one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[Chris_]

Strangely enough, the verses you quoted answered neither question. 

The verses I quoted state the age of Adam.

Please answer the simple question I posed -- unlike others, I will restate it: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? 

[Chris_]

I am still waiting for your list of knowledge that you hold to the same standard as the translation of Scripture.  Exactly how did you learn what you know about evolution? The Theroy of Gravity? String Theory?  2VL in the Relation Model?  And please recall that reference to experts is not sufficient, you must have "learned the basic language and done the studies" yourself.   

I learned about science by researching it.  I studied the subjects.  I have direct knowledge of the subject matter.

Your attempt to redirect the discussion is amusing.  Please tell me how the term "kind" is used across all the published interpretations of the Bible -- and I have been nice enough to let you keep it to 4 languages and given you enough time to Google up a bunch of information.

I remind you that it is YOU who said the Bible should be taken literally.  I have no onus on me, since I have made no such claim.  If the Bible is to be taken literally, then please literately translate the one simple term (from genesis) from its inception to KJ (which has a few leaps to make it to modern English -- but I continue to be nice).

Do it -- or just admit you can't take the Bible literally, since you can't even literally describe a single word's etymology.  Even given I ave you the starting point (which ain't) and the ending point (which ain't).

If the Bible is literal, then give me the literal intepretation.   

This is easy stuff.

[MrsSmith]

The verses I quoted state the age of Adam.

Please answer the simple question I posed -- unlike others, I will restate it: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? 

The verses did not answer the questions I asked.   Why do you keep ducking such simple questions?

[MrsSmith]

I learned about science by researching it.  I studied the subjects.  I have direct knowledge of the subject matter.

Your attempt to redirect the discussion is amusing.  Please tell me how the term "kind" is used across all the published interpretations of the Bible -- and I have been nice enough to let you keep it to 4 languages and given you enough time to Google up a bunch of information.

I remind you that it is YOU who said the Bible should be taken literally.  I have no onus on me, since I have made no such claim.  If the Bible is to be taken literally, then please literately translate the one simple term (from genesis) from its inception to KJ (which has a few leaps to make it to modern English -- but I continue to be nice).

Do it -- or just admit you can't take the Bible literally, since you can't even literally describe a single word's etymology.  Even given I ave you the starting point (which ain't) and the ending point (which ain't).

If the Bible is literal, then give me the literal intepretation.   

This is easy stuff.

Studied it?  In the original language?  Dug the bones?  Ran the tests?  Developed the experiments to prove them.  Why do you believe other subjects that are merely explained by experts?  How can you take science literally when there is so much of it that requires the explanations and teachings of people who gain a financial advantage from their work?

[Sam Adams]

You are tossing softballs.
That is not a tautology when applied to the science of the matter.  Aspirin provides pain relief.  It does so by alleviating pain.  So the pain-relieving condition of aspirin is tautological?

And nowhere did Darwin ever use the term "survival of the fittest" although as a general layperson's description of the the stochastic nature of evolution.  The inability to understand stochastic processes is pretty standard and a very low-level "argument."l

Lack of evidence means nothing other than breaks in sequences.  If I give you 1,3,7,11..37 does that mean that the intervening numbers cannot be inferred?  Please -- tell me which fossils are missing?  There are only several billion of them -- take your time.  I will even give you a mulligan -- show which fossils do NOT support the progression of evolution as understood by modern science?

The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces.  It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old.  The Bible doesn't explain the difference between Newtonian approaches to physics versus Einsteinan ones.  It does not explain why things moving away from a center shift into the red part of the spectrum and those closer to that center stay in the violet spectrum.  It does not describe why light is the only known form that is made of particles yet move sin waves.

Unless it does -- please provide the Biblical citations which describe these, the most basic of science observations.

(Nor does it need to.  The Bible is God's statement to His children on His relationship to them.  It does not profess itself to be a science text.)

The analogy with aspirin is a false one. But you knew that, didn't you? Pain is something that can be defined apart from it's alleviation. The case with the Darwinian survivors is different. The tautology is hanging around your neck. And the ad hominen suggestion that I am a simpleton for pointing that out to you does not help your argument.

I am glad you you noticed the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That's real progress. Now, if you will admit that scientific conclusions need to be based on evidence, we will get someplace.

Sorry, but your attack on the Bible's account of origins cannot be sustained. The Bible accounts for origins, not everything that happened after the origin. But no theory does that.

By the way, you seem to be forgetting something. If we cannot depend on the Bible, its value as a guide for divine to human, and human to human, relations is very doubtful. As tyrants across the ages have discovered, the Bible--in all its integrity--is an impediment to totalitarianism. Undermine the Bible, and you remove that impediment. The theory of evolution has social and political implications you are unwittingly promoting.

[Chris_]

The analogy with aspirin is a false one. But you knew that, didn't you? Pain is something that can be defined apart from it's alleviation. The case with the Darwinian survivors is different. The tautology is hanging around your neck. And the ad hominen suggestion that I am a simpleton for pointing that out to you does not help your argument.

IOW, yoiu define "tautology" to mean "anything that defeats my baseless argument." -- I guess that debating children older than 11 provides massive logic problems for you.

I am glad you you noticed the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That's real progress. Now, if you will admit that scientific conclusions need to be based on evidence, we will get someplace.

And yet you cannot even suggest a simple alternative.

Sorry, but your attack on the Bible's account of origins cannot be sustained. The Bible accounts for origins, not everything that happened after the origin. But no theory does that.

I was very specific -- your collective "so's your mama" response is very humorous -- and fails on it's face.

By the way, you seem to be forgetting something. If we cannot depend on the Bible, its value as a guide for divine to human, and human to human, relations is very doubtful. As tyrants across the ages have discovered, the Bible--in all its integrity--is an impediment to totalitarianism. Undermine the Bible, and you remove that impediment. The theory of evolution has social and political implications you are unwittingly promoting.

I have been very specific on my perspective that the Bible is a guide for how God wants us to interact with Him, His Son, and each other.  I have supplied direct argumentation on how this works.  Your ignoring this is merely blindfolding and doesn't even come close to an argument by any and all definitions of "argument."  Hint: gainsaying isn't argumentation.

[Chris_]

Studied it?  In the original language?  Dug the bones?  Ran the tests?  Developed the experiments to prove them.  Why do you believe other subjects that are merely explained by experts?  How can you take science literally when there is so much of it that requires the explanations and teachings of people who gain a financial advantage from their work?

Still waiting for the answers, Mrs. Smith:

How old is the Earth?  Thousands, Millions, Billions?

What does the word "kind" -- as used in the earliest known Bible written in Aramaic -- mean?  How has its meaning changed across the basic 4 languages and if not,or if so, why?

What is  the importance of the word "kind" to Biblical literailsts?

These are easy.  I even provided a simple fill in the blanks form upthread.

Please answer them.

And as a sop to your silly question (because I really am a very generous guy) --- are you suggesting that all published scientific data must be personally verified?  That if I don't see an electron that means electricity doesn't exist?  That there is a massive conspiracy that is creating billions of fake bones and also faking their strata and age methods?

OK, that is a new question but you opened the door.

I have made this so easy for you.  Please answer.

[Sam Adams]

IOW, yoiu define "tautology" to mean "anything that defeats my baseless argument." -- I guess that debating children older than 11 provides massive logic problems for you.
And yet you cannot even suggest a simple alternative.
I was very specific -- your collective "so's your mama" response is very humorous -- and fails on it's face.
I have been very specific on my perspective that the Bible is a guide for how God wants us to interact with Him, His Son, and each other.  I have supplied direct argumentation on how this works.  Your ignoring this is merely blindfolding and doesn't even come close to an argument by any and all definitions of "argument."  Hint: gainsaying isn't argumentation.

I certainly did not define tautology as anythng that defeats my argument. But you knew that. Why not simply deal with the real issue?

I did not say anything about your mama.

Best of all, I am glad you will not try to refute my assertion about the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That is progress. Please remember how science works.

Sorry, but unless the Bible is trustworthy in all things it asserts, it is trustworthy in none. The social and political implications of a belief that God created man in His own image are very different from the implications that flow from a belief that he is a distant cousin of a virus.

Since you don't think I can argue with a 12 year old, I will not try to inform you further. Thanks for playing.

[Chris_]

I certainly did not define tautology as anythng that defeats my argument. But you knew that. Why not simply deal with the real issue?

You defined tautology as the result of the scientific method.  We see fossils (did I mention there are BILLIONS of them?) that are in strata that are consistent.  If you understood how science works, you would know the difference between evidenciary support and tautology.

I did not say anything about your mama.

I was trying to help you see the error in your attempt at reasoning.

Best of all, I am glad you will not try to refute my assertion about the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That is progress. Please remember how science works.

Your assertion did not posit a "lack of evidence." It merely suggested that there is not a 100% evidential link across the  millions of years of evolution.  Unless and until we dig up every single animal that ever existed, we cannot satisfy your rather insipid and certainly unscientific critera for "evidence."  I note that you ignore my simple (well, for most people) example to help you understand the issue.

Sorry, but unless the Bible is trustworthy in all things it asserts, it is trustworthy in none. The social and political implications of a belief that God created man in His own image are very different from the implications that flow from a belief that he is a distant cousin of a virus.

IOW, you can't find Biblical references that make it a definitive source for even the simplest of scientific fundamentals. If the Bible is a scientific source, why does it not tell us about these simple and critical scientific principles?

Since you don't think I can argue with a 12 year old, I will not try to inform you further. Thanks for playing.

Your response hasn't upgraded anyone's evaluation of your "skills."

[Sam Adams]

You defined tautology as the result of the scientific method. 

I did nothing of the kind.

We see fossils (did I mention there are BILLIONS of them?) that are in strata that are consistent. 

No one doubts that. What I said, and what you cannot deny, and refuse (wisely) to try to deny, is that there is  a lack of evidence in the fossils for TRANSITITIONAL species. If you want to promote the theory of evolution with the attitude of reigious fanaticism I have witnessed in your posts, that's fine. But quit trying to assume the role of a student of science while doing so. The lack of evidence is the problem.

If you understood how science works, you would know the difference between evidenciary support and tautology.

Wow. Amazing.

IOW, you can't find Biblical references that make it a definitive source for even the simplest of scientific fundamentals.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I can give you scads. Please refer to Genesis 1 and 2, for starters.

If the Bible is a scientific source, why does it not tell us about these simple and critical scientific principles?

What simple and critical scientific principles do you mean?

Your response hasn't upgraded anyone's evaluation of your "skills."

Okay. So now you are speaking for everyone who has seen my reponse. And you were quite right, in an earlier post, when you said I am unable to debate with 12 year olds. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

[TheSarge]

The analogy with aspirin is a false one. But you knew that, didn't you? Pain is something that can be defined apart from it's alleviation. The case with the Darwinian survivors is different. The tautology is hanging around your neck. And the ad hominen suggestion that I am a simpleton for pointing that out to you does not help your argument.

I am glad you you noticed the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That's real progress. Now, if you will admit that scientific conclusions need to be based on evidence, we will get someplace.

Sorry, but your attack on the Bible's account of origins cannot be sustained. The Bible accounts for origins, not everything that happened after the origin. But no theory does that.

By the way, you seem to be forgetting something. If we cannot depend on the Bible, its value as a guide for divine to human, and human to human, relations is very doubtful. As tyrants across the ages have discovered, the Bible--in all its integrity--is an impediment to totalitarianism. Undermine the Bible, and you remove that impediment. The theory of evolution has social and political implications you are unwittingly promoting.

[Chris_]

I did nothing of the kind.

You stated that when cross-referenced evidence produces reinforcement it creates a tautology. It was your statement, not mine.

No one doubts that. What I said, and what you cannot deny, and refuse (wisely) to try to deny, is that there is  a lack of evidence in the fossils for TRANSITITIONAL species. If you want to promote the theory of evolution with the attitude of reigious fanaticism I have witnessed in your posts, that's fine. But quit trying to assume the role of a student of science while doing so. The lack of evidence is the problem.

The concept of a "transitional species" is one that ignorant laymen use as a straw man.  There is no such concept in science.  As I have patiently explained to you, evolution is a stochastic process -- every fossil is transitional.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I can give you scads. Please refer to Genesis 1 and 2, for starters.

I must have missed how genesis 1 and 2 explained that light traveles in waves yet is made of particles, travels at apx. 300,000,000 m/sin a vacuum.  Nor did I see the effect that gravity has on that.  Please,  tell me which passage covers this.  And, while you are at it, you can tell me which passage discusses the scientific merits and flaws in Newtonian (obviously this would be called Biblical) Physics vs. Einsteinian (which we should also call Biblical) physics.

What simple and critical scientific principles do you mean?

See above.  It is super simple.

Okay. So now you are speaking for everyone who has seen my reponse. And you were quite right, in an earlier post, when you said I am unable to debate with 12 year olds. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

It sucks to lose in public, doesn't it?  At least smart ignorant people don't parade their ignorance proudly.

[USA4ME]

..... my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.

What does "His Word" ask you to do?

... the Bible is an allegorical reference designed by God and written by many men over a relatively short time to tell us how He loves us and to describe in detail our relationship to Him.

And what these "many men" wrote could just be what they made up on their own and in reality have nothing to do with God or any relationship man has with him.  If not, why not?

.

[MrsSmith]

Still waiting for the answers, Mrs. Smith:

How old is the Earth?  Thousands, Millions, Billions?

I'd love to, as soon as you find those scriptures I requested.  From all I've read, the Earth is a few thousand years older than Noah's flood, but until I know what time period passed from Creation to the beginning of death, I can't count the years. 

What does the word "kind" -- as used in the earliest known Bible written in Aramaic -- mean?  How has its meaning changed across the basic 4 languages and if not,or if so, why?

What is  the importance of the word "kind" to Biblical literailsts?

These are easy.  I even provided a simple fill in the blanks form upthread.

Please answer them.

Obviously you are very interested in the word "Kind."  Unfortunately, I don't feel like doing your homework for you.  I guess you can research your question while I bake cookies with my daughter. 

And as a sop to your silly question (because I really am a very generous guy) --- are you suggesting that all published scientific data must be personally verified?  That if I don't see an electron that means electricity doesn't exist?  That there is a massive conspiracy that is creating billions of fake bones and also faking their strata and age methods?

OK, that is a new question but you opened the door.

I have made this so easy for you.  Please answer.

Are you suggesting that you, personally, accept the word of experts in science while refusing to accept the word of experts in Biblical translation, languages and culture?  I'm shocked! 

[MrsSmith]

The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces.  It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old. 

(Nor does it need to.  The Bible is God's statement to His children on His relationship to them.  It does not profess itself to be a science text.)

The Bible is not a science text, but neither can science exist outside the creation in Genesis.  No creation, no science.  God was good enough to give us a mind that can research and find the rules He created.  However, He also told us how He began this creation.  He also explained the strata.  With all the land covered in water for a year, obviously it settled in strata as it dried.  Eventually, scientists will discover enough to come around in a great circle and have to admit that Genesis is completely correct.  Until that time, while much may be correct, there are still gaping errors in our "knowledge."  Just as people will be horrified by our slaughter of unborn humans in the future, they will be vastly amused by all the mistakes in our science...just as we are amused by the idea that the world could be flat or the Earth stationary in space.  OF course, by that time, we'll both be dead...and we'll find it pretty amusing, also.

[TheSarge]

The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces.  It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old. 

No it does not.  But what God did...was to populate this earth with people smart enough to understand those things and teach it to the rest of us.

[Peter3_1]

Asimov wrote two books on the Bible, new and old Testament giving the factual/historical/archelogical evidence that goes with the passages. And in man y cases, the reasons rthat things appear as they do in the Bible. Very interesting and educational.

The Bible was never written to be the literal word of God as an entire text, but as an alagorical , moral, lesson touching on a wide variety of situations AND an oral tradition of the 7 Tribes of Israel , written after writing was invented, to be the glue of their civilization and tradition.

Leave the literalism to more primitive religions that demands slavish, unthinking obediance to form and taboo, the ANTHISIS of the things Jesus stood for.  There are several parables that demonstrate this clearly. As He saw it necessary to repeat this lesson art least FOUR TIMES (and St. Paul at least once more) , He understood the natural affinity of humanity to cling to these anchors of faith, and the dangers of intollerance when we do.

[USA4ME]

So the Christian account is superior because you say so.  I will inform the billions of Hindus and Bhuddisst you have decreed their religion bogus.

-- my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.

OK, this answers a lot.

I run into people like this before.  They find out I go to church and want to know where, so I tell them and why I’ve chosen to go there.  When I ask them where they go they tell me “Oh, I worship God in my own way.”  So what we have here is just an extension of that.  It might not be perfect in its description, but it’s really, really close.

What they believe for all practical purposes is that it doesn’t really matter how one comes to God, that everyone has their own path, and if your path is 180 degrees different from someone else’s path, that’s all right.  If “Christianity” is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK.  If “Judaism” is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK.  If “Islam” is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK.  If “Buddha” is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK.  If “Shinto” is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK. If your path is something completely different than any of those, then that’s OK.  IOW, one comes to God “based on my understanding,” whatever you’ve determined that understanding should be.

Like I said, there are variations on this concept, but that’s basically it.

No, not interested.  In fact, that type of outlook isn’t really “religion,” and this is the Religion Forum, so it doesn't really belong here.  I’m not even sure where to categorize that viewpoint, but the last designation which would be assigned to it would be that of “religion.”

.

[rubliw]

This augments an earlier poll, taken in England about two years ago, that showed something like 63% of all Englishmen do not believe in the theory of evolution.

As England is rated as the "most secular," least-church-going, least Christian-affiliation, society in all of Europe, one can't blame "Christian 'fundamentalists'" for this.

Sorry for bumping an old thread... I havent read the whole thing so I don't know if this was addressed...  but I just wanted to clear up a misconception here...

More scientific surveys show that acceptance of evolution among the general populace of the UK is very strong... and indeed in most western countries.  The UK tops 70% acceptance.

I would expect it to decline somewhat as time marches on thanks to the diffuse of Islam through Western Europe.  They generally don't take too kindly to Darwinian ideas..

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html

[TheSarge]

Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain.  How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze?  If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?

[Chris_]

Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain.  How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze?  If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?

...and from what did the moneky wrench evolve?   

[Chris_]

...and from what did the moneky wrench evolve?   :fuelfire: :uhsure:

Pliers.

[rubliw]

Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain.  How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze?  If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...

A common misconception... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13687-evolution-myths-evolution-promotes-the-survival-of-species.html

Species go extinct all the time.

doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?

While not thouroughly explained as of yet... it really doesnt

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

[Chris_]

Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain.  How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze?  If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?

What's a Crevo?  That conflates Creationist and Evolution.  It is used on the Internet to describe the arguments between those who understand science and those who would substitute religion for same.

[TheSarge]

What's a Crevo?  That conflates Creationist and Evolution.  It is used on the Internet to describe the arguments between those who understand science and those who would substitute religion for same.

Sorry fingers got ahead of my brain.  should have been "Evo's.

As in the Evolutionists.  *blech*