PDA

View Full Version : North Carolina school wants to teach creationism



jakerz
09-28-2008, 03:48 PM
Are you serious...


North Carolina school wants to teach creationism (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080916/ARTICLES/809160338/1018/letters)

"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

Evolution doesn't correlate with atheism automatically and anyone who thinks it does is pretty close minded. It's simple if you ask me...creationism is a Biblical theory...separation of church and state should prevent it from being taught for that very reason.

Enormous fail...


"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

slorch
09-28-2008, 04:10 PM
Are you serious...



Evolution doesn't correlate with atheism automatically and anyone who thinks it does is pretty close minded. It's simple if you ask me...creationism is a Biblical theory...separation of church and state should prevent it from being taught for that very reason.

Enormous fail...

you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Creationism is just as proven as evolution.

also, reread the constitution to understand "seperation of church and state." You obviously have the ACLU and left wing extremist view of it...

IMO, both theologies belong in the discussion. As I said initially, neither points of view have been proven...

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 04:21 PM
you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Creationism is just as proven as evolution.

also, reread the constitution to understand "seperation of church and state." You obviously have the ACLU and left wing extremist view of it...

IMO, both theologies belong in the discussion. As I said initially, neither points of view have been proven...

funniest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 04:22 PM
Are you serious...



Evolution doesn't correlate with atheism automatically and anyone who thinks it does is pretty close minded. It's simple if you ask me...creationism is a Biblical theory...separation of church and state should prevent it from being taught for that very reason.

Enormous fail...

this is disgusting.

BoomerSooner
09-28-2008, 04:23 PM
you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Creationism is just as proven as evolution.

also, reread the constitution to understand "seperation of church and state." You obviously have the ACLU and left wing extremist view of it...

IMO, both theologies belong in the discussion. As I said initially, neither points of view have been proven...

Wrong. Not even close, in fact. Creationism is proven in no way. Evolution, while not a 100% fact, is a theory backed up by science. That's the difference. Creationism isn't science in any way. If you want the teachers to say, "Evolution is just a theory. It's the best model we've got at the present time, but it certainly isn't the only belief people believe to be true." then that would be fine with me. However, creationism isn't a theory, it isn't science, and it DOES NOT belong in the classroom.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 04:26 PM
Wrong. Not even close, in fact. Creationism is proven in no way. Evolution, while not a 100% fact, is a theory backed up by science. That's the difference. Creationism isn't science in any way. If you want the teachers to say, "Evolution is just a theory. It's the best model we've got at the present time, but it certainly isn't the only belief people believe to be true." then that would be fine with me. However, creationism isn't a theory, it isn't science, and it DOES NOT belong in the classroom.

people need to understand the difference between theory and scientific theory.

scientific theory is fact, to scientists.

scientists acknowledge the possibility of error, or that we do not have accurate enough instruments for an assumption to be fact, but when a hypothesis is confirmed by experiment after experiment, and published in peer-reviewed journals and verified by leading scientists all over the world, it is accepted as fact and called Scientific Theory.

The same reason its called the Theory of Gravity.

wanna debate that one too?

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 04:30 PM
you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Creationism is just as proven as evolution.

also, reread the constitution to understand "seperation of church and state." You obviously have the ACLU and left wing extremist view of it...

IMO, both theologies belong in the discussion. As I said initially, neither points of view have been proven...

I found the curriculum that slorch wants to teach, guys:

http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2007/10/03/ca801830b7a2108/ibox050509.gif

slorch
09-28-2008, 04:59 PM
funniest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

yet it's true.

both are theories, although faith additionally founds my opinion.

your other drivel about the difference between theory and law is hogwash and a futile attempt to support the indefensible.

slorch
09-28-2008, 05:03 PM
Wrong. Not even close, in fact. Creationism is proven in no way. Evolution, while not a 100% fact, is a theory backed up by science. That's the difference. Creationism isn't science in any way. If you want the teachers to say, "Evolution is just a theory. It's the best model we've got at the present time, but it certainly isn't the only belief people believe to be true." then that would be fine with me. However, creationism isn't a theory, it isn't science, and it DOES NOT belong in the classroom.

theory isn't proven, or it would be a scientific law.

bottom line is, with all of the resources, effort, and supposed educated thought, that there are still GAPING holes in the theory.

It is no more sound than creationism.

They are both favored in support of various mindsets and political opinions.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 05:17 PM
theory isn't proven, or it would be a scientific law.

bottom line is, with all of the resources, effort, and supposed educated thought, that there are still GAPING holes in the theory.

It is no more sound than creationism.

They are both favored in support of various mindsets and political opinions.


Slorch, you just keep digging yourself deeper in this whole. It's very clear you do not understand how the words "law" and "theory" are used in a scientific context. Here's a link that explains the differences:
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Money Quote:


Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.

A theory, even if proven uncontrevertibly true, will never become a scientific law.

slorch
09-28-2008, 05:21 PM
Slorch, you just keep digging yourself deeper in this whole. It's very clear you do not understand how the words "law" and "theory" are used in a scientific context. Here's a link that explains the differences:
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Money Quote:



A theory, even if proven uncontrevertibly true, will never become a scientific law.

neither is it neccessarily true.

these boneheads are the same folks trying to jam global warming down our throats.

They're full of crap, yet I'm the only one with the agenda...:rolleyes:

Firebird
09-28-2008, 05:24 PM
neither is it neccessarily true.

these boneheads are the same folks trying to jam global warming down our throats.

They're full of crap, yet I'm the only one with the agenda...:rolleyes:

An accepted scientific theory is true......or as true as anything can possibly said to be.

Biologists are shoving global warming down our throats? New one for me...:rolleyes:

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 05:28 PM
neither is it neccessarily true.

these boneheads are the same folks trying to jam global warming down our throats.

They're full of crap, yet I'm the only one with the agenda...:rolleyes:

so do you doubt the theory of gravity, too?
It's a theory because we don't yet know how gravity works.
But do me a favor.
Pick up a pencil.
Drop the pencil.
20 bucks says it falls down.

slorch
09-28-2008, 05:31 PM
theory-1. a speculative ideaor plan as to how something might be done2. a systematic statement of principle involved/ the theory of equations in mathematics 3. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree4 that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied science 5. popularly, a mere conjecture, a guess

Law- a sequence of events in nature or in human activities that has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions.

tell me again what I don't understand...:cool:

Pearland 06
09-28-2008, 05:34 PM
If anybody has seen The Dark Knight, they would know what you should do with that pencil... ;)

slorch
09-28-2008, 05:36 PM
so do you doubt the theory of gravity, too?
It's a theory because we don't yet know how gravity works.
But do me a favor.
Pick up a pencil.
Drop the pencil.
20 bucks says it falls down.

thank you for the introductory physics, but Sir Isaac Newton defined not the theory, but rather the the LAW of Gravity!!!

Newton's Law of Gravity
Each object in the universe attracts each other body.
If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2


So, considering the force between an Sun and the Earth

The force exerted on the Earth by the Sun is equal and opposite to the force exerted on the Sun by the Earth.
If the mass of the Earth were doubled, the force on the Earth would double.
If the mass of the Sun were doubled, the force on the Earth would double.
If the Earth were twice as far away from the Sun, the force on the Earth would be a factor four smaller.
Notes on the meaning of r:
If the two objects are very small compared to the distance between them, then the force is given by Newton's formula with r being the distance between the objects.


If one of the objects is very small and the other is spherically symmetric, then the same formula holds with r being the distance from the small object to the center of the big object.


Point two is a consequence of point one. Newton proved it by adding up the forces.

slorch
09-28-2008, 05:38 PM
An accepted scientific theory is true......or as true as anything can possibly said to be.

Biologists are shoving global warming down our throats? New one for me...:rolleyes:

not so much biologists, but the folks that are fighting to get their liberal agendas front and center in the classroom.

whatabeast
09-28-2008, 05:38 PM
An accepted scientific theory is true......or as true as anything can possibly said to be.

Biologists are shoving global warming down our throats? New one for me...:rolleyes:

A scientific theory is something that has been tested multiple times and is found to be true however it is impossible for the theory to ever be proven with 100% certainty (which is why its called a theory). No one can ever prove evolution to be 100% correct, therefore it is reasonable to assume that there is a possibility it is 100% wrong as well. Creationism can never be proven wrong because it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore you can never prove that it never happend. Its also fairly easy to argue that creationism is merely just a biblical personification of evolutionism.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 05:42 PM
theory-1. a speculative ideaor plan as to how something might be done2. a systematic statement of principle involved/ the theory of equations in mathematics 3. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree4 that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied science 5. popularly, a mere conjecture, a guess

Law- a sequence of events in nature or in human activities that has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions.

tell me again what I don't understand...:cool:

A law in the scientific sense is an expression of what happens. It is single, short, and concise (the law of conservation of matter, for instance).

A scientific theory describes how things happen. A theory has many more moving parts.

There is NO hierarchy. In the scientific community, a theory is not considered "less" true than a law. That is what you don't understand. A law is a RULE a theory is an EXPLANATION.

The following are examples of theories that you accept without question, yet they are theories: cell theory (that organisms are made of cells), atomic theory, the kinetic theory of gases. Are those up for debate?

You just don't like this one, because it conflicts with an ancient Semitic creation poem that was not taken literally even by its authors.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 05:47 PM
thank you for the introductory physics, but Sir Isaac Newton defined not the theory, but rather the the LAW of Gravity!!!

Newton's Law of Gravity
Each object in the universe attracts each other body.
If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2


So, considering the force between an Sun and the Earth

The force exerted on the Earth by the Sun is equal and opposite to the force exerted on the Sun by the Earth.
If the mass of the Earth were doubled, the force on the Earth would double.
If the mass of the Sun were doubled, the force on the Earth would double.
If the Earth were twice as far away from the Sun, the force on the Earth would be a factor four smaller.
Notes on the meaning of r:
If the two objects are very small compared to the distance between them, then the force is given by Newton's formula with r being the distance between the objects.


If one of the objects is very small and the other is spherically symmetric, then the same formula holds with r being the distance from the small object to the center of the big object.


Point two is a consequence of point one. Newton proved it by adding up the forces.

FAIL. Newton posited a LAW, a short concise statement of HOW bodies behave. Today, physicists use the THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY to describe the why.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 05:49 PM
not so much biologists, but the folks that are fighting to get their liberal agendas front and center in the classroom.

Those liberals and their knowledge:rolleyes:

slorch
09-28-2008, 06:18 PM
Those liberals and their theories:rolleyes:

FIFY, and that truly is the reason for a lot of home schooling. Treating theories as fact.

slorch
09-28-2008, 06:21 PM
A law in the scientific sense is an expression of what happens. It is single, short, and concise (the law of conservation of matter, for instance).

A scientific theory describes how things happen. A theory has many more moving parts.

There is NO hierarchy. In the scientific community, a theory is not considered "less" true than a law. That is what you don't understand. A law is a RULE a theory is an EXPLANATION.

The following are examples of theories that you accept without question, yet they are theories: cell theory (that organisms are made of cells), atomic theory, the kinetic theory of gases. Are those up for debate?

You just don't like this one, because it conflicts with an ancient Semitic creation poem that was not taken literally even by its authors.

I gave you true definitions of theory and law.

you give a meandering conglomeration of Bullsh:Censor:t.

doesn't matter what I like or dislike. That is the beauty of true scientific methods. Your predisposed notions are irrelevant.

What is not there cannot be wished there. Science is a beautiful thing. Men's subjugation of the scientific method for political/ philosophical bias is what is sickening.

slorch
09-28-2008, 06:26 PM
FAIL. Newton posited a LAW, a short concise statement of HOW bodies behave. Today, physicists use the THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY to describe the why.

It's amazing how slanted your "education" is...

now you refute a law that has been repeatedly proven in deferance to modern physicists. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ktCarl
09-28-2008, 06:36 PM
Are you serious...



Evolution doesn't correlate with atheism automatically and anyone who thinks it does is pretty close minded. It's simple if you ask me...creationism is a Biblical theory...separation of church and state should prevent it from being taught for that very reason.

Enormous fail...

What's wrong with teaching Creationism in school? Don't you want kids to have a well rounded education or do you want their minds steered in one direction only. Why not teach both and let the individual make an educated choice on the subject.

slorch
09-28-2008, 06:42 PM
What's wrong with teaching Creationism in school? Don't you want kids to have a well rounded education or do you want their minds steered in one direction only. Why not teach both and let the individual make an educated choice on the subject.

because liberal ideas usually end up in the trashcan when that process is applied...:rolleyes:

Firebird
09-28-2008, 06:49 PM
I gave you true definitions of theory and law.

you give a meandering conglomeration of Bullsh:Censor:t.

doesn't matter what I like or dislike. That is the beauty of true scientific methods. Your predisposed notions are irrelevant.

What is not there cannot be wished there. Science is a beautiful thing. Men's subjugation of the scientific method for political/ philosophical bias is what is sickening.

You gave no such thing. Definitions divorced from context are worthless.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 06:50 PM
It's amazing how slanted your "education" is...

now you refute a law that has been repeatedly proven in deferance to modern physicists. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Newton's LAW is true. It describes what happens. What it doesn't do is give an EXPLANATION of why, which is what the theory general relativity does.

BoomerSooner
09-28-2008, 06:52 PM
because liberal ideas usually end up in the trashcan when that process is applied...:rolleyes:

Don't be stupid. Creationism isn't science, it isn't theory, and it belongs in church. If there were some, ANY, sort of scientific backing for creationism then it could be taught, but there isn't.

It's also ignoring the glaring point that you're just pushing for your personal religious agenda. If they were teaching Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, Scientology, etc. you'd find that ridiculous. Why not teach that it isn't the rotation of the planets and stars that causes the sun to rise and fall each day, but that Apollo pulls it with his chariot? Science class doesn't have the time to cover ridiculous mythologies.

BoomerSooner
09-28-2008, 06:53 PM
What's wrong with teaching Creationism in school? Don't you want kids to have a well rounded education or do you want their minds steered in one direction only. Why not teach both and let the individual make an educated choice on the subject.

The problem with introducing false theories and ridiculous ideas is that, beyond teching them nothing, you'd have to include all of them.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 06:54 PM
because liberal ideas usually end up in the trashcan when that process is applied...:rolleyes:

I would like the Norse creation stories, the Greek creation epic, the Sumerian creation myth, the battle between Marduk and Tiamat of the Babylonians, and the Inuit Trickster Raven included in the science curriculum as well. What, you are against a well rounded education?

slorch
09-28-2008, 07:02 PM
You gave no such thing. Definitions divorced from context are worthless.

simple definitions void of bias are still true.

slorch
09-28-2008, 07:04 PM
I would like the Norse creation stories, the Greek creation epic, the Sumerian creation myth, the battle between Marduk and Tiamat of the Babylonians, and the Inuit Trickster Raven included in the science curriculum as well. What, you are against a well rounded education?

bring it.

i actually enjoy studying other views than my own.

IMO, that is what a true education is.

To my point, I know a lot more conservatives that are willing to actually have that discussion than libs that are stuck solely upon sticking to their narrow view.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 07:05 PM
simple definitions void of bias are still true.

You did not give a simple definition without bias of a scientific theory. You gave a very biased definition of the word theory as commonly used. So your point is completely lost.

You are especially full of FAIL today.

Firebird
09-28-2008, 07:06 PM
bring it.

i actually enjoy studying other views than my own.

IMO, that is what a true education is.

To my point, I know a lot more conservatives that are willing to actually have that discussion than libs that are stuck solely upon sticking to their narrow view.

In :Censor:ing science class? You want to debate whether or not this is ture in :Censor:ing science class.


the beginning there was nothing except for the ice of Niflheim, to the north, and the fire of Muspelheim, to the south. Between them was a yawning gap (the phrase is sometimes left untranslated as a proper name: Ginnungagap), and in this gap a few pieces of ice met a few sparks of fire. The ice melted to form Eiter, which formed the bodies of the hermaphrodite giant Ymir and the cow Auðumbla, whose milk fed Ymir. Auðumbla fed by licking the rime ice, and slowly she uncovered a man's hair. After a day, she had uncovered his face. After another day, she had uncovered him completely: Búri.

Ymir fathered Thrudgelmir, as well as two humans, one man and one woman. Búri fathered Borr. Borr had three sons, Vili, Ve, and Odin, who killed the giant Ymir. In the vast flood of Ymir's blood, both the primordial man and woman died. Thrudgelmir was also drowned, although not before he had fathered Bergelmir. Bergelmir hid in a hollow tree trunk and survived. Odin and his brothers used Ymir's body to create the universe : they ground his flesh into dirt, and the maggots that appeared in his flesh became the dwarves that live under the earth. His bones became the mountains, and Odin strew his brains into the sky to create the clouds. The universe comprises nine worlds, of which this earth (Mannheim) is central.

They placed the four dwarves Nordri (North), Sudri (South), Austri (East), and Vestri (West) to hold up Ymir's skull and create the heavens. Then using sparks from Muspelheim, the gods created the sun, moon and stars. As Odin and two others (the Eddas say Hœnir and Lóðurr, these are thought to be kennings for Vili and Ve) walked along the beach, they found two pieces of driftwood. From these, they created the 'first' human beings (the previous two having drowned in the flood of Ymir's blood), Ask and Embla. Ymir's eyebrows were used to create a place where the human race could live in; a place called Midgard.[5]

The gods regulated the passage of the days and nights, as well as the seasons. Sol is the goddess of the sun, a daughter of Mundilfari, and wife of Glen. Every day, she rides through the sky on her chariot, pulled by two horses named Arvak and Alsvid. This passage is known as Alfrodull, meaning "glory of elves," which in turn was a common kenning for the sun. Sol is chased during the day by Skoll, a wolf that wants to devour her. Solar eclipses signify that Skoll has almost caught up to her. (It is fated that Skoll will eventually catch Sol and eat her at the end of the world; however, she will be replaced by her daughter.) Sol's brother, the moon Mani, is chased by Hati, another wolf. The earth is protected from the full heat of the sun by the dwarf Svalin, who stands between the earth and Sol. The flaming manes of Arvak and Alsvid provide the light for the earth.

You're even dumber than I thought.

slorch
09-28-2008, 07:24 PM
Don't be stupid. Creationism isn't science, it isn't theory, and it belongs in church. If there were some, ANY, sort of scientific backing for creationism then it could be taught, but there isn't.

It's also ignoring the glaring point that you're just pushing for your personal religious agenda. If they were teaching Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, Scientology, etc. you'd find that ridiculous. Why not teach that it isn't the rotation of the planets and stars that causes the sun to rise and fall each day, but that Apollo pulls it with his chariot? Science class doesn't have the time to cover ridiculous mythologies.


the thing is I don't believe my ideology should neccessarily taught in public school as the end all/ be all. What i do struggle with is the beliefs of others, because they are secular, being treated as if it is factual or "more correct."

slorch
09-28-2008, 07:25 PM
In :Censor:ing science class? You want to debate whether or not this is ture in :Censor:ing science class.



You're even dumber than I thought.

makes as much sense as believing I came from a highly motivated amoeba.

over time, of course.:rolleyes:

slorch
09-28-2008, 07:27 PM
You did not give a simple definition without bias of a scientific theory that I am trying to advance. You gave an absolutely unbiased definition of the word theory as commonly used right out of the Webster's Dictionary. So your point is completely infallable.

You are especially full of triumph today.

there's more than one way to say you're wrong...;):rolleyes:

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 07:57 PM
because liberal ideas usually end up in the trashcan when that process is applied...:rolleyes:

in a PUBLIC school, religious ideas have NO place.

if you wanna teach your mythology as fact, that's fine, but don't do it with taxpayer money.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 07:58 PM
bring it.

i actually enjoy studying other views than my own.

IMO, that is what a true education is.

To my point, I know a lot more conservatives that are willing to actually have that discussion than libs that are stuck solely upon sticking to their narrow view.

thats what we have ancient lit. classes for.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 08:02 PM
makes as much sense as believing I came from a highly motivated amoeba.

over time, of course.:rolleyes:

environmental variables have been shown (in controlled settings, no less) to exert the force of natural selection, and contribute to macro-evolution.

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/


Evolution can easily be observed in the laboratory and in the world around us. We can see moths evolve their coloring to match the color of soot that covers their habitat, watch bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance in hospitals, and my favorite variety of grapefruit (that’s Rio Star) was made by scientists who exposed seeds to radiation to increase the mutation rate. In the face of such overwhelming evidence - including knowing the exact DNA changes effecting such change - it is impossible for the creationists to deny evolution with a straight face.

To get around the problem, creationists often try to separate evolution into two types, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They argue that micro-evolution can make minor changes, but can¹t build new structures or make other major changes to organisms. Although “the attempt to differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization” (according to Wikipedia), creationists often claim that a chain of small micro-evolutionary steps can¹t add up to a macro-evolutionary step.

In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and “that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species.” Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of “micro-evolutionary” changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the “micro-evolutionary” line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

science.

DrEdward
09-28-2008, 08:11 PM
An accepted scientific theory is just that: a systematic explanation of how and why a set of factors occurs to bring about observable results. To be a valid theory, the explanatory power must be capable of refutation, based on evidence. So long as such evidence to refute is not obtained, the theory remains valid. Under such conditions, evolution is a theory that has yet to be refuted, so it remains the standard paradigm.

At the same time, an explanation that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on it also remains a valid theory. I personally don't see why the two paradigms are incompatible with each other. God could well have used evolution as the mechanism for His creation.

slorch
09-28-2008, 08:15 PM
An accepted scientific theory is just that: a systematic explanation of how and why a set of factors occurs to bring about observable results. To be a valid theory, the explanatory power must be capable of refutation, based on evidence. So long as such evidence to refute is not obtained, the theory remains valid. Under such conditions, evolution is a theory that has yet to be refuted, so it remains the standard paradigm.

At the same time, an explanation that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on it also remains a valid theory. I personally don't see why the two paradigms are incompatible with each other. God could well have used evolution as the mechanism for His creation.

but then nobody's political agenda is advanced... and what fun is that?;)

jakerz
09-28-2008, 08:24 PM
[QUOTE=DrEdward;902326]At the same time, an explanation that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on it also remains a valid theory.

How?

slorch
09-28-2008, 08:28 PM
in a PUBLIC school, religious ideas have NO place.

if you wanna teach your mythology as fact, that's fine, but don't do it with taxpayer money.

your history classes as well as literature classes will be quite lacking if you elimninate all theological influences, but go on with your perfect self...;):D

slorch
09-28-2008, 08:33 PM
in a PUBLIC school, religious ideas have NO place.

if you wanna teach your mythology as fact, that's fine, but don't do it with taxpayer money.

so you will agree to stop most liberally slanted social education too? great, we all win on that one.

DrEdward
09-28-2008, 08:41 PM
[quote=DrEdward;902326]At the same time, an explanation that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on it also remains a valid theory.

How?

Demonstrate the empirical refutation and you will have your answer. Simply advancing a competing theory is not a refutation of the previous one.

I still find the two propositions are quite compatible with each other.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-28-2008, 08:43 PM
An accepted scientific theory is just that: a systematic explanation of how and why a set of factors occurs to bring about observable results. To be a valid theory, the explanatory power must be capable of refutation, based on evidence. So long as such evidence to refute is not obtained, the theory remains valid. Under such conditions, evolution is a theory that has yet to be refuted, so it remains the standard paradigm.

At the same time, an explanation that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on it also remains a valid theory. I personally don't see why the two paradigms are incompatible with each other. God could well have used evolution as the mechanism for His creation.


First of all, it would be helpful to know exactly which god you are referring to here. Just the bible mentions many. Other mythologies even more.

Second - what kind of god would use such an imperfect and random system as evolution?? Such a god lacks the requisite omnipotence, and that becomes problematic. What other limitations does this god have?


Creationism is not science, it's not even theory. It's the abrogation of Reason that results in that childish error - the Divine Fallacy:

"If'n I cain't unnerstand it - Gawd musta did it!!"

Evolution is not that mysterious. Read a book.

Now, let's wager on how long it will take someone to trot out the scintillating logic of........ "Well, if we evolved from apes, howsacum thar's still apes?!?
:cool:

Firebird
09-28-2008, 10:05 PM
there's more than one way to say you're wrong...;):rolleyes:

I used the dictionary...durrr....:rolleyes:

If you can't understand that words have different meanings in different contexts, you really are a limited individual. The word theory "as commonly used" is not the same as the word "theory" in a scientific context.

tayb
09-28-2008, 10:20 PM
Scientology rules!

GoOwls
09-28-2008, 10:27 PM
All a Christian can do is present the plan of salvavtion to non-believers.....the non-believers then have the knowledge that if they refuse to believe, they will go to Hell....and you can't even buy a drink of water there....;)

GoOwls
09-28-2008, 10:28 PM
Scientology rules!

I've studied them, they're stupid.....:eek:

tayb
09-28-2008, 10:32 PM
I've studied them, they're stupid.....:eek:

So we shouldn't teach Scientology in the classroom?

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 10:59 PM
Demonstrate the empirical refutation and you will have your answer. Simply advancing a competing theory is not a refutation of the previous one.

I still find the two propositions are quite compatible with each other.

I think there is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon that controls the world by telekinesis.

If you can't definitively prove me wrong, I must be right.
:rolleyes:

BDB
09-28-2008, 11:05 PM
I think there is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon that controls the world by telekinesis.

If you can't definitively prove me wrong, I must be right.
:rolleyes:

i believe you just proved DocEd right... you can't either rule out or truely say that there is an invisible pink unicorn in the science world. so to NOT teach it is not only being biased towards creationism and evolution, but also showing your true agenda, and what you personally believe.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:12 PM
i believe you just proved DocEd right... you can't either rule out or truely say that there is an invisible pink unicorn in the science world. so to NOT teach it is not only being biased towards creationism and evolution, but also showing your true agenda, and what you personally believe.

no its not biased.

its bullcrap.

if we gave equal time to every crackpot mythology that some crackpot somewhere believed, we'd get nothing done.

You can't teach all, so teach none, and stick to scientific fact.

There was a time when religion ruled the world.

It was called the Dark Ages for a reason...

BDB
09-28-2008, 11:18 PM
no its not biased.

its bullcrap.

if we gave equal time to every crackpot mythology that some crackpot somewhere believed, we'd get nothing done.

You can't teach all, so teach none, and stick to scientific fact.

There was a time when religion ruled the world.

It was called the Dark Ages for a reason...

LMAO! there's so much ****** about your post.

the dark ages ruled because of the plague and bands of raiders from every direction bamboozling europe. it was actually benedictine monks in england that lead the charge in feeding clothing, and teaching the villagers (but i guess science doesn't care about that now)

if you're gonna act high and mighty (teehee@ the aethist punch) you better be able to prove that what you say is %100 perfect true, and ALSO prove that what someone else says is false...science can only do almost half of that.


imo, there's too much dominance in proving that humans are masters of their own universe by scientists. (i.e trying to create a blackhole and being offended by creationism) instead of actually trying to fix problems.

DrEdward
09-28-2008, 11:31 PM
I think there is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon that controls the world by telekinesis.

If you can't definitively prove me wrong, I must be right.
:rolleyes:

No, I just can not offer a refutation. That does not make you correct. But then, if you believe such, it might be consistent with some of your other statements. :D:rolleyes:

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:34 PM
LMAO! there's so much ****** about your post.

the dark ages ruled because of the plague and bands of raiders from every direction bamboozling europe. it was actually benedictine monks in england that lead the charge in feeding clothing, and teaching the villagers (but i guess science doesn't care about that now)

if you're gonna act high and mighty (teehee@ the aethist punch) you better be able to prove that what you say is %100 perfect true, and ALSO prove that what someone else says is false...science can only do almost half of that.


imo, there's too much dominance in proving that humans are masters of their own universe by scientists. (i.e trying to create a blackhole and being offended by creationism) instead of actually trying to fix problems.

The Burden of Proof falls to the suggester, not the defender....
here, let me lay it out in picture terms for you.
(maybe you'll understand)

http://juanfont.eu/logica.jpg

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:35 PM
No, I just can not offer a refutation. That does not make you correct. But then, if you believe such, it might be consistent with some of your other statements. :D:rolleyes:

so then the invisible pink unicorn is just as valid as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god.

DrEdward
09-28-2008, 11:39 PM
First of all, it would be helpful to know exactly which god you are referring to here. Just the bible mentions many. Other mythologies even more.

Second - what kind of god would use such an imperfect and random system as evolution?? Such a god lacks the requisite omnipotence, and that becomes problematic. What other limitations does this god have?


Creationism is not science, it's not even theory. It's the abrogation of Reason that results in that childish error - the Divine Fallacy:

"If'n I cain't unnerstand it - Gawd musta did it!!"

Evolution is not that mysterious. Read a book.

Now, let's wager on how long it will take someone to trot out the scintillating logic of........ "Well, if we evolved from apes, howsacum thar's still apes?!?
:cool:

I sort of feel sorry for you if you really must ask me who God is. But then, such is your privledge. I am always somewhat mystified that some folks who doubt/disbelieve God's existence and His hand in shaping the world feel compelled to worry so much when I offer that one can believe in both evolution and see the hand of the Divine in such a creation. If you don't accept God, so far as I am concerned, it is your loss, but it is also your right to do so.

As to your profound guidance as to reading a book, I believe I have done so on a few occasions.

BDB
09-28-2008, 11:43 PM
The Burden of Proof falls to the suggester, not the defender....
here, let me lay it out in picture terms for you.
(maybe you'll understand)

http://juanfont.eu/logica.jpg

ok. prove to me that i evolved from a single cell bacteria. i need 0 missing links between each level of evolution, and proof that surrounding aread (during the time) were able to sustain said life.

i know i can prove to myself that a 2000 (roughly) year old book has the answers on how/why/where/when/how what i need is in it.

because you dont agree with ME makes ME wrongh, though?

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:43 PM
First of all, it would be helpful to know exactly which god you are referring to here. Just the bible mentions many. Other mythologies even more.

Second - what kind of god would use such an imperfect and random system as evolution?? Such a god lacks the requisite omnipotence, and that becomes problematic. What other limitations does this god have?


Creationism is not science, it's not even theory. It's the abrogation of Reason that results in that childish error - the Divine Fallacy:

"If'n I cain't unnerstand it - Gawd musta did it!!"

Evolution is not that mysterious. Read a book.

Now, let's wager on how long it will take someone to trot out the scintillating logic of........ "Well, if we evolved from apes, howsacum thar's still apes?!?
:cool:

hey, careful with them long words.

you're liable to hurt someone 'round these parts.
:rolleyes:

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:46 PM
I sort of feel sorry for you if you really must ask me who God is. But then, such is your privledge. I am always somewhat mystified that some folks who doubt/disbelieve God's existence and His hand in shaping the world feel compelled to worry so much when I offer that one can believe in both evolution and see the hand of the Divine in such a creation. If you don't accept God, so far as I am concerned, it is your loss, but it is also your right to do so.

As to your profound guidance as to reading a book, I believe I have done so on a few occasions.

so are you going to make a refutation, or just blather on and ignore logic?

BDB
09-28-2008, 11:47 PM
hey, careful with them long words.

you're liable to hurt someone 'round these parts.
:rolleyes:

and there it is. every arguement or discussion you enter, there is always a feeling of superiority that you give off. as if you are looking down on other people. it's actually sickening to think that you are reassuring me that there are more of you walking the streets.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:49 PM
ok. prove to me that i evolved from a single cell bacteria. i need 0 missing links between each level of evolution, and proof that surrounding aread (during the time) were able to sustain said life.

i know i can prove to myself that a 2000 (roughly) year old book has the answers on how/why/where/when/how what i need is in it.

because you dont agree with ME makes ME wrongh, though?

while Science does not yet have every puzzle piece in place, we have a framework that explains HOW each step is made, and we know roughly in which order the changes came.

We have also experimentally shown that such steps are possible (truly remarkable considering the comparative time-frames between natural evolution and documented evolution in a lab many orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth in a time frame many orders of magnitude shorter than what actually happened) and we have found evidence at most points throughout the evolutionary timeframe, to the point where virtually no reputable scientist disagrees with the Theory of Evolution.

Do you have any facts/evidence/science/documented experimental evidence to back up "Let there be light, water, air, etc..."?

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:50 PM
and there it is. every arguement or discussion you enter, there is always a feeling of superiority that you give off. as if you are looking down on other people. it's actually sickening to think that you are reassuring me that there are more of you walking the streets.

dude.

its sarcasm.

the_phoenix612
09-28-2008, 11:52 PM
and there it is. every arguement or discussion you enter, there is always a feeling of superiority that you give off. as if you are looking down on other people. it's actually sickening to think that you are reassuring me that there are more of you walking the streets.

like I'm not met with contempt and superiority complexes at every turn with the rest of you.

"Don't listen to him, he can't even VOTE yet"

"Come back when you have a JOB and a WIFE"

Doesn't the saying go "Let he without sin cast the first stone"?

Or do you all know Bible verses better than me too?

DrEdward
09-29-2008, 12:11 AM
so then the invisible pink unicorn is just as valid as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god.

If that is what you elect to believe, then by all means, have at it. If you care to have faith/no faith in the absense of God, then by all means do so. I have never asserted that I can prove to you or any nonbeliever that God exists. Such a belief is without a doubt a matter of faith; a faith that I have and you do not. That doesn't imply anything beyond that simple statement.

I accept evolution as a scientific theory that seems to account quite well for what we do observe in the visible fossil records. But that does not mean that I have to give up my faith in God.

DrEdward
09-29-2008, 12:13 AM
so are you going to make a refutation, or just blather on and ignore logic?

Refute what? That I believe that evolution is a very valid and appealing explanation of what can be observed. Why would I care to do that? I think it is likely accurate. You may apologize for the "blather" comment later on if you would like.

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 12:16 AM
Refute what? That I believe that evolution is a very valid and appealing explanation of what can be observed. Why would I care to do that? I think it is likely accurate. You may apologize for the "blather" comment later on if you would like.

huh.

I misread your post.

sorry.:)

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 12:21 AM
If that is what you elect to believe, then by all means, have at it. If you care to have faith/no faith in the absense of God, then by all means do so. I have never asserted that I can prove to you or any nonbeliever that God exists. Such a belief is without a doubt a matter of faith; a faith that I have and you do not. That doesn't imply anything beyond that simple statement.

I accept evolution as a scientific theory that seems to account quite well for what we do observe in the visible fossil records. But that does not mean that I have to give up my faith in God.

why were WE arguing?

its seems that I agree with you about almost everything....

ktCarl
09-29-2008, 12:48 AM
The problem with introducing false theories and ridiculous ideas is that, beyond teching them nothing, you'd have to include all of them.

Well, you say they are false and ridiculous but that doesn't make it so. I was responding to the original post because he used that same old 'separation of church and state' argument for NOT teaching creationism in school. That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers and a misuse of that popular phrase. Maybe Sunday school is the best place to discuss and teach Creationism but why are those that don't want it in schools such Nazis about the subject? I say let both subjects be taught in school and allow the freedom of choice for individuals to make up their minds to believe as you do.

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 01:06 AM
Well, you say they are false and ridiculous but that doesn't make it so. I was responding to the original post because he used that same old 'separation of church and state' argument for NOT teaching creationism in school. That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers and a misuse of that popular phrase. Maybe Sunday school is the best place to discuss and teach Creationism but why are those that don't want it in schools such Nazis about the subject? I say let both subjects be taught in school and allow the freedom of choice for individuals to make up their minds to believe as you do.

yes, it was the intention of the founding fathers.

that's where we GET the phrase "separation of church and state".

It appears nowhere in the Constitution, but rather in a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson, providing explanation and elaboration as to what he intended.

JMSFan
09-29-2008, 01:11 AM
like I'm not met with contempt and superiority complexes at every turn with the rest of you.

"Don't listen to him, he can't even VOTE yet"
"Come back when you have a JOB and a WIFE"
Doesn't the saying go "Let he without sin cast the first stone"?

Or do you all know Bible verses better than me too?


Those 2 statements show me that you are still a youth, and as much as you think you know, you really dont know squat. Credibilty on some things comes with maturity, experience and age.

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 01:16 AM
Those 2 statements show me that you are still a youth, and as much as you think you know, you really dont know squat. Credibilty on some things comes with maturity, experience and age.

so because one does not have experience in a thing, he is disqualified from debating that thing?

DragonWatcher
09-29-2008, 01:48 AM
All a Christian can do is present the plan of salvavtion to non-believers.....the non-believers then have the knowledge that if they refuse to believe, they will go to Hell....and you can't even buy a drink of water there....;)

According to your translation that's where they will go. The original is a little bit more iffy about what happens.

I myself believe in evolution as well as creationism. It's my religious belief that God as an entity not limited by time, could have made creation not limited to a singular moment, but an act aimed at the finality of good it creates.

I don't think it should be taught in science class, as creationism can never be studied through the scientific method as faith is at its base. I'm all for people who want to have a religions of the world/cultural study class where this stuff is taught along with other creation stories. In fact the Athiest chapter in that class would probably be the easiest A you could ever get in school.

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 02:29 AM
According to your translation that's where they will go. The original is a little bit more iffy about what happens.

I myself believe in evolution as well as creationism. It's my religious belief that God as an entity not limited by time, could have made creation not limited to a singular moment, but an act aimed at the finality of good it creates.

I don't think it should be taught in science class, as creationism can never be studied through the scientific method as faith is at its base. I'm all for people who want to have a religions of the world/cultural study class where this stuff is taught along with other creation stories. In fact the Athiest chapter in that class would probably be the easiest A you could ever get in school.

The atheist chapter in a world culture class would be one of the richest in the book.

A question for you, though.

If you believe in Biblical Creation, how do you believe in evolution.

"Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures" and "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" seem pretty unequivocal.

DragonWatcher
09-29-2008, 02:38 AM
The atheist chapter in a world culture class would be one of the richest in the book.

A question for you, though.

If you believe in Biblical Creation, how do you believe in evolution.

"Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures" and "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" seem pretty unequivocal.

Not biblical creation, I believe that God did create though. Like many other parts of the bible, I think parts of genesis are metaphors. Honestly if Adam and Eve were the only first two people their descendants would have had to have incestual relations and violate one of god's commandments. Doesn't fit with the overall plan that God would have as sin can't be an ordained part of it.

I don't think god created the earth in 7 days. The sun was created on the 4th day, how were days defined before that point if the earth had nothing to revolve around? I doubt slorch will argue that the revolution of the earth is a theory not a fact. Compared to many Talmud and other regional creation myths there are many things in common with the Judaic genesis story. I think it teaches import lessons, and that there is a great bedrock to learn about faith in that book, but I don't see it as scientific explanation for why things are.

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 02:58 AM
Not biblical creation, I believe that God did create though. Like many other parts of the bible, I think parts of genesis are metaphors. Honestly if Adam and Eve were the only first two people their descendants would have had to have incestual relations and violate one of god's commandments. Doesn't fit with the overall plan that God would have as sin can't be an ordained part of it.

I don't think god created the earth in 7 days. The sun was created on the 4th day, how were days defined before that point if the earth had nothing to revolve around? I doubt slorch will argue that the revolution of the earth is a theory not a fact. Compared to many Talmud and other regional creation myths there are many things in common with the Judaic genesis story. I think it teaches import lessons, and that there is a great bedrock to learn about faith in that book, but I don't see it as scientific explanation for why things are.

if by many things in common you mean many things borrowed or blatantly ripped off from earlier civilizations, then yes, the Biblical story of Creation has many things in common.

GoOwls
09-29-2008, 05:42 AM
So we shouldn't teach Scientology in the classroom?

Didn't say that, did I......just said they were stupid....:rolleyes:

slorch
09-29-2008, 07:42 AM
so because one does not have experience in a thing, he is disqualified from debating that thing?

not disqualified. Just not as credible.

I haven't posted sarcastic lib cartoons and spouted off about folks' lack of reasoning or education for no other reason than their disagreeing with me. You have.

you and Leather head have the same out look: agree with liberal mindset= enlightened, believe in God= uneducated simpleton

neither of those tenets are neccessarily true or false, but you position them as if they are absolute.

slorch
09-29-2008, 07:50 AM
Not biblical creation, I believe that God did create though. Like many other parts of the bible, I think parts of genesis are metaphors. Honestly if Adam and Eve were the only first two people their descendants would have had to have incestual relations and violate one of god's commandments. Doesn't fit with the overall plan that God would have as sin can't be an ordained part of it.

I don't think god created the earth in 7 days. The sun was created on the 4th day, how were days defined before that point if the earth had nothing to revolve around? I doubt slorch will argue that the revolution of the earth is a theory not a fact. Compared to many Talmud and other regional creation myths there are many things in common with the Judaic genesis story. I think it teaches import lessons, and that there is a great bedrock to learn about faith in that book, but I don't see it as scientific explanation for why things are.

read my posts again. I am not the one that came up with the "Theory of Gravity," rather I am the one that defined the difference between a theory and a law. I also reminded the "enlightened ones" that Newton's study on gravity is in fact a LAW not a theory, after Phoenix tried to incorrectly illustrate that gravity was defined as a theory.

I do not dispute what has been proven over and over. While I realize your comment is tongue-in-cheek, you are targeting the wrong guy. Your little "educated" folks are the ones that are twisting these measures to fit their arguments.

BDB
09-29-2008, 08:02 AM
not disqualified. Just not as credible.

I haven't posted sarcastic lib cartoons and spouted off about folks' lack of reasoning or education for no other reason than their disagreeing with me. You have.

you and Leather head have the same out look: agree with liberal mindset= enlightened, believe in God= uneducated simpleton

neither of those tenets are neccessarily true or false, but you position them as if they are absolute.

this

KT2000
09-29-2008, 08:46 AM
If you believe in Biblical Creation, how do you believe in evolution.

I don't believe in a literal interpretation of either, and I think that is a mistake made in this particular debate. For example, you are citing select statements from the most apocryphal sections the Bible and (mis)interpreting them literally. The Bible was never intended to be interpreted in that manner, not even for the most devout of faith.

We've discussed this before, but it is important to recognize that when you talk about the Bible, you are talking about a work that's been studied and critiqued from every angle possible for thousands of years. If it were nothing more than Dr. Seuss or comic book fluff, it would have been kicked to the curb long ago. The Bible contains a considerable amount of canonical material (see analysis of the Gospels, letters in particular) that even the most staunch critics of the text recognize.

But at its core, the Bible was never intended to be interpreted in a wholly literal fashion nor as a collection of laws (Koran). It is a guide for the faithful.

Both creation and evolution occur every minute of every day on this planet. Life is created with conception, and that life evolves from the second it is created.

I believe all major world religions should be studied in schools. The preaching should be left to the churches, synagogues and mosques; but I see no legitimate reason to eliminate religion from classrooms completely. They are all extremely important from a cultural perspective, and very much worth studying.

Firebird
09-29-2008, 08:49 AM
read my posts again. I am not the one that came up with the "Theory of Gravity," rather I am the one that defined the difference between a theory and a law. I also reminded the "enlightened ones" that Newton's study on gravity is in fact a LAW not a theory, after Phoenix tried to incorrectly illustrate that gravity was defined as a theory.

I do not dispute what has been proven over and over. While I realize your comment is tongue-in-cheek, you are targeting the wrong guy. Your little "educated" folks are the ones that are twisting these measures to fit their arguments.

No one has debated that the following statement:


Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.

is a scientific law. What YOU refuse to accept is the simple truth about that statement: it offers a neat, concise statement that describes what happens in nature. That is a scientific LAW. It is a powerful tool, but it offers no explanation of WHY bodies behave that way.

For that you must turn to a THEORY, which is in this case the theory of general relativity. Scientific theories are built upon and explain facts and scientific laws.

There is no hierarchy in the science world where a law is considered more "true" or "proven" than an accepted theory. Your insistence that there is is the most blatant case of willful ignorance I have ever seen.

I note that you don't address the issue of cell theory or atomic theory. Scientists call those theories as well, are they somehow unproven in the mind of slorch?:rolleyes:

slorch
09-29-2008, 08:52 AM
No one has debated that the following statement:



is a scientific law. What YOU refuse to accept is the simple truth about that statement: it offers a neat, concise statement that describes what happens in nature. That is a scientific LAW. It is a powerful tool, but it offers no explanation of WHY bodies behave that way.

For that you must turn to a THEORY, which is in this case the theory of general relativity. Scientific theories are built upon and explain facts and scientific laws.

There is no hierarchy in the science world where a law is considered more "true" or "proven" than an accepted theory. Your insistence that there is is the most blatant case of willful ignorance I have ever seen.

I note that you don't address the issue of cell theory or atomic theory. Scientists call those theories as well, are they somehow unproven in the mind of slorch?:rolleyes:


question: What law does the theory of evolution describe?

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 09:35 AM
I don't believe in a literal interpretation of either, and I think that is a mistake made in this particular debate. For example, you are citing select statements from the most apocryphal sections the Bible and (mis)interpreting them literally. The Bible was never intended to be interpreted in that manner, not even for the most devout of faith.

We've discussed this before, but it is important to recognize that when you talk about the Bible, you are talking about a work that's been studied and critiqued from every angle possible for thousands of years. If it were nothing more than Dr. Seuss or comic book fluff, it would have been kicked to the curb long ago. The Bible contains a considerable amount of canonical material (see analysis of the Gospels, letters in particular) that even the most staunch critics of the text recognize.

But at its core, the Bible was never intended to be interpreted in a wholly literal fashion nor as a collection of laws (Koran). It is a guide for the faithful.

Both creation and evolution occur every minute of every day on this planet. Life is created with conception, and that life evolves from the second it is created.

I believe all major world religions should be studied in schools. The preaching should be left to the churches, synagogues and mosques; but I see no legitimate reason to eliminate religion from classrooms completely. They are all extremely important from a cultural perspective, and very much worth studying.

thats fine, teach it as culture, but don't teach creation stories as science.

RedRage00
09-29-2008, 09:41 AM
This is a serious thread that I missed over the weekend. I hope dawgfan doesn't find his way into this serious thread.

slorch
09-29-2008, 09:44 AM
thats fine, teach it as culture, but don't teach creation stories by scientists.

FIFY

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 01:46 PM
FIFY

wtf?

how does that even begin to make sense?

slorch
09-29-2008, 02:27 PM
wtf?

how does that even begin to make sense?

my point exactly.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 03:30 PM
I sort of feel sorry for you if you really must ask me who God is. But then, such is your privledge. I am always somewhat mystified that some folks who doubt/disbelieve God's existence and His hand in shaping the world feel compelled to worry so much when I offer that one can believe in both evolution and see the hand of the Divine in such a creation. If you don't accept God, so far as I am concerned, it is your loss, but it is also your right to do so.

As to your profound guidance as to reading a book, I believe I have done so on a few occasions.

The book reference was for those stuck in the divine fallacy, that's why it was seperated from the text addressed to you.

You imply that if I don't know which god you are referring to, then I have the problem...and not you?? :laugh

Are you simply unaware of the many gods averred to exist - or is this simply a tactic designed to avoid answering my question? Again, which god do you profess to speak of? Allah? Kali? Peor? Yahweh? El? Baal?

In what other ways is your god limited - other than being unable to design a better system of evolution than the current one?

I'll understand if you want to back out.......
:cool:

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 03:42 PM
not disqualified. Just not as credible.

I haven't posted sarcastic lib cartoons and spouted off about folks' lack of reasoning or education for no other reason than their disagreeing with me. You have.

you and Leather head have the same out look: agree with liberal mindset= enlightened, believe in God= uneducated simpleton

neither of those tenets are neccessarily true or false, but you position them as if they are absolute.

Yeah, that premise stands until just one of you true believers can bring just one valid syllogistic argument to the table to provide ANY evidence of the existence of any god thingies.

You've had around 7000 years of oral and written history to submit your evidence - and christians especially have brought nothing in the last 2000 beyond a legacy of exclusion, forgery, redaction, and outright fraud to commend themselves.

We can't even get past the first verse of Genesis without finding pious fraud committed by the church fathers. Pardon me if believing in a schizophrenic, murderous, childish, fig tree cursing, jealous, "kill the mothers and children but keep the virgins for yourselves as sex slaves" gawd strikes me as at the very LEAST meeting the definition of a simpleton. I actually think that's being extremely generous.
:cool:

svhorns
09-29-2008, 04:13 PM
good deabte in here... I'm going to stay out of this because it seems ya'll know much more than I do right now about this topic... but I'm not to far behind at all... Ya'll are much better writers than myself I wouldn't be able to explain myself fully and clearly...

but this is a snippet of what I believe/think right now... I believe there is a creator... If you want to call him God then do so... but I know too many Gods to narrow it down... so he is not a God... But THE CREATOR... he is above all Gods...

The Creator has no saying or doing in what goes on in the Universe let alone the Earth... People can play and act like a God but they can't play or act like The Creator... Evolution takes place everywhere... it happens on all of the other 9 or 10 planets in the Galaxy it happens everywhere.... The Creator is still building but you can not see that... and that's all he does... he gives us a chance to live by giving us somewhere to live... how we as people or animals do with what he gives is up to us not him...

DrEdward
09-29-2008, 04:15 PM
The book reference was for those stuck in the divine fallacy, that's why it was seperated from the text addressed to you.

You imply that if I don't know which god you are referring to, then I have the problem...and not you?? :laugh

Are you simply unaware of the many gods averred to exist - or is this simply a tactic designed to avoid answering my question? Again, which god do you profess to speak of? Allah? Kali? Peor? Yahweh? El? Baal?

In what other ways is your god limited - other than being unable to design a better system of evolution than the current one?

I'll understand if you want to back out.......
:cool:

Even phoenix understands the nature and the identity of the Lord whom I refer to, even the x doesn't believe in Him personally. He goes by different names to different people around the world, be in Yahweh or Allah or Jehova or simply God. He is the God of Abraham, which is the reason why those of the Islamic faith, the Jewish faith and the Christian faith are all referred to as "of the Book." Perhaps you didn't realize whom I was speaking about, as you appear not to have been around this board for very long and I, along with several others, have made no secret as to our faith and belief in God and His Son. But now you do know.

There is nothing for me to back out on.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 05:26 PM
Even phoenix understands the nature and the identity of the Lord whom I refer to, even the x doesn't believe in Him personally. He goes by different names to different people around the world, be in Yahweh or Allah or Jehova or simply God. He is the God of Abraham, which is the reason why those of the Islamic faith, the Jewish faith and the Christian faith are all referred to as "of the Book." Perhaps you didn't realize whom I was speaking about, as you appear not to have been around this board for very long and I, along with several others, have made no secret as to our faith and belief in God and His Son. But now you do know.

There is nothing for me to back out on.

Great. Then for the 3rd time - what other limitations does your god have?

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 05:32 PM
Great. Then for the 3rd time - what other limitations does your god have?

he has none.

He is a god of contradiction.

loving and forgiving, yet wipes out entire civilizations at the need of one tribe.

active in human affairs, yet hasn't been seen in 2000 years.

understanding and compassionate, yet totally unable to understand other cultures.

you're not gonna get a straight answer out of someone who worships that kind of god.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 05:37 PM
....And while yer at it - please explain this: If Yahweh is Allah, then when Al Queda prays to Allah/Yahweh to kill the Infidels, and the Infidels pray to Yahweh/Allah to kill the terrorists - which prayer does he answer??

Thanx in advance.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 05:38 PM
he has none.

He is a god of contradiction.

loving and forgiving, yet wipes out entire civilizations at the need of one tribe.

active in human affairs, yet hasn't been seen in 2000 years.

understanding and compassionate, yet totally unable to understand other cultures.

you're not gonna get a straight answer out of someone who worships that kind of god.

Well.....he wasn't able to defeat the iron chariots, so that's at least 2 weaknesses.
:cool:

BDB
09-29-2008, 05:40 PM
he has none.

He is a god of contradiction.

loving and forgiving, yet wipes out entire civilizations at the need of one tribe.

active in human affairs, yet hasn't been seen in 2000 years.

understanding and compassionate, yet totally unable to understand other cultures.

you're not gonna get a straight answer out of someone who worships that kind of god.


Well.....he wasn't able to defeat the iron chariots, so that's at least 2 weaknesses.
:cool:

ill pray for both of yall.

im likely to punch you out if i see you in person, but afterwards ill pray for yall...

DragonWatcher
09-29-2008, 06:26 PM
Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh and God in the traditions are all the same god. Its just the translation of the name that is different.

ktCarl
09-29-2008, 06:43 PM
ill pray for both of yall.

im likely to punch you out if i see you in person, but afterwards ill pray for yall...

Well, that's not nice but it is FUNNY!! :D

ktCarl
09-29-2008, 06:50 PM
Hey, Phoenix owns a tie!!! :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

slorch
09-29-2008, 06:54 PM
he has none.

He is a god of contradiction.

loving and forgiving, yet wipes out entire civilizations at the need of one tribe.

active in human affairs, yet hasn't been seen in 2000 years.

understanding and compassionate, yet totally unable to understand other cultures.

you're not gonna get a straight answer out of someone who worships that kind of god.

I wouldn't believe in God if I thought that was who he is, either.

slorch
09-29-2008, 07:00 PM
Yeah, that premise stands until just one of you true believers can bring just one valid syllogistic argument to the table to provide ANY evidence of the existence of any god thingies.

You've had around 7000 years of oral and written history to submit your evidence - and christians especially have brought nothing in the last 2000 beyond a legacy of exclusion, forgery, redaction, and outright fraud to commend themselves.

We can't even get past the first verse of Genesis without finding pious fraud committed by the church fathers. Pardon me if believing in a schizophrenic, murderous, childish, fig tree cursing, jealous, "kill the mothers and children but keep the virgins for yourselves as sex slaves" gawd strikes me as at the very LEAST meeting the definition of a simpleton. I actually think that's being extremely generous.
:cool:

you obviously have the same issues with religion that God has.

As far as your superiority complex, that is your own problem. Continue to believe it. You might even be right...at least for 60 or 80 more years.

SaRattlerFan
09-29-2008, 07:45 PM
in a PUBLIC school, religious ideas have NO place.

if you wanna teach your mythology as fact, that's fine, but don't do it with taxpayer money.

Spoken from a KID who pays no taxes. When you start paying taxes then you should be allowed to have an opinion on how "taxpayer money" is spent. Until then, leave the "taxpayer money" opinions to those who actually pay taxes.

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 09:40 PM
Christians, Jews, and Romans all acknowledged that the tomb of Jesus was empty 3 days after his crucifixion - that is fact. Their disagreements are how and why the tomb became empty.

where did his body go?

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 10:06 PM
Christians, Jews, and Romans all acknowledged that the tomb of Jesus was empty 3 days after his crucifixion - that is fact. Their disagreements are how and why the tomb became empty.

where did his body go?

You assume this event actually happened. There is significant doubt among biblical scholars. Do you have any extra-biblical sources you could share? Of the 50 or so contemporary historical writers that would have been expected to have written about this miraculous and cosmos-changing event, not a single one did.

Also, the same text indicates that all the saints rose up from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem. Do you have any sources that confirm this bizarre Zombie Movie event?

No??? Imagine my surprise.......
:rolleyes:

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 10:10 PM
ill pray for both of yall.

im likely to punch you out if i see you in person, but afterwards ill pray for yall...


Yeah - very christian of you.....
:laugh

I reckon you have rejected yer savior then - as he called upon you to do a little better than that......

See who's on yer side, Ed?
;)

BDB
09-29-2008, 10:21 PM
Yeah - very christian of you.....
:laugh

I reckon you have rejected yer savior then - as he called upon you to do a little better than that......

See who's on yer side, Ed?
;)

again, talking outta your ***. i know my catholic faith, and i know that if i am truely sorry for WHATEVER sin i commit, and pay pennence to the lord i will be forgiven for them.

you confuse human error (which science is full of) with holy doctrine.

personally i think you and phoenix need some sort of saftey blanket telling you that if god cared he would personally come in your life and do whatever you becon of him....which is not the case. then since he did not answer YOUR orders you then "realize" that he must no exist.....

slorch
09-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Yeah - very christian of you.....
:laugh

I reckon you have rejected yer savior then - as he called upon you to do a little better than that......

See who's on yer side, Ed?
;)

Jesus might scorn him for coming up short in his obedience...but a good right cross on a mush head might score well for him.;):D

BDB
09-29-2008, 10:25 PM
Jesus might scorn him for coming up short in his obedience...but a good right cross on a mush head might score well for him.;):D

fighting the good fight :p

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 10:35 PM
You assume this event actually happened. There is significant doubt among biblical scholars. Do you have any extra-biblical sources you could share? Of the 50 or so contemporary historical writers that would have been expected to have written about this miraculous and cosmos-changing event, not a single one did.

Also, the same text indicates that all the saints rose up from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem. Do you have any sources that confirm this bizarre Zombie Movie event?

No??? Imagine my surprise.......
:rolleyes:


whats next? you're going to tell me that Jesus never actually existed?
:rolleyes:

btw....
Tacitus
Suetonius
Josephus

all non-Christian authors (2 Roman, 1 Jewish) that wrote about and confirmed Christian events/happenings. there you go.

you wanted proof, you got it.

you can answer the question now.

BDB
09-29-2008, 10:36 PM
whats next? you're going to tell me that Jesus never actually existed?
:rolleyes:

btw....
Tacitus
Suetonius
Josephus

all non-Christian authors (2 Roman, 1 Jewish) that wrote about and confirmed Christian events/happenings. there you go.

you wanted proof, you got it.

you can answer the question now.

not if you want it without sounding condecending....

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 10:38 PM
again, talking outta your ***. i know my catholic faith, and i know that if i am truely sorry for WHATEVER sin i commit, and pay pennence to the lord i will be forgiven for them.

you confuse human error (which science is full of) with holy doctrine.

personally i think you and phoenix need some sort of saftey blanket telling you that if god cared he would personally come in your life and do whatever you becon of him....which is not the case. then since he did not answer YOUR orders you then "realize" that he must no exist.....

LOL! That's exactly why your religion is the subject of such scorn. Jeffrey Dahmer can earn the opium drip of eternal life....but Gandhi won't. Any child rapist can just repent (if he really, REALLY means it) and get the brass ring to heaven, but the Buddha won't.

I note that early catholics refused to be baptised until on their deathbeds....just as an amusing anecdote.
:laugh

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 10:39 PM
again, talking outta your ***. i know my catholic faith, and i know that if i am truely sorry for WHATEVER sin i commit, and pay pennence to the lord i will be forgiven for them.

you confuse human error (which science is full of) with holy doctrine.

personally i think you and phoenix need some sort of saftey blanket telling you that if god cared he would personally come in your life and do whatever you becon of him....which is not the case. then since he did not answer YOUR orders you then "realize" that he must no exist.....

they want a God they can lead around, that will answer to them. how can you even call something like that God?:eek:

if it doesnt fit their mold of God, must not be God. nothing short of Egotism.

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 10:40 PM
not if you want it without sounding condecending....

its pretty much a given....just wanting to see what theyll conjure up

BDB
09-29-2008, 10:42 PM
they want a God they can lead around, that will answer to them. how can you even call something like that God?:eek:

if it doesnt fit their mold of God, must not be God. nothing short of Egotism.

why believe in a singular god when you can become your own singular god? :rolleyes:

BDB
09-29-2008, 10:46 PM
LOL! That's exactly why your religion is the subject of such scorn. Jeffrey Dahmer can earn the opium drip of eternal life....but Gandhi won't. Any child rapist can just repent (if he really, REALLY means it) and get the brass ring to heaven, but the Buddha won't.

I note that early catholics refused to be baptised until on their deathbeds....just as an amusing anecdote.
:laugh


again, you speak as if WE are the ones picking who gets sent to heaven or hell, or if he ever repented or truely ment it.

it's nice to pay lip service and tell someone you're "sorry" for something, but actually accepting personal failure is a whole other animal.

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 10:48 PM
LOL! That's exactly why your religion is the subject of such scorn. Jeffrey Dahmer can earn the opium drip of eternal life....but Gandhi won't. Any child rapist can just repent (if he really, REALLY means it) and get the brass ring to heaven, but the Buddha won't.


This is because you dont understand Christianity. you see these people through worldly righteousness. How can you possibly expect to get into Heaven if you don't believe in God?:eek: i dont think i'll need to do any proving for you there, that's not such a hard concept. How can God recognize one's acts when one doesn't recognize his divineship?

The heart is the wellspring....one acts because of where one's heart is.

Actions don't get one in or out of Heaven, they are more of an indicator as to where the heart is. no matter how good (by worldly standards) one's actions are, the heart must be in God

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 10:49 PM
why believe in a singular god when you can become your own singular god? :rolleyes:


;):rolleyes:

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 10:49 PM
whats next? you're going to tell me that Jesus never actually existed?
:rolleyes:

btw....
Tacitus
Suetonius
Josephus

all non-Christian authors (2 Roman, 1 Jewish) that wrote about and confirmed Christian events/happenings. there you go.

you wanted proof, you got it.

you can answer the question now.

Dude, yer too easy. :laugh

None of those authors confirmed anything - except to note what believers told them. If I told you I saw a werewolf sipping a pina colada at Trader Vics and you wrote it in a book, would you accept that as proof that werewolves exist?? I didn't think so.

And Josephus?? Are you serious? The Testimonium Flavium has contained a fraudulent passage about Yeshua that was exposed centuries ago.

Please tell me you have more than this.

Please tell me you haven't pinned your hope of salvation on a lie written into Josephus centuries after he wrote his history of the jews.....
:cool:

the_phoenix612
09-29-2008, 10:52 PM
Spoken from a KID who pays no taxes. When you start paying taxes then you should be allowed to have an opinion on how "taxpayer money" is spent. Until then, leave the "taxpayer money" opinions to those who actually pay taxes.

then you can't talk about gay marriage or abortion until you've had one.

BDB
09-29-2008, 10:58 PM
then you can't talk about gay marriage or abortion until you've had one.

translated to:

i can't have that new toy car? THEN YOU CANT HAVE ANY ARMYMEN! **torches toys ablaze**

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 10:59 PM
Dude, yer too easy. :laugh

None of those authors confirmed anything - except to note what believers told them. If I told you I saw a werewolf sipping a pina colada at Trader Vics and you wrote it in a book, would you accept that as proof that werewolves exist?? I didn't think so.

And Josephus?? Are you serious? The Testimonium Flavium has contained a fraudulent passage about Yeshua that was exposed centuries ago.

Please tell me you have more than this.

Please tell me you haven't pinned your hope of salvation on a lie written into Josephus centuries after he wrote his history of the jews.....
:cool:


How much research have you done?
i suppose you're pinning your disbelief on assumptions written by atheists and/or scientists that have "your" stamp of approval and have "proven credibility"

all talk, no substance. you haven't given me one reason to believe you.






and still waiting for you, or any others, to answer my first question.

BDB
09-29-2008, 11:03 PM
How much research have you done?
i suppose you're pinning your disbelief on assumptions written by atheists and/or scientists that have "your" stamp of approval and have "proven credibility"

all talk, no substance. you haven't given me one reason to believe you.






and still waiting for you, or any others, to answer my first question.

1st comandment in the book of leather:

1. thou shalt not make leather convince THOU, leather shall make THOU convince him...

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 11:05 PM
This is because you dont understand Christianity. you see these people through worldly righteousness. How can you possibly expect to get into Heaven if you don't believe in God?:eek: i dont think i'll need to do any proving for you there, that's not such a hard concept. How can God recognize one's acts when one doesn't recognize his divineship?

The heart is the wellspring....one acts because of where one's heart is.

Actions don't get one in or out of Heaven, they are more of an indicator as to where the heart is. no matter how good (by worldly standards) one's actions are, the heart must be in God

Reckon you should review yer bible then. At least one gospel author says your works ARE required. 'Course, I don't blame you for being confused about the Plan of Salvation - since even Yeshua seems confused about it - and the Gospels writers are all over the place on it.

One says you must sell all yer possessions.....have you done that yet?
One says you must merely be baptised.
One says you must do good works AND be baptised.
And one even says it is all pre-ordained, putting a serious crimp in the notion of christians having free will.....but that's another post.

So...which contradictory plan have YOU decided is the right one?? And by what authority....and which of the 20,000 christian sects do you ascribe to....that all claim to know the 'true' word of god....while they argue with each other??
:cool:

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 11:15 PM
How much research have you done?
i suppose you're pinning your disbelief on assumptions written by atheists and/or scientists that have "your" stamp of approval and have "proven credibility"

all talk, no substance. you haven't given me one reason to believe you.






and still waiting for you, or any others, to answer my first question.


I have no doubt you'll refuse to believe me - yer lost already. I get that.
:(

You pin your 'belief" about the most important subject known to man on the most fraudulent, racially and culturally biased, internally contradictory, intellectually lazy, self-righteous, murderous tome ever written by 6000 year old goatherders who have more in common with the Taliban than any other contemporary group you can name.....

and you have the audacity to whine about my dependence on 30 years of biblical scholarship, textual criticism, and the simple use of Reason and Logic??

Dood - I have no snappy riposte in the face of such irony.
:(

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 11:16 PM
And what the gehenna was your 1st question??

AE 8008
09-29-2008, 11:29 PM
Reckon you should review yer bible then. At least one gospel author says your works ARE required. 'Course, I don't blame you for being confused about the Plan of Salvation - since even Yeshua seems confused about it - and the Gospels writers are all over the place on it.

One says you must sell all yer possessions.....have you done that yet?
One says you must merely be baptised.
One says you must do good works AND be baptised.
And one even says it is all pre-ordained, putting a serious crimp in the notion of christians having free will.....but that's another post.

So...which contradictory plan have YOU decided is the right one?? And by what authority....and which of the 20,000 christian sects do you ascribe to....that all claim to know the 'true' word of god....while they argue with each other??
:cool:



:laugh

"actions show where the heart is"

of course actions are important, because of what i stated above. dont know how you missed that one:confused:

the ACTIONS dont get you into heaven, the HEART does. i can put it in bold in a 3rd post if you'd like me to:D


have i literally sold all of my possessions? no.
have i figuratively? yes.
i would drop anything physical to follow the Holy Spirit's beckoning because i know how essentially meaningless it all is. i don't feel yet that i have been shown my calling....but for now i try to honor and glorify Him through anything physical or non-materialistic he has blessed me with.

I have been baptized

i try to do good works although i admit i am not perfect

pre-ordained....you'll have to point that one out to me...

Warbird
09-29-2008, 11:49 PM
You pin your 'belief" about the most important subject known to man on the most fraudulent, racially and culturally biased, internally contradictory, intellectually lazy, self-righteous, murderous tome ever written by 6000 year old goatherders who have more in common with the Taliban than any other contemporary group you can name.....
and you have the audacity to whine about my dependence on 30 years of biblical scholarship, textual criticism, and the simple use of Reason and Logic?

Please don't treat us as though we're stupid; one does not have a monopoly on reason and logic.

Contradictory how? Historically speaking, the Gospels are very reliable. For example, "Luke in both his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, show[s] that in his references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and ninie islands he did not make a single mistake".*

Archaeological digs have also confirmed the existence of various locations mentioned in the Gospels such as:

Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-15) where Jesus healed a paralyzed man.
Pool of Siloam (John 9:7)
Jacob's Well (John 4:12)
The probable site of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate in John 19:13.


Comparatively, archaeology hasn't produced anything demonstrably in contradiction with the Gospels. My source for this list was the Dartmouth Apologia (Vol.2, Iss.2 ).



Furthermore, you've now said the Gospels are "fraudulent". How is this?

Also, Al Qeada has more in common with the Taliban, I'd think.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-29-2008, 11:50 PM
:laugh

"actions show where the heart is"

of course actions are important, because of what i stated above. dont know how you missed that one:confused:

the ACTIONS dont get you into heaven, the HEART does. i can put it in bold in a 3rd post if you'd like me to:D


have i literally sold all of my possessions? no.
have i figuratively? yes.
i would drop anything physical to follow the Holy Spirit's beckoning because i know how essentially meaningless it all is. i don't feel yet that i have been shown my calling....but for now i try to honor and glorify Him through anything physical or non-materialistic he has blessed me with.

I have been baptized

i try to do good works although i admit i am not perfect

pre-ordained....you'll have to point that one out to me...

He chose us …before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight… he predestined us
(Ephesians 1:4-6)

So, you do good works and are baptised. What gets you into heaven?

If you say "believe and be baptised" - then you agree with Mark.

If you say "obey all commandments and give all your money to the poor" - then you agree with Luke.

Which of the gospel writers is correct?

And what was your question??

Leather Helmet Baller
09-30-2008, 12:12 AM
Please don't treat us as though we're stupid; one does not have a monopoly on reason and logic.

Contradictory how? Historically speaking, the Gospels are very reliable. For example, "Luke in both his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, show[s] that in his references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and ninie islands he did not make a single mistake".*

Archaeological digs have also confirmed the existence of various locations mentioned in the Gospels such as:

Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-15) where Jesus healed a paralyzed man.
Pool of Siloam (John 9:7)
Jacob's Well (John 4:12)
The probable site of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate in John 19:13.


Comparatively, archaeology hasn't produced anything demonstrably in contradiction with the Gospels. My source for this list was the Dartmouth Apologia (Vol.2, Iss.2 ).



Furthermore, you've now said the Gospels are "fraudulent". How is this?

Also, Al Qeada has more in common with the Taliban, I'd think.

See post above re: the contradiction between Mark and Luke.

I think the plan of salvation would be pretty important for an omnipotent god to communicate plainly, and yet the gospel writers contradict themselves - just as they do re: the last words of Yeshua.....and who found the empty tomb....and what they did about it...and what color Yeshuas robe was....and who Josephs father was.....and how Judas died.....and hundreds of other contradictions that exist.

Then there are the historical gaffs: There was no place known as Nazareth at the time Yeshua is said to have lived there. There is no prophecy of a 'Nazerene'. This is a pious fraud meant to deceive the simple-mnded pagans that Saul of Tarsus had to convert since he got absolutely nowhere trying to convince the Jews that this rabbi was the Messiah (Jews know their OT a tad better than Roman pagans did).

Then there are the dogmatic redactions. Does your bible say Yeshua showed compassion (orgeistheis) to the leper or anger (splangnetheis)?

Dogma required Yeshua to be compassionate, so the original text was changed from 'anger' to 'compassion'. We know this from the oldest extant texts - like the Codex Bezae. Anger would be more parsimonius with a jewish rabbi - as he would naturally be repulsed by a leper...since the bible says they are unclean (the same way the Taliban....and Jews....feel about pork).

This is fraud, pure and simple.

DragonWatcher
09-30-2008, 12:20 AM
And what the gehenna was your 1st question??

Haha even as a christian I laughed at that one. I doubt most have any idea what geheena is without googling it.

AE 8008
09-30-2008, 12:33 AM
He chose us …before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight… he predestined us
(Ephesians 1:4-6)


So, you do good works and are baptised. What gets you into heaven?

If you say "believe and be baptised" - then you agree with Mark.

If you say "obey all commandments and give all your money to the poor" - then you agree with Luke.

Which of the gospel writers is correct?

And what was your question??


Part 1 in bold

that's because before and at the creation of the world, humans and God's plan for humanity were holy and blameless. until the fall of Adam, humanity was essentially perfect because it had no knowledge of good or evil and therefore could not possibly "sin". now that we ARE aware of that sin...(a little further down it reads) "When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession..." Ephesians 1:13-14

so yes, we WERE predestined by God for holiness and blamelessness...and God still has that predestination for us but knows it cannot be fulfilled by human efforts alone because of the Fall of Adam/Mankind. Therefore he sent Christ who shed his innocent blood for the forgiveness of all men who repented and believed (and continue to do so) and in turn created the holy and blameless humanity that he had once predestined. we are perfected not through human efforts (rather we are imperfected by human efforts), but by the innocent blood of Christ.


Part 2

All of the writers of the Gospels are correct!
you've got to understand that each wrote his own Gospel with different goals in mind;
Matthew's intent was to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah that they had been waiting on and that the prophets had spoken about. He talked continuously about "the kingdom"....included Jesus' involvement in Jewish customs...included Parables that related to Jewish life/customs...etc etc....his Gospel was directed towards Jews
Mark's intent was more to describe the actions of Jesus rather than his words. fewer parables. randomly jumps from one place to another describing what Jesus did.
Luke's intent was to convince Theophilus (a Gentile) that Christ was the son of God. Luke had a Gentile bent in his Gospel because he was a Gentile that was writing to another Gentile! Luke was a physician that followed Paul on his journeys. Therefore Luke did not include Jesus' involvements with Jewish festivals, because they would mean nothing to Theophilus/other Gentiles. Luke aimed to show the love of God for all mankind, so his parables (Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son) reflect that theme

and so on...

The Gospels do not contradict each other, but were rather written to help a certain audience grasp the matter.

AE 8008
09-30-2008, 12:40 AM
And what the gehenna was your 1st question??

Christians and Non-Christians alike agree that the tomb of Jesus was empty. They differ on how and why the tomb became that way.


Where did Christ's body go?

svhorns
09-30-2008, 01:02 AM
instead of trying to prove each other wrong which is impossible... why don't you try and prove each other right which is possible... then see where you get from there

jakerz
09-30-2008, 07:05 AM
ill pray for both of yall.

im likely to punch you out if i see you in person, but afterwards ill pray for yall...

There's the Christian spirit!

slorch
09-30-2008, 07:10 AM
LOL! That's exactly why your religion is the subject of such scorn.
:laugh

because forgiveness is so overrated...:rolleyes:

slorch
09-30-2008, 07:12 AM
why believe in a singular god when you can become your own singular god? :rolleyes:

that's some deep stuff there, but dead on.:notworthy

slorch
09-30-2008, 07:25 AM
Dude, yer too easy. :laugh

None of those authors confirmed anything - except to note what believers told them. If I told you I saw a werewolf sipping a pina colada at Trader Vics and you wrote it in a book, would you accept that as proof that werewolves exist?? I didn't think so.

And Josephus?? Are you serious? The Testimonium Flavium has contained a fraudulent passage about Yeshua that was exposed centuries ago.

Please tell me you have more than this.

Please tell me you haven't pinned your hope of salvation on a lie written into Josephus centuries after he wrote his history of the jews.....
:cool:

I don't have hope of salvation. I have a guarantee, So does AE. So do you, if you choose to receive it.

Jesus said, "Noone comes to the Father, but by me."

You can have you thoughts about religion or whatever else helps you feel better about your philosophical positions. Those are all fine. You are absolutely entitled to feel the way you do . When you come on here and slam Ghandi, the Catholics, ect, as if to somehow discredit Christianity, it does nothing but show your contempt for religion. I too share your disdain for religion.

You seem to be quite confident in your belief, which is fine, but you are truly displaying your ignorance of the Christian faith. That's OK, because many "Christians" also misunderstand it as well. Good works, going to church every Sunday, or pulling little babies out of burning houses will not gain the salvation you speak of. Only through acceptance of Christ as your savior and redeemer shall you gain access to heaven.

I know you might not agree with alot of this post, but at least get it right when you are addressing the Christian faith. You generalize a bit too conveniently.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-30-2008, 08:36 AM
Christians and Non-Christians alike agree that the tomb of Jesus was empty. They differ on how and why the tomb became that way.


Where did Christ's body go?

Sorry, already addressed this. Again, do you have any extra-biblical evidence of a resurrection - or the attendant junkanoo of saints boogeying through Jerusalem?

If not, your question is a mere hypothetical. And as such all yer left with is a simple rabbi who may have been crucified, whose body could have been disposed of in any number of ways.

Look, my uncle was persecuted for his belief that the Giant Spaghetti Monster ruled the universe. He died, and was taken to the morgue. When Sister Mary Elephant went to identify his body - it was gone!!

Is your conclusion that he was resurrected and now is deserving of your worship - or can you think of any other explanations?

Hey...we haven't found Jimmy Hoffa's body either. He must be Lord, according to this tortured logic you employ.
:(

Leather Helmet Baller
09-30-2008, 08:50 AM
I don't have hope of salvation. I have a guarantee, So does AE. So do you, if you choose to receive it.

Jesus said, "Noone comes to the Father, but by me."

You can have you thoughts about religion or whatever else helps you feel better about your philosophical positions. Those are all fine. You are absolutely entitled to feel the way you do . When you come on here and slam Ghandi, the Catholics, ect, as if to somehow discredit Christianity, it does nothing but show your contempt for religion. I too share your disdain for religion.

You seem to be quite confident in your belief, which is fine, but you are truly displaying your ignorance of the Christian faith. That's OK, because many "Christians" also misunderstand it as well. Good works, going to church every Sunday, or pulling little babies out of burning houses will not gain the salvation you speak of. Only through acceptance of Christ as your savior and redeemer shall you gain access to heaven.

I know you might not agree with alot of this post, but at least get it right when you are addressing the Christian faith. You generalize a bit too conveniently.

Great. Do you have a scriptural basis for this convenient belief that allows you to claim a guarantee of the same Paradise Al Queda covets - all the while disobeying the requirement to sell all of your possessions? Can you explain why it contradicts Mark and Luke? Can you tell us which gospel is wrong?

Mark says believe and be baptised.

Luke says obey the commandments and give away all of your possessions.

YOU say accept Yeshua - either without the need for baptism or with it, you're not clear.

Please show the scripture that states that Mark & Luke are wrong and you are right. If you can't, then I'm afraid yer simply guilty of the eisegesis practiced by so many 'christians' who couldn't stomach the horrors found in their sacred book and so began to quote mine in order to develop their own personal dogma.

That's fine...but it ain't scriptural.

Take yer time - you have a boatload of explaining to do.
:cool:

"Jesus said, "Noone comes to the Father, but by me."

And you accuse me of generalizing??
:laugh

slorch
09-30-2008, 09:25 AM
Great. Do you have a scriptural basis for this convenient belief that allows you to claim a guarantee of the same Paradise Al Queda covets - all the while disobeying the requirement to sell all of your possessions? Can you explain why it contradicts Mark and Luke? Can you tell us which gospel is wrong?

Mark says believe and be baptised.

Luke says obey the commandments and give away all of your possessions.

YOU say accept Yeshua - either without the need for baptism or with it, you're not clear.

Please show the scripture that states that Mark & Luke are wrong and you are right. If you can't, then I'm afraid yer simply guilty of the eisegesis practiced by so many 'christians' who couldn't stomach the horrors found in their sacred book and so began to quote mine in order to develop their own personal dogma.

That's fine...but it ain't scriptural. what isn't scriptural?

Take yer time - you have a boatload of explaining to do.
:cool:

"Jesus said, "Noone comes to the Father, but by me."

And you accuse me of generalizing?? this is absolutely scriptural, so no, I am not generalizing about anything.:laugh

I did not mention baptism.

baptism is a physical representation of the rebirth into a life of following Christ as well as public declaration of one's faith. Jesus taught with metaphors constantly and his baptism was an act of worship to show how a person is to give up their old life in submersion, or the possessions Luke also speaks of. The submersion into water also represents being awash in the Holy Spirit. The rising out of the water represents rebirth into Christ, or to be born again. Luke speaks of giving up your possessions, as in your past life/ ways, in order to enable you to follow God.

Just as the Lord's Prayer isn't the absolute way we must pray to God, but rather a model, baptism has taken on many physical representations today. The baptism of spirit is what matters, not simply the physical act.

here's a play out of Phoenix(select all's) book:


What Did Jesus Say About Baptism
Romans 6:1-14


I believe that Jesus spoke to us very clearly about Baptism through his servant the apostle Paul. I believe that Jesus is telling us through Paul that baptism is a proclamation! When we publicly summit to baptism we proclaim certain things to all those in attendance and to the world.

There is a lot of confusion about the subject of baptism. Different religions teach different things about baptism. There are those who teach that being sprinkled with water is baptism? Some teach that you can baptize a baby who knows nothing about salvation, sin, or eternal life?

But we need to go to the bible, the word of God, the living word to see what baptism really is. What did Jesus say about baptism?



I. BAPTISM IS PROCLAIMS A PARTICULAR WAY (V.3).
1. The Particular Word
A. The word “Baptize” indicates us the mode.“ baptizo” means, “to immerse,

to submerge .”

2. The practice in the New Testament demonstrates the mode.

A. Jesus was baptized this way (Matthew 3:13-17)


B. Jesus Commanded this type of baptism for those who believe

(Matt. 28:18-20).

C. Peter Commanded it at Pentecost (Acts 2:38).

D. Every time believers were baptized in the book of Acts, this is how it was

done (Acts 2:41; 8:12,38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:33).

3. The Picture presented .

A. It pictures death burial and resurrection.

II. BAPTISM PROCLAIMS A PROPER IDENIFICATION (VS. 4- 5)


1. It is a public identification (v4)

A. When we are baptized, we are openly expressing our faith in the

substitutionary death that Jesus died for us on the cross

(2 Cor. 5:21). For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

2. It is a uniting identification

A. We are identified as becoming united with Jesus (v.5)

B. Notice Paul’s words, “Baptized into Christ”. This denotes the fact that we

are in union with Christ.
* When the husband and wife are united at the marriage altar, they become “One flesh”. When we are baptized, we become one with the Savior. Baptism identifies us with Christ as the wedding identifies the bride with her groom.

III. BAPTISM PROCLAIMS A PREFECT GOSPEL (V. 4, 6-8).
1. Why Jesus had to die Physically

A. Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

B. He arose so that we can be justified (Romans 4:25)”

2. Why the believer must die spiritually and be born again

A. The believer must die it to the old life of sin and be raised to walk with

Christ

B. The believer is a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

C. The believer will now be able to allow Jesus live through you (Gal. 2:20).

3. Where the believer will one day live forever

A With Christ in heaven (v.8).

B. When we are saved, we are guaranteed a home in heaven.

(1 Thess. 4:13-17).


IV. BAPTISM PROCLAIMS A PERSONAL COMMITMENT (VS. 11-14).

1. A commitment to completely forsake the ways of the world (v. 11a, 12-13a).

A. You must commit to see yourself as “dead” to sin .(Ga 2:20)

1.. The choice must be made not to let sin have dominion over you.

a. Living like the rest of the world is not a choice. (Ro 6:2)

b. A commitment to completely live for Christ (vs. 11b, 13b-14).

B. You must commit to live for Jesus. (Col 3:5-10)

C. You must commit to surrender your members to serve Christ.

(Rom. 12:1-2)


CONCLUSION



Baptism is a beautiful picture. It is a witness. It is Powerful. Today we have seen what baptism really means. Are you a Christian? Have you followed the Lord in this beautiful ordinance? If not, why not come and request baptism? Take your stand openly with Jesus in the waters of Believer’s Baptism.

Christian, are you living what you professed at the time of your baptism? Why not commit to living in the newness of life that you have received in Christ?

ktCarl
09-30-2008, 12:33 PM
Sorry, already addressed this. Again, do you have any extra-biblical evidence of a resurrection - or the attendant junkanoo of saints boogeying through Jerusalem?

If not, your question is a mere hypothetical. And as such all yer left with is a simple rabbi who may have been crucified, whose body could have been disposed of in any number of ways.

Look, my uncle was persecuted for his belief that the Giant Spaghetti Monster ruled the universe. He died, and was taken to the morgue. When Sister Mary Elephant went to identify his body - it was gone!!

Is your conclusion that he was resurrected and now is deserving of your worship - or can you think of any other explanations?

Hey...we haven't found Jimmy Hoffa's body either. He must be Lord, according to this tortured logic you employ.
:(

What happened to this thread?

I never heard of the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-30-2008, 12:58 PM
(snipped for boring the living shyte otta me) ---CONCLUSION---

So, this is yer long-winded way of saying you reject Luke??

Mark was asked - "How do I gain eternal life?". His answer - "Believe and be Baptised". No other requirements.

Luke was asked = "How do I gain eternal life?". His answer - "Give away all your possessions and follow the commandments (like not allowing a kid to seethe in its mothers milk...)". No other requirements.

Why is there such a contradiction here? (let me guess - you've decided not to see one.)
How did Luke get this gig when he 'witnessed' the same events and heard the same Yeshua but got a competely different plan?
And why do Matthew and Luke disagree so many times with Mark?
how is a christian to decide which plan of salvation - among the 4 in the gospels and the letters of Paul - is the right one?

Please try to respond with something other than these tired apologetics that have been trounced for centuries already. It would be nice to see something new.
;)

slorch
09-30-2008, 05:09 PM
(snipped for boring the living shyte otta me) ---CONCLUSION---

So, this is yer long-winded way of saying you reject Luke??

Mark was asked - "How do I gain eternal life?". His answer - "Believe and be Baptised". No other requirements.

Luke was asked = "How do I gain eternal life?". His answer - "Give away all your possessions and follow the commandments (like not allowing a kid to seethe in its mothers milk...)". No other requirements.

Why is there such a contradiction here? (let me guess - you've decided not to see one.)
How did Luke get this gig when he 'witnessed' the same events and heard the same Yeshua but got a competely different plan?
And why do Matthew and Luke disagree so many times with Mark?
how is a christian to decide which plan of salvation - among the 4 in the gospels and the letters of Paul - is the right one?

Please try to respond with something other than these tired apologetics that have been trounced for centuries already. It would be nice to see something new. you don't beleive the old truth, what makes me think you'd believe something new? it's like the idiot that asks God to give him a sign. They're all around us
;)


i wrote it out.

Believe and (be immersed in the Spirit) You're caught up in the physical representation, but it's easy to see how someone could get this confused...:rolleyes:

Luke's statements are related to giving up your old life in order to live your new one. One cannot serve two masters and one's old possessions( or way of life) prevent the reborn from serving Him.


You can twist it, you can turn it. You can claim contradiction, but there is none. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Noone comes to the Father, but by him. That is the most rudimentary explanation I can give you my friend. It is not my job to make you accept it.

Leather Helmet Baller
09-30-2008, 08:08 PM
i wrote it out.

Believe and (be immersed in the Spirit) You're caught up in the physical representation, but it's easy to see how someone could get this confused...:rolleyes:

Luke's statements are related to giving up your old life in order to live your new one. One cannot serve two masters and one's old possessions( or way of life) prevent the reborn from serving Him.


You can twist it, you can turn it. You can claim contradiction, but there is none. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Noone comes to the Father, but by him. That is the most rudimentary explanation I can give you my friend. It is not my job to make you accept it.

I'm sorry but that's just self-serving BS. The plain reading is clear - he actually admonishes you to SELL all your possessions - and in concert with the Communist Manifesto, calls on you to give the booty to Peter, so's he can divvy up the loot "from each according to ability - to each according to need". How does one 'sell' their old life??

You pretenders always take the plain readings that you don't like and pervert them so you can find a justification for disobeying yer god - and then take the obtuse readings like 'No one comes to the Father....' - which can mean a
hundred different things - and pervert it to some ultimate truth.

I get it.
:laugh

That's exactly why there are 20,000 sects that all piously claim to know the 'real' interpretation of this fraudulent work - for which we have not ONE original document - as they demonize everyone who doesn't get 'prayed up' the same way they do..... Yeah, there are no contradictions...for those sucking on the mystical teat of the morphine drip of this promise of eternal life....no doubt with the 72 virgins proferred by Allah....who is of course Yahweh....who is also Yeshua....

Yes - very cogent.

The bottom line is, the bible calls on the believer to abstain from marriage because the Lamb of Gawd his own bad self is returning 'in this generation' - some 800 generations ago. Give us your tortured apologetic as to what 'marriage' really means here.

It also calls for you to abstain from sex for the same reason. Bless us with the schizophrenic bible study 'logic' that presumably goes Clintonesque and poses the apologetic of "well....it all depends on what the meaning of Sex is".
:notworthy

Have you abstained from marriage as Paul commands? Have you abstained from sex as well?

I didn't think so.....yer faith is weak, bro.
:(

The only twisting going on here is the sunday school christians desperate attempt to twist plain commandments in order to justify their disobedience to their gods will. It's called 'pick and choose' religion - and yer as guilty as the rest. "Well, I like this here verse that might say I just have to accept JC....but....I think I can do without these other verses".

Yeah, we're done here.
:cool:

slorch
09-30-2008, 09:01 PM
I'm sorry but that's just self-serving BS. The plain reading is clear - he actually admonishes you to SELL all your possessions - and in concert with the Communist Manifesto, calls on you to give the booty to Peter, so's he can divvy up the loot "from each according to ability - to each according to need". How does one 'sell' their old life??

You pretenders always take the plain readings that you don't like and pervert them so you can find a justification for disobeying yer god - and then take the obtuse readings like 'No one comes to the Father....' - which can mean a
hundred different things - and pervert it to some ultimate truth.

I get it.
:laugh

That's exactly why there are 20,000 sects that all piously claim to know the 'real' interpretation of this fraudulent work - for which we have not ONE original document - as they demonize everyone who doesn't get 'prayed up' the same way they do..... Yeah, there are no contradictions...for those sucking on the mystical teat of the morphine drip of this promise of eternal life....no doubt with the 72 virgins proferred by Allah....who is of course Yahweh....who is also Yeshua....

Yes - very cogent.

The bottom line is, the bible calls on the believer to abstain from marriage because the Lamb of Gawd his own bad self is returning 'in this generation' - some 800 generations ago. Give us your tortured apologetic as to what 'marriage' really means here.

It also calls for you to abstain from sex for the same reason. Bless us with the schizophrenic bible study 'logic' that presumably goes Clintonesque and poses the apologetic of "well....it all depends on what the meaning of Sex is".
:notworthy

Have you abstained from marriage as Paul commands? Have you abstained from sex as well?

I didn't think so.....yer faith is weak, bro.
:(

The only twisting going on here is the sunday school christians desperate attempt to twist plain commandments in order to justify their disobedience to their gods will. It's called 'pick and choose' religion - and yer as guilty as the rest. "Well, I like this here verse that might say I just have to accept JC....but....I think I can do without these other verses".

Yeah, we're done here.
:cool:

my faith is not as strong as Jesus, but it is in Him that I trust. the difference between me and you apparently is that one of us is willing to admit his shortcomings.

You have it all nailed. Hope your secular outlook serves you well.

maybe one day you will be more informed about what the Bible actually teaches, rather than your agnostic retorts. I am not the one trying to dispute someone's beliefs.

My point from the beginning of the thread is that creationism is no less founded than the theory of evolution. They both have parts that are incomprehensible for man to understand. You put your faith in man, I put my faith in God. Carry on, fair lad.

Slim-Rob
09-30-2008, 09:30 PM
is this 8 pages of Bible vs Science talk?

My God
and for some My Earth

ktCarl
09-30-2008, 09:36 PM
is this 8 pages of Bible vs Science talk?

My God
and for some My Earth

The thread was about North Carolina school wants to teach creationism but LeatherHead and a few others went berserk. :cool:

slorch
09-30-2008, 10:11 PM
The thread was about North Carolina school wants to teach creationism but LeatherHead and a few others went berserk. :cool:

just because they feel so threatened...:rolleyes:

RedRage00
10-01-2008, 07:47 AM
Someone got owned, and it wasn't leather lol

deleted

RedRage00
10-01-2008, 07:50 AM
just because they feel so threatened...:rolleyes:

deleted

BDB
10-01-2008, 10:41 AM
i think someone is scared of being cast into the ring with all the sodomites....