Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Greg1234]

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.

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design

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.

My love is like a red, red rose [Love is not red, it has no color, its not a rose.]
He eats like a bird [a man has no feathers, no beak, no talons]
How like the winter hath my absence been? (Shakespeare).[absense is not a season]
The realization hit me like a bucket of cold water.[realization is not a liquid, juice or wine]
The snow was like a blanket.[snow is not a blanket, its not quilted, striped or dotted, nylon cotton, nor polyester. In fact, it can't keep you warm. The exact opposite in fact.
Death lies on her, like an untimely frost ?William Shakespeare [Death is not frost]
Suspicion climbed all over her face, like a kitten, but not so playfully ?Raymond Chandler [suspicion lookes nothing like an inncocent kitten. It cannot climb, it has no paws, no claws, no body]

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.

Nice try. Darwinism is not science. We don't have to force science into creationism when every single piece of evidence shows us that man was created as man.

And Christian circles.

Of course there are Christians who attempt to merge Darwinism with science and ultimately creationism. But it is a purely atheistic concept.

 

[sfs]

Darwinism is just atheism cloaked as science.

No, it really isn't. "Darwinism", by which you seem to mean evolutionary biology, is real science, as practiced by real scientists in real laboratories, spending real scientific grant money on real scientific studies and publishing their results in real scientific journals.

You should try spending a little time learning what scientists actually do and think, rather than reading creationist falsehoods about what them.

 

[sfs]

Of course there are Christians who attempt to merge Darwinism with science and ultimately creationism. But it is a purely atheistic concept.

Repeating falsehoods over and over does not make them become true, you know.

 

[laconicstudent]

Nice try. Darwinism is not science. We don't have to force science into creationism when every single piece of evidence shows us that man was created as man.

Feel free to actually back up this claim any time. Although since last time all you would say is "in progress", I'm doubtful that you could do so.

 

[Assyrian]

just because you think and you been told evolution is atheism doesn't mean that it is,

Darwinism is just atheism cloaked as science.

Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Cosmas claimed a round earth was paganism.

Is it not evident that you argue against the hope held out by the Christian doctrine? For these views can not be consistently held except by pagans, who have no hope of another and better state.

Who is so malignant and so impious as to abandon this hope and lean for support on the new and beguiling folly of the pagans?

Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography
​

See the similarity?

So now "it" is fellow believers.

That statement is pretty obscure. Please try to be clearer.

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 never said I wasn't part of the Christian church. I was commenting on the imaginary hope you expressed, that one day everyone would look back and and see how foolish modern science was. Well throughout church history you have had those who reject science on the basis of their interpretations of scripture, and they have never been vindicated. We don't look back and think how foolish the majority of the early church was for accepting the earth was round. Galileo did not end up next to Cosmas, "the times when the Christian church used to advocate that the earth went round the sun"'. Anti science literalism has failed the church every time it has been preached. One and a half millennia later, Cosmas is still bringing Christianity and the gospel into disrepute. It is the same with the church's initial rejection of heliocentrism.

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.

So you agree round earth is pagan religion? Are you a flat earther like Cosmas? I said,

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

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.

You need to do a bit more than simply claim "science clearly tells us man was created as man", when you make wild claims like this you need to provide some evidence. Or do you mean 'Creation Science' tells us that man was created as man? Because Creation Science is no more standard science than Cosmos's arguments for a flat earth were standard science.
Having your own view of what real science is, doesn't separate you from Cosmas. He made up his own science too.

The interpretation of Hebrews 9 has absolutely nothing to do with the earth.

And Cosmas didn't quote Hebrews 9, I told you this. I told you he used a wide range of different passages and even discussed some of his argument. But you have made no attempt to deal with any of this preferring to repeat your irrelevant claims about Hebrews 9.

And the church rejected Cosmas' interpretation.

Which shows us how we should deal with any bible interpretation that claims science is wrong.

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.

See what you did there?
You said people are like Cosmas when they employ a doctrine against established science.
Then you reject established science based on your interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Greg1234]

Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Cosmas claimed a round earth was paganism

And Christians who follow in your footsteps claim that man being created as man is not science but Creationism. We provide scientific evidence for our assertion while you insist on merging random mutational origin, against all testing.

See the similarity?
That statement is pretty obscure. Please try to be clearer.

"The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some good estimates of its circumference and, contrary to the claims of the flat-earth myth perpetuators, was never lost. One well-known example is Eratosthenes who measured the earth’s diameter fairly accurately in the 3rd century BC.30 Eratosthenes calculated the circumference using geometry to within 3.5% of the true value.1 The ancient Greek experimenters knew its shape by evaluating a variety of evidences, including the earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse and the changing sky as one travels northward and southward.1 The ancients knew much about astronomy because they spent a great deal of time studying the heavens and stars for navigation purposes and because of their strong interest in astrology.

Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it. The myth that the Church ‘condemned as heretics all who claimed that the earth was round’ was ‘invented by two fabulists working separately: Antoine-Jean Letronne, an anticlerical 19th-century Frenchman, and Washington Irving. The 19th-century American writer Washington Irving was actually the first major promulgator of the flat-earth myth. In his very unreliable biography of Columbus, titled History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that it was the flat-earth believing churchmen who vehemently opposed Columbus’ plan to travel to the Indies on the grounds that his ship would fall off the edge of the earth while attempting to sail across the Atlantic.

In fact, those who opposed Columbus not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a good idea of how large it was—and this was the major reason why they opposed Columbus. Columbus and his men were not afraid of falling off the earth as Irving claimed, but of travelling so far from land in an unknown part of the world. They did not know the American continent existed, and, for this reason, Columbus’ critics correctly believed that a voyage to the Far East would take far too long and cost way too much. Unfortunately, Irving used many facts from reputable references to make his fictional account appear well supported, and, as a result, ‘the public was fooled into taking his literary game as history"

I never said I wasn't part of the Christian church. I was commenting on the imaginary hope you expressed, that one day everyone would look back and and see how foolish modern science was. .

You're mixing it up again. The established science, those who produce repeatable testable and observable evidence for their claim, is creationism, while the church of Darwin continually rejects the fact that man was created as man, simultaneously, racking up documented cases of intellectual persecution. We have continually produced evidence that the earth is not flat, that random mutation cannot produce a man, that adaptation is in fact a coded feature in DNA. And these are just two examples. There are those within Christianity who have a sought to merge Darwinism with science and when another wild atheist postulation emerges, they are the ones who will be used, much like Cosmas is being used right now, to show how Christianity rejected science. I have read the interpretation of Hebrews 9, as well as all the other assertions Christans have amassed against the bible in the exhalation of Darwinism, as well as presented explicit references to a spherical earth. It is you who is now seeking, much like Cosmas' issues with the Greek, the atheist issues with Christianity, an alternative against modern science by any means possible.

Because Creation Science is no more standard science than Cosmos's arguments for a flat earth were standard science.
Having your own view of what real science is, doesn't separate you from Cosmas. He made up his own science too.

Creation science has continually produced results rejected by Darwin's church, that man was created as man. Have a look.

 

[Mallon]

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design

So Bergman explains away the circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve with reference to developmental constraints. Does he not realize that development is constrained because of evolution??? The fourth branch of the vagus nerve (=recurrent laryngeal nerve) follows a perfectly logical and direct route in fish, where it innervates one of the gill slits almost immediately after exiting the braincase. The thing is, the gill arch associated with that gill slit in fish has since evolved to become an aortic arch in mammals, thereby accounting for the developmental constraint that Bergman appeals to. Development need not be constrained in this way if humans were specially created. This holds doubly for giraffes, which have even longer and more circuitous recurrent laryngeal nerves.

My love is like a red, red rose [Love is not red, it has no color, its not a rose.]
He eats like a bird [a man has no feathers, no beak, no talons]
How like the winter hath my absence been? (Shakespeare).[absense is not a season]
The realization hit me like a bucket of cold water.[realization is not a liquid, juice or wine]
The snow was like a blanket.[snow is not a blanket, its not quilted, striped or dotted, nylon cotton, nor polyester. In fact, it can't keep you warm. The exact opposite in fact.
Death lies on her, like an untimely frost ?William Shakespeare [Death is not frost]
Suspicion climbed all over her face, like a kitten, but not so playfully ?Raymond Chandler [suspicion lookes nothing like an inncocent kitten. It cannot climb, it has no paws, no claws, no body]

You make some decent points here, Greg (except wrt the snow simile -- snow can keep you warm because it's an insulator). Still, I stand by my point that the Bible clearly and repeatedly describes the earth as being flat, and the comparison Job makes between the earth and a flat ball of clay fits with this nicely. Evidence for the Bible's description of a flat earth comes not from a single passage, but from many passages that, in concert, repeat the same things:
- the earth is like a floor, and the sky is like a tent (Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 19:4, Psalm 104:2)
- the earth has edges (Job 38:13-14, Psalm 19:4)
- the earth is immobile (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5)
- the earth sits on a foundation of pillars (1 Samuel 2:8, Job 38:4, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3)
- the entire surface of the earth can be seen from a high vantage point (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11)

Nice try. Darwinism is not science.

It's best that you continue to stay away from school and from science labs, then, because evolution is taught and applied as science there every day.

Of course there are Christians who attempt to merge Darwinism with science and ultimately creationism. But it is a purely atheistic concept.

What makes it an atheistic concept?

 

[Greg1234]

So Bergman explains away the circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve with reference to developmental constraints. Does he not realize that development is constrained because of evolution???

Nope. Just the development of a man. You ignore this then go right back to quotes. Further, the route also serves other functions along its route. Including the fact that the blood supply to the recurrent laryngeal nerve comes from the inferior thyroid artery,

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior. More branches here[/FONT]


Vagus nerve: A remarkable nerve that supplies nerve fibers to the pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), trachea (windpipe), lungs, heart, esophagus, and the intestinal tract as far as the transverse portion of the colon. The vagus nerve also brings sensory information back to the brain from the ear, tongue, pharynx, and larynx.

You are merely looking at the destination, and not the other functions. This is an appeal to vestigial structures.

It's best that you continue to stay away from school and from science labs, then, because evolution is taught and applied as science there every day.

You don't have to go to school to see that minor adaptations of designed structures is an intelligent process. This is science.

What makes it an atheistic concept?

You'll see.

 

[Mallon]

Nope. Just the development of a man. You ignore this then go right back to quotes. Further, the route also serves other functions along its route. Including the fact that the blood supply to the recurrent laryngeal nerve comes from the inferior thyroid artery,

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior. More branches here[/FONT]


Vagus nerve: A remarkable nerve that supplies nerve fibers to the pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), trachea (windpipe), lungs, heart, esophagus, and the intestinal tract as far as the transverse portion of the colon. The vagus nerve also brings sensory information back to the brain from the ear, tongue, pharynx, and larynx.

You are merely looking at the destination, and not the other functions. This is an appeal to vestigial structures.

You're still not getting it. It is the fourth branch of the vagus nerve (called the recurrent laryngeal nerve) that follows a nonsensical and circuitous route, not the entire vagus nerve itself. Yes, the vagus nerve supplies all those things, but the forth branch of the vagus nerve supplies the larynx. If it were designed from scratch, one would expect it to branch off from the vagus nerve much higher in the body than it does. Instead, the fourth branch of the vagus nerve branches off from near the heart and returns all the way back up to body to innervate the larynx. Not a terribly efficient system.

You don't have to go to school

Sadly, a common refrain from YECs.

 

[Greg1234]

You're still not getting it. It is the fourth branch of the vagus nerve (called the recurrent laryngeal nerve) that follows a nonsensical and circuitous route, not the entire vagus nerve itself. Yes, the vagus nerve supplies all those things, but the forth branch of the vagus nerve supplies the larynx. If it were designed from scratch, one would expect it to branch off from the vagus nerve much higher in the body than it does. Instead, the fourth branch of the vagus nerve branches off from near the heart and returns all the way back up to body to innervate the larynx. Not a terribly efficient system.

"The branches of distribution of the vagus are:
In the Jugular Fossa… Meningeal.
Auricular.

In the Neck………… Pharyngeal.
Superior laryngeal.
Recurrent.
Superior cardiac.

In the Thorax………. Inferior cardiac.
Anterior bronchial.
Posterior bronchial.
Esophageal.

In the Abdomen……. Gastric.
Celiac.
Hepatic.

The Recurrent Nerve (n. recurrens; inferior or recurrent laryngeal nerve) arises, on the right side, in front of the subclavian artery; winds from before backward around that vessel, and ascends obliquely to the side of the trachea behind the common carotid artery, and either in front of or behind the inferior thyroid artery. On the left side, it arises on the left of the arch of the aorta, and winds below the aorta at the point where the ligamentum arteriosum is attached, and then ascends to the side of the trachea. The nerve on either side ascends in the groove between the trachea and esophagus, passes under the lower border of the Constrictor pharyngis inferior, and enters the larynx behind the articulation of the inferior cornu of the thyroid cartilage with the cricoid; it is distributed to all the muscles of the larynx, excepting the Cricothyreoideus. It communicates with the internal branch of the superior laryngeal nerve, and gives off a few filaments to the mucous membrane of the lower part of the larynx.
As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior."

This was just given

 

[Assyrian]

Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Cosmas claimed a round earth was paganism

And Christians who follow in your footsteps claim that man being created as man is not science but Creationism. We provide scientific evidence for our assertion while you insist on merging random mutational origin, against all testing.

OK so no attempt to justify you claims 'Darwinism is just atheism cloaked as science.' And no attempt to address the fact that Cosmas made same sort of accusations about the science of his day, that it was really paganism.

All you can do is claim your Creationists views are real science. Cosmas thought his views were real science too. It doesn't matter how convinced you are, what matters is that you reject mainstream science because of your interpretation of scripture. Just like Cosmas.

"The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some good estimates of its circumference and, contrary to the claims of the flat-earth myth perpetuators, was never lost. One well-known example is Eratosthenes who measured the earth’s diameter fairly accurately in the 3rd century BC.30 Eratosthenes calculated the circumference using geometry to within 3.5% of the true value.1 The ancient Greek experimenters knew its shape by evaluating a variety of evidences, including the earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse and the changing sky as one travels northward and southward.1 The ancients knew much about astronomy because they spent a great deal of time studying the heavens and stars for navigation purposes and because of their strong interest in astrology.

Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it. The myth that the Church ‘condemned as heretics all who claimed that the earth was round’ was ‘invented by two fabulists working separately: Antoine-Jean Letronne, an anticlerical 19th-century Frenchman, and Washington Irving. The 19th-century American writer Washington Irving was actually the first major promulgator of the flat-earth myth. In his very unreliable biography of Columbus, titled History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that it was the flat-earth believing churchmen who vehemently opposed Columbus’ plan to travel to the Indies on the grounds that his ship would fall off the edge of the earth while attempting to sail across the Atlantic.

In fact, those who opposed Columbus not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a good idea of how large it was—and this was the major reason why they opposed Columbus. Columbus and his men were not afraid of falling off the earth as Irving claimed, but of travelling so far from land in an unknown part of the world. They did not know the American continent existed, and, for this reason, Columbus’ critics correctly believed that a voyage to the Far East would take far too long and cost way too much. Unfortunately, Irving used many facts from reputable references to make his fictional account appear well supported, and, as a result, ‘the public was fooled into taking his literary game as history"

All quite true, and all completely irrelevant. I already knew all this. The one thing though while Lactantius and Cosmas did not convince mainstream Christian scholarship of his day, in one way they have been terribly influential and have brought Christianity and the gospel into disrepute ever since. That is what happens when Christians preach against science and claim the bible says it is wrong.

I never said I wasn't part of the Christian church. I was commenting on the imaginary hope you expressed, that one day everyone would look back and and see how foolish modern science was.

You're mixing it up again. The established science, those who produce repeatable testable and observable evidence for their claim, is creationism,

You are living in a fantasy world here. You may be convinced Creationism is true, you may believe the creationist arguments, but that doesn't make it mainstream science. Evolution has been tested and established in mainstream science. You may not agree it has been tested properly, you may think it is wrong, but that doesn't matter here because the issue is what mainstream science says. Cosmas rejected the mainstream science of his day and you reject mainstream science today. But while you look forward to the glorious day when you are vindicated, this has never happened to your predecessors who have taken their bibles and proclaimed mainstream science to be wrong, whether preaching a flat earth or biblical geocentrism. God just doesn't seem to be on the side of anti-science literalists, and why should he be? They don't like the way he really created the world: round... orbiting the sun... and 4.5 billion years ago.

while the church of Darwin continually rejects the fact that man was created as man, simultaneously, racking up documented cases of intellectual persecution. We have continually produced evidence that the earth is not flat, that random mutation cannot produce a man, that adaptation is in fact a coded feature in DNA. And these are just two examples. There are those within Christianity who have a sought to merge Darwinism with science and when another wild atheist postulation emerges, they are the ones who will be used, much like Cosmas is being used right now, to show how Christianity rejected science. I have read the interpretation of Hebrews 9, as well as all the other assertions Christans have amassed against the bible in the exhalation of Darwinism, as well as presented explicit references to a spherical earth. It is you who is now seeking, much like Cosmas' issues with the Greek, the atheist issues with Christianity, an alternative against modern science by any means possible.

Sorry I can't really seem to find a coherent argument in here to reply to, just a series of wild claims you don't back up.
The church of Darwin? What is that? Do you have any evidence or is it just name calling.
You presented explicit reference to a spherical earth? Where? You tried to argue that when the bible describes the earth as a circle it really means sphere. But you haven't been able to support your argument. Hardly explicit evidence.
We have continually to produced evidence the earth is not flat? So?
You have read the interpretation of Hebrews 9? So what? Cosmas didn't use Hebrews 9.

Creation science has continually produced results rejected by Darwin's church, that man was created as man. Have a look.

Darwin's church?

 

[Greg1234]

OK so no attempt to justify you claims 'Darwinism is just atheism cloaked as science.' And no attempt to address the fact that Cosmas made same sort of accusations about the science of his day, that it was really paganism.

Everybody knew the world was round. All tests indicated this. Pagans, Muslims, Christians, Columbus, all knew it. You attempt to bring Pagans forward while saying that Christianity accepted a flat earth when this was just given. Likewise, all tests indicate that bacteria remain bacteria. The attempt by you, playing the role of Cosmas, to go against this established fact, is what is now occurring.

All you can do is claim your Creationists views are real science.

The results of repeated testing has been produced.

All quite true, and all completely irrelevant. I already knew all this. The one thing though while Lactantius and Cosmas did not convince mainstream Christian scholarship of his day, in one way they have been terribly influential and have brought Christianity and the gospel into disrepute ever since. That is what happens when Christians preach against science and claim the bible says it is wrong.

Take note.

You are living in a fantasy world here. You may be convinced Creationism is true, you may believe the creationist arguments, but that doesn't make it mainstream science.
Evolution has been tested and established in mainstream science.

All tests indicate that Darwnism is not science. What is tested repeated and observed is creationism. By definition, creation is science.

You may not agree it has been tested properly, you may think it is wrong, but that doesn't matter here because the issue is what mainstream science says. Cosmas rejected the mainstream science of his day and you reject mainstream science today.

Nope, the issue is what science says. What it has always been saying. Even before Darwinism came along. That man was created as man. We accept science and rejected Cosmas. Likewise we reject Darwinism, though there are branches of Christianity who seem to have fallen for Cosmas.

God just doesn't seem to be on the side of anti-science literalists,

And you have been shown explicitly where the bible refers to the earth as a sphere with dictionary reference. Your interpretation of Genesis, to mean Darwinism against all scientific evidence which shows that creationism is correct is similar to Cosmas' attempt to interpret Hebrews 9 as a flat earth even though all scientific evidence shows that man was created as man. Though Cosmas seems to have found followers, it is a rejected claim. It is the likes of you and yours who will again, give the anti-Christian future raport when "Christians used to believe that random mutation could turn bacteria into men." Your appeal to literalism is likewise, unfounded. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism, and the spirit that is man manifested in the mental sphere will never be bacteria, or vice versa. Flesh is the manifestation of mind in the physical and likewise is differentiated on all planes. Here lies the significance in the teachings that was passed down.

"All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Cor 15). The flesh or mind that is ape,or fish, will never be man. And science confirms this. Bacteria becoming fish, fish becoming men, is purely atheism. Nothing more.

You presented explicit reference to a spherical earth? Where? You tried to argue that when the bible describes the earth as a circle it really means sphere. But you haven't been able to support your argument. Hardly explicit evidence.

Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,"
Dictionary. com

Circle, n
16. A sphere or orb; circle of the earth.

 

[laconicstudent]

All tests indicate that Darwnism is not science. What is tested repeated and observed is creationism. By definition, creation is science.

Were you planning on proving this at some point, or are you content to just continue saying things that no one takes seriously?

 

[Assyrian]

OK so no attempt to justify you claims 'Darwinism is just atheism cloaked as science.' And no attempt to address the fact that Cosmas made same sort of accusations about the science of his day, that it was really paganism.

Everybody knew the world was round. All tests indicated this. Pagans, Muslims, Christians, Columbus, all knew it. You attempt to bring Pagans forward while saying that Christianity accepted a flat earth when this was just given. Likewise, all tests indicate that bacteria remain bacteria. The attempt by you, playing the role of Cosmas, to go against this established fact, is what is now occurring.

What has this got to do with what I posted?

Why am I 'attempting to bring pagans forward'? All tests indicated the world was round, but they were tests worked out by pagan Greeks. Pagans, Muslims, Christians, Columbus, all knew it ...from Greek science. That is why Cosmas argued that a round earth was pagan. And he had more basis for his claim round earth cosmology was pagan, than you have for claiming evolution is atheist. Eratosthenes who showed the earth is round was a pagan, Darwin wasn't an atheist. Not that the religious beliefs of scientists tell us anything about whether the science is right. Watson and Crick who discovered the structure of DNA really were atheist. but even Creationists accept the fact that DNA is a double helix.

All you can do is claim your Creationists views are real science.[snipped: Cosmas thought his views were real science too. It doesn't matter how convinced you are, what matters is that you reject mainstream science because of your interpretation of scripture. Just like Cosmas.]

The results of repeated testing has been produced.

I think that is a wonderful illustration of what I said, you simply claim again that your Creationists views are real science. And ignore my argument about how you are doing exactly what Cosmas did.

Take note.

I note the lack of response.

All tests indicate that Darwnism is not science. What is tested repeated and observed is creationism. By definition, creation is science.

Still just claiming Creationism is science, and ignoring the fact that it is not mainstream science. Creationism makes up its own arguments and is completely convinced by them just as Cosmas was convinced by his anti science arguments. You see, you could start a new thread if you want arguing creation science is right and mainstream science is wrong. But this discussion is about another issue, Christians who oppose mainstream science because it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. They used scientific arguments too, and were full convinced their scientific arguments are right. The problem was they were unable to take an objective view of the evidence because they were already convinced from their interpretation of scripture that mainstream science was wrong. Again this is subject for another thread. This is about Christians opposing mainstream science because they think their bibles say it is wrong. Cosmas did it with round earth science, Luther and the inquisition did it with heliocentrism, and creationist do it with mainstream science of geology and evolution. so far all it has done has brought the gospel into disrepute,

You may not agree it has been tested properly, you may think it is wrong, but that doesn't matter here because the issue is what mainstream science says. Cosmas rejected the mainstream science of his day and you reject mainstream science today.

Nope, the issue is what science says. What it has always been saying. Even before Darwinism came along. That man was created as man. We accept science and rejected Cosmas. Likewise we reject Darwinism, though there are branches of Christianity who seem to have fallen for Cosmas.

You are confusing what is supported by scientific evidence, thinking creationism is supported by scientific evidence, with what mainstream science says. Mainstream science says man evolved. You think this is wrong and the scientific evidence support special creation, but that doesn't change what mainstream science actually says.

God just doesn't seem to be on the side of anti-science literalists,

And you have been shown explicitly where the bible refers to the earth as a sphere with dictionary reference.

Unfortunately Cosmas didn't have access to online English dictionaries like you do. They wouldn't have helped him if he had, he didn't speak English. But just because you interpret Cosmas's anti round earth passages differently to him, doesn't mean he wasn't an anti-science literalist like you. You just use different parts of the bible to attack different sciences. Cosmas would have completely agreed with you opposition to evolution, he would just have thought you were 'supping at the table of demons' for accepting a round earth. As I said, God hadn't vindicated the anti science literalism of any of your predecessors.

Your interpretation of Genesis, to mean Darwinism against all scientific evidence which shows that creationism is correct is similar to Cosmas' attempt to interpret Hebrews 9 as a flat earth even though all scientific evidence shows that man was created as man.

I can see where you are coming from here, because you know Cosmas was wrong and you sincerely believe we am too. But thinking Cosmas and TEs are both wrong does not mean we interpret scripture similar to Cosmas. Unfortunately, to compare how Cosmas and TEs interpret scripture, you would first need to understand how we interpret scripture. Yet you have not shown the least glimmer of understanding or even wanting to understand how Cosmas came up with his interpretation, preferring to go back to the safety of you rhetoric about Hebrews 9. Neither have you show any indication you understand how we approach Genesis, preferring to stick to your caricature. Because you don’t know how TEs interpret scripture you are not able to see how TEs approach to scripture is completely different from yours and Cosmas's. And although you disagree with Cosmas's science and interpretation on the issue of flat earth, his approach to science and bible interpretation was exactly the same as yours.

Though Cosmas seems to have found followers, it is a rejected claim. It is the likes of you and yours who will again, give the anti-Christian future raport when "Christians used to believe that random mutation could turn bacteria into men."

You are still appealing to the glorious day when creationism will be vindicated. But God has never vindicated anti science preachers who went before you.

Your appeal to literalism is likewise, unfounded.

Cosmas was a literalist, Christians opposed heliocentrism because of literalism, and creationists who oppose evolution do so because they interept Genesis literally. It is not enough to say ”Your appeal to literalism is likewise, unfounded.” You need to give some evidence for your claim.

The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism, and the spirit that is man manifested in the mental sphere will never be bacteria, or vice versa. Flesh is the manifestation of mind in the physical and likewise is differentiated on all planes. Here lies the significance in the teachings that was passed down.

As science and evolution tell us nothing about the human spirit, so I don’t see the relevance of this, or even what you are actually trying to say here.

"All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Cor 15). The flesh or mind that is ape,or fish, will never be man. And science confirms this. Bacteria becoming fish, fish becoming men, is purely atheism. Nothing more.

You do realise the sun is a star? And Paul was not teaching biology and astrophysics here either. It was an illustration of the resurrection and how the resurrection bodies will be different from our present physical bodies. You are taking Paul’s illustration way beyond what he meant to teach here. And he was hardly talking about the immutability different kinds of flesh, when his whole point was about their transformation. Not that Paul was talking about evolution in any sense, but reading it as an anti evolution text completely goes against the way he was using his illustration.

Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,"
Dictionary. com

Circle, n
16. A sphere or orb; circle of the earth.

That seems to be all you can do. Repeat the same point over and over. You cannot address our replies to this point:
That you don’t go to an English dictionary to learn the meaning of a Hebrew word.
That it is not good exegesis to pick obscure meanings of word to avoid the plain meaning.
Nor did you address where this dictionary explanation came from, people reading the English translation of Isaiah 40:22 and reading their understanding of the world into, assuming circle means an orb. All this tells me is that other people have read Isaiah 40:22 in English and misunderstood it the same way you do. Not that sphere really is what circles means either in English or Hebrew.

 

[crawfish]

Everybody knew the world was round. All tests indicated this. Pagans, Muslims, Christians, Columbus, all knew it. You attempt to bring Pagans forward while saying that Christianity accepted a flat earth when this was just given.

You do realize that the Old Testament was written nearly 2000 years before Columbus, don't you? You do realize that much of it was written before or at the same time some Greek mathematicians were first discovering the shape of the earth? You do realize there was no internet and no "Newsweek" magazine publishing the latest scientific thoughts throughout the world? You don't think that some Greek figured out the earth was a sphere and all of a sudden everybody on the earth just accepted it?

What you are doing is forcing modern thought on an ancient document. If you read my post above, it is pretty obvious that the passage you are talking about is a simple statement of perspective; the author does not intend to make some scientific statement about the nature of the universe, and to do so would be to add meaning to the scriptures.

Let us summarize the facts:

1) Duwr refers to a sphere. Chuwg refers to a flat circle. Isaiah 40:22 uses the word chuwg.

2) You spread a tent over a flat circle, not a sphere. The verse is a simile, "like a tent", and suggesting that it means "spreading out the cosmos in all directions over a sphere" makes no sense in that regard.

I encourage you to stop adding to God's word when it suits you. God inspired it, so it is just fine on its own.

 

[Greg1234]

What has this got to do with what I posted?

Why am I 'attempting to bring pagans forward'? All tests indicated the world was round, but they were tests worked out by pagan Greeks. Pagans, Muslims, Christians, Columbus, all knew it ...from Greek science.

It does not matter where it came from. It was accepted by the Christian church. You've attempted to detract form the fact that when Cosmas brought forward his assertion, it was rejected by the Church based on scientific evidence. There are all sorts of people who still adhered to a flat earth. All you had to do was find one with a Christian background, as youve done, and say that the Christianity though that the earth was flat. Failing to realize that Cosmas' interpretation was rejected.

That is why Cosmas argued that a round earth was pagan. And he had more basis for his claim round earth cosmology was pagan, than you have for claiming evolution is atheist.

Again, Cosmas' argument that the round earth was Pagan, though there were experimentational results showing that the earth was round, results which were already accepted by the church does not fit with Darwinism where experimentation shows that the bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is not a subject of random mutation, and creationism was and is already accepted by the church based on scientific evidence, while you and Cosmas are arguing that it is not science but Christianity's creationism in spite of the facts.

Eratosthenes who showed the earth is round was a pagan, Darwin wasn't an atheist.

Darwin argued against the church that bacteria could indeed turn into men despite evidence that it could not. The round earth did not belong to the Pagans, it was experimentally shown, regardless of what Eratosthenes said. Bacteria remaining bacteria is not Christian, nor pagan, nor Greek, it is experimentally shown.

Not that the religious beliefs of scientists tell us anything about whether the science is right. Watson and Crick who discovered the structure of DNA really were atheist. but even Creationists accept the fact that DNA is a double helix.

A double helix does not belong to the atheist. Nor does Christianisty oppose the fact that there is a biological computer within living systems. First you bring the pagans forward, now you attempt to classify the Double Helix as atheism. Dobzhansky was not a creationist, but he was one of others who established the effect of long term random mutation.

I think that is a wonderful illustration of what I said, you simply claim again that your Creationists views are real science. And ignore my argument about how you are doing exactly what Cosmas did.

I'm not the one claiming that this is real science. It is Darwinism which is claiming such. We have infact provided scientific results. Its game of finders keepers you guys attempt to play. If you can hijack science first, then you automatically obtain that position, regardless of what you can produce. If you can hijack the interpretation of Genesis first, then you autoatically possess that position, which gives the illusion that one must take it literally or uphold Darwinism when we already had the interpretation of Genesis. You then proceed to claim that it is a battle between literalism and interpretation, and proceed to claim that any metaphor or simile in the bible is evidence for Darwinism, when there is just the attempt of atheistic infiltration. Designed organisms like all other designed structures have the ability to adapt. You claim adaptation is yours, it is science, you then use a previous attempt at flat earth to show that scientific discoveries are not a part of the church, and then force people to choose between adaptation and creationism, with the illusion that the scientific discovery of adaptation is automatically bacteria turning into men through random mutation, as it must be in conflict with man being created as man bolstered by your attempt to show that the church is in conflict with science. Hopefully, people don't realize that it was a set up, that these are just guys in a "mine" phase who are rejecting science. But like a game of twister, if you put your hand on the "rejecting science" color, it will seem like a color which cannot be accessed and be used against Darwinism. An apt concealment which has gotten Darwinism this far. Real science is real science.

Still just claiming Creationism is science, and ignoring the fact that it is not mainstream science.

To be sure, when I refer to science, I am not referring to Darwinism. All that has been done is proven adaptation. Adaptation is not anti-creationism though it is a separation which is sought as you can claim that the church is rejecting adaptation, you show people adaptation, then attach atheism to the end as supposedly, we reject it. We reject Darwinism.

Creationism makes up its own arguments and is completely convinced by them just as Cosmas was convinced by his anti science arguments. You see, you could start a new thread if you want arguing creation science is right and mainstream science is wrong.

You are the one's making up your own arguments. Science has its definition. And by that definition, it is science. It does not need to bee Darwinism for it to be science nor does science need Darwin's permission, to accept the fact that bacteria cannot turn into men.

But this discussion is about another issue, Christians who oppose mainstream science because it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. They used scientific arguments too, and were full convinced their scientific arguments are right. The problem was they were unable to take an objective view of the evidence because they were already convinced from their interpretation of scripture that mainstream science was wrong.

The interpretation does not belong to atheism. There has always been the interpretation, and it is confirmed with scientific evidence. You use scientific arguments, cloaked in scientific terms backed up with adaptation, which you have somehow claim as yours for the aforementioned reasons, backed up with the inefficacy of random mutation, and the adaptation feature you will not accept as any intelligent proccess involved in adaptation completely defeats the reason it stands for. The exhaltaton of chance.

Again this is subject for another thread. This is about Christians opposing mainstream science because they think their bibles say it is wrong. Cosmas did it with round earth science, Luther and the inquisition did it with heliocentrism, and creationist do it with mainstream science of geology and evolution. so far all it has done has brought the gospel into disrepute,

We have gone far beyond the bible. This has nothing to do with literalism. It is already interpreted. You attempt to draw all the attention on a debate between literalism and interpretation, given that you have gone ahead with the false claim that the interpretation belongs to Darwinism, which detracts from the fact that we have provided scientific evidence for the interpretation and that your claim is unfounded

You are confusing what is supported by scientific evidence, thinking creationism is supported by scientific evidence, with what mainstream science says. Mainstream science says man evolved. You think this is wrong and the scientific evidence support special creation, but that doesn't change what mainstream science actually says.

Mainstream science may say that bacteria can turn into man through random mutations, but mainstream science is actually bacteria remaining bacteria, adaptation being a coded feature, and random mutation being sterile, among others. You can stand here today and claim that creationism is not science only because of the side project through which you attempt to riddle creationism with insults, and attach a condition to the term. All thi work is actually so that when you say "creationist website", and "creationist term" and "creationist scientist" people's minds should already be conditioned to take that as a refutation of the "real science", without having to provide any kind of formal rebuttal. Mainstream science may say one thing, but mainstream science is another.

 

[Greg1234]

Unfortunately Cosmas didn't have access to online English dictionaries like you do. They wouldn't have helped him if he had, he didn't speak English.

It doesnt matter if the intent is encoded in Hebrews or English. A translation provides the term through which the intent is coded in the other language. The word "chwug" is coded with information, and it is the reencoding of this information we call language. Chwug of the earth, circle of the earth.

But just because you interpret Cosmas's anti round earth passages differently to him, doesn't mean he wasn't an anti-science literalist like you.

Firstly, Darwinism is not science. Your attempt to link Darwinism to science is yours. Secondly, the interpretation does not belong to Darwinism. We have seen the results of Darwinist hijacking science, but what we are now witnessing is an actual hijacking in progress. This is how it is done.

You just use different parts of the bible to attack different sciences. Cosmas would have completely agreed with you opposition to evolution, he would just have thought you were 'supping at the table of demons' for accepting a round earth.

No I use science to attack science and use science to show that the bible is correct. You seem to know Cosmas' views on Darwinism. Good for you. I'm sure his attempt to go against scientific evidence then try to force the church to accept it would have made you best buddies.

I can see where you are coming from here, because you know Cosmas was wrong and you sincerely believe we am too.
But thinking Cosmas and TEs are both wrong does not mean we interpret scripture similar to Cosmas. Unfortunately, to compare how Cosmas and TEs interpret scripture, you would first need to understand how we interpret scripture.

Nice try. The interpretation does not belong to you.

Yet you have not shown the least glimmer of understanding or even wanting to understand how Cosmas came up with his interpretation, preferring to go back to the safety of you rhetoric about Hebrews 9. Neither have you show any indication you understand how we approach Genesis, preferring to stick to your caricature.

Through Darwin, by Darwin, with Darwin. You attempt to make it look like its the acceptance of science,and the church is rejecting the flat earth interpretation because it doesnt accept, when you have not gotten past the point of Darwinism not being science.

Because you don’t know how TEs interpret scripture you are not able to see how TEs approach to scripture is completely different from yours and Cosmas's. And although you disagree with Cosmas's science and interpretation on the issue of flat earth, his approach to science and bible interpretation was exactly the same as yours.

It is your approach which is similar to Cosmas. The Church as a whole recognized that the earth was round and rejected Cosmas' attempt. This is a battle between science. Put down every single bible and bacteria remains bacteria, random mutation remains sterile, the earth remains round, Darwinist and Cosmas' assertions notwithstanding.

You are still appealing to the glorious day when creationism will be vindicated. But God has never vindicated anti science preachers who went before you.

We speak through scientific evidence. You assertions of literalism is the attempt to say that the rejection of Darwinism is based solely on the bible not realizing that we have provided repeatable results.

Cosmas was a literalist, Christians opposed heliocentrism because of literalism, and creationists who oppose evolution do so because they interept Genesis literally.

Another attempt to use literalism as a tool to foster Darwinism without having to provide any evidence for your cause. It is no surprise that a Darwinist will fight to tarnish the bible because rhis is infact the evidence for Darwnism. Showing people that Christians take the bible literally. Losing this pivotal knoll, is in fact losing Darwinism. The only way to look bigger is not by growing, but by shortening everybody else. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. Literal or not, its not Darwinism. The church had already accepted that the earth was round, so did Columbus. Hebrews 9 had nothing to do with a flat earth, literal or not,and there were explicit passages to a round earth. Darwinism is also rejected, not on "literalism", but on scientific evidence that the world is round. Only by tying science to Darwinism does a fanatical claim like chance building a man even become viable for consideration. Then with it attached to science, you can attempt to show the church rejecting science when it is Darwinist claiming that they possess the real science because a round earth is Christianity and not science.

It is not enough to say ”Your appeal to literalism is likewise, unfounded.” You need to give some evidence for your claim.
As science and evolution tell us nothing about the human spirit, so I don’t see the relevance of this, or even what you are actually trying to say here.

Oh I see. You attempt to interpret biblical scripture without taking into consideration God and universal law. Then claim that your interpretation is correct because the earth is round. Saying "God could have created this way" not realizing that it is in consideration of God and the interpretation and application of universal law, together with scientific evidence, Darwinism is refused. Interpretation does not belong to you.

You do realise the sun is a star? And Paul was not teaching biology and astrophysics here either.

I knew you were going on jump on that. Any opportunity to prove Darwinism. The sun and planets in this system are not regarded as similar to the stars in the outer cosmos or planets in the outer cosmos. From a purely material perspective the sun is the same as all stars, but as a whole there is a fundamental difference, human classification notwithstanding. The earth is the third planet in relation to the sun, and through this relation, the primary dwelling of three dimensional consciousness, in this system. Not the other stars.

It was an illustration of the resurrection and how the resurrection bodies will be different from our present physical bodies. You are taking Paul’s illustration way beyond what he meant to teach here. And he was hardly talking about the immutability different kinds of flesh, when his whole point was about their transformation. Not that Paul was talking about evolution in any sense, but reading it as an anti evolution text completely goes against the way he was using his illustration.

It's not out of context. It is in reference to universal law. Recognize what flesh is, a manifestation of a deeper reality, which will never cross over. Not in the mental sphere, nor its manifestation in the three dimensional plane. Its not about transformation or any Darwinist assertion. The idea that bacteria can become men has nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis, and the Corinthians text is an accurate rendering. It does not matter if it was seeded or reseeded.

That seems to be all you can do. Repeat the same point over and over. You cannot address our replies to this point:

That you don’t go to an English dictionary to learn the meaning of a Hebrew word.
That it is not good exegesis to pick obscure meanings of word to avoid the plain meaning.
Nor did you address where this dictionary explanation came from, people reading the English translation of Isaiah 40:22 and reading their understanding of the world into, assuming circle means an orb. All this tells me is that other people have read Isaiah 40:22 in English and misunderstood it the same way you do. Not that sphere really is what circles means either in English or Hebrew.

. So I have to contact the dictionary writers and ask them where they got their meaning? A word has to change just for Darwinism? I dont think so. There are many contexts in which a word can be used. The dictionary confirms that the circle of the earth is a sphere or orb.

 

[laconicstudent]

Greg, were you planning on backing up any of your assertions by citing peer-reviewed research at some point, or do you just not care that no one is taking what you post seriously?

 

[Assyrian]

It does not matter where it came from.

And yet Cosmas had more basis for calling geocentrism pagan than you have for calling evolution atheist. I am glad you agree it doesn't matter where round earth came from, the religious views of the scientists are completely irrelevant to the validity of the science.

It was accepted by the Christian church. You've attempted to detract form the fact that when Cosmas brought forward his assertion, it was rejected by the Church based on scientific evidence. There are all sorts of people who still adhered to a flat earth. All you had to do was find one with a Christian background, as youve done, and say that the Christianity though that the earth was flat. Failing to realize that Cosmas' interpretation was rejected.

I am not detracting from the fact the church rejected Cosmas's views. Do you even read my posts? I even thanked God in one of my posts that the Church rejected Cosmas's interpretation. Yet even though the Church rejected Cosmas's flat earth interpretation, the fact that there were writers like Cosmas and Lactantius in the Early Church was enough to bring the gospel into disrepute, it was made worse by the church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo.

The church rejected Cosmas on the basis of scientific evidence. Notice though, it wasn't Cosmas's scientific arguments they listened to, but mainstream science. When the church accepted heliocentrism, it was because of mainstream science too, though geocentrists could still argue science to support their literal interpretations. But mainstream science went with heliocentrism and the church slowly followed, because mainstream science was the best understanding of how God had made the solar system. And that is how the church needs to deal with evolution, to follow mainstream science not the scientific claims of literalists who disagree with the mainstream, because that has only ever brought the church and the gospel into disrepute.

Again, Cosmas' argument that the round earth was Pagan, though there were experimentational results showing that the earth was round, results which were already accepted by the church does not fit with Darwinism where experimentation shows that the bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is not a subject of random mutation, and creationism was and is already accepted by the church based on scientific evidence, while you and Cosmas are arguing that it is not science but Christianity's creationism in spite of the facts.

You are mixing up two arguments here, the scientific argument for flat earth and creationism, and the guilt by association claims round earth was pagan and evolution atheist from Cosmas and Creationists. I pointed out that Cosmas had more basis for his round earth is pagan fallacy, than you have for your claim evolution is atheist. You can't answer that the science supports you. That is a different issue. You cannot support on bad claim by hopping to another, though that seem all you ever try to do.

Darwin argued against the church that bacteria could indeed turn into men despite evidence that it could not. The round earth did not belong to the Pagans, it was experimentally shown, regardless of what Eratosthenes said. Bacteria remaining bacteria is not Christian, nor pagan, nor Greek, it is experimentally shown.

Cosmas would have disagreed. He called round earth pagan because it came from a pagan Greek and was accepted by pagan Greeks, if it was also accepted by Christians who bought into the worldly arguments of the pagans, it only mean the church was compromise, supping at the tale of demons. As I said, at least Cosmas could argue Eratosthenes was a pagan, Darwin wasn't an atheist.

Darwin's science may have contradicted an interpretation of scripture, so did round earth, so did heliocentrism. Round earth may only have contradicted the views of a handful, heliocentrism contradicted the interpretation of the entire church. But it doesn't matter how many people hold the interpretation that is contradicted by science, if an interpretation is contradicted by science, then the interpretation is wrong. That is the basis the church used to reject the flat earth interpretation, and after some wobbling, geocentric interpretation.

Even if evolution, round earth or heliocentrism contradict what people in the church think, that does not mean the science is arguing against the church, science is simply looking at the science. It is then up to the church how it deals with the science. Contradicting people's interpretation of scripture does not make science pagan or atheist. It is simply good science or bad, and round earth, heliocentrism and evolution have all been accepted into mainstream science because because good evidence backs them up.

A double helix does not belong to the atheist. Nor does Christianisty oppose the fact that there is a biological computer within living systems. First you bring the pagans forward, now you attempt to classify the Double Helix as atheism. Dobzhansky was not a creationist, but he was one of others who established the effect of long term random mutation.

I am just trying to find you basis for calling evolution atheist, you don't seem to have any.

I'm not the one claiming that this is real science. It is Darwinism which is claiming such. We have infact provided scientific results. Its game of finders keepers you guys attempt to play. If you can hijack science first, then you automatically obtain that position, regardless of what you can produce.

Ah the creationist paranoid claim mainstream science is hijacked. Unfortunately, 'hijacked' simply means the vast majority of scientists were convinced by the evidence and remain convinced by the evidence for evolution. You know flat earthers and geocentrists claim the evidence is a massive conspiracy too. If NASA can fake moon landing photos they can fake anything. People who argue against mainstream science usually come up with some reason mainstream science disagrees with them. Cosmas blamed it on compromise with the world. Doesn't make any difference to the fact creationists are setting their interpretation of scripture against mainstream science, and that has always been disastrous

If you can hijack the interpretation of Genesis first, then you autoatically possess that position, which gives the illusion that one must take it literally or uphold Darwinism when we already had the interpretation of Genesis.

Sorry I don't know what you are saying there.

You then proceed to claim that it is a battle between literalism and interpretation,

No literalism is an interpretation, and sometimes as we have seen it is the wrong interpretation.

and proceed to claim that any metaphor or simile in the bible is evidence for Darwinism,

No, I never claimed metaphors were evidence for evolution. However I do remember you appealing to simile to argue against a literal flat earth interpretation. Is this double standards? Metaphors and similes are ok for creationists to use to explain heliocentric and flat earth passages, but they mustn't be used on creationism?

when there is just the attempt of atheistic infiltration.

And back to the unsupported paranoia.

Designed organisms like all other designed structures have the ability to adapt. You claim adaptation is yours, it is science,

Indeed, adaptation, natural selection, evolution are all science.

you then use a previous attempt at flat earth to show that scientific discoveries are not a part of the church,

Never did. I said the rest of the church very wisely accepted the science instead of interpretation that said the science was wrong.

and then force people to choose between adaptation and creationism,

Between science and another literal interpretation claiming science got it wrong.

with the illusion that the scientific discovery of adaptation is automatically bacteria turning into men through random mutation, as it must be in conflict with man being created as man bolstered by your attempt to show that the church is in conflict with science.

Creationist are in conflict with science. There is much more evidence for evolution than adaptation. That was part of the evidence when Darwin wrote Origin, we have had 150 years of science since then finding more and more evidence supporting evolution.

Hopefully, people don't realize that it was a set up, that these are just guys in a "mine" phase who are rejecting science. But like a game of twister, if you put your hand on the "rejecting science" color, it will seem like a color which cannot be accessed and be used against Darwinism. An apt concealment which has gotten Darwinism this far. Real science is real science.

Just come up with convincing arguments and a better explanation for the evidence. That is how you overturn the scientific mainstream. It is how Einstein overtuned Newtonian Mechanics, it is how the weird ideas of quantum mechanics overcame widespread disbelief and opposition including Einstein, It is how the Big Bang Theory replaced the steady state model, in spite of atheist astronomers like Hoyle hating the Big Bang for being 'creationist'. You don't even have to produce a perfect theory, the Big Bang isn't, it just has to be a better explanation for the evidence than the one it is trying to replace. So far Creationism has failed to come up with any convincing arguments.

Still just claiming Creationism is science, and ignoring the fact that it is not mainstream science.

To be sure, when I refer to science, I am not referring to Darwinism. All that has been done is proven adaptation. Adaptation is not anti-creationism though it is a separation which is sought as you can claim that the church is rejecting adaptation, you show people adaptation, then attach atheism to the end as supposedly, we reject it. We reject Darwinism.

Evolution is still mainstream science, whatever Creationist think of the evidence supporting it. And even though you pick and choose which mainstream sciences to accept and reject, when you reject evolution you are rejecting mainstream science, as flat earthers and geocentrists before you have done.

You are the one's making up your own arguments. Science has its definition. And by that definition, it is science. It does not need to bee Darwinism for it to be science nor does science need Darwin's permission, to accept the fact that bacteria cannot turn into men.

Like I said if you want to start a thread on the scientific evidence for creationism go ahead, laconicstudent has been asking you to. In the meantime you don't get to decide what is mainstream science.

The interpretation does not belong to atheism.

Never said it was.

There has always been the interpretation, and it is confirmed with scientific evidence.

Or contradicted by the scientific evidence, like flat earth, geocentrism and creationism. Interpretation still belongs to Christians who need to get on with it when old interpretations turn out to be mistaken.

You use scientific arguments, cloaked in scientific terms backed up with adaptation, which you have somehow claim as yours for the aforementioned reasons, backed up with the inefficacy of random mutation, and the adaptation feature you will not accept as any intelligent proccess involved in adaptation completely defeats the reason it stands for. The exhaltaton of chance.

Can't make head nor tail of that.

We have gone far beyond the bible. This has nothing to do with literalism. It is already interpreted. You attempt to draw all the attention on a debate between literalism and interpretation, given that you have gone ahead with the false claim that the interpretation belongs to Darwinism, which detracts from the fact that we have provided scientific evidence for the interpretation and that your claim is unfounded

Nor that. Tell you what. Why not address my arguments instead of trying to compose a caricature of them that bears no relationship to what I have actually said?

Mainstream science may say that bacteria can turn into man through random mutations, but mainstream science is actually bacteria remaining bacteria, adaptation being a coded feature, and random mutation being sterile, among others.

Simply claiming creationism is mainstream science doesn't make it so, thinking it should be mainstream science doesn't make it so. Cosmas thought his science was right too.

You can stand here today and claim that creationism is not science only because of the side project through which you attempt to riddle creationism with insults, and attach a condition to the term. All thi work is actually so that when you say "creationist website", and "creationist term" and "creationist scientist" people's minds should already be conditioned to take that as a refutation of the "real science", without having to provide any kind of formal rebuttal. Mainstream science may say one thing, but mainstream science is another.

TEs can look at whether creationism is science if you ever get around to starting the thread for laconicstudent. But the issue here is that creationism is not mainstream science and that terrible damage done in the past when Christians opposed mainstream science because their interpretation of the bible says it is wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

It doesnt matter if the intent is encoded in Hebrews or English. A translation provides the term through which the intent is coded in the other language. The word "chwug" is coded with information, and it is the reencoding of this information we call language. Chwug of the earth, circle of the earth.

Whatever makes you think Hebrew and English words have the same semantic boundaries? Did you ever notice how the same bible translation uses different English words to translate a single word of Hebrew or Greek. It is because the range of meaning of a word in one language is not the same as the range of meaning of the word you translate it with. Just because you can find an obscure meaning of 'circle' in an English dictionary does not mean the Hebrew has that meaning.

Firstly, Darwinism is not science. Your attempt to link Darwinism to science is yours. Secondly, the interpretation does not belong to Darwinism. We have seen the results of Darwinist hijacking science, but what we are now witnessing is an actual hijacking in progress. This is how it is done.

No attempt to address my point.

No I use science to attack science and use science to show that the bible is correct. You seem to know Cosmas' views on Darwinism. Good for you. I'm sure his attempt to go against scientific evidence then try to force the church to accept it would have made you best buddies.

Cosmas believed the world was created in six days, kind of precludes accepting millions of years of evolution. Other than that I see you have again made no attempt to address my point.

Nice try. The interpretation does not belong to you.

Again no attempt to address my point.

Through Darwin, by Darwin, with Darwin. You attempt to make it look like its the acceptance of science,and the church is rejecting the flat earth interpretation because it doesnt accept, when you have not gotten past the point of Darwinism not being science.

Again you can't address the point.

It is your approach which is similar to Cosmas. The Church as a whole recognized that the earth was round and rejected Cosmas' attempt. This is a battle between science. Put down every single bible and bacteria remains bacteria, random mutation remains sterile, the earth remains round, Darwinist and Cosmas' assertions notwithstanding.

Again you don't address the point. You just keep claiming my approach is similar to Cosmas's. But you are unable to answer any of the points I make. The majority of the church accepted a round earth, the church as a whole without exception believed in geocentrism when Copernicus came along, and worldwide today the majority of the church accepts evolution. But numbers are irrelevant. It is literalists setting their interpretation of scripture against mainstream science that brings the gospel into disrepute. That is where creationists are doing exactly the same as Cosmas.

We speak through scientific evidence. You assertions of literalism is the attempt to say that the rejection of Darwinism is based solely on the bible not realizing that we have provided repeatable results.

You interpret Genesis literally, Cosmas and the geocentrists interpreted their passages literally too, though you dismiss those passages as metaphor. The problem is not literalism as such, any interpretation that sets itself against what we know of God's creation through science will bring the bible into disrepute. It is just that literalists seem to be the ones who kept getting it wrong all the time, certainly Cosmas, the geocentrists and modern creationist all use their literal interpretation of scripture to preach against science. Maybe it is because literalists can fall into the trap of thinking their reading of scripture is the real meaning, and that it is everything else that is the interpretation. Whatever the reason, your predecessors have all been literalists.

And whether you believe your results are credible or not, you are setting your ideas of science against the mainstream. God has never vindicated your literalist predecessors, so I don't think you visions of the glorious day when creationism is vindicated has much of a chance of being fulfilled. Literalist anti science preaching, and anti-mainstream-science 'science' just doesn't have a great track record. I don't know why you want us to trust it this time around.

Another attempt to use literalism as a tool to foster Darwinism without having to provide any evidence for your cause. It is no surprise that a Darwinist will fight to tarnish the bible because rhis is infact the evidence for Darwnism. Showing people that Christians take the bible literally. Losing this pivotal knoll, is in fact losing Darwinism. The only way to look bigger is not by growing, but by shortening everybody else. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. Literal or not, its not Darwinism. The church had already accepted that the earth was round, so did Columbus. Hebrews 9 had nothing to do with a flat earth, literal or not,and there were explicit passages to a round earth. Darwinism is also rejected, not on "literalism", but on scientific evidence that the world is round. Only by tying science to Darwinism does a fanatical claim like chance building a man even become viable for consideration. Then with it attached to science, you can attempt to show the church rejecting science when it is Darwinist claiming that they possess the real science because a round earth is Christianity and not science.

You complain about me talking about literalism, but you make no attempt to address the fact that all your predecessors who fought against mainstream science did so from literal interpretations. Perhaps if you tried to understand how Cosmas came to his conclusions you could come up with some meaningful arguments, but you just keep going back to Hebrew's 9 which as I have told you, Cosmas never even quoted.

Oh I see. You attempt to interpret biblical scripture without taking into consideration God and universal law. Then claim that your interpretation is correct because the earth is round. Saying "God could have created this way" not realizing that it is in consideration of God and the interpretation and application of universal law, together with scientific evidence, Darwinism is refused. Interpretation does not belong to you.

That made no sense.

I knew you were going on jump on that. Any opportunity to prove Darwinism.

If you take scripture out of context of course I am going to bring it up.

The sun and planets in this system are not regarded as similar to the stars in the outer cosmos or planets in the outer cosmos. From a purely material perspective the sun is the same as all stars, but as a whole there is a fundamental difference, human classification notwithstanding. The earth is the third planet in relation to the sun, and through this relation, the primary dwelling of three dimensional consciousness, in this system. Not the other stars.

It's not out of context. It is in reference to universal law. Recognize what flesh is, a manifestation of a deeper reality, which will never cross over. Not in the mental sphere, nor its manifestation in the three dimensional plane. Its not about transformation or any Darwinist assertion. The idea that bacteria can become men has nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis, and the Corinthians text is an accurate rendering. It does not matter if it was seeded or reseeded.

So the sun being different to the stars in glory is just a matter of perspective, while humans, animals, bird and fish having different kinds of flesh is a reference to universal law? If the sun and stars can differ in glory because of our perspective, why can't the flesh of man and animals different because of our time perspective, that we are looking at them now instead of at a common ancestor millions of years ago? Where does Paul indicate he is switching from universal law to a difference in perspective? Where is your evidence Paul was even talking about universal law or perspective? I showed you from the context how Paul was using this as an illustration of the resurrection and how you application took it completely out of context, all you can say in reply is that is that he is talking about a universal law you provide no indication of in the passage. Sounds like eisegesis to me.

. So I have to contact the dictionary writers and ask them where they got their meaning? A word has to change just for Darwinism? I dont think so. There are many contexts in which a word can be used. The dictionary confirms that the circle of the earth is a sphere or orb.

I see you still cannot address any of my points. Don't see why an English dictionary would need to change, when we are discussing the meaning of a Hebrew word, even if the use they talk about reflects a misunderstanding of an English translation of the Hebrew, it is still an English use. Your problem is you are going to an English dictionary to find the meaning of a Hebrew word. Completely the wrong place. Maybe you could ask them about that. Now if you don't want to ask dictionary.com where they got that definition that is up to you, it looks pretty obvious to me from their quote, seeing as they quote the English translation of Isaiah 40:22 with it. So basically the dictionary confirms that some people have read an English translation of Isaiah and thought 'circle of the earth' meant an orb, eisegesis again, they knew the earth was orb shaped and they read that into Isaiah. Tell me, the people dictionary.com is quoting who think circle of the earth means orb, where did they get the meaning of circle from? Did they go to dictionary.com to find out what circle means? It is what is called a circular argument.