Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Greg1234]

You just admitted absolutely no support for your position existed.

No I said "in progress".

Convert? You make it sound like a religion. I'm a Christian who believes in Evolution the same way I believe in atomic theory, gravity, general relativity and germ theory. Why are you pretending its some big mystical thing?

Where as we witness the effects of gravity, we observe atoms, general relativity, bacteria remaining bacteria and adaptation governed by the DNA code. By definition, Creation is more of a theory than Darwinism will ever be.

 

[laconicstudent]

No I said "in progress".

Yes, that means that no support for your position currently exists.

Where as we witness the effects of gravity, we observe atoms, general relativity, bacteria remaining bacteria and adaptation governed by the DNA code. By definition, Creation is more of a theory than Darwinism will ever be.

Except we can observe Evolution. Please read any of Dr. Lenski's papers on his work with E. coli. Although, yes, I know creationists only move the goal posts when confronted with evidence. "Its just adaptation!" and "Microevolution" and such gibberish.

 

[Mallon]

Nowhere in the bible does it state that bacteria can turn into men. The interpretation has nothing to do with this.

I never said that it did. The Bible doesn't speak about evolution, atoms, germs, DNA, or the theory of relativity. It doesn't speak about these things because the Bible doesn't concern science. It concerns man's salvation.

My goodness.
See Isaiah 40:22

I did. As I carefully explained, the word chuwg used in that passage does not mean sphere.

And we also have a word for sphere. The typical word for circle is circle.

Right. Circle =/= sphere. Thus, "circle of the earth" =/= "sphere of the earth". Thanks for proving my point.

When used in context, it means a sphere, as given by the dictionary.

I'd sooner give more credence to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon than to an unsourced online dictionary that is obviously retrojecting modern definitions onto an ancient text.
You might also want to check out the Jewish Talmud, which goes into more detail about the Hebrew understanding of the solidity of the heavens and the flatness of the earth.

You responded by saying that you find the counter argument to your liking and how I should wonder why the bible compares the earth to flat skipping over the part where you have been shown that none of your references say that the earth is flat and and explicit reference to a sphere.

The reference to sphere is not explicit. For the third time, the Hebrews had a word for sphere (duwg) and it is never used in reference to the earth. The word is chuwg, and as the Hebrew Lexicons states, it refers to the tracing of a circle. It's not me you're arguing with; it's the Hebrew language.

You've changed it takes shape like clay under a seal, to its shaped like a piece of clay flattened under seal. The earth can take shape like molten metal in an iron cast. It can take shape like a piece of clay between my hands. It cannot take shape like clay on top of a seal because clay on top of a seal does not take shape. The act of the earth taking shape is therefore relinquished. The only way for clay to be shaped is between two objects.

The earth could also take shape like a piece of clay rolled between two hands into the shape of a sphere. Or on a potter's wheel. But the Bible doesn't say that. The Hebrews obviously believed that the earth is shaped like a flattened piece of clay, as Job clearly states. And as I've explained, the other passages of the Bible only make sense in this light. You've got ONE passage that you claim states the earth is a sphere, and I've given you 15 that clearly say otherwise.

For references to a spherical earth see Isaiah 40:22.

This has been addressed. Chuwg =/= sphere.

Using the dictionary is not distorting the bible

It is if your dictionary retrofits modern definitions onto an ancient text.

Firstly, you are saying that being an atheist is an insulting state. To some, that is an insult. Secondly, you need to show exactly where I called you an atheist.

Don't be coy. You know you we're implying that I was an atheist here, here, and here.

We all study the evidence. We only see Creation
We use science to confirm creation, and reject Darwinism

The two are not mutually exclusive. The Psalms also tell us that we are each created individually in the womb, but that doesn't mean we were brought about magically. We are the product of the perfectly natural fusion of a sperm and egg. God is perfectly capable of creating through natural processes.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, that means that no support for your position currently exists.

In progress means on going.

Except we can observe Evolution. Please read any of Dr. Lenski's papers on his work with E. coli. Although, yes, I know creationists only move the goal posts when confronted with evidence. "Its just adaptation!" and "Microevolution" and such gibberish.

We observe adaptation. Totally in compliance with Creation, where designed structures have the ability to adapt. Not Darwinism. I'm actually using lenski's experiments as evidence of adaptation and Creationism.

 

[laconicstudent]

In progress means on going.

Then hurry up and cite some examples or stop wasting our time beating around the bush.

We observe adaptation. Totally in compliance with Creation, where designed structures have the ability to adapt. Not Darwinism. I'm actually using lenski's experiments as evidence of adaptation.

Yes, I thought you would try that tired old evasion. Ignore the fact it involves developing an entirely new gene and accompanying metabolic pathway.

 

[Greg1234]

I never said that it did. The Bible doesn't speak about evolution, atoms, germs, DNA, or the theory of relativity. It doesn't speak about these things because the Bible doesn't concern science. It concerns man's salvation.

We use science confirm the fact that man was created as man.

I did. As I carefully explained, the word chuwg used in that passage does not mean sphere.

The hebrew lexicon states that "chuwg" encodes the intent which is encoded within the word "circle" in the English language. So we looked up circle. We found circle used in many contexts, one is a sphere or an orb.

cir·cle

   /ˈsɜr

kəl/ Show Spelled [sur-kuh

l] Show IPA noun, verb, -cled, -cling.
–noun
a sphere [duwr] or orb: the circle [chuwg] of the earth.

The earth could also take shape like a piece of clay rolled between two hands into the shape of a sphere. Or on a potter's wheel.

Actually the author doesn't have to conform to your specifications. Clay can take shape between any two objects. Further earlier bibles state these verses differently:
"Have you ever in your life given orders to the morning or sent the dawn to its post,
telling it to grasp the earth by its edges
and shake the wicked out of it, when it changes the earth to sealing clay [the clay is red in color]
and dyes it as a man dyes his clothes;
stealing the light from wicked men
and breaking the arm raised to strike."

Don't be coy. You know you we're implying that I was an atheist here, here, and here.

In the first on I see me calling you a Christian, in the second replying to another individual on Christian accounts which have been atheists, the third, me asking you if I ever called you an atheist. Its amazing you actually have Christians defending the bible from other Christians. Amazing what a little Darwinism can do huh.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The Psalms also tell us that we are each created individually in the womb, but that doesn't mean we were brought about magically. We are the product of the perfectly natural fusion of a sperm and egg. God is perfectly capable of creating through natural processes.

The information for the man, precedes the formation of the man, the process of formation a result of a previous creation, the information, then the final product. For there to be a recombination of chromosomes, it has to be compatible. The egg and sperm are not entire separate but two pieces of a whole. The psalms is showing us that this was directly created. The verses go on to say, "You know me through and through from having watched my bones take shape, when I was being formed in secret" The idea that the information for man came not from God but from bacteria becoming men, is thusly refuted.

More psalms:

"3When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
5You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor."

"6You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
7all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas."

 

[Greg1234]

Then hurry up and cite some examples or stop wasting our time beating around the bush.

See adaptation being a coded process. No Darwinism required

Yes, I thought you would try that tired old evasion. Ignore the fact it involves developing an entirely new gene and accompanying metabolic pathway.

It wasn't new and it wasnt random. Further, bacteria remained bacteria. All these are in line with Creationism.

 

[laconicstudent]

See adaptation being a coded process. No Darwinism required

No thanks. I still don't see any science backing up your position. I conclude that none exists.

It wasn't new and it wasnt random. Further, bacteria remained bacteria. All these are in line with Creationism.

Except it actually was. You can keep telling yourself it isn't if that helps you stay comfortable.

 

[Greg1234]

No thanks. I still don't see any science backing up your position. I conclude that none exists.

You are free to conclude whatever you like.

Except it actually was. You can keep telling yourself it isn't if that helps you stay comfortable.

The citrate pathway was re utilized. Not random either.

 

[laconicstudent]

The citrate pathway was re utilized.

Re utilized? It never existed to begin with.

Not random either.

Obviously not, being grown in a citrate rich medium, natural selection favored those organisms that could metabolize citrate in anoxic conditions.

 

[Greg1234]

Re utilized? It never existed to begin with.



Obviously not, being grown in a citrate rich medium, natural selection favored those organisms that could metabolize citrate in anoxic conditions.

Start here:

E-coli mutation and evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[laconicstudent]

Start here:

E-coli mutation and evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

ROFL, no. I'm not going to waste my time with "CreationWiki".

 

[Mallon]

We use science confirm the fact that man was created as man.

Scientists -- including most Christian scientists -- disagree with you on that one. The special creation of man doesn't explain why human chromosome 2 comprises two fused chimp chromosomes, for example, or why our recurrent laryngeal nerve takes such a circuitous route.

The hebrew lexicon states that "chuwg" encodes the intent which is encoded within the word "circle" in the English language. So we looked up circle. We found circle used in many contexts, one is a sphere or an orb.

cir·cle

   /ˈsɜr

kəl/ Show Spelled [sur-kuh

l] Show IPA noun, verb, -cled, -cling.
–noun
a sphere [duwr] or orb: the circle [chuwg] of the earth.

Your own source doesn't even support what you're saying. Look above. The Hebrew word for sphere is duwr. The word for circle (the same word used in Isaiah 40:22) is chuwg. I've been saying this all along.
I rest my case.

Actually the author doesn't have to conform to your specifications. Clay can take shape between any two objects.

Yep, and yet Job tells us that the earth is formed like clay stamped under a seal. Read literally, as the YECs insist we must do, the Bible implies throughout that the earth is flat, sits on pillars, has edges, and doesn't move. There's no getting around that. The question is: With this knowledge about how the Bible describes the shape of the earth, do we continue to use it as a science textbook where the Bible talks about the history of the earth? The only answer that allows us to apply a consistent hermeneutic is 'no'.

The information for the man, precedes the formation of the man, the process of formation a result of a previous creation, the information, then the final product. For there to be a recombination of chromosomes, it has to be compatible. The egg and sperm are not entire separate but two pieces of a whole. The psalms is showing us that this was directly created. The verses go on to say, "You know me through and through from having watched my bones take shape, when I was being formed in secret" The idea that the information for man came not from God but from bacteria becoming men, is thusly refuted.

There you go using the Bible as a science textbook again. It's almost as though all this time I've spent showing you that the Bible is not, in fact, a science textbook has gone to waste.

 

[Assyrian]

A christian promoting atheism does not change the fact that there are atheists who pretend to be Christian to promote atheism. This is deflection. Since I've been here there have been at least two accounts.

I would have thought bringing up the whole topic of fifth column atheists was at very least a deflection, if not a veiled slur on mallon. None of the Christians here promote atheism, just because you think and you been told evolution is atheism doesn't mean that it is, and by very definition a Christian who says that God ordained and used evolution when he created, is promoting theism not atheism. When he says God created all things through Christ, this is Christianity not atheism. It is a Christian view you disagree with, you may even associate it with atheism, but that does not make it atheism.

So because a Christian is propagating Darwinism, we're just supposed to accept it because he's a "fellow believer". That was actually no. 2. Infiltration through fellowship.

So instead you reject all fellow believers who accept evolution on the paranoid basis you think some atheists pretend to be believers? Actually I think I have seen more atheists pretending to be YECs, trolling as a Poe is much more fun. But that doesn't stop me assuming the Creationist I am talking to is a fellow believer, and in the midst of all the debate really looking forward to those time of shared fellowship in the Lord.

 

[Assyrian]

Now you know.
I just had to open a dictionary

An English Dictionary instead of a Hebrew one. Tell me, when I try to interpret scripture can I search through English dictionaries and pick any obscure non standard meaning of a word I like? Circle of the earth...

Circle also means
5. the ring of a circus.
9. Logic . an argument ostensibly proving a conclusion but actually assuming the conclusion or its equivalent as a premise; vicious circle.
11. a number of persons bound by a common tie

earth means
6. soil and dirt, as distinguished from rock and sand; the softer part of the land.
7. the hole of a burrowing animal; lair.
8. Chemistry . any of several metallic oxides that are difficult to reduce, as alumina, zirconia, and yttria.
10. Chiefly British Electronics . a ground.

Pick obscure meanings from English dictionaries and you can make the bible mean anything. That is the problem with creationists they claim to be defending the bible, but make excuses to avoid what it actually says when it get uncomfortable. You know you could rewrite the whole bible this way, and leave the lolcat bible looking like a serious translation.

As you are right now. All we see is creation. Bacteria remain bacteria. Adaptation is a coded process but we still have random mutational advocates. And the list goes on.

Cosmas made up his own science too. Science does not consist of what you think you see and imagine.

And rightly so. One of these days, you are going to be next Cosmas "the times when the Christian church used to advocate that random mutation could take bacteria to men".

So you don't have a great track record. I am sure Cosmas believed one day he would be vindicated and every one would see how silly the pagan round earth theory was. When Christians condemned Copernicus and Galileo because they thought their interpretation of scripture showed Copernicus's Heliocentrism was silly, I am sure they thought they would be vindicated. All you had to do was look outside an see the sun and moon going round the earth. They were wrong. People today look a back and see how foolish it was.

You know I can understand your dream. But the only lasting effect of bible interpretation based anti-science movements has been to bring the gospel into disrepute.

Nowhere in the bible is there even a reference to geocentricism. What we have today is the Darwinian church rejecting established science that random mutation is not viable. This is after numerous testing. Even though tests reveal that the earth orbits the sun

Odd that, you cannot see where the bible teaches geocentrism yet it was obvious that this was the plain literal meaning of scripture for one and a half millennia. Anyway, you can't just make up you own science and there is much more evidence for evolution than the church had when it realised science supported heliocentrism and changed its interpretation of passages that had always been interpreted to mean the earth stood still and the sun went around it. When do you think science had tests to show the earth orbits the sun? When do you think the church accepted heliocentrism?

This was already given.

What was already given?

There is the interpretation of Hebrews 9. This has nothing to do with a flat earth. There is the interpretation of Genesis. This has nothing to do with bacteria becoming men.

So Cosmas has his interpretation of scripture, a lot more than Hebrew 9 as I have pointed out, and you have your interpretation of Genesis.
Cosmas used his literal scripture to come up with his view of the shape of the earth and rejected the scientific view.
You use your literal interpretation of scripture to come up with your view of the age of the earth and how life began and reject the scientific view.

The one similarity I can find to my interpretation of Genesis is where you say "Hebrews 9. This has nothing to do with a flat earth" You know from science the earth is round, so you rightly reject any interpretation that says the earth is flat. That can't possible be what God is really saying. You and I have different ways of explaining this, and mine doesn't have to resort searching through English dictionaries for obscure definitions, but the result is the same. We start from science and realise that the flat earth interpretation is a misunderstanding of scripture.

In the same way I knew science said the earth is billions of years old and life evolved, so I needed to go back to Genesis and see if it really taught a six day creation 6,000 years ago with all the different species created from dust, I discovered it doesn't that, just as you realise Cosmas misinterpreted all the texts he used, so young earth creationism misinterprets Genesis.

While Cosmas looked at Hebrew 9 and lots of other passages and said it means the earth is flat, and you look at Genesis and say it means life was created instantly, I don't look at Genesis and say it means bacteria becoming men. Genesis tells me God created men. It is science that tells me what happened during the long process. You don't claim Hebrews 9 means the earth is round do you? I don't do that with Genesis either. I don't claim it teaches modern science.

 

[Assyrian]

The hebrew lexicon states that "chuwg" encodes the intent which is encoded within the word "circle" in the English language.

What Hebrew lexicon states that?

So we looked up circle. We found circle used in many contexts, one is a sphere or an orb.

cir·cle

   /ˈsɜr

kəl/ Show Spelled [sur-kuh

l] Show IPA noun, verb, -cled, -cling.
–noun
a sphere [duwr] or orb: the circle [chuwg] of the earth.

Does your Lexicon say [duwr] : [chuwg]
Or did you add that in yourself?

 

[crawfish]

We use science confirm the fact that man was created as man.
The hebrew lexicon states that "chuwg" encodes the intent which is encoded within the word "circle" in the English language. So we looked up circle. We found circle used in many contexts, one is a sphere or an orb.

Since when do you "spread out" a canopy over a sphere? A canopy, or tent, would be spread out in a circle over flat land. What you are saying takes the verse completely out of its symbolic context.

Imagine this: you stand over a land where you can see the horizon stretching out in all directions. At the end of the horizon (a circle surrounding you), you see the skies meet the ground as if it was a tent spread around you. THIS is what the verse means. It's not making a scientific claim about a spherical or flat earth, it's using language to describe a scene from the author's perspective. Much like saying the sun rises or sets; that statement is absolutely true from a perspective viewpoint even if it is not scientifically accurate.

 

[Greg1234]

Scientists -- including most Christian scientists -- disagree with you on that one. The special creation of man doesn't explain why human chromosome 2 comprises two fused chimp chromosomes, for example, or why our recurrent laryngeal nerve takes such a circuitous route.

None factors. The latter was recently debunked with modern science.

Yep, and yet Job tells us that the earth is formed like clay stamped under a seal. Read literally, as the YECs insist we must do, the Bible implies throughout that the earth is flat, sits on pillars, has edges, and doesn't move. There's no getting around that. The question is: With this knowledge about how the Bible describes the shape of the earth, do we continue to use it as a science textbook where the Bible talks about the history of the earth? The only answer that allows us to apply a consistent hermeneutic is 'no'.

The verse is clearly not literal with the employment of a simile. This not an issue of whether it is literal or not, when the author makes it clear that it is not. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. Never has. What is attempted is a cornering and hijacking. Anybody who does not interpret it as Darwinism is supposedly taking it literally.

There you go using the Bible as a science textbook again. It's almost as though all this time I've spent showing you that the Bible is not, in fact, a science textbook has gone to waste.

Science confirms the historical account given, that man was created as man. The idea that random mutation turned bacteria into a men remains in atheistic circles.

 

[Mallon]

None factors. The latter was recently debunked with modern science.

That would surprise me. Got a citation to the peer-reviewed science journal where this was published?
The fact is that YECism is non-scientific. That's why it isn't legally allowed to be taught in science class.

The verse is clearly not literal with the employment of a simile.

Right. The earth isn't literally a flat ball of clay. The comparison Job makes is between the shaping of the earth and the shaping of a ball of clay flattened beneath a seal. Job is using a simile to tell us that the earth and a stamped piece of clay are shaped in similar ways. Flat earth.

This not an issue of whether it is literal or not, when the author makes it clear that it is not. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. Never has.

I don't know why you keep repeating that Genesis has nothing to do with evolution when I keep agreeing with you. No one here has ever tried forcing science into Genesis. Just you.

Science confirms the historical account given, that man was created as man. The idea that random mutation turned bacteria into a men remains in atheistic circles.

And Christian circles.

 

[Greg1234]

I would have thought bringing up the whole topic of fifth column atheists was at very least a deflection, if not a veiled slur on mallon. None of the Christians here promote atheism, just because you think and you been told evolution is atheism doesn't mean that it is,

Darwinism is just atheism cloaked as science.

So instead you reject all fellow believers who accept evolution on the paranoid basis you think some atheists pretend to be believers?

So now "it" is fellow believers.

So you don't have a great track record.

I said, "And rightly so. One of these days, you are going to be next Cosmas "the times when the Christian church used to advocate that random mutation could take bacteria to men"'. You tell me that I don't have a great track record. All of a sudden you are not part of the christian church. Are you forgetting what your icon is presenting you as?

I am sure Cosmas believed one day he would be vindicated and every one would see how silly the pagan round earth theory was.

Not only have you segregated yourself from the Christian church, but now you are promoting the pagan religion.

The one similarity I can find to my interpretation of Genesis is where you say "Hebrews 9. This has nothing to do with a flat earth" You know from science the earth is round, so you rightly reject any interpretation that says the earth is flat.

I don't make up my own science. Science clearly tell us that man was created as man, just like it told us that the earth was round. The interpretation of Hebrews 9 has absolutely nothing to do with the earth. And the church rejected Cosmas' interpretation. Likewise, Darwinism has nothing to do with Genesis, though there are many a Cosmas, who seek to employ a doctrine against established science, it is rejected, based on the interpretation of Genesis and scientific evidence.