Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Greg1234]

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.

The sematic boundaries or the intent which is encoded within a word is transferred to another language carrying the information. It is the information within a symbol, letters, words and sentences being the carrier of choice, which determines what it is encoded within another language. You cannot transfer chwug to dog, because the information within chuwg is not in compliance with the information with Dog. A Hebrew man with a circle in his hand and an English man with a circle in his hand, one says chuwg the other says circle, but it is the same circle. A Hebrew man and an English man both watch the same terrestrial body and encode the same information within different symbols. Chuwg of the earth is circle of the earth. You find the contexts in which circle can be used you find the context in which chwug can be used. Cirlce and chwug encoding the information for the same object and the context in which that object can be used, That object being a universally shared structure.

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.

Thats nice. You don't have to believe that the earth was created in 6 days to reject Darwinism. There are young earth and old earth creationists. The age of the earth is irrelevant when it comes to addressing universal law and the interpretation of text. Darwinism is not rejected on the grounds of the literalism but on the understanding and interpretation of how the system works, what has been passed down, and it is a battle between Darwinist interpretation and interpretation in accordance with law, not literalism. And the evidence is against the Darwinist interpretation.

The majority of the church accepted a round earth,

A round earth was stated in the bible. We don't "accept" a round earth, we knew that the earth was round, just like we know that bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is not a subject of random mutation and cannot build men. Thats why we reject it. We then use that information to confirm the interpretation of text.

the church as a whole without exception believed in geocentricism when Copernicus came along, and worldwide today the majority of the church accepts evolution.

What you didnt get is that it was Galileo's own peers who caused him to hold back his discoveries. You keep attempting to backslide into geocentricism, gently trying to weasel out of your flat earth assertions. It was a scientific battle between three theories in which the church was a part of as well. The persecution of scientists within the Darwinian ranks who speak out against the random mutational origin can be found even today when empirical evidence for creation is rejected with men holding back for fear of persecution in the form of job losses and a tarnished career.

You interpret Genesis literally,

I interpret Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted. The attempt is to make any wild assertion applied to text true because it has nothing to do with it. You then call it "the interpretation".

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.

Again yu do not own the interpretation. It is you going and get these atheist conjectures then bringing back t the church who are supposed to accept it against all evidence showing that the earth is round because of "the interpretation". You are doing exactly what Cosmas did. Against all evidence that random mutation cannot build a human because you have "the interpretation", and bacteria remaining bacteria is just christian creationism, the earth being round is just Greek religion. Return to the atheist what belongs to him. The interpretation has nothing to do with Darwinism, and it is confirmed with modern science.

Cosmas and the geocentrists interpreted their passages literally too, though you dismiss those passages as metaphor.

Metaphorical analysis does not belong to you. The interpretation of hebrews 9 or any other passage has nothing to do with a flat earth and there is an explicit reference to a round earth. Moreover, it is confirmed with scientific testing. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to with Darwinism. Darwinism itself being a direct insult to universal law. Rejected based on what is, and scientific evidence. More backsliding into geocentricism.

worldwide today the majority of the church accepts evolution.

Based on what. The sterility of random mutation, on bacteria remaining bacteria. All they have been shown is that adaptation occurs, bamboozled into believing that creationism does not entail adaptation, so they have to "accept" it. And in doing so, they also have to accept random mutation turning bacteria into men.It is somehow compulsory, dont ask why, just accept it or else you'll be going against science. We are not going against science nor the confirmed interpretation. How can bacteria turn into a man. This is a direct violation. Purely atheism.

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.

You are following in Cosmas' footsteps. You are the one going against the fact that scientific testing shows that random mutation cannot build a man from bacteria. We are not rejecting anything, nor do we have to "accept"what is given since it has never been in conflict with the interpretation. A scenario created purely by the Darwinist. Cosmas came with his wild idea. You come with yours. We have the tests showing that the earth is round and we remain round earthers.

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.

What we know of God's creation through science is that bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is an intelligent process, and that random mutaitons are not able to build a man. You are the one who will one day be used by the atheist, when the church once accepted random mutation, not realizing that this is the also a repeat of the geocentric and heliocentric battle, where in the presentation of three theories by Aristotle Ptolemy and Copernicus, Copernicus' theory is confirmed through the observation of repeated testing, by Galileo showing that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men. The church being swayed by a popularity vote, Darwin's church continuing to reject the evidence , ostracizing those who do not comply with their views, because of all the money already invested in teaching a geocentric system, continuing to milk the cow. Christianity is once again caught in the controversy, and likewise, it is the part where the church accepted Darwinism against evidence showing to the contrary, which will be highlighted.

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.

The interpretation does not belong to you. it is Cosmas which goes against scientific evidence, just like you are now. These wild interpretations, which go against the scientific evidence as Cosmas did, always seem to fall short.

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.

Interpretation does not belong to you. Cosmas went against the evidence of a round earth, parts of the church, as well as most of the "peers" in the scientific establishment sought to reject the theory proven through repeated testing, as you and the Darwinian establishment is doing right now. Cosmas went and got his interpretation, you went and got yours and bring it here.

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.

The interpretation does not belong to you. I also see that the Darwinian church's rejection of the empirically proven theory, and your adherence to an unscientific postulation is a recapitulation of your predecessors and their actions.

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?

The spiritual perspective is from universal law.

Where is your evidence Paul was even talking about universal law or perspective?

These are the basics chief. Through comparative referencing and exegesis. Genesis is talking about universal law, so are the teachings in Corinthians. The author is speaking about the resurrection and takes the time to clarify the fact that all flesh, flesh being the manifestation of spirit, a spirit in the physical and mental sphere, is not the same, and do not dwell on the same planes. He starts of saying "but God gives it a body he has determined and to each kind of seed he gives its own body." This is a simplification but the message is captured. "Kind" and "seed" are also referenced in Genesis, and is a reference to the general differentiation in the mental sphere, and its manifestation in the physical.

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,

A Hebrew word in English. This is a massive cop out. A hebrew man and an English man both look at a circle. One calls it a chwug the other circle. Somehow the the Hebrew man's cirlce is different from the English man's circle. Ive heard of sexism and racism, but never circlism.

Your problem is you are going to an English dictionary to find the meaning of a Hebrew word. Completely the wrong place.

I am going to the dictionary to find the meaning of English word which was translated from a hebrew word and the contexts in which a particular object, which both terms encode, can be used in.

Now if you don't want to ask dictionary.com where they got that definition that is up to you,

Lol. No im not going to ask the dictionary where they got their definition from.

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.

You are accusing the dictionary of quoting Isaiah. It is an example of the context in which circle can be used.

And yet Cosmas had more basis for calling geocentrism pagan than you have for calling evolution atheist

More attempts at backsliding. What happened to the episode with Cosmas and the flat earth? Where is the flat earth itself. I not only call Darwinism atheist, but show you the repeatable evidence showing that the world is round and that your attempt to convice the church otherwise because creationism is just Christianity is on par with the motives of Cosmas and is rejected on these same counts as well.

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.

If only you could relay that Darwinsim and its belivers that would be swell.

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,

As you are right now.

it was made worse by the church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo.

It was not only the parts of the church who rejected Galileo's empirical evidence just like Darwin's church rejects as well as parts of Christianity, but his own people. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo did not hold back because fear of persecution from Christianity, in fact there is documentation showing that he was readily accepted, but from redicule from his own colleagues in the scientific community, both affiliated and unaffiliated with the church.

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.

We have never rejected adaptation, nor is there any need to "accept" it as it is a part of creationism and the abilities of designed structures or any desinged structure to adapt. This is in fact evidence of creationism hijacked before we got to it, and now a game of finders keepers. It wasn't Cosmas' scientific evidence, Dobzhansky's evidence is not Dobzahnsky's but empirically proven science.

When the church accepted heliocentricism, it was because of mainstream science too, though geocentrists could still argue science to support their literal interpretations.

Based on scientific evidence. Not mainstream science but scientific evidence. Galileo was anything but mainstream. Its not a popularity contest. Finders keepers get fame. Ask the Darwinian church if it is ready to accept the results from tests done on the hypothesis that random mutation can build a man. Though geocentrists could still argue science to support their interpretation. What has been empirically proven is the science.

because mainstream science was the best understanding of how God had made the solar system.

Empirically proven science. You are the ones trying to make it look like we are vigorously fighting against random mutation turning bacteria into men every day. By so many random mutational tests showing an increase in information and fitness. We are not against the empirically proven. It is you who have shunned Galileo's work.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

The interpretation does not belong to you. We deal with the discoveries showing that bacteria remain bacteria, that DNA contains an adaptation feature, and that random mutation is sterile on a daily basis. Put down the bible, shut very creationist, and perform the tests, you get the same results. There are multiple theories and the scientific evidence confirms creationism.

You can't answer that the science supports you. That is a different issue.

I can use the situation to compare both parties and application. And it is Cosmas' rejection of empirical evidence showing that the earth is round, and claiming that it is Paganism, which is in compliance with you rejection of empirical evidence that random mutation cannot build a man, and that it is just creationism or literalism or what ever it is you guys say these days.

Darwin's science may have contradicted an interpretation of scripture,

Darwinism contradicts scripture and science. Science does not contradict scripture.

so did round earth, so did heliocentricism. Round earth may only have contradicted the views of a handful, heliocentricism contradicted the interpretation of the entire church.

The church had already acknowledged that the earth was round. There are also explicit references to it in the bible. Heliocentricism was a battle of scientific theories, was accepted by the church and Galileo in fact had more trouble with his own peers outside the church than scientists within the church itself. His empirical evidence, like our empirical evidence is also rejected by the Darwinian church.

Even if evolution, round earth or heliocentrism contradict what people in the church think,

If youre going to group theories where scientific evidence is provided, you may want to remove Darwinism and replace it with what is in compliance scientific evidence, thus fulfilling the properties of the group itself. Darwinism aplty belongs in the flat earth bracket with Cosmas attempting to imbue it on the church in opposition of what is empirically proven, a direct representation of you.

science is simply looking at the science.

Bingo

It is then up to the church how it deals with the science.

Its cool, no problems. Don't know how the Darwinian persuasion deals with it though.

Contradicting people's interpretation of scripture does not make science pagan or atheist

Take note

It is simply good science or bad, and round earth, heliocentrism and evolution

More grouping. Pick the odd one out.

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

This was already given. It is neither science nor theistic. A violation of both.

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.

There is only adaptation. If you can convince people that designed structures should not be able to adapt, then you can convince them that adaptation is the opposite of design, acquaint adaptation with random chance, then claim that every instance of adaptation is evidence that random mutation can turn bacteria into a man. But what do tests indicate. This was already given.

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

Literalism is literal. The attempt is to convince people that you possess "the interpretation" then once this has been established, you can then find a metaphor in the bible then ask why don't you take it literally. Then once they say that they don't and interpret it, you then come forward with "the interpretation" for Genesis, which you can then claim is correct as there is only the literal and there is Darwinism. If another metaphorical basis was established in another section of the bible, the individual then has no choice but to be a Darwinist or interpret that other section literally. Its another infiltration device, another hijacking , like you hijack science, then people now have no choice but are confined to the illusion of either science or religion. A hijacking of adaptation, where people now have no choice but "no adaptation" or "Darwinism". Thats all you guys do. This is where the line holds.

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?

Exactly. You know, nice try, but you are not there yet. The interpretation does not belong to you.

Metaphors and similes are ok for creationists to use to explain heliocentric and flat earth passages, but they mustn't be used on creationism?

The interpretation is not Darwinism. The interpretation does not belong to you.

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

Adaptation is not Darwinism.

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.

Adaptation is the only evidence for Darwinism. The rest is "whats stopping it". The mechanism for adaptation is not even correct in Darwinism, so adaptation is not evidence for Darwinism as it stands.

You know flat earthers and geocentrists claim the evidence is a massive conspiracy too.

Actually with the empirical evidence of the earth being round, likewise, that random mutation is sterile, its is the Darwinist claim that creationism is not proven, that it is just "literalism", which more aptly fits the parallel.

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,

And it is how tests showing the sterility of random mutation, and that adaptation is designed feature replaced random mutational origin. It is how genetic limits replaced indefinite adaptation. And so forth.

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.

Naturally when you have you own definition for science, you will have you own definition for mainstream science. When I reject Darwinism I am rejecting Darwinism, not scientific evidence. The plan to bind yourself to science was so that in arguments such as these, you would get a free ride on the "mainstream" wind. The same type of people who rejected heliocentrism with the evidence, the same type of people who rejected round earth with the evidence, is the same type of people who reject the scientific evidence pertaining to adaptation. Put Cosmas' assertion of a flat earth up with your assertion of Darwinism, against the evidence of a round earth and that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men, you get a situational match.

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.

Lacaonicstudent asks alot of things. When he is given the evidence, he doenst like it because it is "creationist website". What is supposed to happen now is that I am supposed to go find another website (which I can) and in doing so fulfills the basis of ridicule that a creationist scientist is sub par to all the other scientists. He will look at it on the page. Whether or not he wants to read it is through his own. Lastly Galileo wasn't "mainstream" but he had the evidence, and thats what counts, and you cannot oppose Galileo because you are "mainstream", or the evidence provided.

Or contradicted by the scientific evidence, like flat earth, geocentrism and creationism.

bacteria remaining bacteria, adaptation being governed by DNA, the sterility of random mutation, loss in fitness, genetic limits, all scientifically evidenced has never contradicted creationism. But I can tell you what it contradicts.

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.

Cosmas attempted to go against scientific evidence as you are doing at the present moment. The church rejected his claim. Cosmas thought his claim was science as Darwinists think their claims are science.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry for the delay but this has got ridiculously long, I think if you are not going to deal with my points we might as well leave it at this.

The sematic boundaries or the intent which is encoded within a word is transferred to another language carrying the information. It is the information within a symbol, letters, words and sentences being the carrier of choice, which determines what it is encoded within another language.

Who told you that? The use of a word in a particular text is often much narrower than the semantic boundary of that word, there can be a whole lot more senses to a word than the one the speaker is using. Translation involves taking the particular sense the speaker is using the word in, and finding a word in the second language that has that sense in that context. The semantic boundaries of the word in the second language can also be much broader than its particular use in that context. And there is no reason to think the semantic boundaries of the first word are the same as the word in the second language, though they will overlap for that particular meaning.

Rev 19:8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure"-- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
The word bright is lampros, which has a range of meaning according to Strongs:

G2986 λαμπρός lampros; radiant; by analogy limpid; figuratively magnificent or sumptuous (in appearance): - bright, clear, gay, goodly, gorgeous, white.
​

We find it in the AV in James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool. Can you spot which word is the translation of lampros? What do you think dictionary.com gives as some of the meanings of the word there? The semantic boundaries of a word in Hebrew of Greek is not the same as the semantic boundaries of every word it can be translated by in English

You cannot transfer chwug to dog, because the information within chuwg is not in compliance with the information with Dog.

Lets play
I did a google search for "spot is a dog" and got 699,000 hits including on the first page, The Oxford Handbook of Presocratice Philosophy, and a website on Semantics.
According to dictionary.com
Spot 1. a rounded mark or stain
Rounded 1. reduced to simple curves; made round.
Round. 16.any round shape, as a circle, ring or sphere.
And of course and Hebrew dictionary will tell you chuwg is Hebrew for circle.

A Hebrew man with a circle in his hand and an English man with a circle in his hand, one says chuwg the other says circle, but it is the same circle. A Hebrew man and an English man both watch the same terrestrial body and encode the same information within different symbols. Chuwg of the earth is circle of the earth. You find the contexts in which circle can be used you find the context in which chwug can be used. Cirlce and chwug encoding the information for the same object and the context in which that object can be used, That object being a universally shared structure.

Yup. In Hebrew and English the word the word chuwg and circle both refer to a circle. However in English there is also the sloppy use of circle where people think circle of the earth in the bible means an orb. Just because English has that usage, doesn't mean it has that meaning in Hebrew.

Thats nice. You don't have to believe that the earth was created in 6 days to reject Darwinism. There are young earth and old earth creationists. The age of the earth is irrelevant when it comes to addressing universal law and the interpretation of text.

Of course the age it is relevant. If the earth was created in six days a few thousand years ago, then there wasn't time for life to evolve. If Cosmas interpreted the earth as young, any science that spoke of life evolving over billions of years before man would have contradicted his interpretation of scripture.

Darwinism is not rejected on the grounds of the literalism

Sure it is. Creationists YEC and OEC all interpret God forming man and animals from the dust of the ground literally.

but on the understanding and interpretation of how the system works, what has been passed down, and it is a battle between Darwinist interpretation and interpretation in accordance with law, not literalism. And the evidence is against the Darwinist interpretation.

'the system'?

A round earth was stated in the bible. We don't "accept" a round earth, we knew that the earth was round, just like we know that bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is not a subject of random mutation and cannot build men. Thats why we reject it. We then use that information to confirm the interpretation of text.

The bible says the earth is circular not round. I don't know about you, but I have never seen the earth from far enough to recognise its shape as spherical. No one did before the space program. I accept the earth as round because that is the best scientific evidence, the same as the church did.

You are not really dealing with my point are you, just taking meaningless pot shots.

What you didnt get is that it was Galileo's own peers who caused him to hold back his discoveries. You keep attempting to backslide into geocentricism, gently trying to weasel out of your flat earth assertions. It was a scientific battle between three theories in which the church was a part of as well. The persecution of scientists within the Darwinian ranks who speak out against the random mutational origin can be found even today when empirical evidence for creation is rejected with men holding back for fear of persecution in the form of job losses and a tarnished career.

What don't I get? I know about the scientific debates over heliocentrism. Science always debates new theories. How am I trying to
backslide into geocentrism? That makes no sense and you have made no attempt to address my point

You interpret Genesis literally,

I interpret Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted. The attempt is to make any wild assertion applied to text true because it has nothing to do with it. You then call it "the interpretation".

Who says that you interpret it how it is supposed to be interpreted?

Interesting that you moved my quote out of its place beside my reference to Cosmas and the geocentrists interpreting scripture literally too. I suppose you don't want to face the similarity with your literalist predecessors.

Again yu do not own the interpretation.

This is funny coming from someone who has just claimed "I interpret Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted."

It is you going and get these atheist conjectures then bringing back t the church who are supposed to accept it against all evidence showing that the earth is round because of "the interpretation". You are doing exactly what Cosmas did. Against all evidence that random mutation cannot build a human because you have "the interpretation", and bacteria remaining bacteria is just christian creationism, the earth being round is just Greek religion. Return to the atheist what belongs to him. The interpretation has nothing to do with Darwinism, and it is confirmed with modern science.
Metaphorical analysis does not belong to you. The interpretation of hebrews 9 or any other passage has nothing to do with a flat earth and there is an explicit reference to a round earth. Moreover, it is confirmed with scientific testing. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to with Darwinism. Darwinism itself being a direct insult to universal law. Rejected based on what is, and scientific evidence. More backsliding into geocentricism.

Ok that made no sense. But I would like to pick up a phrase you threw in there.

"Return to the atheist what belongs to him."

Great slogan, a bit 'render unto Caesar' but even so.

What exactly is it you want me to 'return to the atheist'? Evolution isn't his. Darwin wasn't an atheist, and scientists working on evolution since then have been from every religious background or none. Cosmas was a Christian, so like it or not his rejection of science and literal flat earth interpretations belong to the church, not atheists. So does the church's much wiser acceptance that the earth was round and rejection of Cosmas's literalism. So does the theological basis on which the church rejected cosmas's literalism and held onto good science. Here is how Aquinas said it:

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theological (1273).
​

That belongs to the church. So does the church's millennium and a half of of interpreting geocentric passage literally. Also belonging to the church are the scientists who showed geocentrism is wrong, the disgraceful treatment of Galileo by the inquisition, and the church's eventual acceptance of heliocentrism and reinterpretation of the passages they thought said the sun went round the earth. All that, good and bad, belongs to the church. It is our heritage.

The only thing I can see that may belong to atheists is the 'flat earth myth' of Washington Irving and A.D. White's "Warfare Between Science and Theology", which you kept trying to bring up. Perhaps you should give it back to them.

worldwide today the majority of the church accepts evolution.

Based on what. The sterility of random mutation, on bacteria remaining bacteria. All they have been shown is that adaptation occurs, bamboozled into believing that creationism does not entail adaptation, so they have to "accept" it. And in doing so, they also have to accept random mutation turning bacteria into men.It is somehow compulsory, dont ask why, just accept it or else you'll be going against science. We are not going against science nor the confirmed interpretation. How can bacteria turn into a man. This is a direct violation.

Your argument against evolution could not be more irrelevant to my point when I was comparing the numbers in the church who accepted a round earth in Cosmas's time, geocentrism in Copernicus's day and evolution today. Disagreeing with them doesn't make the slightest difference to the numbers in the church who held these views.

Purely atheism.

Some evidence for this claim would be nice.

You are following in Cosmas' footsteps. You are the one going against the fact that scientific testing shows that random mutation cannot build a man from bacteria. We are not rejecting anything, nor do we have to "accept"what is given since it has never been in conflict with the interpretation. A scenario created purely by the Darwinist. Cosmas came with his wild idea. You come with yours. We have the tests showing that the earth is round and we remain round earthers.

Well so far you haven't been able to answer one of the parallels I have shown between Creationism and flat earth or geocentrism. All you can do is claim no your science is right and claim that I am like Cosmas instead. But you can't seem to back that up either, other than claiming like Cosmas did, that you are right.

...nor do we have to "accept"what is given since it has never been in conflict with the interpretation. A scenario created purely by the Darwinist.

Actually it is a scenario described by Augustine and Aquinas.

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.

What we know of God's creation through science is that bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is an intelligent process, and that random mutaitons are not able to build a man. You are the one who will one day be used by the atheist, when the church once accepted random mutation, not realizing that this is the also a repeat of the geocentric and heliocentric battle, where in the presentation of three theories by Aristotle Ptolemy and Copernicus, Copernicus' theory is confirmed through the observation of repeated testing, by Galileo showing that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men. The church being swayed by a popularity vote, Darwin's church continuing to reject the evidence , ostracizing those who do not comply with their views, because of all the money already invested in teaching a geocentric system, continuing to milk the cow. Christianity is once again caught in the controversy, and likewise, it is the part where the church accepted Darwinism against evidence showing to the contrary, which will be highlighted.

Galileo showed random mutations cannot turn bacteria into men???

Anyway no attempt to deal with my point. The only ones who brought the church into disrepute were the literalists who claimed mainstream science was wrong. What makes you think the Christians who follow, not the example of Cosmas and the geocentrists, but the advice of Augustine and Aquinas, of the scholars and theologians who accepted mainstream round earth science, and who reinterpreted scripture when the scientific mainstream accepted the earth went round the sun, are going to be the ones who got it wrong this time? Anti science literalism has never got it right. It is anti science literalism that has provided the ammunition for atheists, both in the past and still providing ammunition to them today. You claim if we don't follow you we will be used by atheists? Sorry I have seen your track record.

The interpretation does not belong to you.

No, apparently you are the one has cornered the market in interpreting Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted.

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.

it is Cosmas which goes against scientific evidence, just like you are now. These wild interpretations, which go against the scientific evidence as Cosmas did, always seem to fall short.

Still haven't dealt with the fact it is literalist who kept getting it wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

continued...

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.

Interpretation does not belong to you. Cosmas went against the evidence of a round earth, parts of the church, as well as most of the "peers" in the scientific establishment sought to reject the theory proven through repeated testing, as you and the Darwinian establishment is doing right now. Cosmas went and got his interpretation, you went and got yours and bring it here.

No attempt to deal with my point. You have confirmed one part though, when you said "I interpret Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted."

The interpretation does not belong to you.

No it obviously belongs to you

I also see that the Darwinian church's rejection of the empirically proven theory, and your adherence to an unscientific postulation is a recapitulation of your predecessors and their actions.

..and make no attempt to address my point. I think we can take it now that you are completely unable to answer the fact that you predecessors who fought against mainstream science were all literalists like you.

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?

The spiritual perspective is from universal law.

So no answer then.

These are the basics chief. Through comparative referencing and exegesis. Genesis is talking about universal law, so are the teachings in Corinthians. The author is speaking about the resurrection and takes the time to clarify the fact that all flesh, flesh being the manifestation of spirit, a spirit in the physical and mental sphere, is not the same, and do not dwell on the same planes. He starts of saying "but God gives it a body he has determined and to each kind of seed he gives its own body." This is a simplification but the message is captured. "Kind" and "seed" are also referenced in Genesis, and is a reference to the general differentiation in the mental sphere, and its manifestation in the physical.

You have this vague idea Genesis and Corinthians about 'universal law'. So everything in Corinthians must be a universal law? Including warnings about yeast? But you think the sun and stars differ in glory isn't a universal law, you said it was relative. How do you know different kinds of flesh is universal law, while the glory of sun moon and stars isn't? Genesis after all describes the creation of both. And what do you mean about flesh being a manifestation of spirit? Is that something you got from the Gospel of Thomas in your sig?

A Hebrew word in English. This is a massive cop out. A hebrew man and an English man both look at a circle. One calls it a chwug the other circle. Somehow the the Hebrew man's cirlce is different from the English man's circle. Ive heard of sexism and racism, but never circlism.

What if the English man's circle mean his group of friend? If you what circlism is check out this link. Anyway you haven't answered my question, why would an English dictionary have to change when we are discussing the meaning of a Hebrew word?

I am going to the dictionary to find the meaning of English word which was translated from a hebrew word and the contexts in which a particular object, which both terms encode, can be used in.

What makes you think the range of meanings of the English word is the same as the Hebrew word it was translated from? Of course if you look at the main meaning of the word in English, you would be ok, though you already knew what the main meaning of circle was, instead you had to run all the way down almost to the end of the list, to number 16 to get the obscure meaning and avoid what Isaiah was saying.

Lol. No im not going to ask the dictionary where they got their definition from.

Fine. It was your suggestion.

You are accusing the dictionary of quoting Isaiah. It is an example of the context in which circle can be used.

If you don't think the phrase 'circle of the earth' comes from the bible, where do you think it came from? The AV used the phrase in 1611, before that the Geneva bible used it in Geneva 1587. You know any earlier uses of the phrase if you want to claim it doesn't come form the bible? Quoting Isaiah is hardly an accusation, quoting people getting Isaiah wrong isn't an accusation either, the diction is simply recording a popular misunderstanding. It's not the dictionary's job to interpret the bible, just to show how people use words, though quoting a misinterpretation was a bit sloppy.

And yet Cosmas had more basis for calling geocentrism pagan than you have for calling evolution atheist

More attempts at backsliding. What happened to the episode with Cosmas and the flat earth? Where is the flat earth itself. I not only call Darwinism atheist, but show you the repeatable evidence showing that the world is round and that your attempt to convice the church otherwise because creationism is just Christianity is on par with the motives of Cosmas and is rejected on these same counts as well.

What? Maybe I'm tired but that just seemed a blur of disconnected misrepresentations and stating the obvious. I realise you call evolution atheist. What we haven't seen is any evidence to back up the claim. Nor have you dealt with my point that Cosmas had more basis for calling geocentrism pagan than you have for calling evolution atheist.

If only you could relay that Darwinsim and its belivers that would be swell.

???

As you are right now.

"No, you are", is not an answer.

It was not only the parts of the church who rejected Galileo's empirical evidence just like Darwin's church rejects as well as parts of Christianity, but his own people. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo did not hold back because fear of persecution from Christianity, in fact there is documentation showing that he was readily accepted, but from redicule from his own colleagues in the scientific community, both affiliated and unaffiliated with the church.

Maybe true, I don't know, but the scandal for the church with Galileo was his trial by the Inquisition.

We have never rejected adaptation, nor is there any need to "accept" it as it is a part of creationism and the abilities of designed structures or any desinged structure to adapt. This is in fact

evidence of creationism hijacked before we got to it, and now a game of finders keepers. It wasn't Cosmas' scientific evidence, Dobzhansky's evidence is not Dobzahnsky's but empirically proven science.

Wow. In other word Creationism borrows their ideas from Darwin.

Based on scientific evidence. Not mainstream science but scientific evidence. Galileo was anything but mainstream. Its not a popularity contest. Finders keepers get fame. Ask the Darwinian church if it is ready to accept the results from tests done on the hypothesis that random mutation can build a man. Though geocentrists could still argue science to support their interpretation. What has been empirically proven is the science.

Of course evolution was accepted by mainstream science on the basis of testing the hypothesis. But as I said bring this up in the thread you promised laconicstudent.

Empirically proven science. You are the ones trying to make it look like we are vigorously fighting against random mutation turning bacteria into men every day. By so many random mutational tests showing an increase in information and fitness. We are not against the empirically proven. It is you who have shunned Galileo's work.

You are still disagreeing with mainstream science just like flatearthers and geocentrists.

The interpretation does not belong to you.

Who says?

1Thess 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. The church has tested literalists claiming mainstream science has got it wrong, the literalists have been wrong each time and brought the gospel into disrepute every time they tried. Why should we believe you this time? Anti science literalism has been tested and found wanting every time.

We deal with the discoveries showing that bacteria remain bacteria, that DNA contains an adaptation feature, and that random mutation is sterile on a daily basis. Put down the bible, shut very creationist, and perform the tests, you get the same results. There are multiple theories and the scientific evidence confirms creationism.

You are jumping arguments again. You can't answer the point that the church has rightly rejected literalist preaching against the scientific mainstream by claiming you got it right this time. Flat earthers and geocentrists thought the evidence supported them too. The issue is the church should not believe you, they should reject you claims the way they rejected Cosmas, and much too slowly rejected geocentrism. If Creationist think their evidence contradicts evolution, then they need to produce arguments good enough to convince the scientific mainstream, not just other creationists. What you need to show here, is why the church was right to accept the mainstream science of round earth and heliocentrism and reject the biblical literalism and scientific arguments of flat earthers and geocentrists, but we should accept literalists and their arguments against mainstream science this time?

You can't answer that the science supports you. That is a different issue.

I can use the situation to compare both parties and application. And it is Cosmas' rejection of empirical evidence showing that the earth is round, and claiming that it is Paganism, which is in compliance with you rejection of empirical evidence that random mutation cannot build a man, and that it is just creationism or literalism or what ever it is you guys say these days.

That is hopping across to yet another argument.

Darwinism contradicts scripture and science. Science does not contradict scripture.

No just certain interpretations of scripture such as flat earth, geocentrism, creationism.

The church had already acknowledged that the earth was round. There are also explicit references to it in the bible. Heliocentricism was a battle of scientific theories, was accepted by the church and Galileo in fact had more trouble with his own peers outside the church than scientists within the church itself. His empirical evidence, like our empirical evidence is also rejected by the Darwinian church.

It doesn't matter when the church accepted a round earth, the point is there were Christians whose literal interpretations were contradicted by it. Worth pointing out, all the original 'Fundamentalist', the writer of The Fundamentals' were old earth creationists, and some were open to the God using evolution. Modern YEC has brought in a young earth after the church accepted the earth was old. The issue is how the church should deal with literalist claims that science is wrong. It doesn't make any difference if the literalist opposing mainstream science sees himself battling against a centuries old compromise, a new deception facing the church, or one the church has been split over for a century and a half?

Heliocentrism was a battle of scientific theories, as you say. But it was also a battle the churches got involved in because up until then Christians' literal interpretation of scripture said the sun went round the earth. And incidentally, I would say Galileo had more problems from people inside the church, you know the inquisition, nobody expects them.

Even if evolution, round earth or heliocentrism contradict what people in the church think,

If youre going to group theories where scientific evidence is provided, you may want to remove Darwinism and replace it with what is in compliance scientific evidence, thus fulfilling the properties of the group itself. Darwinism aplty belongs in the flat earth bracket with Cosmas attempting to imbue it on the church in opposition of what is empirically proven, a direct representation of you.

No it fits perfectly, you have just demonstrated another similarity. Mainstream science accepted evolution, round earth and heliocentrism because of evidence, while literalists whose interpretation are contradicted by the science claim the evidence supports them.

Its cool, no problems. Don't know how the Darwinian persuasion deals with it though.

By following the evidence same as round earthers and heliocentrists did.

More grouping. Pick the odd one out.

Point out some differnce other than you think the evidence support you. Cosmas and geocentrists thought the evidence supported them too.

OK so far you have just quibbled about insignificant details like the time line, or talked about there being a scientific about heliocentrism, as if evolution was never a battle between scientifics. But you have completely failed to deal with all the parallels between flat earth, heliocentrism and evolution. How they all contradicted some peoples literal interpretation of scripture and how the church.

 

[Assyrian]

continued again...

This was already given. It is neither science nor theistic. A violation of both.

Nope, sorry, no one is claiming evolution is theistic, you seem to completely misunderstand what TE is. But even if you had a basis for your claims, they would still not mean evolution was atheist.

There is only adaptation. If you can convince people that designed structures should not be able to adapt, then you can convince them that adaptation is the opposite of design, acquaint adaptation with random chance, then claim that every instance of adaptation is evidence that random mutation can turn bacteria into a man. But what do tests indicate. This was already given.

That just says you don't accept the evidence for evolution, not as you claim, that science was hijacked

Literalism is literal.

Of course it is. It is a literal interpretation.

The attempt is to convince people that you possess "the interpretation"

No I don't. What I am pointing out is that there can be a number of different interpretations, some literal, some metaphorical, some looking at how God is speaking to people in the passage. Even with literalism they can be a number of literal interpretations as we can from Young Earth Creationists and many Old Earth Creationists both giving literal interpretation of Genesis.

then once this has been established, you can then find a metaphor in the bible then ask why don't you take it literally. Then once they say that they don't and interpret it,

It certainly is a question well worth asking about creationism, one of many questions they struggle with.

you then come forward with "the interpretation" for Genesis, which you can then claim is correct as there is only the literal and there is Darwinism.

You are confusing two different things here, bible interpretation and science. I never claimed to have the interpretation of Genesis, though I am happy to discuss the different ways of interpreting the Creation accounts. What I am saying instead, is not that my interpretation is right, but that the literal interpretation of Genesis has been shown to be wrong, just as Cosmas's literal interpretation was, and the literal interpretation of the geocentrism passages.

If another metaphorical basis was established in another section of the bible, the individual then has no choice but to be a Darwinist or interpret that other section literally. Its another infiltration device, another hijacking , like you hijack science, then people now have no choice but are confined to the illusion of either science or religion. A hijacking of adaptation, where people now have no choice but "no adaptation" or "Darwinism". Thats all you guys do.

No idea what you are trying to say here. It sound like a caricature of the arguments only leaving out most of the steps. Metaphors in the bible simply mean it isn't all literal. The problem is people holding onto a literal interpretation when science has shown it is wrong, whether flat earth literalism, geocentrism or creationism. Metaphors in other parts of the bible doesn't mean you accept evolution heliocentrism or round earth. It simply reminds you there are other ways to interpret scripture when science has shown your old literal interpretation is wrong.

This is where the line holds.

Cosmas is going to be so disappointed, he thought the line should hold at flat earth. The geocentrists though if the line didn't hold at the sun going round the earth then scripture would be emptied of all its authority.

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?

Exactly. You know, nice try, but you are not there yet.

Wow, great of you to admit your approach to interpretation and science has double standards. I have never understood how creationists basis pick and choose between sciences. Some sciences they decide are true and insist vehemently, the scriptures that seems to contradict these sciences must be metaphorical. With other sciences that contradict literal interpretations of scripture, they reject the science, look for counter arguments, insisting just as vehemently on the literal interpretation. How do they decide which science to accept and which passages to take literally? It is arbitrary and complete double standards.

The interpretation does not belong to you.

You mean it just belongs to you? I would have thought interpreting scripture was a right that belongs to every child of God. However we don't have the right to our own reality. Which is how Cosmas, the geocentrists and the creationists got it so wrong.

Metaphors and similes are ok for creationists to use to explain heliocentric and flat earth passages, but they mustn't be used on creationism?

The interpretation is not Darwinism. The interpretation does not belong to you.

No answer then.

Adaptation is not Darwinism.

It is part of evolution though.

Adaptation is the only evidence for Darwinism. The rest is "whats stopping it". The mechanism for adaptation is not even correct in Darwinism, so adaptation is not evidence for Darwinism as it stands

A whole jumble of mixed up claims and ideas here. I suggest you bring them up if your ever get around to starting your evidence thread for laconicstudent. what you need to deal with is that creationism is in conflict with mainstream science, just like geocentrists and flat earthers.

You know flat earthers and geocentrists claim the evidence is a massive conspiracy too.

Actually with the empirical evidence of the earth being round, likewise, that random mutation is sterile, its is the Darwinist claim that creationism is not proven, that it is just "literalism", which more aptly fits the parallel.

So, just your standard 'no, we're right claim', no attempt to deal with the fact flat earthers and geocentrists claimed conspiracy like you do.

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,

And it is how tests showing the sterility of random mutation, and that adaptation is designed feature replaced random mutational origin. It is how genetic limits replaced indefinite adaptation. And so forth.

You miss out on the one really big difference, That relativity, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang, all managed to convince the scientific mainstream that their new theory was a much better explanation of the evidence. It is this, being able to produce arguments that overturn the view of mainstream, that set Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang apart from fringe science and quackery. And it is why the church has always been wise in the past to follow mainstream science.

So there it is. If creation science can come up with scientific arguments that will convince mainstream science evolution is wrong, then the church should accept creationism. Until such time, the church needs to reject creationism as it has flat earth and geocentrism.

Naturally when you have you own definition for science, you will have you own definition for mainstream science. When I reject Darwinism I am rejecting Darwinism, not scientific evidence. The plan to bind yourself to science was so that in arguments such as these, you would get a free ride on the "mainstream" wind. The same type of people who rejected heliocentrism with the evidence, the same type of people who rejected round earth with the evidence, is the same type of people who reject the scientific evidence pertaining to adaptation. Put Cosmas' assertion of a flat earth up with your assertion of Darwinism, against the evidence of a round earth and that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men, you get a situational match.

Have you ever considered that when you to wriggle out of the blindingly obvious fact that evolution is mainstream science, that you destroy any credibility in your claims about the scientific evidence?

Lacaonicstudent asks alot of things. When he is given the evidence, he doenst like it because it is "creationist website". What is supposed to happen now is that I am supposed to go find another website (which I can) and in doing so fulfills the basis of ridicule that a creationist scientist is sub par to all the other scientists. He will look at it on the page. Whether or not he wants to read it is through his own.

Take that up with laconicstudent when you start that thread for him.

Lastly Galileo wasn't "mainstream" but he had the evidence, and thats what counts, and you cannot oppose Galileo because you are "mainstream", or the evidence provided.

Ok that last bit made no sense, but the first part was correct, though it did not go far enough. Galileo wasn't mainstream as you say, part of the problem he had was his arguments for heliocentrism weren't actually that great, but as time went on the evidence mounted up. But it wasn't just having evidence that made Galileo mainstream, it was the fact that all the universities and scientists accepted were convinced by the evidence that meant heliocentrism became part of the mainstream. That is what Creationism need to do too. but it needs evidence that will convince the mainstream first. In the meantime as I said, you don't get to decide what is mainstream science.

bacteria remaining bacteria, adaptation being governed by DNA, the sterility of random mutation, loss in fitness, genetic limits, all scientifically evidenced has never contradicted creationism. But I can tell you what it contradicts.

You are convinced by this argument, but no matter how many time you repeat it to me, mainstream isn't convinced. That is what makes creationism a vocal but fringe view that the church need to reject just like it rejects flat earth and geocentrism.

Cosmas attempted to go against scientific evidence as you are doing at the present moment. The church rejected his claim. Cosmas thought his claim was science as Darwinists think their claims are science.

Except of course that mainstream science accepts evolution but rejected Cosmas's flat earth. As I said there is no difference between you and Cosmas, you both interpret scripture literally (just different passages) you are both utterly convinced the scientific evidence supports you view, you both call mainstream science names, 'pagan and 'atheist', and you both argue against mainstream science on the basis of your literal interpretation and what you think are convincing scientific arguments.

 

[Greg1234]

Who told you that? The use of a word in a particular text is often much narrower than the semantic boundary of that word, there can be a whole lot more senses to a word than the one the speaker is using.

(Pardon the bold. Something got messed up)The context. This was already stated.

Translation involves taking the particular sense the speaker is using the word in, and finding a word in the second language that has that sense in that context.

The information contained within the word is carried over and encoded within another word. The contexts are a part of the information.

The semantic boundaries of the word in the second language can also be much broader than its particular use in that context.

The boundaries of the information contained within a given word is carried over and when one is breached or the need arises for there to be an indication of multiple meanings, indicated by the use of multiple words. For example, if chwug codes for what we call a circle and contains the information for a "dog", and peas, then it is translated as chuwg: circle, dog, peas. The context for each is carried over as well. The translation tells us that the information in chuwg is the information in circle.

And there is no reason to think the semantic boundaries of the first word are the same as the word in the second language, though they will overlap for that particular meaning.

Overlapping is irrelavant. If they overlap, it will be indicated, and the words indicated carry the information and naturally the contexts of the word.

Rev 19:8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure"-- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
The word bright is lampros, which has a range of meaning according to Strongs:

G2986 λαμπρός lampros; radiant; by analogy limpid; figuratively magnificent or sumptuous (in appearance): - bright, clear, gay, goodly, gorgeous, white.

And they are indicated.

We find it in the AV in James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool. Can you spot which word is the translation of lampros? What do you think dictionary.com gives as some of the meanings of the word there?

gay
   /geɪ/ Show Spelled [gey] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb

2.bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
But thats not the point. There is a heavy detraction. We are not wondering which English word is used to indicate the information in chuwg and we are not playing "spot the word" in identifying the English word used to convey the information used in the original Hebrew word. We already have that in both cases. The fact is the word gay is used and it contains the information and the given context used in lampros. They are not saying that his clothes is a homosexual, neither in Hebrew nor in English, and if you look up gay and the context it is used in you will find the appropriate. Same thing for Chwug.

The semantic boundaries of a word in Hebrew of Greek is not the same as the semantic boundaries of every word it can be translated by in English

A circle in England does not become any less circular when you fly it to Greece. The earth in England is not any less "earthy" in Greece. The same shape encoded in differnt languages, regarding the same terrestrial body, encoded in difernt languages, is the same inforamtion. The context in which that same information can be used is as universal, as the circle and the earth.

Lets play
I did a google search for "spot is a dog" and got 699,000 hits including on the first page, The Oxford Handbook of Presocratice Philosophy, and a website on Semantics.
According to dictionary.com
Spot 1. a rounded mark or stain
Rounded 1. reduced to simple curves; made round.
Round. 16.any round shape, as a circle, ring or sphere.
And of course and Hebrew dictionary will tell you chuwg is Hebrew for circle.

Again, you jumped from spot to rounded. Which is alright. But you paid no attention to the point at hand. Which is the 40+ ways in which spot can be used.

Yup. In Hebrew and English the word the word chuwg and circle both refer to a circle. However in English there is also the sloppy use of circle where people think circle of the earth in the bible means an orb. Just because English has that usage, doesn't mean it has that meaning in Hebrew.

Lol. Its not sloppy. And yes, a Hebrew circle is an English circle.

Of course the age it is relevant. If the earth was created in six days a few thousand years ago, then there wasn't time for life to evolve.

Again you miss the point. The earth could be 506 thousand gabagillion years, and bacteria would not turn into men. This has nothing to do with the age of the earth and thats what you guys don't seem to understand. It is not rejected on the basis of the age of the earth, but on the interpretation of text, and confirmed by science.

If Cosmas interpreted the earth as young, any science that spoke of life evolving over billions of years before man would have contradicted his interpretation of scripture.

It doesnt matter what Cosmas thought the earth was, bacteria will remain bacteria. All testing confirms this.

Sure it is. Creationists YEC and OEC all interpret God forming man and animals from the dust of the ground literally.

Man was created as man. The manifestation of mind into matter is the path of interpretation.

The bible says the earth is circular not round.

Dictionary.com
Circle, noun
16. A sphere or orb; circle of the earth

Who says that you interpret it how it is supposed to be interpreted?

Taking into account universal law. This is the basis. The assertion of bacteria turning into men through random mutations is no different in application than saying that a man can turn into a television set.

Interesting that you moved my quote out of its place beside my reference to Cosmas and the geocentrists interpreting scripture literally too. I suppose you don't want to face the similarity with your literalist predecessors.

The interpretation does not belong to you. Further, the similarity between flat earth assertions despite the fact that tests show the earth is round and Darwinist assertions despite the fact that tests indicate bacteria cannot turn into men speaks for itself and need not be outlined for you to see it.

This is funny coming from someone who has just claimed "I interpret Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, with first and foremost, the basis of universal law. There is the interpretation from there, which has nothing to do with Darwinism. And science confirms it.

What exactly is it you want me to 'return to the atheist'?

Darwinism is purely atheism.

Evolution isn't his. Darwin wasn't an atheist,

All Darwin observed was adaptation. His assertions of bacteria turining into men, despite the fact that scientific evidence tells us otherwise is Cosmascism.

and scientists working on evolution since then have been from every religious background or none.

Seizing the fact that designed structures have the ability to adapt and claiming that it is yours does not negate the fact that it is not, and will be regarded as such. There were scientists in the church as well as outside who advocated geocentricism and flat earth as well. This is irrelevant.

Cosmas was a Christian, so like it or not his rejection of science and literal flat earth interpretations belong to the church, not atheists.

Cosmas' rejection of observable evidence and testable evidence that the earth is round is in line with your rejection that random mutaiton cannot build a man, then attempting to imbue that upon the church.

So does the church's much wiser acceptance that the earth was round and rejection of Cosmas's literalism.

The interpretation does not belong to you. As with the church's much wiser acceptance that bacteria cannot turn into men as tests indicate and rejection of Cosmas' interpretation.

So does the theological basis on which the church rejected cosmas's literalism and held onto good science.

The interpretation does not belong to you. The church rejected Cosmas on the grounds of scientific evidence. As we are doing the same to you.

So does the church's millennium and a half of of interpreting geocentric passage literally.

The interpretation does not belong to you. The entire scientific community, adhered to a geocentitric would view. Not just those of the church. And when all three theories are put to the test, Galileo confirms Conpernicus'. The fact that man was created as man is also confirmed with testing.

Also belonging to the church are the scientists who showed geocentrism is wrong, the disgraceful treatment of Galileo by the inquisition, and the church's eventual acceptance of heliocentrism and reinterpretation of the passages they thought said the sun went round the earth. All that, good and bad, belongs to the church.

The disgraceful treatment of the Galileo by his own peers. By the general scientific community first and foremost, and likewise the those within the church. As with the persecution of those poor souls who have been persecuted in light of the fact that random mutation is not a viable means of building a human.

Your argument against evolution could not be more irrelevant to my point

Scientific evidence, the common denominator.

 

[Greg1234]

Your argument against evolution could not be more irrelevant to my point

Scientific evidence, the common denominator.

when I was comparing the numbers in the church who accepted a round earth in Cosmas's time, geocentrism in Copernicus's day and evolution today. Disagreeing with them doesn't make the slightest difference to the numbers in the church who held these views.

All three, the round earth, heliocentircism and creationism is accepted based on scientific evidence. Cosmas was rejected based on the evidence that the earth was round. Copernicus' theory was accepted based on Galileo's evidence. Creationism is accepted based on the evidence that random mutation in tests have shown us that bacteria cannot turn into men, along with a multitude of other variables. This is not based on "numbers" and may even be a fallacy.

Some evidence for this claim would be nice.

I'll give you the quote from a full blown Darwinist which sums it up quite nicely. Feel free to ask any questions regarding it.

Galileo showed random mutations cannot turn bacteria into men???

Aww. No, silly. This is actually the conjoining of two views, saving time and space. Paralleling Scientific evidence confirming that the earth revolves around the sun and scientific evidence that the random mutation cannot build a man.

Anyway no attempt to deal with my point. The only ones who brought the church into disrepute were the literalists who claimed mainstream science was wrong.

The interpretation does not belong to you. There were those who were not even withn the christian church who were in conflict with Galileo. Were they literalists too? They had to be, seeing that the only ones who brought the church in conflict were the "literalists". The only ones who brought the church in conflict were the ones who rejected scientific evidence that the world is round, which the bible advocates btw, that the earth went around the sun, inspite of scientific evidnece showing otherwise, and that bacteria can turn into men, despite near century long experiments showing that random mutation cannot build a man. You fall into that category.

No, apparently you are the one has cornered the market in interpreting Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted.

I havent cornered anything. What I also have not done is relinqush universal law for materialism. And science confirms the universal law.

Still haven't dealt with the fact it is literalist who kept getting it wrong.

The interpretation does not belong to you. The ones who kept getting it wrong were those just like you who favored geocentricism in spite of scientific evidence, or Darwinism, in spite of scientific evidence.

No attempt to deal with my point. You have confirmed one part though, when you said "I interpret Genesis how it is supposed to be interpreted."

Yep. This has nothing to do with literalism. And there is the interpretation, taking into consideration universal law. Science confirms it.

No it obviously belongs to you

Nope, its not mine, and this is where the work is and does not involve the relinquishing of universal law where bacteria can turn into fishes, or men, for pete's sake.

You have this vague idea Genesis and Corinthians about 'universal law'.

The "idea" is not vague. This is elementary. The basis of reality, and creationism.

So everything in Corinthians must be a universal law?

You are attempting to conflate points into a single set. Nothing in any text, addresses a single point. You do not want to do the work, and attempt to ingrain a single form of application on an entire book.

But you think the sun and stars differ in glory isn't a universal law, you said it was relative.

This was already given.

How do you know different kinds of flesh is universal law, while the glory of sun moon and stars isn't? Genesis after all describes the creation of both.

Just given.

And what do you mean about flesh being a manifestation of spirit? Is that something you got from the Gospel of Thomas in your sig?

You're going to have to study. No two ways about it.

What if the English man's circle mean his group of friend?

That is the context. There are also English words for "a group of friends", though circle can also mean a group of friends. A hebrew man with a group of friends and an English man with a group of friends is a group of friends. The information encoded is universal.

Anyway you haven't answered my question, why would an English dictionary have to change when we are discussing the meaning of a Hebrew word?

An english dictionary shouldnt have to change anything. You were the one who wanted them to change it to accommodate Darwinism. Its fine the way it is.

What makes you think the range of meanings of the English word is the same as the Hebrew word it was translated from? Of course if you look at the main meaning of the word in English, you would be ok, though you already knew what the main meaning of circle was, instead you had to run all the way down almost to the end of the list, to number 16 to get the obscure meaning and avoid what Isaiah was saying.

Lol. Its not an obscure meaning. So because it is number 16 you express partiality? See if you can find numberism.

If you don't think the phrase 'circle of the earth' comes from the bible, where do you think it came from? The AV used the phrase in 1611, before that the Geneva bible used it in Geneva 1587. You know any earlier uses of the phrase if you want to claim it doesn't come form the bible? Quoting Isaiah is hardly an accusation, quoting people getting Isaiah wrong isn't an accusation either, the diction is simply recording a popular misunderstanding. It's not the dictionary's job to interpret the bible, just to show how people use words, though quoting a misinterpretation was a bit sloppy.

The dictionary uses the "circle of the earth" as an example of the way in which the context for circle can be expressed as a sphere. Without the phrase "circle of the earth" as an example, or without any example at all, the context in which circle can be used is maintained. The word circle is not derived from the bible, and spheres do not live in the bible neither does a ring of light, or a circular argument or a crown. And without any kind of example from nowhere at all, the context in which circle can be used in is the application of information which is encoded within a circle. You cannot change what a circle is for Darwin, neither can you change what the earth is, much less for changing its encoding within a given a set of symbols. If you want to prove Darwinism youre going to have to do it the conventional way, and that is with scientific testing and results, not changing meanings in dictionaries.

Wow. In other word Creationism borrows their ideas from Darwin.

The scientific evidence that designed structures have the ability to adapt is in line with creationism where structures were designed. The part about random mutation taking bacteria to men, is not borrowed nor is any other atheistic belief based on what Darwin and science has observed. We "borrow our ideas" from Crick, Dobzhansky, shapiro, and Mc clintock as well. What we have borrowed is that bacteria remain bacteria, and that random mutation cannot build a man, which is in line with Darwin and his church.

Of course evolution was accepted by mainstream science on the basis of testing the hypothesis.

And Creationism is accepted on the fact that all tests indicate that random mutation cannot build a man. Point? Adaptation is not Darwin's.

You are still disagreeing with mainstream science just like flatearthers and geocentrists.

I am agreeing with the scientific evidence just like the church did in rejecting Cosmas, just like Galileo, just like Darwinism and the commonality it shares with all the other rejected assertions which is not based on "numbers" or "mainstream" but scientific evidence.

Who says?

You can't have it. Im sorry. You're going to have to show how random mutation can build a man despite all evidence, both current and emerging which shows otherwise.

The church has tested literalists claiming mainstream science has got it wrong, the literalists have been wrong each time and brought the gospel into disrepute every time they tried.

The interpretation does not belong to you. Again, the common denominator is not "mainstream". But scientific evidence. You still haven't come around to seeing that you are in the same position as Cosmas, who attempted to imbue a flat earth on the church and was rejected. And like you are now, preaching Darwinism, although all tests show that the earth is round.

Anti science literalism has been tested and found wanting every time.

The interpretation does not belong to you. Science is that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men, even though you think it can.

You are jumping arguments again. You can't answer the point that the church has rightly rejected literalist preaching against the scientific mainstream by claiming you got it right this time.

The interpretation does not belong to you. Scientific evidence showed a round earth, and people, both within and outside the church accepted a round earth. Acceptance, is not a church based issue (nice try though) Science, shows us that random mutation cannot build a man, and the people, both within (you) and outside the church are going to have to learn to accept that.

Flat earthers and geocentrists thought the evidence supported them too.

As does the Darwinist.

 

[Greg1234]

The issue is the church should not believe you, they should reject you claims the way they rejected Cosmas, and much too slowly rejected geocentrism

They don't have to believe me. Walk into a lab and see that random mutation cannot build a human. Walk up to the beach and observe the horizon. Walk up to Galileo and ask him to borrow his telescope. They should not believe you, coming here with your claims about bacteria can turn into men through random mutation.

If Creationist think their evidence contradicts evolution, then they need to produce arguments good enough to convince the scientific mainstream, not just other creationists.

If Darwinists thinks that their evidence contradicts the scientific evidence that random mutation cannot take bacteria to men then they should present it.

What you need to show here, is why the church was right to accept the mainstream science of round earth and heliocentrism and reject the biblical literalism and scientific arguments of flat earthers and geocentrists, but we should accept literalists and their arguments against mainstream science this time?

The interpretation does not belong to you. The church itself does not "accept". People both within and outside the church accepts, and we have rejected Cosmas, people have rejected Geocentricism, and people have accepted creationism based on scientific evidence. This is the trend. And like Galileo, we show you evidence that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men.

It doesn't matter when the church accepted a round earth, the point is there were Christians whose literal interpretations were contradicted by it.

The interpretation does not belong to you. There were non Christians whose beliefs were contradicted by Galileo. Contradiction is not confined to Christianity or the interpretation. The common denominator here is the scientific evidence which shows that the earth revolves around the sun despite the belief of people and that random mutation is not a viable means of building the human.

Worth pointing out, all the original 'Fundamentalist', the writer of The Fundamentals' were old earth creationists, and some were open to the God using evolution.

The age of the earth is not relevant to whether or not bacteria can turn into men.

Modern YEC has brought in a young earth after the church accepted the earth was old.

The age of the earth is not relevant to whether or not bacteria can turn into men. There are people I know who go between old and young earth multiple times a year seamlessly but maintains the fact that man was created as man, which is what creationism is, and all that really matters at the moment. There is evidence of man which goes well beyond 200000 years according to dating, yet you maintain that man is only 200000 years. That would make you a young man Darwinints. But there is no old man Darwinists because Darwinsm has no choice for man to come after the proclaimed date of the dinosaurs seeing that a descendant preceding its ancestor is bad rep.

Heliocentrism was a battle of scientific theories, as you say. But it was also a battle the churches got involved in because up until then Christians' literal interpretation of scripture said the sun went round the earth.

The interpretation does not belong to you. Those who had nothing to do with the bible and the scientific community in general adhered to a geocentric view. And when Galileo produced the evidence to the contrary, it was his own peers, he was afraid of, not the church. Likewise, a scientist is equally afraid of presenting evidence which contradicts Darwinism and its beliefs for fear of persecution from scientists within the church who promote Darwinism and an even greater fear from the scientific community in general. "Geocentric passages" were already addressed, and if your claims were true then we should find that it was only those within the church who rejected Galileo, because rejection was based on "literalism". Instead we find almost the exact opposite, completely dismantling this conjecture. There were those within and outside the church who fought Galileo, as there are both Christian and non christians who believe that random mutation can turn into men. The scientific evidence provided shows the correct theory in both instances.

And incidentally, I would say Galileo had more problems from people inside the church, you know the inquisition, nobody expects them.

Actually, he was jeered by his peers, who adhered to a geocentric view and likewise those within the church who also held that same view. Highlighting the events which took place in the theological aspects while attempting to slink the rest back into the background and have them run away does not change this.

No it fits perfectly, you have just demonstrated another similarity. Mainstream science accepted evolution, round earth and heliocentrism because of evidence, while literalists whose interpretation are contradicted by the science claim the evidence supports them.

The interpretation does not belong to you. The "claim" factor is Darwinist. The part where you can just walk up and view the evidence is Creationism, heliocentricism and round earth.

Nope, sorry, no one is claiming evolution is theistic,

Definitely wasn't me.

you seem to completely misunderstand what TE is. But even if you had a basis for your claims, they would still not mean evolution was atheist.

Already given. The chance building of a human, is in line with the atheistic belief that chance can create a man. Bacteria turning into men requires the relegation of universal law, that he manifestation of mind into matter, and the prioritization of a materialistic perception. And if you have any queries about the Darwinist in the link, let me know.

That just says you don't accept the evidence for evolution, not as you claim, that science was hijacked

Adaptation does not belong to the atheist, it is not Darwinism and is in fact a fundamental feature of designed systems. You dont have to be a Darwinist to see that an organism has the ability to adapt.

Of course it is. It is a literal interpretation.

Thats what I said.

No I don't. What I am pointing out is that there can be a number of different interpretations, some literal, some metaphorical,

Metaphorical interpretation is not Darwinism. Thats what Im pointing out. It is not a battle between literalism ad metaphor, where you then attempt to hijack the metaphor.

Even with literalism they can be a number of literal interpretations as we can from Young Earth Creationists and many Old Earth Creationists both giving literal interpretation of Genesis.

Creationism is not confined to literalism. The metaphorical interpretation has nothing to do with Darwinism. Again, the interpretation does not belong to you.

You are confusing two different things here, bible interpretation and science. I never claimed to have the interpretation of Genesis, though I am happy to discuss the different ways of interpreting the Creation accounts. What I am saying instead, is not that my interpretation is right, but that the literal interpretation of Genesis has been shown to be wrong,

And what I am telling you is that literal or not, this has nothing to do with Darwinism. That the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis does not relinquish the application of universal law, but only uses it.

just as Cosmas's literal interpretation was, and the literal interpretation of the geocentrism passages.

The interpretation does not belong to you. The "geocentric passages" were already addressed. All you are attempting to do, like I said, is establish a stronghold on the interpretation of passages in the bible. Therefore, whenever a Christian interprets a passage besides Genesis, non literally, you can then say, this is double standards (which was what the "exactly" was referring to), and you can therefore ask "if you interpret this passage non literally, why do you interpret Genesis literally?" Then the Christian should say well they don't interpret Genesis only literally, and thats when he/she gets jumped by about 4 or 5 Darwnists who will seize that opportunity showing that the only road leading away from the literal interpretation of Genesis is Darwinism. Its the same thing you guys did with adaptation. A creationist now should say that adaptation does not take place. All you have to do is show where an organism does adapt, and when he/she says that they do know that organisms have the ability to adapt, seeing that all roads with adaptation has been established as Darwinism, he/she has no choice but to either be a creationist who does not acknowledge adaptation or a Darwinist. It is the same thing the atheist has done with science. If they did not establish this symbiotic feeding relationship with science people would realize just how absurd the claim is, that you can build a human randomly. So, now, there is a desperate race to make people believe that they have to either choose between science and religion. And in a debate, you can just spew scientific terms, which may make no sense at all but thrives on the science equals atheism claim, and should perform a metamorphosis into coherency midair, and provide some sort of a refutation based, solely, and only on the claim that science is higher than religion. Thus random mutation is automatically valid, because of that relationship. I'm not going to sit back and watch you hijack the interpretation of Genesis. It does not belong to you.

Wow, great of you to admit your approach to interpretation and science has double standards.

Read the argument in context.

 

[Greg1234]

You mean it just belongs to you?

Nope, but there is no relegation of universal law. Start from there. This has nothing to do with Darwinism.

It is part of evolution though.

It is a part of Creationism though

A whole jumble of mixed up claims and ideas here. I suggest you bring them up if your ever get around to starting your evidence thread for laconicstudent.

This need not be given to Mr Student directly and is in progress.

So, just your standard 'no, we're right claim', no attempt to deal with the fact flat earthers and geocentrists claimed conspiracy like you do.

We have scientific evidence showing that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men, that the earth is round, and that it goes around the sun. The claim belongs to Darwinists who thought that personalization of adaptation would work. Cosmas wasn't rejected just because the science was mainstream, but based on scientific data. Galileo wasnt accepted just because he wasnt mainstream but based on scientific data. There we see two discrepancies in the mainstream card and that the trend is the commonality with the presentation of repeated scientific data. As we do the same with experiment after experiment showing that random mutation cannot build a man.

You miss out on the one really big difference, That relativity, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang, all managed to convince the scientific mainstream that their new theory was a much better explanation of the evidence
It is this, being able to produce arguments that overturn the view of mainstream, that set Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang apart from fringe science and quackery. And it is why the church has always been wise in the past to follow mainstream science.

Again "acceptance" of relativity is not a church based occurrence. Saying that the church accepted relativity is to lay claim to science while maintaining that science vs religion paradigm you have worked to establish. People, both within the church and outside "accepted" relativity. The forty plus year experiments which show that random mutation cannot build a man is just as valid. Darwinism rides on the impetus of atheism. In due time, hopefully you will be around to see the acceptance, that adaptation is a coded feature, and that random mutation cannot build a man. Both have been empirically proven.

Have you ever considered that when you to wriggle out of the blindingly obvious fact that evolution is mainstream science, that you destroy any credibility in your claims about the scientific evidence?

The mainstream card is a non factor. Galileo wasnt accepted based on the fact that he was mainstream (when he was not) but based on scientific data. Cosmas wasnt rejected based on the fact that the round earth was mainstream but on scientific data. Creationism which is a repeat of the Galileo incident is accepted based on scientific data showing that random mutation cannot build a man. Darwinists like you are rejected not because Darwinism is mainstream, but based on scientific data. The appeal to mainstream is the attempt to use mainstream factor, without having to provide any kind of data. You guys actually believed that if you got big enough, it would be a fact. Thats not how it works. Just ask Galileo.

Ok that last bit made no sense, but the first part was correct, though it did not go far enough. Galileo wasn't mainstream as you say, part of the problem he had was his arguments for heliocentrism weren't actually that great, but as time went on the evidence mounted up.

But Galileo wasnt mainstream. You are attempting to play both sides . First you want to ride the mainstream wind, now when you realize that mainstream has nothing to do with it, you make an acrobatic attempt to show that he was. He wasn't.

But it wasn't just having evidence that made Galileo mainstream,

Lol. All you've done is describe how he went from not being mainstream to being mainstream, and now youve started from when he was mainstram to support your "mainstream" argument. This process is Creationism, and the mounting up of evidence is creationism, and the fact that random mutation cannot build a human and will gradually become mainstream then we can start from mainstream is creationism. The evidence is so great in fact, people are starting to predict the fall of Darwinism.

it was the fact that all the universities and scientists accepted were convinced by the evidence that meant heliocentrism became part of the mainstream.

But he wasnt mainstream. How he got mainstream is irrelevant to the fact that he wasnt mainstream.

You are convinced by this argument, but no matter how many time you repeat it to me, mainstream isn't convinced.

They will. Its not a theological argument. But a scientific fact. The same for Galileo. I'm sure in his long wait for acceptance they told him the same thing. But the evidence speaks for itself. Just like random mutation.

That is what makes creationism a vocal but fringe view that the church need to reject just like it rejects flat earth and geocentrism.

We dont have to be vocal. You can tape the scientists' mouth shut and have them conduct the experiments and random mutation is still sterile. The vocalization rests on the shoulders of the Darwinists who need to assert that random mutation can build a man in spite of 21st Century science. You could have taped Galileo's mouth shut as well and you would have found the same thing.

Except of course that mainstream science accepts evolution but rejected Cosmas's flat earth.

Cosmas' flat earth was rejected based on the scientific evidence that the earth was round which has nothing to do with whether or not it was mainstream. Galileo was accepted based on the scientific evidence that the earth went around the sun, not based on the fact that he wasnt mainstream. The common denominator here is the scientific evidence and as such, Darwinism is rejected not based on the fact that it is mainstream but on the scientific evidence, and creationism is accepted not based on the fact that it is not mainstream, but on the scientific evidence. There we see the maintenance in the trend.

As I said there is no difference between you and Cosmas, you both interpret scripture literally (just different passages) you are both utterly convinced the scientific evidence supports you view,

The interpretation does not belong to you. You are convinced that the evidence supports you, just like in the past, Cosmas could have just gone to the beach, or Galileo's telescope, now, you may just step into a lab, pick a lab, any lab.
[/quote]you both call mainstream science names, 'pagan and 'atheist',[/quote]
The mainstream factor you thought you could ride on is a non factor. Regarding science itself, or the common denominator of scientific evidence, science and creationism is called "Christian nonsense" Galileo was jeered at.It doesnt matter what Galileo called mainstream science. Or what Cosmas called it. The were both accepted and rejected respectively based on the scientific data. Random mutation is in fact,purely atheism. No amount of attempting to defend the atheist is going to change that.

and you both argue against mainstream science on the basis of your literal interpretation and what you think are convincing scientific arguments.

The interpretation does not belong to you. No we argue on the basis of scientific evidence. And as the trend has shown us, mainstream has nothing to do with it, but the common denominator of scientific evidence.

 

[Harry3142]

To my knowledge, Darwinism is already taugth in the public school system. I am not familiar with how the private, church-supported schools deal with the subject.

To make it a law, forcing parents to teach it as fact unless they want to be charged with child abuse, is a total waste of time. Any politician that would attempt to introduce that kind of legislation would be committing political suicide, as the conservatives and fundamentalists would attack him en masse, with the result that his ever being elected to any political position again would be problematical.

Even if it were passed and signed into law, the U. S. Supreme Court would have to rule it as unconstitutional on the basis that it would be a blatant violation of the first amendment. To impose a secular theory on any religious institution is illegal under the tenets of our constitution.

 

[Hairy Tic]

I ran across this video while surfing YouTube.

......


It never surprises me what Darwinist fanatics will say to force their view upon others. So if this view makes it to law, we will now go to jail for "not" teaching our Kids that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

So instead of the evidence proving evolution, now the law will eventually force you to? How many would support this if it came up for a vote into law?

## You're asking more than one question, not just the one.

To the first, the answer is, that it is not abuse. Abuse has a specifiic meaning - it refers to molestation, cruelty, forms of violence. Not teaching a subject adequately or at all is not violence; the pupil is deprived of something not absolutely necessary to its well-being, & the teacher is negligent or incompetent. This is a long way from beating a pupil so unmercifully that bones are broken, or mocking a child so viciously that the spirit is broken. Ignorance can cause cruelty - both are very undesirable; but they are not the same.

• Broken ribs = abuse
• Sexual congress, or attempts at it, with a minor or juvenile in statu pupillari or otherwise dependent = abuse
• Failing to teach, or teaching inadequately, part of the curriculum =///= abuse

To call abuse everything remotely similar to any kind of deprivation of a good such as one might want or expect a pupil to receive, is itself an abuse, of language. It is sloppy & imprecise; a step towards the crime of verbicide, or word-murder. Such imprecision makes words useless though use to express meanings they do not mexpress, so that other words to express one's meaning have to be found; which endangers them.

The end of prolonged verbicide will be to reduce all of us to incoherence. Our ability to express our thoughts & words increases that very ability: "To him that hath, much will be given; from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away" definitely applies here,

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I agree, I think the definition of child abuse however is very different by some radicals who generally inhabit the far left. Of course the problem with this thread is an assumption that all who believe in Evolution theistic or otherwise hold this ideology, which is false, the two aren't really connected. (Even Darwinism isn't directly connected to this in particular, although it can form a complicated link to such an ideology)

 

[Jig]

I think everyone has missed the target on this one. Both of these positions (Creationism and Darwinianism) contain subjective philosophical foundations and world views (materialism, ontological naturalism, uniformitarianism, etc.) that should be taught in a philosophy class and not a science class. They both have no business being in my biology class.

If you break down "science" in to its two main focuses you can see the problem vividly. There is operational science and historical/origins science (which is philosophical). Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like medicine, computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of macro-evolution, abiogenesis, etc. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past, we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions and philosophies.

 

[gluadys]

Because no one was there to witness the past, we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions and philosophies.[/B]

No doubt we have to infer what happened in history from the evidence which has survived into the present.

But what is the problem with that? Surely we can ask if a set of starting assumptions is rational and testable, just as we can of any other hypothesis.

If you want to challenge the starting assumptions of science, show why they are irrational and how they fail to produce a coherent view of nature consistent with the evidence.

 

[Papias]

jig wrote:

Because no one was there to witness the past, we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions and philosophies.

*Sigh* I know things have really gone downhill when someone states that. I guess I'll tell my cousin studying forensic science that his whole field has no basis, and not to look into physical anthropology, geology, or archeology either.

And then we turn around and wonder why increasing numbers of people today think that Christians are ignorant, anti-science neanderthals.


Papias

 

[Jig]

No doubt we have to infer what happened in history from the evidence which has survived into the present.

But what is the problem with that? Surely we can ask if a set of starting assumptions is rational and testable, just as we can of any other hypothesis.

If you want to challenge the starting assumptions of science, show why they are irrational and how they fail to produce a coherent view of nature consistent with the evidence.

This is the problem. Science only deals with phenomena occurring within nature. This is a limitation that we are all aware of. These "scientific" assumptions therefore revolve around philosophical ideas like materialism and ontological naturalism - excluding supernatural and other non-natural phenomena.

Science can only guess what could have happened IF nothing but natural occurrences happened.

What if a non-natural/supernatural event too place in the past or present? Science is left unaware and ignorant.

 

[gluadys]

This is the problem. Science only deals with phenomena occurring within nature. This is a limitation that we are all aware of. These "scientific" assumptions therefore revolve around philosophical ideas like materialism and ontological naturalism - excluding supernatural and other non-natural phenomena.

Science can only guess what could have happened IF nothing but natural occurrences happened.

What if a non-natural/supernatural event too place in the past or present? Science is left unaware and ignorant.

And why is that a problem? Why should we be concerned if science is ignorant about non-natural events? The point of science is to tell us what nature does when it is not being affected by non-natural occurrences.

Further, if some non-natural occurrence in the past affected all subsequent phenomena in undeterminable ways, wouldn't it make sense that no hypotheses based on scientific study would come to consistent conclusions about the past?

For example, if radioactive decay had been seriously disrupted in the past by some non-natural occurrence, it would be predictable that we would get seriously inconsistent dates for samples measured by different radiometric tests--not to mention inconsistent with other dating methods.

Instead we get very consistent dates, the sort one would predict if no non-natural occurrence had thrown things off course.

 

[Jig]

And why is that a problem? Why should we be concerned if science is ignorant about non-natural events? The point of science is to tell us what nature does when it is not being affected by non-natural occurrences.

Further, if some non-natural occurrence in the past affected all subsequent phenomena in undeterminable ways, wouldn't it make sense that no hypotheses based on scientific study would come to consistent conclusions about the past?

For example, if radioactive decay had been seriously disrupted in the past by some non-natural occurrence, it would be predictable that we would get seriously inconsistent dates for samples measured by different radiometric tests--not to mention inconsistent with other dating methods.

Instead we get very consistent dates, the sort one would predict if no non-natural occurrence had thrown things off course.

Consistent conclusions come from applying consistent philosophy.

 

[Assyrian]

Consistent conclusions come from applying consistent philosophy.

Not if it is a consistently wrong philosophy. A consistently right philosophy will give consistently right results, while a consistently wrong philosophy will give consistently wrong results (except when like the stopped clock it is correct twice a day). However there is only one right result for a given question, while there are a myriad of wrong ones. So while a wrong philosophy will give consistently wrong results, a right philosophy will give both consistently right answers and consistent answers.

 

[Jig]

Not if it is a consistently wrong philosophy. A consistently right philosophy will give consistently right results, while a consistently wrong philosophy will give consistently wrong results (except when like the stopped clock it is correct twice a day). However there is only one right result for a given question, while there are a myriad of wrong ones. So while a wrong philosophy will give consistently wrong results, a right philosophy will give both consistently right answers and consistent answers.

I'll give some examples of what I mean. Let's take the widely practiced philosophy of naturalism. For this example I will be using the definition found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Naturalism requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.Thus, all conclusions given under this philosophy will be consistent on this one issue: natural causation. This is true even if the phenomenon being explained occurred supernaturally.

In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism (yet, another unfounded foundational belief) assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

It is these kinds of philosophical opinions that create, by limitation and ability, similar and consistent scientific conclusions.