Teaching Evolution in the Church?

[AngryWomble]

I don't know why you're insulted. The guy thinks that science = theology. So his statement should be read like:

I wouldn't trust a "theology" teacher to teach my child about the Creator.

Are you theology teacher? I guess not. So you don't have to be insulted. As I said, the guy has different definitions for the words.

The point is that the whole meaning of the sentence is that religion has no place in the classroom. Otherwise only "scientists" (read theologists) would have the right to lecture the students.

It's not just what he says it's his whole manner over it. I doubt he'd know real science if it smacked him in the face.

 

[Upisoft]

Explain to me how Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies, which is mathematically impossible to do?

I don't know what you consider prophecy, but I will ask.

Is the following verse prophecy or not? Please explain why you think so.
[BIBLE]Genesis 6:3[/BIBLE]

 

[Upisoft]

It's not just what he says it's his whole manner over it. I doubt he'd know real science if it smacked him in the face.

I agree. But see. The guy believes only in his version of the Bible. I believe he will argue that the original Hebrew version is wrong, if it says something else. So, take it easy.

 

[FishFace]

Observe, test, and naturalize all you want; but if you purposely don't factor in the miraculous, then don't tell me later the Bible is wrong. (I don't mean YOU, I mean all "scientists".)

It depends. If we're holding a very strict philosophical discussion, then no, I wouldn't say the Bible is wrong due to that fact, I would say that there's no evidence that the Bible is possibly correct. In every day language, that translates to the Bible being wrong.

It is not so much that science dismisses the possibility of miracles. Rather that, if they exist and actually affect the real world they (by definition) fall under the scope of natural phenomena.

And that's a shame. Saying something has never existed because you haven't found it yet is junk science.

No. Junk philosophy, perhaps, but science is a pragmatic game, and it is not pragmatic to hold the existence every single possible being as being a viable possibility.

Because God is more than worthy to be included in science manuals and textbooks.

Nonsense. It is clear that science manuals and textbooks do a fine job of teaching what they teach without God. God cannot be found by science, therefore he has no place in science. It's like suggesting leprechauns should be included in science textbooks. They belong in studies of folklore, not science.

And as far as the Scientific Method goes --- I'll post this link for about the fourth time:

http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#methSCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

Very nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I suppose Astronomy and Paleontology on their own are not science, strictly speaking, since they're more about gathering data. Should I care? The scientific method still exists, and all good science should follow it. Just because some bad science doesn't doesn't mean the method is non-existent.

 

[FishFace]

Explain to me how Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies, which is mathematically impossible to do?

Define mathematically impossible.
State how you decided Jesus' fulfilling 109 of 333 prophecies reaches this definition.

Don't think that, just because you stopped talking about this in another thread, I've not noticed you've given no answer.

 

[Split Rock]

You do that, Split Rock.

But in the meantime, go back and re-read this quote.

It's up to ME to reconcile all the different interpretations? I'll do that if YOU reconcile all four forces of the universe into the Theory of Everything?

Fair enough?

Sorry, NO.

You are the one saying that teachers in science classes should talk about Creation.

You are the one claiming that literalists such as yourself do not interpret the bible.

You are the one claiming that your interpretation of the bible is equivalent to the bible. Therefore, if someone disagrees with your interpretation, they are essentially disagreeing with the bible.

The more I debate with people, the more I'm starting to notice they do one of two things - (or both):

1. Either put the Bible in a Catch 22, no-win situation.
2. Or they raise the standard of evidence so high, discussion is futile.

You are the one putting the bible into a Catch-22 situation, by attaching your faith to an interpretation that makes predictions concerning the physical world which can potentially be falsified.

 

[FishFace]

What I don't understand is why AV complains about "Catch-22" situations and high evidence bars, instead of refuting them.

AV, if you can't resolve such situations, then there is one obvious conclusion: the Bible is wrong. I know you start with your conclusion, "the Bible[AV] is always right," but that doesn't mean it's justified. I suppose that's why you complain. What we give as honest criticism baffles you because it does not assume your conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I don't understand is why AV complains about "Catch-22" situations and high evidence bars, instead of refuting them.

AV, if you can't resolve such situations, then there is one obvious conclusion: the Bible is wrong. I know you start with your conclusion, "the Bible[AV] is always right," but that doesn't mean it's justified. I suppose that's why you complain. What we give as honest criticism baffles you because it does not assume your conclusion.

Good deal --- I can see this conversation is going nowhere --- and I'm not going to rehash my conversation in "that other thread" that I already deleted.

You don't want to answer my questions --- you just want to attack the validity of them --- and I don't feel like asking them a 2nd time, or re-wording them.

If the Bible means nothing, Foxe's Book of Martyrs means nothing, history means nothing, AMASCI.COM means nothing, basic Theology means nothing --- then there's nothing to discuss.

In short, have a good nite.

 

[FishFace]

If the Bible means nothing, Foxe's Book of Martyrs means nothing, history means nothing, AMASCI.COM means nothing, basic Theology means nothing

I'm pretty sure only one or two of those are actually connected, the rest is non-sequitur.

then there's nothing to discuss.

Except science, I suppose...

 

[USincognito]

Why oh why are you guys still letting AV deraill threads like he does, every, single, time...?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why oh why are you guys still letting AV deraill threads like he does, every, single, time...?

They do it for the education - (and they like me).

Anything wrong with that?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

They do it for the education - (and they like me).

Anything wrong with that?

Agreeing with AV1611 is the most peculiar of feelings.

 

[Ganymede]

... It doesn't exist! If you can't see it and you can't hear it and you can't touch it, then it takes faith to believe in it...

Please remove the nearest light bulb, put your tongue on the light fittings exposed electrical contacts and have someone turn the power on.

Then come back and tell us how things that you can't hear, see or touch don't exist.

Looking forward to hearing all about it.

 

[arunma]

The Jews.



Then explain to me how a major prophecy was fulfilled in 1948, using "science" only.

Explain to me how Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies, which is mathematically impossible to do?

And using "science" only.

I don't want to hear "didnthappen" like everyone else says.

Actually, the fulfillment of prophecy has nothing to do with mathematics. And I have a degree in math, if that lends me any credibility to speak on the subject. There are plenty of reasons why Christ's fulfillment of prophecy is miraculous, but this just isn't one of them. Many of the messianic prophecies, such as the virgin birth, the miraculous signs, and the resurrection (all of which were written of by Moses and the prophets) are physically impossible to perform except by the supernatural intervention of God. Randomness has nothing to do with it, and so it would be incorrect to say that it is mathematically impossible.

To me it seems less God-honoring to suggest that the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is conceivableby any naturalistic means.

 

[AV1611VET]

To me it seems less God-honoring to suggest that the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is conceivableby any naturalistic means.

Arunma,

I wasn't talking about the nature of the prophecies --- whether they were divine or natural --- I was simply showing that the odds are against anyone being able to write someone in after-the-fact.

Daniel, for instance, gives the exact time the Messiah was to be born; but I didn't factor that in, since I was merely showing the odds against random fulfillment.

 

[ReverendDG]

Why oh why are you guys still letting AV deraill threads like he does, every, single, time...?

He makes more sense than dad? or supersport?
its a lot like baiting a bear i think

 

[FishFace]

Arunma,

I wasn't talking about the nature of the prophecies --- whether they were divine or natural --- I was simply showing that the odds are against anyone being able to write someone in after-the-fact.

How is it in anyway unlikely for someone to have the ability to write in prophecy fulfillments, given that they know what the prophecies are? If the Gospel Authors wanted to do so, they could, no randomness involved.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How is it in anyway unlikely for someone to have the ability to write in prophecy fulfillments, given that they know what the prophecies are? If the Gospel Authors wanted to do so, they could, no randomness involved.

And so they did -- even if they meant bungling the prophecies in the process.

 

[AV1611VET]

How is it in anyway unlikely for someone to have the ability to write in prophecy fulfillments, given that they know what the prophecies are? If the Gospel Authors wanted to do so, they could, no randomness involved.

Let's just say that someone knew all 109 prophecies by heart. Even then, who did he apply them to? It would have HAD to have been a fictional character, as no candidate alive would fit all of those prophecies.

And, by the way, you couldn't just pick anyone at random either, because the Wise Men independently verified your selection.

As did Anna the prophetess, as did Simeon in the Temple, as did John the Baptist.

 

[AV1611VET]

And so they did -- even if they meant bungling the prophecies in the process.

The Jews would have accused them of that and easily exposed them --- yet they didn't.

In fact, behind closed doors, they substantiated it.

[bible]John 11:49-53[/bible]