theoddamerican said:
It is a figure of speech Have you ever said the suns coming up or sun is setting? Does that mean that you believe that the sun is moving around the earth?
What
in scripture tells you that this is a figure of speech? If you did not already know that science contradicts this (and this was not known for over a thousand years after the bible was written) what would tell you it is a figure of speech, yet the very next verses are not?
Martin Luther did not agree it was a figure of speech.
What do you believe in. I was just reading over some of the stuff you wrote as a reply. At first I was thinking that you are an evolutionist but when you replied to The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, it sounds like you believe in creation. (I do not believe in the big bang theory)
Do you remember that you had to affirm the Nicene Creed to gain the right to post in the Christians Only Forums? Origins Theology is one of the Christians Only Forums. All the evolutionists posting here are theistic evolutionists. We all agree with the first statement of the Nicene Creed "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible."
We also consider that evolution is part of nature as God created it and does not conflict with belief in creation.
Also when I talked about vestigial organs they were being referred to as useless"Humans also have vestigial organs. We have a set of miniature tailbones at the base of our spine - which obviously no longer support a tail.... The appendix is a vestigial organ that does not seem to serve a function in digestion today." Miller and Devine, Biology, 2000, p. 2841.
Your own quotations do not say "useless". The tailbones at the base of our spine "obviously no longer support a tail", but I think you find them very useful when you sit.
The appendix "does not seem to serve a function in digestion today." Does that mean it serves no other function and is useless? Some have suggested it serves a role in the immune system.
You need to read scientific work carefully and note the limits put on scientific statements. It can be equally true that an appendix serves no role in digestion but does serve a role in some other way. So it is both vestigial and useful.
Cosmic evolution-the origin of time, space and matter; Big Bang. 2. Chemical evolution-the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3. Stellar and planetary evolution-origin of stars and planets. 4. Organic evolution-origin of Life. 5. Macro-evolution-origin of major kinds. 6. Micro-evolution-variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.
http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/...cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.htmlthe
This, clearly, is not from a science text (unless it is from a creationist source) and is scientific nonsense.
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/textbooks.htmlA bunch of text books that are getting bad grades for teaching out dated material.
You should read the articles you link to. It does not say the unsatisfactory texts were teaching outdated material. It says the
method of teaching science was unsatisfactory because:
1) Most texts cover too many topics.
2) The topics are discussed superficially, and not covered in depth.
3) Classroom activities are either irrelevant to learning key science ideas or don't help students relate what they are doing to the underlying ideas.
Nothing there about outdated materials at all.
In the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 124.Holt Biology 1994, p. 182This textbook say the whale has a vestigial pelvis that proves the whale used to walk on land but it is essential for whales to reproduce
Which is correct. Remember that something can be both vestigial and useful. The rudimentary whale pelvic bones no longer support a pelvis. So they are vestigial. But they do serve a different function, so they are not useless.
Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309Archaeopteryx is the missing link. But the scientific community declare it to be a bird.Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309
Not good enough. I am not going to accept a creationist paraphrase of what they claim the text says. I very much doubt that the text uses the term "missing link" or says that
Archeopteryx is not a bird, or even says that it is the ancestor of modern birds.
I would lay a wager that what the text actually says is something along the line of
Archeopteryx being a primitive bird that illustrates the transition from dinosaur to bird and may be related to the common ancestor of modern birds.
Does any textbook used in American public schools today mention Piltdown man other than to name it as a hoax?
Ernst Haeckel anything by this guy should be taken out. He was a fraud on several occasionshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/feedback10-9-2000.asptextbookhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5708/334bthis site shows that even if you try to take out the lies some people wont allow ithttp://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=468http://www.texscience.org/files/stokes-1960sun-debate.htm
Actually, his fraud consisted of exaggerating the features in 6 of over a 100 drawings of vertebrate embryos. His theory of embryology was also incorrect and that is the principal reason his work is not used much today.
However, a textbook will sometimes mention Haekel for historical interest. And since his drawings are not copyrighted (as most photos are) textbook publishers used them to keep the price of textbooks down. That, I agree, was not a good idea.
Even with all of the information I have given, maybe the real question is, is why should I prove this when we both know that these things are being taught in the schools.
Because we do
not know these things are being taught in schools. The charge is often made, but seldom substantiated with reference to actual textbooks actually being used in public schools.
And because, when and where the charges can be substantiated, scientists are just as interested in getting such texts and teaching out of the system as creationists are.
If the Bible is inspired by God wouldnt that mean then that God lied in Genesis.
No, it just means the text is not to be understood as indicative history but as a story-form to teach the theology of creation.