Creation vs. Evolution II

[Jose Fly]

I said above that nobody wants creationism taught in public schools. *However, students should be taught whatever is in the ciriculum, while being able to discuss competing ideas.*

Does anyone have any idea what 6days is talking about here?

He agrees that creationism should not be taught by the school, so a teacher would have absolutely no reason to even mention it. Apparently he's picturing a student bringing up creationism and.......what? The teacher says they're not allowed to talk about it? There's no law dictating that, nor am I aware of any such policy anywhere.

So one has to wonder just what 6days is complaining about. :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur, forgive me for forgetting where you stand here, but which is more likely? That Jesus wasn't supposed to be taken literally or that practicing Jews all around the world have misinterpreted the evidence around them?

It's far more likely that the humanist religion, claiming for itself the title of "science" and attempting to steal the accomplishments of others for its own status, has misinterpreted evidence about them, even willingly misinterpreted at times. Jesus took Genesis literally, and if Jesus did rise from the dead then his endorsement carries a certain weight that's far greater than someone who claims to be a "scientist" that can't even bring a lab rat back from the dead.

Where it comes to Genesis I don't consider it to be a rigidly literal account, if only for the narrative style in which it's written. The bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook and it often bemuses me why people seem to be so invested in YEC as if evolution and accepted scientific theories are somehow a threat to faith. They aren't.

 

[6days]

Where it comes to Genesis I don't consider it to be a rigidly literal account, if only for the narrative style in which it's written. The bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook

The Bible is God's Word, and as such it truth on all topics it touches on... including science. If science 'says' dead men can't rise from tomb...we still believe Christ did arise. His Word tells us Jesus was resurrected.

and it often bemuses me why people seem to be so invested in YEC as if evolution and accepted scientific theories are somehow a threat to faith. They aren't.

Do you believe that Jeaus was born of a virgin?

Arthur... it would be pointless to debate about Genesis if it didn't matter to the Gospel. If God had created man though millions of years of trial and error (extinctions, pain, suffering and thorns, disease and death) ... that would be fine. However, He tells us that those things are the consequence of 'first Adams' sin. The very gospel hinges on 'Last Adam' stepping in as our mediator suffering physical death on our behalf. His resurrection defeated both spiritual and physical death. Christ's physical death and ressurection if physical death is not a consequence of sin. ( That is one of a few reasons why it is important we accept Genesis as real history, as did Jesus)

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Bible is God's Word, and as such it truth on all topics it touches on... including science. If science 'says' dead men can't rise from tomb...we still believe Christ did arise. His Word tells us Jesus was resurrected.*

*

Do you believe that Jeaus was born of a virgin?*


Arthur... it would be pointless to debate about Genesis if it didn't matter to the Gospel. If God had created man though millions of years of trial and error (extinctions, pain, suffering and thorns, disease and death) ... that would be fine. However, He tells us that those things are the consequence of 'first Adams' sin. The very gospel hinges on 'Last Adam' stepping in as our mediator suffering physical death on our behalf. His resurrection defeated both spiritual and physical death. Christ's physical death and ressurection if physical death is not a consequence of sin. ( That is one of a few reasons why it is important we accept Genesis as real history, as did Jesus)

Look, if it's crucial to you to believe that Genesis is literal verbatim then that's up to you. It isn't the same for everyone else as exemplified by many Christians themselves and some on here at that. It's pointless trying to engage you on something you 'literally' won't consider outside of anything that contradicts your apparently steadfast view.

 

[6days]

*It's pointless trying to engage you on something you 'literally' won't consider outside of anything that contradicts your apparently steadfast view.

I won't consider compromising the Gospel. You also don't need engage, Arthur. But if physical death was not the result of sin, then why did Christ have to defeat death?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I won't consider compromising the Gospel. You also don't need engage, Arthur. But if physical death was not the result of sin, then why did Christ have to defeat death?

Rather, you won't consider anything that compromises your literal reading of it. Not everybody is obliged to shackle themselves in the same way and be beholden to a doctrinal view that rails against science.

 

[6days]

*Rather, you won't consider anything that compromises your literal reading of it.

I asked a fairly basic gospel question. I will try again.

If God created using a process of death, and called it very good. (Gen. 1:31), then death was not really the result of 'first Adams' sin. So, what was the purpose of Christs physical death? *Why is death called the final enemy in scripture if God referred to it as good?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I asked a fairly basic gospel question. I will try again.

If God created using a process of death, and called it very good. (Gen. 1:31), then death was not really the result of 'first Adams' sin. So, what was the purpose of Christs physical death? *Why is death called the final enemy in scripture if God referred to it as good?

Was it Adam's fault that there's such a thing as a parasitic wasp? Was all of nature in alignment and all of the animals and insects just 'got on with each other' up until that point? Were bacterial life and viruses a byproduct of Adam as well? I'm not an atheist but your branch of dogmatism throws up more questions than answers.

 

[6days]

*Was it Adam's fault that there's such a thing as a parasitic wasp? Was all of nature in alignment and all of the animals and insects just 'got on with each other' up until that point? Were bacterial life and viruses a byproduct of Adam as well?

Ok... fair enough. I don't think you want to answer on the purpose of Christ's death.*


Re paraitic wasps..... the answer is the same as it is for cancer. If you believe in 'evolution', you know the answer. We live in a world where mutations corrupt, and organisms adapt.*


Re insects getting along with each other...I don't know. But the definition of death in Genesis seems to apply to vertebrate animals.


Re. bacteria... most (maybe 90%) of bacteria are necessary for life here on earth. They serve all kinds of useful functions. (Evidence of design). Similar to the answer on wasps though, we live in a world where mutations destroy and corrupt.*

I'm not an atheist but your branch of dogmatism throws up more questions than answers.

*Perhaps. I certainly don't have all the answers. But, speaking of atheists....some understand the Bible and the gospel *better than many Christians. They understand that if they get Christians to compromise in Genesis, they suceed in destroying the Gospel. **

ATHEIST ARGUMENT..."Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

"All we are asking is that you take what*you know*into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it. "(http://atheists.org/atheism/Christmas)

*Biologos is an organization started by Francis Collins. They try harmonize scripture and science. But...over the years they have only tried to compromise scripture to secular opinions. Some of their lead people could likely be considered as heretics, with views far outside mainstream Christian doctrine. *

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok... fair enough. I don't think you want to answer on the purpose of Christ's death.*


Re paraitic wasps..... the answer is the same as it is for cancer. If you believe in 'evolution', you know the answer. We live in a world where mutations corrupt, and organisms adapt.*

So that's all designed then right? Adam sins, hence cancer, hence parasitic wasps, and presumably a problem with your computer with the asterisk (*) key?

Re insects getting along with each other...I don't know. But the definition of death in Genesis seems to apply to vertebrate animals.

Bit rough on the invertebrate then isn't it? (At one point I bred snails...)

Re. bacteria... most (maybe 90%) of bacteria are necessary for life here on earth. They serve all kinds of useful functions. (Evidence of design). Similar to the answer on wasps though, we live in a world where mutations destroy and corrupt.*

Why? What did a beetle ever do to get a predator that lays eggs in it and kills it from the inside out? Designed no less? Seems to me that Adam is one "hell" of a scapegoat for all sorts of things that get 'shuffled' off.

*Perhaps. I certainly don't have all the answers. But, speaking of atheists....some understand the Bible and the gospel *better than many Christians. They understand that if they get Christians to compromise in Genesis, they suceed in destroying the Gospel. **

Okay, fair enough for admitting you don't have all the answers. It would be unfair of anyone to think you could. But where it comes to "destroying the gospel" if a non adherence to a literal Genesis then no. Zealots abound on any given side.

ATHEIST ARGUMENT..."Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

"All we are asking is that you take what*you know*into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it. "(http://atheists.org/atheism/Christmas)

*Biologos is an organization started by Francis Collins. They try harmonize scripture and science. But...over the years they have only tried to compromise scripture to secular opinions. Some of their lead people could likely be considered as heretics, with views far outside mainstream Christian doctrine. *

As above.

 

[gcthomas]

What is not science? I linked you to an astrophysicist who suggests that dark matter may have killed the dinosaurs. Are you saying that should not be allowed to be discussed?

No. Can't you read?

You certainly seem frightened. You are advocating that kids should be taught 'what' to think, instead of 'how' to think.

No I'm not. Can't you read?

Like others here, you seem unable to argue logically what has been said, so you create 'snowmen' to argue against. (-20 here). I said above that nobody wants creationism taught in public schools. *However, students should be taught whatever is in the ciriculum, while being able to discuss competing ideas.*

Which of the hundreds of fact-free creation myths would you have taught as 'competing ideas'? Are you suggesting that the Christian myth should be given precedence over all the others?

In any case, competing ideas are given space. But if Creationism is a competing theory for science, and not religious dogma, then I am competition for Usain Bolt and should be given a lane at the World Championships 100m final.

This has been answered for you often GC. It is an exciting time for Christians as science helps reveal the truth of Scripture, and the majesty of our Creator. *Science can be a form of worship for Christians.*

Nope. Christianity has no place in science. Christians, yes, but Christianity as an explanatory framework? Not a chance.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I haven't added aliens, that's your mocking characterization in an attempt to discredit. Did an alien visit Mary or an angel named Gabriel????? Are angels aliens or just when you want to make fun of people? Did they make fun of Jesus, put a crown of thorns on his head? Dress him in a purple robe? Beat him and laugh at him? Did they mistreat the other prophets????

Also, you add UFO's, there are no UFO's in my theology, that's again added by people trying to discredit and undermine.

Dear Caino,

I will engage with you once again. No, I do not believe that angels are aliens. I believe that they are hosts of God. They deserve a much better respectful name than aliens. Workers for God. God's workers sound a lot better than aliens. So do you understand what I'm talking about. And freelight saying he is "I AM," well that doesn't cut it. God said to Moses that His Name was "I AM." Freelight ought not use those words to describe himself, when God chose them to describe Himself. It is a matter of something being sacred or not. Caino, I think you are a nice person and I'm not trying to rattle you. I just went into your Urantia thread a while back and I did not like what I found there. All I remember was that it was so totally not like the real Jesus or also God, and too wordy. Intellect and wisdom are two different things. I also am sorry about the UFOs. I'll close for now. I know you are dying to say different than what I've written here, but that doesn't make you right either.

May God Watch Over You Closely,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I committed my life to God 31 years ago, and as Jesus taught, I do my good works in secret without needing to announce them to the whole world....and I certainly don't need to have you judge me or my faith.

Dear Caino,

Maybe I have you wrong. You certainly don't use any Intellectual Banter here, so I'm thinking that what I've thought you were saying was really freelight's doing. He's the one who talks that way. But it's your thread. So I guess I just thought it was you who wrote it. I apologize very much for being wrong about you, if that is what is going on. I thought your religion had some Hindu stuff in it too. It's a bit of everything, from what I understand. Okay, will get going. You take good care.

May God Fill Your Life With His Love,

Michael

 

[Caino]

Dear Caino,

Maybe I have you wrong. You certainly don't use any Intellectual Banter here, so I'm thinking that what I've thought you were saying was really freelight's doing. He's the one who talks that way. But it's your thread. So I guess I just thought it was you who wrote it. I apologize very much for being wrong about you, if that is what is going on. I thought your religion had some Hindu stuff in it too. It's a bit of everything, from what I understand. Okay, will get going. You take good care.

May God Fill Your Life With His Love,

Michael

Thanks Michael Freelight is a very intelligent, sincere person with a broad vocabulary. He's well versed in many beliefs and teachings. He likes some of the UB and labors to carry that message as well as other philosophies. I'm motivated by the UB as well as a desire to reform old beliefs which are a block for people coming to Jesus today. I believe that God created the life that evolved according to his plan. Other believe all life was created at the same time in 6 days a very short time ago.

 

[6days]

...presumably a problem with your computer with the asterisk (*) key?**

The problem could be the nut that operates it.


Actually.... maybe you or someone can help me. I do most of this stuff on my phone. I have had the (*) problem off and on for a couple years, and through 2 different phones.*


What I usually do is copy the post I want to reply to, then I paste it in email and make my reply there, before I copy/ paste it back in TOL. *Its easier to save something that way since I'm away a few hours at a time.*


When I do post it back in TOL there is often lots of astericks both in my comments and in yours, or whoever I'm replying to. I usually then try do an edit to delete them...not always easy on this Samsung.*


Suggestions? Thanks.

 

[6days]

Which of the hundreds of fact-free creation myths would you have taught as 'competing ideas'? Are you suggesting that the Christian myth should be given precedence over all the others?

You have no arguments other than your strawmans. Go ahead and fight with them... do it carefully though. I don't want to see you get hurt.

Christianity has no place in science. Christians, yes, but Christianity as an explanatory framework? Not a chance.

Wooo another strawman. You asked why I took an interest in science. Nobody said that had to be your framework.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which of the hundreds of fact-free creation myths would you have taught as 'competing ideas'? Are you suggesting that the Christian myth should be given precedence over all the others?

To be fair, 6days has made it pretty clear that he isn't advocating for creationism to be taught in science classes.

What isn't clear however, is exactly what he's complaining about. I tried raising that point yesterday, but it was ignored.

But if Creationism is a competing theory for science, and not religious dogma, then I am competition for Usain Bolt and should be given a lane at the World Championships 100m final.

LOL! That's good. I may steal that! ;-)

 

[6days]

*What isn't clear however, is exactly what he's complaining about.I tried raising that point yesterday, but it was ignored.

*

I gave an example yesterday to gc...

Few if any atheists (any teacher for that matter) would be opposed to discussing the idea that a hypothetical disc of dark matter disturbed a hypothetical gravitational field which caused the proposed Oort cloud to kick out a proposed comet which killed the real dinosaurs.*
http://www.sciencefriday.com/article...the-dinosaurs/

And yet atheists get frightened if a teacher wants to discuss a statement from an astrophysicist saying*"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"*Paul Davies, physicist. *Similar statements about design are said by biologists, cosmologists, geologists, plaleontologists etc. *Some say the design is evidence of a designer..... yet atheists think that is a taboo. They are unwilling to follow evidence to a designer, and they don't want others to think of that as an option.*


Its not something that should be taught in secular schools.... but you should not fear the topic being discussed.*

 

[Jose Fly]

And yet atheists get frightened if a teacher wants to discuss a statement from an astrophysicist...

And this is where the confusion comes from. You claim you don't want creationism taught in science classes, but you also claim you want teachers to "discuss" creationist talking points.

Looks like you're trying to have it both ways. As I explained earlier, there is absolutely no reason for a teacher to even bring up this creationist talking point in the first place, and there are several reasons for them not to....

It's already been proven that "design" is nothing more than a legal ploy to sneak creationist talking points into science classes.

No university requires incoming freshmen to be versed in "design", or anything like it.

No employers require new employees to have taken courses, or have an understanding of, "design".

Every scientific organization in the world that has weighed in on the subject has unequivocally stated that "design" is not only very wrong, but unscientific as well.​

So lots of reasons not to bring it up, and no reasons to bring it up.

yet atheists think that is a taboo. They are unwilling to follow evidence to a designer, and they don't want others to think of that as an option.

That you keep tying science curricula to atheists exposes how you are thinking of this in a religious context, i.e., your attempt to find any way to get creationist talking points into science classes.

For the rest of us, this is an issue of science and science education. Our aim is to provide students the best science education we can, whereas your aim is to get science teachers to provide your beliefs some level of scientific legitimacy, even though they haven't earned it.

Its not something that should be taught in secular schools.... but you should not fear the topic being discussed.*

There's absolutely no scientific reason for any science teacher to discuss a handful of quotes from fundamentalist Christians. If a student brings it up, the teacher should state the truth...."intelligent design" has been found by both the courts and the scientific community to be a political ploy to sneak creationism into public schools, it has no scientific standing at all, and it is absolutely scientifically irrelevant. If the student presses, then the teacher can demonstrate how all those things are true (e.g., by pulling up statements from scientific organizations and/or the Dover ruling).

Again, there is no standard that you can cite that would justify teachers "discussing" ID creationism, that wouldn't also allow geocentrism and holocaust denial to be equally "discussed".

 

[6days]

Today's news....hypothetical dark matter (no idea where it came from) might have created hypothetical dark stars (which may not exist) might have created the universe. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161214-did-dark-stars-help-form-the-universe

Atheists have no problem jumping onto all kinds of beliefs, teaching it as science. (Much later proven wrong by science). Yet they fear discussions in a classroom, even from secular scientists suggesting the design in our universe might be evidence of a designer.