creation in school

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 04:11 PM Smilin said this in Post #32 ahhh... you are starting to learn a little bit I see,
last time we debated, you said Evolution was
nothing but a lie...

Changing your mind now are we John?

Not at all, God created Adam to be a "husband" Eve was a mother and a wife. Before Adam and Eve you did not have husbands, mothers, or wifes.

If you remember, Adam and Eve only go back 6000 years.

Also look at the selective breeding that Jacab did to even the score with his father in law.

Those are two prime examples from the Bible.

Genesis 30:41-43
    And it came to pass, whenever the stronger livestock conceived, that Jacob placed the rods before the eyes of the livestock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. [42] But when the flocks were feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. [43] Thus the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks, female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.





 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:16 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #41

Not at all, God created Adam to be a "husband" Eve was a mother and a wife. Before Adam and Eve you did not have husbands, mothers, or wifes. 

John, do you ever think before you make your assertions?  Your hypothesis was that there were people created on day 6 thousands of years before Adam and Eve and that they were around until the Flood killed them off.  That was after Adam and Eve, of course.

Now, how did they keep the population up there were no "mothers"? Did God keep zapping new ones into existence?  If so, then the Bible is not a reliable guide at all on the subject, is it?

Either your hypothesis is wrong, or we have to dismiss the Bible as useless.   Which one would you rather we choose?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 12:09 AM Black Phase said this in Post #18

In public schools, I believe that evolutionism and creationism should not be the only choices for students to be allowed to study and/or research, particularly creationism due to its illogicality and reliance on faith without thousands of pieces of unearthed evidence to support it. Also, creationism may need to contend with all of the other religious beliefs of the beginning of the universe and world not just evolutionism.

What's "evolutionism"?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:34 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #20

You can teach the Bible in the schools, you just can not teach a individual denominations doctrine. BAck in England each country had a offical denomination.

Are you related to George Bush?  England is a single country.  And the official state church was the Church of England and it was supported by taxes on everyone.   What is more, you had to be a member in order to teach at state-funded universities like Cambridge or Oxford.

There was some discussion in this country about what would be the offical denomination. It was decided that there would be no one individual denomination to be approved by the government in this country.

In the US many individual states had official religions.  For instance, in Massachusetts it was Congregationalism.  In Virginia it was Anglicanism.  In both states members of other denominations paid taxes or fees to the official denomination. 

Originally, since all European theists in America were one denomination of Christianity or other, it was about not making an official denomination. But that phase passed quickly as first several of the founding fathers were agnostic or atheist, then Jewish emigrants arrived, and finally Muslim, Buddhist (Chinese laborers on the railroads) and Hindu immigrants arrived with their different versions of deity.

So now, the Bible is not allowed to be taught in public schools unless it is part of a comparative religion class.

Of course it is not required to be taught. There will be no Bible questions on the test to qualify for a High School degree.

Correct  Comparative religion would be an elective course.  Your original post, though, was that the Bible would be required.   It's nice to see you backing off that claim.

There are going to be questions about evolution on the High School test. But past the high school level no one is required to study evolution. You can get a Phd in Biology and never be required to study evolution.

That's not true.  All accredited biology Ph.D. programs (ICR is not accredited) require a course on evolution.  Not to mention that you'll get it as part of all the other courses.  Just like you will get biochemistry as part of courses in molecular biology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, cell biology, and microbiology.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:58 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #24



Science has very little interest in why, that is a question for philosophy and theology. Science is mostly concerned with how. 

A ray of hope!!  You are actually pretty close here, John.

The difficulty is that "how" questions can also be phrased using the word "why".  In this particular instance, "how did the diversity of life on the planet happen?" can also be phrase "why are there diverse species on the planet?"  Same question, but one does use a "why".

So you are going to have to define what exactly is a "why" question.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:39 PM lucaspa said this in Post #44
Are you related to George Bush? 

 

We are both members of the Methodist Church. They say everyone is related somewhere along the way. With a name like Bush, you have to wonder though. I get this picture in my head of a young girl who just had a baby. So they ask her, who is the father so we can give the baby a name. She then points to a bush, meaning the last time she saw the father was when they got it on under the bush. But they misunderstand her and they say: Oh, the fathers name is Bush.


 

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:28 PM lucaspa said this in Post #42

John, do you ever think before you make your assertions? 

 

Is this your attempt at a insult? Why would you start off a discussion by insulting someone? Do you think that maybe if you p*ss them off that will cause them to be more likely to want to enter into a discussion with you? It could back fire, they could just ignore you and not want to have a discussion at all.

Your hypothesis was that there were people created on day 6 thousands of years before Adam and Eve and that they were around until the Flood killed them off.  That was after Adam and Eve, of course.

I do not think the flood killed them off. I believe the flood was in the area between the Tigris and the Euphrates river. There were actually two or three floods in that area that wiped out whole groups of people. But the Bible only records one flood there.  

Now, how did they keep the population up there were no "mothers"? Did God keep zapping new ones into existence? 

Is the question: Who did Seth and Cain marry? There are three different options here. First God could have made a wife for them, the way He made a wife for Adam. Second they could have married a sister. Third, there were other people around at the time and they could have gotten a wife from the other family group.

If so, then the Bible is not a reliable guide at all on the subject, is it?

The Bible is a reliable guide. Anyone who would say the Bible is not reliable is admiting that THEY are not reliable. You can have full confidence in the Bible that it is trustworthy and true.

Either your hypothesis is wrong, or we have to dismiss the Bible as useless.   Which one would you rather we choose? [/B]

To dismiss the Bible as useless is a crude and boorish statement. So we can dismiss that as being false. As far as my hypothesis, you still don't understand it well enough to pass judgement on it to determine if it is correct or wrong. That would require you to give up some of the things you cling to for security, and I am not sure your mature enough to do that yet. You seem to enjoy being immature and I have not seen all that much of a indication that you have any desire to grow up.

I was going to go onto to&nbsp;Schroeder's question: "Scientific research deals with physical aspects of reality, while the biblical creation of Adam relates to the spirituality of the <I>neshama</I>, the soul of humanity instilled in Adam on Rosh HaShana, almost 6000 years ago. That is the special creation described in Genesis 1:27. But what of Adam's body? Was it also a special creation? Or is there the possibility that the human body developed over time, until it became a vessel capable of receiving and containing a <I>neshama</I>?"&nbsp;

But I am not sure if your ready to deal with something like this. You seem to want to disregard Schroeder and not really get into taking a look at what he is saying.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Did_Adam_Have_Parents$.asp

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:30 PM lucaspa said this in Post #43
What's "evolutionism"?

You do not have a dictionary? Perhaps you could use one on the internet. Evolutionism is a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.

Darwin as you may well know was a student at one of Englands best universities. He was studying Natural Theology. But on his voyage on the Beagle Voyage he said in his autobiography:

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."

"Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories."

"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;"

It was at that point he began to believe in natural selection. Slowly his dream of becoming a pastor and the comfort associated with that, began to slip away from him. In a letter to a friend he writes:

Docked off Lima, Peru, Darwin catches up on letters home. His cousin and close friend William Darwin Fox writes about the bliss of marital life and his newborn child. It strikes a chord in Charles, now nearly four years into his voyage.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; "My dear Fox,
I was very glad to receive a history of this the most important year in your life ... You are a true Christian &amp; return good for evil ... to send two such letters to so bad a Correspondant, as I have been. God bless you for writing so kindly &amp; affectionately; it if is a pleasure to have friends in England, it is doubly so, to think &amp; know that one is not forgotten, because absent ...
This voyage is terribly long ... I do so earnestly desire to return, Yet I dare hardly look forward to the future, for I do not know what will become of me. -- Your situation is above envy; I do not venture even to frame such happy visions. To a person fit to take the office, the life of a Clergyman is a type of all that is respectable &amp; happy: &amp; if he is a Naturalist &amp; has the 'Diamond Beetle,' ave Maria; I do not know what to say. -- You tempt me by talking of your fireside, whereas it is a sort of scene I never ought to think about. -- I saw the other day a vessel sail for England, it was quite dangerous to know how easily I might turn deserter ..."
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;Yet Darwin is excited about the round-the-world trip ahead, and tells Fox, "I look forward to the Galapagos, with more interest than any other part of the voyage."

 

[wblastyn]

That's like saying everyone believes in "gravitism" (see Microgravity and Macrogravity) or "atomism" or "electricism". It sounds stupid.

Darwin did not leave Christianity because of evolution, he stated that there was no problem believing in both God/Christianity and evolution, he even refers to the Creator in "The Origin of the Species".&nbsp; I think he fell away because he couldn't see any reason to believe in Christianity over all the other religions of the world.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 05:54 PM wblastyn said this in Post #49
I think he fell away because he couldn't see any reason to believe in Christianity over all the other religions of the world.

There was also the death of his daughter, which, from readings on Darwin's life, played a major role is his de-conversion.

 

[webboffin]

Evolutionism is a valid word.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 05:54 PM wblastyn said this in Post #49

Darwin did not leave Christianity because of evolution,

The quotes I gave are from Darwin himself. You should read his origional autobiography. Not the one they cut the referance to religion out of, but the origional one that he wrote.

It will show you exactly what he was thinking. He never abandoned christianity as a moral system. He admired his wife to the very end for&nbsp;her outstanding moral charactor. He admired people who had the love of God in them.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 11:16 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #41



Not at all, God created Adam to be a "husband" Eve was a mother and a wife. Before Adam and Eve you did not have husbands, mothers, or wifes.

If you remember, Adam and Eve only go back 6000 years.

Also look at the selective breeding that Jacab did to even the score with his father in law.

Those are two prime examples from the Bible.

Genesis 30:41-43
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And it came to pass, whenever the stronger livestock conceived, that Jacob placed the rods before the eyes of the livestock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. [42] But when the flocks were feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. [43] Thus the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks, female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.





&nbsp;

As usual you reply totally off topic with me.. you don't keep up with what someone is ACTUALLY SAYING to you... then quote me irrelevent scripture...

YOU called Evolution a lie in another thread with me... want me to post a link to it?

THEN you admit it applies to plants and animals in THIS thread...

(stay focused john)

Conclusion: YOU changed your mind

Notice this has NOTHING to do with Adam and Eve, a 6,000 year old geneology of Genesis 5, or the scriptures you quote..

capiche?????

 

[Smilin]

and noone answered my question...

WHICH creation story is being proposed to be taught in school?

HOW ABOUT we propose to teach World History, Ancient customs & traditions, and Biology/geology/astronomy/physics in Church as well?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 07:36 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #52



The quotes I gave are from Darwin himself. You should read his origional autobiography. Not the one they cut the referance to religion out of, but the origional one that he wrote.

I'll probably regret asking this, but... Who exactly are "they?"

 

[Cantuar]

The Great Atheist Conspiracy, of corse. They get everywhere, you know.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 08:57 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #55



I'll probably regret asking this, but... Who exactly are "they?"

No, you won't regret it..
You'll get the same blubbering response I get..

He's gonna answer with something totally off track..
and then just quote irrelevent scripture ...

(or that's what my magic eight ball tells me)

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:57 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #55 I'll probably regret asking this, but... Who exactly are "they?"

Maybe it was his son. I don't know run a serch on the internet. All of his work is available, it is in the public domain. I just know there are two versions to his autobiography.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 07:54 PM Smilin said this in Post #54

and noone answered my question...&nbsp;

Maybe if you were not so rude and insulting to people, you would get more answers. As it is, you seem to get ignored.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 11:01 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #59



Maybe if you were not so rude and insulting to people, you would get more answers. As it is, you seem to get ignored.

1. How was I rude?

2. Who did I insult..??

Almost everyone answers my questions...