How many of you creationists...

[MrGoodBytes]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.


(I don' t refer to "Darwin's Black Box" or Chick tracts, I am talking about books with titles like "An Introduction to Physics" or "General Biology". )

 

[Mystman]

I would guess that most will at least have used science text books in high school / college ..

 

[ENominiPatri]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.

I would be more interested in whether someone brought a bible to school to correct their science teacher.

 

[arunma]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.


(I don' t refer to "Darwin's Black Box" or Chick tracts, I am talking about books with titles like "An Introduction to Physics" or "General Biology". )

Interesting question; I am eager to see the responses. Obviously I've read a rather large number of science textbooks. But I don't know if I'm the target of this question, seeing as how I believe in Biblical creation and reject creationist pseudoscience.

 

[LittleNipper]

I would be more interested in whether someone brought a bible to school to correct their science teacher.

Interestingly, I was still able to find copies of the King James Version of the Bible in the classroom closets, even in the late 60's early 70's..... I didn't have to bring a Bible from home.

 

[LittleNipper]

All science books I once read printed in the late 1950's and early 1960's were very evolutionistic in their makeup. I didn't read THE GENESIS FLOOD by Whitcomb, Jr & Morris until the mid 70's. Though that book was 1st printed in 1961....

 

[lemmings]

I would be more interested in whether someone brought a bible to school to correct their science teacher.

LOL!
Hmm, someone used to pass out KJVs at my school so now I have a collection of small mini-Bibles. Would be fun if I hid them in various places in my science class.

 

[Pesto]

Interesting question; I am eager to see the responses. Obviously I've read a rather large number of science textbooks. But I don't know if I'm the target of this question, seeing as how I believe in Biblical creation and reject creationist pseudoscience.

Could you expand on what you mean by "Biblical creation"?

 

[arunma]

Could you expand on what you mean by "Biblical creation"?

What I mean is that I believe that the creation account recorded in the Bible is literally true (but I don't believe that six-day creation or a global flood follows from a literal reading of said account, if that's what you're asking). However, I reject creationist models which have been put forth in the hope of reconciling science and the Bible, since these models rely on false portrayals of science.

 

[Jerubbaal]

I'm with arunma on this one. I am fairly knowledgable in science, and find the overwhelming majority of "creation science" to be bunk. But I still believe in a world that was created (Though not in a literal six days. One first has to establish what a "day" is before arguing that it means day in the sense we normally use it. Consider such Biblical statements as "day of salvation" or "great and dreadful day of the Lord").

 

[Pesto]

What I mean is that I believe that the creation account recorded in the Bible is literally true (but I don't believe that six-day creation or a global flood follows from a literal reading of said account, if that's what you're asking). However, I reject creationist models which have been put forth in the hope of reconciling science and the Bible, since these models rely on false portrayals of science.

Then how can your reading be literal? Genuinely curious.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm with arunma on this one. I am fairly knowledgable in science, and find the overwhelming majority of "creation science" to be bunk. But I still believe in a world that was created (Though not in a literal six days. One first has to establish what a "day" is before arguing that it means day in the sense we normally use it. Consider such Biblical statements as "day of salvation" or "great and dreadful day of the Lord").

Evening and morning were the first day.

Through one man death and sin entered into the world.

 

[LittleNipper]

What I mean is that I believe that the creation account recorded in the Bible is literally true (but I don't believe that six-day creation or a global flood follows from a literal reading of said account, if that's what you're asking). However, I reject creationist models which have been put forth in the hope of reconciling science and the Bible, since these models rely on false portrayals of science.

Science is whatever man creates it to be. The study of science is not without bias. The loudest voices are heard and accepted...

Matthew 24:39

And knew not until the FLOOD came , and took them ALL away; so SHALL ALSO the coming of the Son of man be.

see Luke 17:28

Something cannot be as something if not complete. If the FLOOD was not a world wide FLOOD, then the rapture cannot be a world wide rapture. Jesus is saying one is like the other. Judgement will be swift and complete.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evening and morning were the first day.

Through one man death and sin entered into the world.

look carefully at the words.

evening, morning, the first day.

there are two distinctly different ways to interpret these simple 5 words, both fit.

sequentially, evening, morning, the first period of daylight.
recapitulation: evening, morning, (restart) the first day*

can you see why assuming your interpretation is the only proper one is problematic? just 5 words and you can not demonstrate which one is the only correct way to read it.

notes:
*sequentially is the same as saying, it is 6pm monday evening, it is now 6am tuesday morning, now dawn has broken and tuesday's daylight occurs.

recapitulation is the same as saying. 6pm nightfall, now darkness, then 6am and dawn, then the daylight, this is defined as 1 day period, from sunset to sunset.

now how complex is the situation if just 5 common words can be seen in such radically different ways?

 

[flatworm]

Matthew 24:39

And knew not until the FLOOD came , and took them ALL away; so SHALL ALSO the coming of the Son of man be.

...

Jesus is saying one is like the other. Judgement will be swift and complete.

So "The coming of the Son of Man" will be fictional, just like Noah's Flood? Wow, it all makes to much sense now!

 

[Jerubbaal]

The way Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie (who, for the record, was a staunch creationist) said it best:

What is a day? It is a specified time period; it is an age, an eon, a division of eternity; it is the time between two identifiable events. And each day, of whatever length, has the duration needed for its purposes.

 

[Contracelsus]

Science is whatever man creates it to be. The study of science is not without bias. The loudest voices are heard and accepted...

Matthew 24:39

And knew not until the FLOOD came , and took them ALL away; so SHALL ALSO the coming of the Son of man be.

see Luke 17:28

Something cannot be as something if not complete. If the FLOOD was not a world wide FLOOD, then the rapture cannot be a world wide rapture. Jesus is saying one is like the other. Judgement will be swift and complete.

But don't we all "reinterpret" things Jesus said? Like the part about his second coming being within the lifetime of that generation lo those 2000 years ago? The words say one thing, rather clearly, and yet they didn't happen that way, so they have to be reinterpretted.

Why couldn't Jesus have been speaking allegorically about the Flood as well? Or with some deeper hard-to-figure-out meaning?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The loudest voices are heard and accepted...


actually an indepth study of two actual for instances, prions and ulcers as infections will show this not to be true. evidence matters, greatly in science, so does perseverance.

volume and nose counting are actually way down the list of scientific criteria for truthfulness or even acceptance of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.

I've read:

• Instant Physics, by Tony Rothman
• What Einstein Told His Barber, by Robert L. Wolke
• Five Equations That Changed The World, by Michael Guillen
• The Atlas of Past Times, by John Haywood
• United States History in Christian Perspective
• Essential Philosophy, by James Mannion
• The Puzzle of Ancient Man (Advanced Technology in Past Civilizations), by Donald E. Chittick
• Ancient Empires of the New Age, by Paul DeParrie and Mary Pride
• and just tonight I bought A Brief History of Science, by John Gribben

 

[[serious]]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.


(I don' t refer to "Darwin's Black Box" or Chick tracts, I am talking about books with titles like "An Introduction to Physics" or "General Biology". )

I think there may be a few who hav read "introduction to..." or "general..." books, but I would be very suprised to find any that have read "modern..." or "Advanced..." text books.