God Made The World In Seven Days

[stan1953]

Why didn't you want to watch the video where they reenacted key parts of the trial. That ID was shown to be creationism was key in Brown's decision.

Well then maybe you can show the excerpt from his decision that supports that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, based on EVIDENCE presented. Pretty sure the government and whoever else responded on this case had much deeper pockets than those few in Dover. The POINT is it was considered the SAME as YEC. As a matter of fact teaching on aliens being real would have no problem getting into the curriculum of public schools in the U.S. even though it has far less credibility than ID.

Wrong, it was shown to be the same as creationism, not necessarily YEC. Like I said, it is in the video that I linked. The people who came up with the term ID were creationists. They were caught trying to pass of creationism as ID. Do you even know how they were caught?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then maybe you can show the excerpt from his decision that supports that?

I might try to find one. It is in the video that I linked, but I also know that video is about 2 hours long.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guess you didn't actually read what I underlined?

Oh, you mean the "non-religion over relilgion" nonsense. I would like to see something supporting that part of your quote.

I don't think a student has a constitutional right to ignore gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found it! Only 10 minutes long, in this clip you can see how Of Pandas and People went from being a creationist book to an ID book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoRArBN7_w

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can read more about how they were caught in this article:

Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

The first 34 verses of Genesis tells us the complete HISTORY of God's Creation, written BEFORE the events of the present 6th Creative Day have been fulfilled. All of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to the events of God's 7 Days. You should know this because then you will be able to see that Genesis agrees in EVERY way with EVERY Truth which has been discovered by Science and History. It's PROOF of God. God Bless you.

Dear Stan, No. Genesis 1:1 tells of the creation of the ingredients, heaven (air) and earth (ground) which God created and brought forth from things which do not appear. Jesus, (the Light of the first Day) will take these ingredients and shape them into everything which exists physically.

No. Gen 1:1-2:3 tells us the complete HISTORY of God's Creation of the perfect heaven, the THIRD heaven. ONLY God could do this since He tells us the entire History of His Creation BEFORE the events happen.

No. At Gen 2:4 we are taken BACK to the events of the 3rd Day and it is revealed that man was made from the dust of the ground on this THIRD Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our Universe. Adam's formation physically is told, but NOT his Creation Spiritually since that does NOT happen until the 6th Day. Gen 1:27 AND Gen 5:1-2

No. Gen 3:1 continues to detail the events of the present 6th Creative Day, the Day of Salvation. God begins with the Lies of Satan which continue today. Satan casts doubt on God's Holy Word by saying "yea hath God said?"

No. God is STILL creating Adam (Heb-Mankind) in His Image or in Christ, since Christ IS the Image of the Invisible God. Col 1:15 Gen 1:28-31 is Prophecy of the events which will take place AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign on the present Earth, as Isaiah 11 reveals.

No. It is what God will do AFTER His work is "finished" or brought to perfection, and ALL of the host of Heaven is safely in Heaven. Gen 2:1 IF God had already rested from ALL of His work BEFORE His Creation was made perfect, no one could be "created in God's Image" or in Christ, for God would have already CEASED from ALL His work of Creating.

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
​

Amen, but that is WHERE blind FAITH ends. Once we are created anew with the Faith that God gives us to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, it is NO longer necessary to accept the Bible by blind Faith. We are then to STUDY to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth NOT to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, which IS the Bible. 2Ti 2:15

Science is NOT trying to convince us of a Lie, and that is what is wrong with the traditional religious view. When you eliminate the prejudice against the Truth which Science and History shows, you will find that Genesis agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of man, EXCEPT the False Theory of Evolution.

Micro Evolution, or changes within His (Jesus) kinds, is True but the Satanic Lie IS that Humans evolved from Apes. Genesis 2:4-7 shows that Adam was formed on the 3rd Day BEFORE the Stars which were not formed until the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16. It's proof of God since this Truth that Stars did not appear until Hundreds of years AFTER the Big Bang, was NOT discovered until recently. ONLY God could have known this Scientific FACT 3k years ago. God's Truth in Genesis REFUTES the Lie of the ToE being forced upon our children in the public schools of the United States, today.

I know the traditional religious story and I realize that what I post is strange to Christians, BUT, when you read Genesis for what it actually says, instead of what ancient men THOUGHT it said, you should be able to see that God's Truth, in Genesis, agrees in every way with the discoveries of science and history.

I do not mean to disagree with you, since you are simply relating the views of ancient men, which cannot be shown Scripturally. My intent is to edify the Church and let my brethren see that God wrote Genesis and got EVERY scientific Truth absolutely perfect. It's PROOF that God is the Author of the Bible. God bless you and best wishes for your future.

In Love,
Aman

Dear Stan, Just a note here. The above post would help you in your fight against the people who are currently discrediting your I.D. views. They have NO answer for the above. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[essentialsaltes]

Guess you didn't actually read what I underlined?

Evolution is science. It is neither religion nor 'non-religion' in the sense of your quote. Mathematics is not religion, but it is not 'non-religion'.

Although it's 100+ pages long, the actual decision in Kitzmiller is a great read.

"A thorough review of the disclaimer’s plain language therefore conveys a strong message of religious endorsement to an objective Dover ninth grade student."

"A ‘‘hypothetical reasonable observer,’’ adult or child, who is ‘‘aware of the history and context of the community and forum’’ is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. ... The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creation- ism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are re- ferred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service de- scribe it as a religious, Christian organiza- tion. ... Pandas was writ- ten by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nan- cy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.
...
By com- paring the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (cre- ationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. "

"There is no evidence that the Board heeded even one iota of the Solicitor’s detailed and prudent warning. We also find the email to be persuasive, additional evidence that the Board knew that ID is considered a form of creationism.
...
As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ elec- tion not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This men- dacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Cur- riculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist al- ternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatant- ly religious purpose behind the ID Policy."

 

[AirPo]

God is Love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

God is Love
Love Stinks
...

 

[Dizredux]

You can, if you wish, read the trial transcripts. They are available at
Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts | NCSE

Behe's cross examination is rather interesting as well as Barbara Forrest's testimony on Pandas and People.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

So why exactly is evolution still in the classroom if it is being preferred over religious views?

Let me respond to this again, especially the underlined segment. The key word there is "unduly". Since evolution is considered to be "proved" to almost every unbiased scientist out there. No, get rid of that unbiased. Since evolution is considered to be proved to almost every scientist out there making it part of the curriculum of public schools is not an "undue" preference of science over religion. If a religious view can be shown to be totally opposite of reality we are not forced to respect it as a nation.

Over 99% of all biologists accept evolution. I can link to sites that support that claim if you need it. Now if only 70 or 80% of biologists accept evolution you might have a valid claim. Heck if 90% of biologists accepted evolution you just might have an argument that it is not accepted. But well over 99%? Not a chance.

If you don't like the findings of scientists there is one clear option available to you. Get an education. Do some experiments, and show that they are wrong.

Of course your experiments have to be repeatable by others. If they aren't they are just more "woo".

 

[PsychoSarah]

ID failed because it is RELIGIOUS in nature and judge Jones said it had to be treated the same as YEC was. He didn't say it was wrong, just not allowed in schools. With an institutionalized bias like that in the U.S., it is not wonder many families now send their kids the schools OUTSIDE of the public school sector. Those that screamed the loudest, were unbelievers.

Would you promote YEC being taught in schools if the bible suggested evolution? If not, you cannot claim no religious motivations.

 

[Chany]

Would you promote YEC being taught in schools if the bible suggested evolution? If not, you cannot claim no religious motivations.

So... many... negatives...

Can't... understand...

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... many... negatives...

Can't... understand...

"Keep religious nonsense out of schools."

There, does that help?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

So why exactly is evolution still in the classroom if it is being preferred over religious views?

Because evolution doesn't necessarily clash with religion, and isn't associated with one either. A point I would like to make; even in secular schools, parents can send their kids in with a note and they will be excused from the evolution lessons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually to be fair she was asking you if you would be a YEC and want it taught in schools if the Bible said evolution was how life got to the state it is in today. Once you answer that I will help you with the rest of it.

 

[lesliedellow]

The Bible = The Word Of God
The Word Of God = True
Bible = True
Bible Says World Was Made In 7 Days
World Was Made In Seven Days = True

A quote from a moderately conservative theologian:
"I di think Genesis is consistent with Evolution. It doesn't teach Evolution, obviously..... I would argue that Genesis 1 and 2, and the rest of the Bible, tells us an awful lot about God. Genesis 1 and 2 tells us graphically, even dramatically, that God is the creator of everything and everybody, but it doesn't tell us how God created the Cosmos or human beings." (Tremper Longman)


And from a still more conservative theologian: "I am an evolutionist of the purest water." (B B Warfield)

I take it you have heard of B B Warfield - the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, and all that?

 

[stan1953]

Wrong, it was shown to be the same as creationism, not necessarily YEC. Like I said, it is in the video that I linked. The people who came up with the term ID were creationists. They were caught trying to pass of creationism as ID. Do you even know how they were caught?

Well as it wasn't by the judge, it doesn't really matter.

 

[stan1953]

Because evolution doesn't necessarily clash with religion, and isn't associated with one either. A point I would like to make; even in secular schools, parents can send their kids in with a note and they will be excused from the evolution lessons.

Not the point I was making, but I prepared my kids, I didn't shield them from it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well as it wasn't by the judge, it doesn't really matter.

"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo."