one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[MrsSmith]

There is no creature alive whose origin cannot be explained by TToE.  The MOST studied creature with the MOST evidence of this is Homo Sapiens.

Yeah, I've seen the evidence of some of those ancestors...3 skull fragments, 4 teeth, part of an arm bone.  From that, we can tell how large it was, whether it lived on ground or in trees, what it ate, and when it lived.  It's all solid truth, no faith involved.

[Chris_]

Ditto.  I also feel that the theory of evolution does a much better job of explaining the evidence than Genesis does. 

This entire thread illustrates my biggest problem withpl most organized religion.  Instead of focusing on the Big Message of love and forgiveness, we're arguing over the details of Genesis. 

Yes.

God used Genesis to explain to a near-savage tribe of people what their relationship to Him was and His relationship to the Universe.

That God created the Universe is not in question.  To explain to people whose highest pinnacle of science was planting crops about the complexities of the Universe would be pointless.  Instead, God used His words to explain to them that He was the source of everything and, more importantly, He did so from pure love.  The stories in Genesis tell His children of how they should grasp Him (there is no understanding, per se).  He did not belabor the mechanics, and who are we to debate that wisdom?

God did not say "the fruit of knowledge grew as a result of a combination of the following factors..." His point was that disobedience made Him both angry and sad.  It also demosntrated His patience.

I need not go through the rest of it ... to take the Bible as a science text is to completely misunderstand it. And demean it.

[MrsSmith]

Yes.

God used Genesis to explain to a near-savage tribe of people what their relationship to Him was and His relationship to the Universe.

That God created the Universe is not in question.  To explain to people whose highest pinnacle of science was planting crops about the complexities of the Universe would be pointless.  Instead, God used His words to explain to them that He was the source of everything and, more importantly, He did so from pure love.  The stories in Genesis tell His children of how they should grasp Him (there is no understanding, per se).  He did not belabor the mechanics, and who are we to debate that wisdom?

God did not say "the fruit of knowledge grew as a result of a combination of the following factors..." His point was that disobedience made Him both angry and sad.  It also demosntrated His patience.

I need not go through the rest of it ... to take the Bible as a science text is to completely misunderstand it. And demean it.

Taking God at His word is demeaning.     I'm sorry, I'm sure you were serious, but that's funny.

As to the savage brutes who could barely plant crops, I'm guessing you've forgotten that Moses was adopted by a princess of Egypt, therefore most likely received the best possible education for his time...from a people who built wonders that still stand, thousands of years later, and with technology that we don't understand.  I'm sure you've forgotten that these "savages" built the original temple, the description of which is quite elaborate.  Somewhat more than throwing seeds in a hole poked with a stick.  Given an evolutionary mindset, I'm sure it's easy to look back at those "primitives" that came before us...but just consider, they were far fewer generations from the perfection of Adam and Eve than are we.

[Chris_]

:rotf: Taking God at His word is demeaning.   :rotf:  I'm sorry, I'm sure you were serious, but that's funny.

As to the savage brutes who could barely plant crops, I'm guessing you've forgotten that Moses was adopted by a princess of Egypt, therefore most likely received the best possible education for his time...from a people who built wonders that still stand, thousands of years later, and with technology that we don't understand.  I'm sure you've forgotten that these "savages" built the original temple, the description of which is quite elaborate.  Somewhat more than throwing seeds in a hole poked with a stick.  Given an evolutionary mindset, I'm sure it's easy to look back at those "primitives" that came before us...but just consider, they were far fewer generations from the perfection of Adam and Eve than are we.

Mocking God using His word is demeaning.  Spitting in His face by rejecting His gifts while saying "but You told us to" is demeaning.

And there were a very tiny percentage of scholars in Moses' day -- most people were uneducated.  Would Moses understand Einsteinian Physics?  Or the red shift?  Or even the idea that the stars in the sky were in fact other stars?  Even if you explained it, it would be rejected out of hand.  God had to speak to His children in terms they could understand.

[MrsSmith]

Mocking God using His word is demeaning.  Spitting in His face by rejecting His gifts while saying "but You told us to" is demeaning.

And there were a very tiny percentage of scholars in Moses' day -- most people were uneducated.  Would Moses understand Einsteinian Physics?  Or the red shift?  Or even the idea that the stars in the sky were in fact other stars?  Even if you explained it, it would be rejected out of hand.  God had to speak to His children in terms they could understand.

Moses very likely knew how pyramids were built, something we don't.  Would he understand physics?  Why wouldn't he, if taught?  Men are men, what one knows, another can learn. 

As for mocking God, seriously arguing that He lied to us would qualify, I believe.  Being so sure that man's current knowledge is extensive enough to explain away God's words would qualify.  Reading the history of Noah, and then insisting that the flood couldn't be worldwide, and couldn't cause all the evidence we currently "believe" supports evolution would qualify.  He is there, then, just as He is here, now...He told us what happened.  When He walked the earth as Jesus, He didn't correct anything.  Rather, he quoted scripture and explained the next step in His plan.  If Moses wrote it down wrong, why wouldn't Jesus fix it? 

[Chris_]

Moses very likely knew how pyramids were built, something we don't.  Would he understand physics?  Why wouldn't he, if taught?  Men are men, what one knows, another can learn. 

As for mocking God, seriously arguing that He lied to us would qualify, I believe.  Being so sure that man's current knowledge is extensive enough to explain away God's words would qualify.  Reading the history of Noah, and then insisting that the flood couldn't be worldwide, and couldn't cause all the evidence we currently "believe" supports evolution would qualify.  He is there, then, just as He is here, now...He told us what happened.  When He walked the earth as Jesus, He didn't correct anything.  Rather, he quoted scripture and explained the next step in His plan.  If Moses wrote it down wrong, why wouldn't Jesus fix it? 

So you are simply a YEC, right?  You think the world was created 6,000 (or so) years ago?  I just want to get this straight.

[Chris_]

So you are simply a YEC, right?  You think the world was created 6,000 (or so) years ago?  I just want to get this straight.

Do you believe that God created everything, but couldn't possibly have done it in six days?

[Chris_]

Do you believe that God created everything, but couldn't possibly have done it in six days?

It is not a question of possible, it is a question of what He did.  And it doesn't change the question at hand -- how old is the Universe (using today's definitions of time)?

[Chris_]

It is not a question of possible, it is a question of what He did.  And it doesn't change the question at hand -- how old is the Universe (using today's definitions of time)?

Ok. 
1.  Do you believe that God created the universe?
2.  Do you belive that He did it in six days?

[Woody]

1.  Do you believe that God created the universe?
2.  Do you belive that He did it in six days?

1. Yes.
2. No.  He set it in motion and continues to guide it, but the 'six day' story is not a literal history. 

This is what I believe.  I do not insist that others believe it, and I will gladly fight (verbally or otherwise) anyone who insists that I adopt their beliefs. 

And if anyone thinks I'm going to Hell for not believing in the literal interpretation of events, then I think that person missed the point entirely. 

[Chris_]

1. Yes.
2. No.  He set it in motion and continues to guide it, but the 'six day' story is not a literal history. 

This is what I believe.  I do not insist that others believe it, and I will gladly fight (verbally or otherwise) anyone who insists that I adopt their beliefs. 

And if anyone thinks I'm going to Hell for not believing in the literal interpretation of events, then I think that person missed the point entirely. 

Beliefs are great -- but the 1st  Amendment is clear that the State should not favor one belief over another.  You are wise in your stance.

I am waiting to hear back from my detractors on their beliefs.

[Thor]

Ok. 
1.  Do you believe that God created the universe?
2.  Do you belive that He did it in six days?

Yes

and time is relative. Even the bible says that God's "day" is many years to us. What's to say that God's "day" isn't based on the completion of a cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy ??

[Chris_]

Yes

and time is relative. Even the bible says that God's "day" is many years to us. What's to say that God's "day" isn't based on the completion of a cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy ??

That is the perspective taken by most modern scientists who are also Christians (80%+ for those keeping track at home) -- and the implicit stance of the RCC.

[Chris_]

Beliefs are great -- but the 1st  Amendment is clear that the State should not favor one belief over another.  You are wise in your stance.

I am waiting to hear back from my detractors on their beliefs.

I find it interesting that someone else answered your question, but you still haven't.

[Chris_]

I find it interesting that someone else answered your question, but you still haven't.

The thread is deep -- I am sure I answered all questions posted, but it is possible I missed one.

Please ask again. 

[MrsSmith]

Yes

and time is relative. Even the bible says that God's "day" is many years to us. What's to say that God's "day" isn't based on the completion of a cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy ??

Well, God.  He said there was an evening and a morning, one day.  As He was talking about this planet, either He held it to extremely slow rotations without all the attendant hot and cold effects, or He meant a 24 hour day.  Read Genesis again.  He was very explicit. 

[MrsSmith]

1. Yes.
2. No.  He set it in motion and continues to guide it, but the 'six day' story is not a literal history. 

This is what I believe.  I do not insist that others believe it, and I will gladly fight (verbally or otherwise) anyone who insists that I adopt their beliefs. 

And if anyone thinks I'm going to Hell for not believing in the literal interpretation of events, then I think that person missed the point entirely. 

  That isn't the requirement for going to Heaven.  It just seems kind of dumb to believe in God and trust Him to run your life when you don't believe His words.

[Chris_]

Well, God.  He said there was an evening and a morning, one day.  As He was talking about this planet, either He held it to extremely slow rotations without all the attendant hot and cold effects, or He meant a 24 hour day.  Read Genesis again.  He was very explicit. 

I asked before and I can't remember your answer.  Using current dating, how old is the Earth?

[Chris_]

:whatever:  That isn't the requirement for going to Heaven.  It just seems kind of dumb to believe in God and trust Him to run your life when you don't believe His words.

It is even dumber to reject His gifts of intellect and reasoning and replace them with a theological text designed to teach His Children how to worship Him.

[MrsSmith]

I asked before and I can't remember your answer.  Using current dating, how old is the Earth?

I don't think you asked me before...and I don't know.  How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they messed up and brought death into the world?  Was Adam's age figured from his creation, or from the day death entered the world...the date he actually started to age?  When people lived 1000 years, how old were they before they had kids?  Was a generation 20 years, or not? 

Now a question for you...humans have been hanging around this world for something like 95,000 years, according to your beliefs.  Why did we do absolutely nothing for 90,000 of those years, and then suddenly invent civilization, cities, writing, etc. etc.?  Is this really a plausible theory, given what we know about humans?

[MrsSmith]

It is even dumber to reject His gifts of intellect and reasoning and replace them with a theological text designed to teach His Children how to worship Him.

And how is it rejecting those gifts when my intellect and reasoning tell me that He is more likely to be right than the current version of ever-changing "scientific knowledge?"  We'll know when science finally gets it right because everything will match what He says He did.

[USA4ME]

That isn't the requirement for going to Heaven.  It just seems kind of dumb to believe in God and trust Him to run your life when you don't believe His words.

I agree.  Either you believe in God's Word, or you don't.  Either you believe God is all-powerful, or you don't.  If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He created the earth in 6 days is not a problem.  If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He has the ability to create an earth that appears to be much, much older than it really is not a problem.  If you believe in God, then you automatically don't believe the Genesis account of creation is a fable.  In fact, if you don't believe that God created in 6 days, God doesn't view you as truly believing in Him, something that will eventaully be realized by that individual, and based upon that I have no reason to either.

.

[Chris_]

I don't think you asked me before...and I don't know.  How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they messed up and brought death into the world?  Was Adam's age figured from his creation, or from the day death entered the world...the date he actually started to age?  When people lived 1000 years, how old were they before they had kids?  Was a generation 20 years, or not? 

Now a question for you...humans have been hanging around this world for something like 95,000 years, according to your beliefs.  Why did we do absolutely nothing for 90,000 of those years, and then suddenly invent civilization, cities, writing, etc. etc.?  Is this really a plausible theory, given what we know about humans?

Well, take a guess on magnitude -- thousands, millions, or billions of years?

[Chris_]

I agree.  Either you believe in God's Word, or you don't.  Either you believe God is all-powerful, or you don't.  If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He created the earth in 6 days is not a problem.  If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He has the ability to create an earth that appears to be much, much older than it really is not a problem.  If you believe in God, then you automatically don't believe the Genesis account of creation is a fable.  In fact, if you don't believe that God created in 6 days, God doesn't view you as truly believing in Him, something that will eventaully be realized by that individual, and based upon that I have no reason to either.

.

If you didn't read it in the original language then you are relying on a knock off. 

God's Word is how we are to interact with Him, not how Things Work.

[djones520]

I don't think you asked me before...and I don't know.  How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they messed up and brought death into the world?  Was Adam's age figured from his creation, or from the day death entered the world...the date he actually started to age?  When people lived 1000 years, how old were they before they had kids?  Was a generation 20 years, or not? 

Now a question for you...humans have been hanging around this world for something like 95,000 years, according to your beliefs.  Why did we do absolutely nothing for 90,000 of those years, and then suddenly invent civilization, cities, writing, etc. etc.?  Is this really a plausible theory, given what we know about humans?

Agriculture.  Until the advent of agriculture large scale civilization was impossible.  You just can't get enough food to feed 10,000 people by simply hunting the passing herds.



Take a look at that chart.  Over the last 100,000 years, CO2 levels where pretty low relatively speaking.  A large amount of the gas was trapped in the continent spanning glaciers.  You see that about the end of that ice age, there was a massive rise in the CO2 levels.  That was due to the ice melting, and the CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

Now, it's widely accepted scientific fact that higher CO2 levels are required for large scale agriculture to take place.  A silver lining to AGW was that more food would be able to be grown to support the worlds population.  So prior to the melting of these ice caps humanity was unable to sustain and feed a large population like it can today.  They had to devote a massive amount of time to hunting and gathering, which restricted the amount of time they had to advancing in things like arts and sciences.

We can support this by looking at the fossil record of humanity and it's ancestors.  Each successive species of humanity had a larger brain, and was more capable of complex thought.  Each successive species of humanity exhibited more and more ability to "invent", there by making food easier to get, and being able to devote more time to expanding things like language, art, clothing, etc...

So, once that CO2 was released, we where able to start cultivating crops, and planting them in large scale quantities.  Humanity was able to settle down in one place now, since it was no longer a slave to the moving herds.  Since they had to devote less time to getting that food because one person could now provide what 20 people used to be able to provide, more and more people where able to devote their spare time to "inventing" society.

This is why I laugh at people who hate global warming.  None of us would be alive today if it where not for global warming.  Humanity would still be largely hunting and gathering groups, with our population reaching no more then a couple million world wide.