am actually telling you that Genesis really says, by a Spontaneous Generation, God created "the first sparks of life," as the Hebrew word "deshe" says, from which all other life developed.

The KJV Bible translators called this first life, "grass," because to them, smaller organisms, things like bacteria or microbes were unknown yet.

So technically, Genesis is dead on with such a claim, that "the first sprouts of life," whatever one will apply that to, is correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Eli, posted 02-17-2013 2:10 AM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 12:01 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 43 of 100 (690871)
02-17-2013 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
02-17-2013 4:07 AM


Re: all four are true...

quote Kofh:

You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PaulK:
I wouldn't call a quark-gluon plasma "solid", and that's about as close as you'll get to normal matter close to the Big Bang.

That is what I also said,... "void in... solid form."

I use bracketed comments so people can see how I explain the statement in context.
I spot light comments to show that the whole passage conforms to the general explanations I recommend to one's reading comprehension.

You would have to be blind to miss the correspondences with the Big Bang as a beginning, and the uncanny truth about Cosmic Darkness, as stated way back, in 1362BC.
Until the Universe cooled enough for neutral Atoms to from and hold onto their electrons no visible light could be created.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 4:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 7:39 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 45 of 100 (690880)
02-17-2013 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
02-17-2013 7:39 AM


Re: all four are true...

That seems to mean that it was a void and had a solid form somehow... Which really doesn't make much sense.

Yes, and we can see just how far you go beyond the text.

Lame.

You are just repeating your position which is simply to oppose me.

That I told you the Plasma state of the Cosmos contained the elementary matter right from the first split second which would solidify, and though then void of geometric shape, take form from the formlessness and become recognizable as stars and at some point, the Earth.

That you can and do decide to ignore this valid understanding of what the first two verses in genesis means is simply your choice, with the intention of disparaging the bible, instead of granting my description is more valid than your own interpretations.

In other words, you CAN and DO insist that your way of explaining the two verses serves your argument, while subjectively attempting to disqualify any other interpretation of "In the beginning"...

Lame and intellectually dishonst, IMO.

Better to just concede that indeed, there has been a begining to the heavens and the earth and try to get the better of me further on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 7:39 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 10:45 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2277 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 50 of 100 (690953)
02-18-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
02-17-2013 10:45 AM


Re: all four are true...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That I told you the Plasma state of the Cosmos contained the elementary matter right from the first split second which would solidify, and though then void of geometric shape, take form from the formlessness and become recognizable as stars and at some point, the Earth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words you were completely wrong to talk about the accretion disk which no more existed at that point than the modern planet did.

You apparently infer some point in time from the simple true statement that in the beginning all matter that now occupies the heavens included the Earth.

What you people do is make these assumptions so you have misread Genesis and fail in reading comprehension because of you inferences.

If you use my inferences, then Genesis is straight forth correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2013 10:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2013 12:17 PM kofh2u has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020