|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
AP Breaking News Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be TaughtTuesday, August 2, 2005 WASHINGTON, (AP) --President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.
On other topics during the group interview, the president:
_Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a CIA officer's identity, but he stood behind Rove. "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said.
_Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
_Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
Those words just don't sound right coming from him. How far does he extend that idea outside of something that appeases a certain block of voters?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Exactly when, for example, has Bush tried to block teaching evolution in public schools?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Yeah, he'd never do that...so very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
By your response, I can only assume you are completely unable to find any evidence that Bush has attempted to censor the teaching of evolution and are forced to fall back on sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
He's an evangelical Christian--he'd never pass up an opportunity to quietly cross the divide between Church and State. When someone clearly violates the oath they took with no consequences to face, sarcasm, sir, is my only friend... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Exactly how has Bush "clearly violated" his oath of office in this area? By rendering an opinion?
As for your other comment, I remember reading about how, when John Kennedy was first running/first elected president, people would say things about how Kennedy, as a Catholic, would probably quietly cross the divide between Church and State. Those types of comments, regardless of a particular religion, were bigoted then and they are bigoted now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Considering your political leanings, I thought you would appreciate a bigoted view...  Save the hyperbole for someone else. Religion is a personal--not a social choice--and as such, religious choices should not encroach upon social choices. Faith-based charities, while I applaud their efforts to assist those in need, have used it as a recruiting tool in both mine and other peoples' experiences. Using one's political power to advocate what is clearly a religious position and suggesting it be placed into a situtation it doesn't belong (i.e. keep religion out of schools) is a clear violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. Those who claim there is a "secular Jihad" going on in America should either: move to a non-secular country or transform America into a transparent theocratic government--don't waffle. However, the aforementioned transformation would mean the end of America. Also, I almost spilt my coffee when you mentioned Kennedy! At no time during Kennedy's tenure as President did he approach mixing religion and politics in the way that Bush has done. Thanks for the smile. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
By your response, I can only assume you are completely unable to find any evidence that Bush has attempted to censor the teaching of evolution and are forced to fall back on sarcasm.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Heather & her two mommys" type of different. The President may not be attempting to censor teaching evolution but I'm sure some communities will censor themselves by focusing more on intelligent design than evolution. Not because it's a different idea but because it's a safe one that doesn't conflict with their religous views. Just like the good old days. As an aside to anyone, does intelligent design offer anything beyond a list of improbabilities? Where is the science to intelligent design?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
theory, to date you have still failed to show even one incident where Bush "quietly crossed the divide between Church and State" by advocating censorship or otherwise. Furthermore, according to press reports on the intelligent design issue, Bush "also said he believes the matter should be decided by local school boards, not by a federal government mandate." If he has come right out and said he is against a federal mandate on this, how can you seriously accuse him of crossing a line or violating his oath of office?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Reuters Top News Article Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolutionThu Aug 4, 2005 3:17 PM ET By Jon Hurdle PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."
Santorum is the third-ranking member of the U.S. Senate and has championed causes of the religious right including opposition to gay marriage and abortion.
He is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections.
The controversy over intelligent design is a hot topic in Pennsylvania, where the Dover Area School District in south central Pennsylvania has included the theory in its biology curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to block the policy, calling it a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
Most Americans believe that God created human beings or guided the process of evolution, according to a CBS poll last November. Two-thirds said they wanted creationism taught alongside evolution in schools.
SCIENCE CURRICULUM
Critics, including many science teachers, say intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested and has no place in a science curriculum.
Santorum sided in part with intelligent-design proponents in saying that there were gaps in the theory of evolution.
"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.
"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution."
Santorum had proposed an unsuccessful measure in 2001 that would have required discussing the "controversy" of evolution when the theory is taught in classes.
Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, was quoted in The New York Times this week as saying intelligent design was not a scientific concept, and that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean he thinks the concept should be taught as part of the "social context" in science classes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
I wonder how many people who've actually said this know exactly what makes evolution "scientifically credible" in the first place. I'm not saying he can't agree with that field of study's "findings". But, like most, he prolly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
I wonder how many people who've actually said this know exactly what makes evolution "scientifically credible" in the first place. I'm not saying he can't agree with that field of study's "findings". But, like most, he prolly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Maybe things have changed since I went to high school, but biology was not a requirement. It was a college prep class. It prepared you for further study at a college or university. I doubt you'll find a lot of controversy in higher ed about evolution in the science departments. Can any of you Christian Soldiers name a major university that offers a degree in biology based on intelligent design? By major, I mean research institutes like Stanford, University of California, USC (a Methodist school), the Ivys, Boston, UNC etc..
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
That's true. On the other hand, if they let in people who majored in "comparative lit" and "Womyn's studies," they should probably not bitch about "creation based biology."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Maybe things have changed since I went to high school, but biology was not a requirement. It was a college prep class. It prepared you for further study at a college or university. I doubt you'll find a lot of controversy in higher ed about evolution in the science departments. Can any of you Christian Soldiers name a major university that offers a degree in biology based on intelligent design? By major, I mean research institutes like Stanford, University of California, USC (a Methodist school), the Ivys, Boston, UNC etc..
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
What does this have to do with people, making assertions about the "truth" of evolution over the "fallacy" of creationism, not knowing what the hell they're talking about?
Make it an elective for all I care, but the point is that, with the current state of the theory of evolution, Intelligent Design has just as much right to be taught. And furthermore: With the fact that there's no confirmable ties between legitimate biology and the theory of evolution, there's no merit to consort it with the use of the Biology courses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The New York Times reports: A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. . . .
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524 |
Next thing you know, they'll want schools to teach that gravity is just the Devil sucking. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Maybe things have changed since I went to high school, but biology was not a requirement. It was a college prep class. It prepared you for further study at a college or university. I doubt you'll find a lot of controversy in higher ed about evolution in the science departments. Can any of you Christian Soldiers name a major university that offers a degree in biology based on intelligent design? By major, I mean research institutes like Stanford, University of California, USC (a Methodist school), the Ivys, Boston, UNC etc..
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
What does this have to do with people, making assertions about the "truth" of evolution over the "fallacy" of creationism, not knowing what the hell they're talking about?
Make it an elective for all I care, but the point is that, with the current state of the theory of evolution, Intelligent Design has just as much right to be taught. And furthermore: With the fact that there's no confirmable ties between legitimate biology and the theory of evolution, there's no merit to consort it with the use of the Biology courses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Feel free to dispute my post any time rather than just post a bunch of emoticons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The New York Times reports:
A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. . . .
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
Cool. Let's start teaching things when the polls speak for them and stop when the polls speak against.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
I'm curious - has anyone actually looked at what the Bible says about creation recently? If you read it closely and with an analytical eye, which is always fun to do, all sorts of fascinating questions come to mind. http://www.bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.a...1&portion=1Quote:
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Does this beginning come before the seven days of creation?
Quote:
1:2 The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface.
Following up on what I said before - before the seven days of creation, it looks like something exists. Nowhere in the seven days does it say that God created the world itself out of nothing.
The question is, how much of the world already existed before the seven days of creation?
Quote:
1:3 God said, 'There shall be light,' and light came into existence.
1:4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness.
1:5 God named the light 'Day,' and the darkness He named 'Night.' It was evening and it was morning, one day.
FYI: Based on Hebrew translation, Light was created on one day, but it's not the "first" day. The Hebrew term used in the Bible is "yom echad." If the Bible was referring to the first day, it would have said "yom rishon."
Skipping ahead a few verses (after the separation of heaven and earth, the creation of plant life, the sun, moon, and stars...)
Quote:
1:20 God said, 'The water shall teem with swarms of living creatures. Flying creatures shall fly over the land, on the face of the heavenly sky.'
1:21 God [thus] created the great sea monsters, along with every particular species of living thing that crawls, with which the waters teem, and every particular species of winged flying creature. God saw that it was good.
1:22 God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and become many, and fill the waters of the seas. Let the flying creatures multiply on the land.'
1:23 It was evening and it was morning, a fifth day.
1:24 God said, 'The earth shall bring forth particular species of living creatures, particular species of livestock, land animals, and beasts of the earth.' It happened.
1:25 God [thus] made particular species of beasts of the earth, particular species of livestock, and particular species of animals that walk the land. God saw that it was good.
Isn't it interesting how fish and birds were created before the rest of the animals?
What is my point in posting all this, you may ask?
First of all, for those who may not be familiar with the Bible (or who need their memories refreshed), it may be useful to see what it actually says.
Second, I like looking at texts and analyzing it for its own sake. I spent some time in France during the Middle Ages at a yeshiva, and it's fascinating the way scholars analyze and interpret their sacred texts.
Third, perhaps the questions I've raised might give you all something to ponder and will contribute to the discussion.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Quote:
Methos said:
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Does this beginning come before the seven days of creation?
That is the 7 days of creation. It's a summary before a full explanation. People do it all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Did you read the entire post, or did you stop after that one point? If you had continued reading, you'd see that I address this point.
Just in case, let's see what I can clear up here.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Quote:
Methos said:
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Does this beginning come before the seven days of creation?
That is the 7 days of creation. It's a summary before a full explanation.
Is it?
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created, then it gets into details about the seven days of creation. But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere. With the second and third days, when the sky and dry land is formed, the way it's worded suggests that something already existed and God was rearranging what he already created rather than creating from scratch for these two days of creation.
Let's look at the text again and see what it says (so that I can refresh my own memory as well).
Quote:
1:6 God said, 'There shall be a sky in the middle of the water, and it shall divide between water and water.'
1:7 God [thus] made the sky, and it separated the water below the sky from the water above the sky. It remained that way.
1:8 God named the sky 'Heaven.' It was evening and it was morning, a second day.
1:9 God said, 'The waters under the heaven shall be gathered to one place, and dry land shall be seen.' It happened.
1:10 God named the dry land 'Earth,' and the gatherings of water, He named 'Seas.' God saw that it was good.
Again, in the case of dry land - no something from nothing. It's rearranging what already exists. Dry land already existed - it just was inaccessible because it was covered up by water. So it may have been created before the seven days.
Your logic seems to fit when talking about the heavens, but not the earth.
(And if you want to get knee-deep in Jewish mysticism, I've heard the first line described as God coming up with the idea for the heavens and the earth and the days of creation, but I consider that to be really pushing it.)
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
To chime in for a minute...
The Theory of Evolution is...interesting. I think it is valid to question whether this is a scientific theory or not. I think it's more of a leap of faith to say that humans evolved from apes. There is no question we are related. But, I think we evolved along similar evolutionary lines. We have found so many forms of man preHomoSapien. I don't think we can deny that we weren't always HomoSapiens.
Actually, the Theory of Evolution doesn't state that man came from apes. That's a misconception.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
How does the theory of intelligent design contradict the theory of evolution? This is a serious question since I'm not prive to the difference between "intelligent design" and Creationism.
From Terestrial Soup:
Creationism is the belief that the Biblical account of Creation in the book of Genesis accurately depicts the process God used to make the world and all that is in it.
The Intelligent Design Movement is an intellectual, scientific, and theological alternative to the naturalistic perspective pervading the bulk of western thought today. The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) consists of three main branches: it seeks to be a scientific investigation into the effects of intelligent causes, it seeks to challenge naturalistic evolution theories, and it seeks to comprehend the workings of the Divine. More and more scientists are breaking away from mainstream naturalistic science and are joining the IDM, for of a number of reasons from religious to scientific.
I know this was a long time ago, but it didn't really answer my question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Ah, here's another interesting tidbit. Quote:
1:14 God said, 'There shall be lights in the heavenly sky to divide between day and night. They shall serve as omens [and define] festivals, days and years.
The sun, moon, and stars weren't created until the fourth day of creation, and it is when they are created that years and days and all that can be counted. So how were years and days and time in general kept track of before the creation of the sun and moon?
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Feel free to dispute my post any time rather than just post a bunch of emoticons.
Feel free to offer evidence instead of your bigoted opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Ah, here's another interesting tidbit.
Quote:
1:14 God said, 'There shall be lights in the heavenly sky to divide between day and night. They shall serve as omens [and define] festivals, days and years.
The sun, moon, and stars weren't created until the fourth day of creation, and it is when they are created that years and days and all that can be counted. So how were years and days and time in general kept track of before the creation of the sun and moon?
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology. You site specific Hebrew terms that you claim mean "A" when I've heard other Hebrew scholors claim they mean "B". That's an entirely different debate. I don't think that belongs in public scool discoures any more than the soteriological debate between protistants and Catholics. All that should be discussed is the scientiffic merits of competeing theories.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology.
I'm not posting this stuff to prove or disprove anything regarding Creationism or evolution or anything like that. I'm not interested in debating that topic.
I'm merely providing information and insights that may be interesting or of use to people who are debating, while at the same time posing challenges to the way some people (not anyone in particular) interpret the Bible.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology.
I'm not posting this stuff to prove or disprove anything regarding Creationism or evolution or anything like that. I'm not interested in debating that topic.
I'm merely providing information and insights that may be interesting or of use to people who are debating, while at the same time posing challenges to the way some people (not anyone in particular) interpret the Bible.
All valuble topics. I just think they confuse the issue as to what should be taught in schools. That's all I'm saying. Maybbe they could use a thread of thier own.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology.
I'm not posting this stuff to prove or disprove anything regarding Creationism or evolution or anything like that. I'm not interested in debating that topic.
I'm merely providing information and insights that may be interesting or of use to people who are debating, while at the same time posing challenges to the way some people (not anyone in particular) interpret the Bible.
All valuble topics. I just think they confuse the issue as to what should be taught in schools. That's all I'm saying. Maybbe they could use a thread of thier own.
You mean like a "do people interpret the Bible correctly" thread?
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Yeah, that'd be a friendly thread...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Oh, I'm sure. Especially with all the friendly, rational, careful thinkers we have around here (snicker).
It should be quite...entertaining, to say the least.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The New York Times reports:
A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. . . .
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
The Popularity Fallacy. Just because many believe it, that doesn't make it true.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Did you read the entire post, or did you stop after that one point? If you had continued reading, you'd see that I address this point.
Just in case, let's see what I can clear up here.
I read the entire post, but I can't tell what you're going on about if not trying to assert that God modified earth rather than created it.
Quote:
Methos said:
Is it?
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created, then it gets into details about the seven days of creation. But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere. With the second and third days, when the sky and dry land is formed, the way it's worded suggests that something already existed and God was rearranging what he already created rather than creating from scratch for these two days of creation.
You're all over the place here. First you conceed that the Bible says God created the world and then one sentence later you're trying to imply exactly the opposite by invoking, "something didn't come from nothing".
Using what the Bible doesn't say to try and make your case just isn't doesn't work.
Quote:
Again, in the case of dry land - no something from nothing. It's rearranging what already exists. Dry land already existed - it just was inaccessible because it was covered up by water. So it may have been created before the seven days.
Allow me to break this down: The waters were/are on earth. God created earth. Thus the waters were there when he created them and the land below.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Feel free to offer evidence instead of your bigoted opinion.
I've offered you ample evidence in many a difference form. You've simply chosen to ignore whatever I say, then insult me because your sore regarding the fact that I was able to point out your idiocy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Did you read the entire post, or did you stop after that one point? If you had continued reading, you'd see that I address this point.
Just in case, let's see what I can clear up here.
I read the entire post, but I can't tell what you're going on about if not trying to assert that God modified earth rather than created it.
Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Quote:
Quote:
Methos said:
Is it?
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created, then it gets into details about the seven days of creation. But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere. With the second and third days, when the sky and dry land is formed, the way it's worded suggests that something already existed and God was rearranging what he already created rather than creating from scratch for these two days of creation.
You're all over the place here. First you conceed that the Bible says God created the world and then one sentence later you're trying to imply exactly the opposite by invoking, "something didn't come from nothing".
No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
Quote:
Using what the Bible doesn't say to try and make your case just isn't doesn't work.
That's not at all what I'm doing.
I think this same thing happened when we were having a different discussion regarding possible interpretations about what the Bible is saying. I'm not making any claims saying "this is what happened." I'm not making any case. I'm raising questions for discussion's own sake, and explaining how I came by those ideas.
If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between someone engaging in mere speculation and someone trying to make a claim. Just something to watch out for.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
Feel free to offer evidence instead of your bigoted opinion.
I've offered you ample evidence in many a difference form. You've simply chosen to ignore whatever I say, then insult me because your sore regarding the fact that I was able to point out your idiocy.
You even thinking I'm an idiot is akin to you getting laid: even if it ever happened, it would take a support group to make it happen. In other words, you've never done any such thing, my little penciltop troll. And you haven't "stated" your view yet on this thread, although a chimp could predict what it says.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Creationism requires the belief in God.
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
