Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
60 online now:
Coragyps, jar, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,259 Year: 5,007/23,288 Month: 128/1,784 Week: 15/211 Day: 15/20 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
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 31 of 100 (690645)
02-14-2013 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by kofh2u
02-14-2013 1:09 AM


Re: I agree with that...
And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.

Which is in absolute contradiction to biology and the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 1:09 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:30 AM Eli has acknowledged this reply

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 39 of 100 (690858)
02-17-2013 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by herebedragons
02-16-2013 8:52 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
He's trying to say that bacteria are plants so that genesis is chronologically correct.

As always, he is shitting all over what we know in a failed attempt at making the bible literally correct.


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 42 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:17 AM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 47 of 100 (690915)
02-18-2013 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 7:17 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
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.

And you have been told, seeing that you've tried to pass this crap off numerous times, that "deshe" does not mean "first sparks of life."

It means, as you are already well aware, "the first sprouts of the earth."

Sprouts... plantlings with root systems growing from dirt.

You also have tried to claim before that this is an error of "KJV translators" only to have it pointed out that the Jews also translate "deshe" as "sprouts" or "grass."

So, technically, Genesis never makes a claim about the "first sprouts of life" so it cannot be dead on in that respect. It makes a claim about simple plants ie: herbage coming before animals in which it turns out to be dead wrong.

I can go further by pointing out that "deshe" in the 14 other instances that it occurs in the OT is talking about fields or cattle grazing.

Ever heard this verse before?

Psa 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

Do you really mean to try to say that David is saying God makes him lay down in bacteria?

Do you really think that is what the chapter is about?

Come on, man. You have a brain. Time to start using it and give up making claims that you know are not true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:17 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 12:05 PM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 63 of 100 (691121)
02-20-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 12:05 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
Yes, it means the "first" life to sprout on earth...

No, it doesn't. You keep qualifying the definition with the addition "first life." Stop adding "life." It does not mean "first life." It means the simplest of vegetation occurring on dry ground.

It is not talking about the first proto-cells, which, btw, bacteria are not.

So, let's go back over some seventh grade stuff.

bacteria are not plants.
The first simple cells were not bacteria.
Plants are not the first forms of life.

Got it? I hope so. A measure of intelligence is the ability for an animal to learn and adjust their behavior accordingly.

If you don't have the ability to learn, you are in deep shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 12:05 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by kofh2u, posted 02-21-2013 6:49 PM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 69 of 100 (691298)
02-21-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by kofh2u
02-21-2013 6:49 PM


Re: Strong's dictionary for "deshe"...
I can see what it says, as plainly as anyone else.

You don't know the difference between "first sprouts of the earth. tender grass, tender herb" and "first life"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by kofh2u, posted 02-21-2013 6:49 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 70 of 100 (691299)
02-21-2013 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kofh2u
02-21-2013 7:02 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
The "scinece thingee" that some people just don't understand?

It's called "self correction." It is 2013, not 1893. We don't use science once it is found to be in error.

http://www.amazon.com/...nce-Ideas-Seemed-Time/dp/1904332498.

Plants did not oxygenate the earth, not did they come before animals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kofh2u, posted 02-21-2013 7:02 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 88 of 100 (691539)
02-22-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by kofh2u
02-22-2013 2:59 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
Of course we should, when we realize that the context of Genesis 1:11 on refers ONLY to plants and animals.

No we shouldn't, because there are other lifeforms besides plants and animals.

Changing ideas in science to conform to what the context of the bible is is exactly why the geocentric model was retained regardless of what the actuality of the earth/sun relationship was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by kofh2u, posted 02-22-2013 2:59 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 11:18 AM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(1)
Message 93 of 100 (691631)
02-23-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by kofh2u
02-23-2013 11:18 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
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???

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?

Besides that, when the 2 Kingdom system was in use, bacteria were classified as an animal.

Their discoverer, Leeuwenhoek, wrote a letter to the Royal Society in 1676 which began “In the year of 1675 I difcover’d living creatures in Rain water which had stood but a few day in a new tub, that was painted blue within.1 This observation provoked me to investigate this water more narrowly; and especially because these little animals were, to my eye, more than ten thousand times smaller than the animalcule which Swam-meidam' has portrayed, and called by the name of Water-flea. or Water-louse, which yon can see alive and moving in water with the bare eye.”

He referred to bacteria as "creatures" that he called "animalcules" and compared to tiny insects.

Linneaus, himself, designated "animalcules" (bacteria) as a type of insect, namely a coccus in Systema Naturae and John Hill of Petersborough included the bacteria microlife in his book "A History of Animals": a treatise written in 1752.

The study of bacteria in the time of the 2 Kingdom System was a study of entomology.

If we are going to apply your 2 Kingdom theory to the bible, we will apply it consistently. In the 2 kingdom system, bacteria fall in the "Animalia" category. So, the first living things, according to the system that you insist upon using, were animals.

So the bible is still wrong, even using the 2 kingdom system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 11:18 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 8:13 PM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 97 of 100 (691675)
02-23-2013 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by kofh2u
02-23-2013 8:13 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
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"...

Not the systems, the kingdom level classifications.

Ex: Animal, Protista, Plantae

The classifications are still used and are still useful.

Some of the systems that utilize those classifications are outdated, however.

This is a matter of failed comprehension on your part.

Regardless, the "two kingdom" recommendation set forth in the bible is chronologically wrong, no matter how you try to slice it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 8:13 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 98 of 100 (691676)
02-23-2013 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by kofh2u
02-23-2013 8:33 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
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.

There are not 22 humanoids listed in those chapters. There are people listed in those chapters and their numbers are 27, not 22.

And, no, your claim that there are 22 extinct human species is not factually true. Do not post an image of the book "A Guide To 22 Extinct Species." It does not support your claim.

Both your claims are wrong. There is no correspondence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 8:33 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1948 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 100 of 100 (691704)
02-24-2013 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by kofh2u
02-24-2013 1:08 PM


Re: ...so,... POINT MADE
That's not a point. That's a preference. One which you have failed to make an argument for.

Also, you should drop the numerology bit. It isn't working for you. There aren't "Seven Christian hypothesis on creation."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by kofh2u, posted 02-24-2013 1:08 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 © 2020