Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught

quote:

---

Lame.

​

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

---

Alternatively your phrasing really is confusing.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Given that your "valid understanding" contradicts itself, rather demonstrates that you are simply trying to fit your limited understanding of science to the text.

quote:

---

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"...

---

I haven't commented on the meaning of the phrase "in the beginning". However, obviously a correct understanding of the verses cannot be reached by trying to force-fit them to a preferred meaning.

quote:

---

Lame and intellectually dishonst, IMO.

---

I think that you mean "intellectually honest", since that, at least is not an accusation that could be more justifiably thrown your way.

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.

Psychology and Sociological research follows the scientific method; making them science.Creationism does not fit the description of science.

Yeah, but you've got more words in the brackets than you do from the Bible. You are forcing an a-priori interpretation into the text, rather than allowing the text to provide the interpretation.All you are doing is smooshing your own understanding of modern science together with the words from the Bible. There's no reason whatsoever to think that your interpretation is the way its suppose to be understood.You just want it to be your way so that the Bible doesn't get it wrong, but its not an honest approach to understanding what the Bible says. You could do what you're doing to almost any text and get it to line up with whatever you want when you get to add more words than were already there.Check it out:Jack and Jill (the first two people aka Adam & Eve) went up a hill (on which the Tree of Knowledge was sitting and which they ate the fruit from) to fetch a pail of water (that is to gain the knowledge from the tree to become like gods)OMG look Jack and Jill is really about the Garden of Eden!!

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.

Yes, it means the "first" life to sprout on earth... Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

They are considered Soft Sciences because they are not Empirical.
They do not "follow" (?) the Scientific Method.What they argue does not start with a hypothesis that is subjected to an empirical experiment to rule it a theory.
We can not predict the future in sociology, especially notable in the area of the economy.The term soft science is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Soft science is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from hard science, with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science.What is Soft Science?

quote:

---

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.

---

"In the beginning" is a temporal reference. But your statement is false because at the beginning there is nothing that can reasonably be called "the Earth"

quote:

---

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

---

It wasn't when you "inferred" that "without form and void" referred to the accretion disk.And that is a very clear indication that your "inferences" owe far more to modern science than they do to the text.

Of course psychology is empirical. What part of psychological research is not empirical?Every piece of psychological research has a hypothesis. What piece of psychological research does not have a H0?I find it astounding that you can use the word 'conjecture' without irony.

?
The SOURCE I provided a link for said "conjecture."
I think from reading your quick draw superior criticisms you are going to have a loy of surprises if you keep posting here.NOTE:
What is Soft Science?The term soft science is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Soft science is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from hard science, with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science.

1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.It has become clear that with the advent of modern science we now can see what the Bible writers inferred in the rather unique duality of the language used.If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.But don't pretend that makes the reader right and the bible wrong.

"Minute" is not the word I'd have used for an error of billions of years. The Earth has simply not been around since the beginning. This is wrong. Why don't you go see if you can convince some YECs of your interpretation of the Bible?

quote:

---

1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.

---

Apparently telling the truth about your methods is considered "trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis". I have to point out the fact that neither you, nor your methodology are in Genesis.

quote:

---

If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.

---

Well that would be you in insisting that "in the beginning" did NOT refer to a particular time.And of course, the fact that Genesis claims that the ocean existed at the beginning would rather negate any idea that it was intended to refer to any modern understanding of the existence of our universe. It would, however, work perfectly well in the time and place that Genesis 1 was written. Now these considerations are VALID considerations when interpreting Genesis 1 honestly. Your method of simply trying to find vague correspondences so that you can claim that the Bible is correct is both invalid and dishonest.

Apart from anything else, your attempt to interpret the Bible so that it agrees with science is not in itself a scientific endeavor any more than attempting to interpret The Wizard Of Oz as an economic treatise is an economic endeavor. It's an exercise in hermeneutics, not science.And we can hardly have public school teachers teaching children how they ought to interpret the Bible, especially as your way of interpreting it seems to be unique to you. You'd have the secularists all over you for putting religion into schools, and the fundamentalists all over you for putting the wrong religion into schools.This is why public schools don't offer classes in Biblical Hermeneutics.Standard creationists have, in a way, a better justification than you for the teaching of their ridiculous piffle. At least they are being wrong about science. When they pretend, for example, that there are no intermediate forms, this is at least a claim within a scientific field, albeit a completely wrong claim made by morons who deserve to be poked with pointy sticks. But when you are wrong about how we should interpret the word deshe when it occurs in the book of Genesis, you are not even being wrong about science.

Your sources are wrong. You ignore my questions.Please show one piece of psychological research which is not empirical.You do know I've been contributing to this site since 2005? I'm not sure what the 'keep posting here' remark refers too.Thanks.