Nothing changes in this forum.

[Phred]

NO. You never find a trace of what you think on ME. I said everything on any issue, based first, on science (which includes logic and data), then, on faith (beyond science). It is the way it should always be.

YOU, are not honest, by saying what you have said. You can not put every Christian in one basket. You are not honest.

Who put every Christian in one basket? I certainly did not. Don't try to find allies by creating a common enemy.

 

[Phred]

Because I wanted to counter evolution with the truth. I believe the schools should teach design as well as evolution. I think schools ought to be a place of learning and offering kids alternatives. Such as sex ed and climate change. Teach each of them with as much ferver and information as the other. Example, lay out the benefits of abstinence and and the consequences of premarital sex with as much ferver as we teach about protection. I'm not saying we should dump evolution all together. I'm saying give kids all the information.

THIS.... right here. THIS. It sounds so very reasonable doesn't it? Let's just give kids the information and let them decide. But if we did that you'd be so angry your head would explode. Because the actual information shows us that we evolved. And there is no other information. When you teach that information you don't teach creationism because there isn't any "information" that supports creationism except the Bible. What supports the Bible? The Bible. That's it. Yes, we've found several of the places mentioned in the Bible. Several of the places mentioned in the James Bond novels also exist. Doesn't make the things that happened in those novels any more true does it? There is simply NO "information" that provides evidence that the Biblical account of creation is factual. Dinosaurs died out 65 MILLION years ago. There was not a global flood. Mankind cannot have evolved from 8 people. The data that we have found and evaluated and can present provides an entirely different picture. So what you want to do is offer kids your personal alternative to the truth. You want to present it as equivalent to the truth. And you want the rest of us to shut up and let you do it. You want to do this with biology, you want to do this for abstinence, which has proven to result in more pregnancies than teaching children where babies come from and how to prevent getting pregnant. And you want to teach them about whatever it is you think is happening in the world that isn't supported by the data that shows us the climate is changing.

In other words, you want to lie to them.

 

[Astrophile]

At one time science believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the moon.

The last scientist I know of who thought that the Earth was flat was Anaxagoras, in the 5th century BC. Aristotle (384-322 BC) showed that the Earth is spherical during the 4th century BC. Can you cite any scientists since Aristotle who taught that the Earth was flat?

Who believed that the Sun revolved around the Moon? I've never heard that story before. In the geocentric system, which was generally accepted until the 17th century, both the Sun and the Moon revolved around the Earth, but that is not the same thing as the Sun revolving around the Moon.

 

[Aman777]

What supports the Bible? The Bible. That's it. Yes, we've found several of the places mentioned in the Bible. Several of the places mentioned in the James Bond novels also exist. Doesn't make the things that happened in those novels any more true does it? There is simply NO "information" that provides evidence that the Biblical account of creation is factual.

False since the proper interpretation of Genesis AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History, and YOU cannot refute that Fact. Looks like you don't have the proper interpretation....doesn't it?

 

[Aman777]

There was not a global flood. Mankind cannot have evolved from 8 people. The data that we have found and evaluated and can present provides an entirely different picture.

False, since the global flood was 11k years ago in Lake Van, Turkey to the people of Adam's Earth, which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 The Ark brought Adam's 8 Human descendants to planet Earth, (Noah's grandsons) inside their parents. Noah's many grandsons married and produced children with the sons of God (prehistoric people) who had been here for Millions of years before the Ark arrived. Gen 6:4

There were some ONE million descendants of the common ancestor of Apes when the Ark arrived. Soon, Humans (descendants of Adam) will reach some 10 Trillion living Humans. God's method of mixing His children with prehistoric people has produced that number PROVING than God is more intelligent than his rebellious children. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

In other words, you want to lie to them.

No, that would be you and the godless followers of the Lie of the ToE.

 

[rjs330]

The last scientist I know of who thought that the Earth was flat was Anaxagoras, in the 5th century BC. Aristotle (384-322 BC) showed that the Earth is spherical during the 4th century BC. Can you cite any scientists since Aristotle who taught that the Earth was flat?

Who believed that the Sun revolved around the Moon? I've never heard that story before. In the geocentric system, which was generally accepted until the 17th century, both the Sun and the Moon revolved around the Earth, but that is not the same thing as the Sun revolving around the Moon.

Oops I meant sun revolved around the earth. Typing too fast I guess. My point is science is always changing. What they thought was going to happen or what they believed happened is always changing. So it's not relieable. Science in this area of evolution from a common ancestor is utterly unreliable. Common design is much more reliable. But it is not currently allowed to be recognized because common ancestry is the rule of thought.

 

[rjs330]

THIS.... right here. THIS. It sounds so very reasonable doesn't it? Let's just give kids the information and let them decide. But if we did that you'd be so angry your head would explode. Because the actual information shows us that we evolved. And there is no other information. When you teach that information you don't teach creationism because there isn't any "information" that supports creationism except the Bible. What supports the Bible? The Bible. That's it. Yes, we've found several of the places mentioned in the Bible. Several of the places mentioned in the James Bond novels also exist. Doesn't make the things that happened in those novels any more true does it? There is simply NO "information" that provides evidence that the Biblical account of creation is factual. Dinosaurs died out 65 MILLION years ago. There was not a global flood. Mankind cannot have evolved from 8 people. The data that we have found and evaluated and can present provides an entirely different picture. So what you want to do is offer kids your personal alternative to the truth. You want to present it as equivalent to the truth. And you want the rest of us to shut up and let you do it. You want to do this with biology, you want to do this for abstinence, which has proven to result in more pregnancies than teaching children where babies come from and how to prevent getting pregnant. And you want to teach them about whatever it is you think is happening in the world that isn't supported by the data that shows us the climate is changing.

In other words, you want to lie to them.

THIS this is exactly where it is for you evolutionists. We can't have common design taught. Oh no that would be the most horrible thing ever! Actual information shows common design not evolution. You interpret facts and assume evolution. You interpret facts to mean evolution. The facts are facts. Common design is far more likely than evolution. You want so badly to believe in evolution despite the fact there is no observation no testing and no verifiable evidence for it. And you are so afraid of what may happen if people have an opportunity to see things differently.

That fear has kept you from actually reading my post. I didn't say ONLY teach common design. i didn't say ONLY teach abstinence. I didn't say ONLY teach a certain facit of global climate change. What I said was teach ALL the information. There is plenty of it out there in research and scientific understanding to say abstinence is a good thing, common design is worth looking at and climate change may not be as serious or man caused as some may say.

But you are so stuck that NO other thing can be taught but that what you believe to be true. It's very typical of folks with your mindset. You can't let any other thing be taught but that which fits what you want taught.

 

[Astrophile]

Oops I meant sun revolved around the earth. Typing too fast I guess. My point is science is always changing. What they thought was going to happen or what they believed happened is always changing. So it's not reliable.

Yes, as you say, science is always changing. However, it might be better to say that science is always advancing. That does not mean that the foundations of science are unreliable. Scientists now know a lot more about the shape of the Earth than Aristotle did, but that doesn't change the fact that the Earth is very nearly spherical. Scientists now know a lot more about the movements of the planets than Kepler, Galileo, Newton or Laplace did, but that doesn't change the fact that the planets, including the Earth, revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits.

Science in this area of evolution from a common ancestor is utterly unreliable. Common design is much more reliable. But it is not currently allowed to be recognized because common ancestry is the rule of thought.

You are comparing apples with mushrooms. The theory of evolution by descent with modification from a common ancestor is a scientific hypothesis; there are many ways of testing it (e.g. genetics, comparative anatomy, and palaeontology), and, so far, it has passed every test. Of course, like all scientific theories, the theory of common descent will be modified by new data and new research, but, so far as I can see, it is no more likely to be completely disproved than are the heliocentric theory of the solar system or the thermodynamic theory of heat.

(By the way, you appear to be moving the goalposts here. Originally you said that science is unreliable because scientific theories change, but now you are saying that scientists won't recognise common design 'because common ancestry is the rule of thought'. Your argument would be more consistent if you said that theories of common ancestry are unreliable because scientists once thought that birds and insects are descended from common ancestors or that walruses and octopuses are descended from common ancestors.)

The 'theory' of common design, on the other hand, is based on assertions about the actions of a supernatural being. It is not a scientific hypothesis; there is no possible way of testing it, and a defender of common design can reply to any objection by saying that God chose to do it that way and His (or Her) ways are inscrutable.

That is why the debate between evolution and the various forms of creationism is so intractable. A scientific debate will eventually be settled by an accumulation of evidence in favour of one hypothesis or the other. However, the opponents of evolution are not basing their arguments on scientific evidence but on a conviction that a particular interpretation of the Bible is correct; such a conviction can never be overturned by evidence to the contrary. It's like the story of the two fishwives screaming abuse at each other from the top-floor windows of houses on opposite sides of the street; they could never agree because they were arguing from different premises.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, as you say, science is always changing. However, it might be better to say that science is always advancing. That does not mean that the foundations of science are unreliable. Scientists now know a lot more about the shape of the Earth than Aristotle did, but that doesn't change the fact that the Earth is very nearly spherical. Scientists now know a lot more about the movements of the planets than Kepler, Galileo, Newton or Laplace did, but that doesn't change the fact that the planets, including the Earth, revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits.



You are comparing apples with mushrooms. The theory of evolution by descent with modification from a common ancestor is a scientific hypothesis; there are many ways of testing it (e.g. genetics, comparative anatomy, and palaeontology), and, so far, it has passed every test. Of course, like all scientific theories, the theory of common descent will be modified by new data and new research, but, so far as I can see, it is no more likely to be completely disproved than are the heliocentric theory of the solar system or the thermodynamic theory of heat.

(By the way, you appear to be moving the goalposts here. Originally you said that science is unreliable because scientific theories change, but now you are saying that scientists won't recognise common design 'because common ancestry is the rule of thought'. Your argument would be more consistent if you said that theories of common ancestry are unreliable because scientists once thought that birds and insects are descended from common ancestors or that walruses and octopuses are descended from common ancestors.)

The 'theory' of common design, on the other hand, is based on assertions about the actions of a supernatural being. It is not a scientific hypothesis; there is no possible way of testing it, and a defender of common design can reply to any objection by saying that God chose to do it that way and His (or Her) ways are inscrutable.

That is why the debate between evolution and the various forms of creationism is so intractable. A scientific debate will eventually be settled by an accumulation of evidence in favour of one hypothesis or the other. However, the opponents of evolution are not basing their arguments on scientific evidence but on a conviction that a particular interpretation of the Bible is correct; such a conviction can never be overturned by evidence to the contrary. It's like the story of the two fishwives screaming abuse at each other from the top-floor windows of houses on opposite sides of the street; they could never agree because they were arguing from different premises.

Perfect! And what I have been saying all along. Evolutionists will never allow common design to be taught. It cannot be because it always gets to the point of a designer. And as you say a designer cannot be tested. So no matter what, Common design will always be rejected.

There will always be a rule of thought in science. No goal post moving here. It was the rule of thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It is presently the rule of thought that all things came from the same common ancestor. The unreliability of scentific thought is evident in past scientific thought. At it was always a battle to change it. Evolution is the only thought that is allowed even though the evidence that is used actually points to communicate design and not common ancestry. But as you so eloquently stated that cannot be considered. The claim is the designer cannot be tested scientifically. Yet they ignore the fact that a common ancestor cannot be tested either. All that can be done is to look at what the facts are, then interpret thise facts. The facts are interpreted to mean evolution from common ancestry. The facts can also be interpreted to mean common design.

 

[VirOptimus]

Perfect! And what I have been saying all along. Evolutionists will never allow common design to be taught. It cannot be because it always gets to the point of a designer. And as you say a designer cannot be tested. So no matter what, Common design will always be rejected.

There will always be a rule of thought in science. No goal post moving here. It was the rule of thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It is presently the rule of thought that all things came from the same common ancestor. The unreliability of scentific thought is evident in past scientific thought. At it was always a battle to change it. Evolution is the only thought that is allowed even though the evidence that is used actually points to communicate design and not common ancestry. But as you so eloquently stated that cannot be considered. The claim is the designer cannot be tested scientifically. Yet they ignore the fact that a common ancestor cannot be tested either. All that can be done is to look at what the facts are, then interpret thise facts. The facts are interpreted to mean evolution from common ancestry. The facts can also be interpreted to mean common design.

No they really cant, this is completly false.

ID is religion, the ToE is science.

ID is not rational, the ToE is.

 

[tas8831]

False since the proper interpretation of Genesis AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History, and YOU cannot refute that Fact. Looks like you don't have the proper interpretation....doesn't it?

And how did you determine which interpretation was the "proper" one?

Here is a refutation - the bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. This is false. Orchid seeds, for example are much smaller.

Thanks to your challenge, I have disproved the bible.

Or will you go all Apologetics on me, and try to re-interpret Scripture to escape that falsehood, as so many 'ministries' do?

 

[tas8831]

Evolutionists will never allow common design to be taught.

If you can provide verifiable, empirically support science that supports the notion of a Designer, let's see it.

What if the designer is Krishna?

 

[rjs330]

No they really cant, this is completly false.

ID is religion, the ToE is science.

ID is not rational, the ToE is.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well. I knew I was on the right track.

 

[rjs330]

If you can provide verifiable, empirically support science that supports the notion of a Designer, let's see it.

What if the designer is Krishna?

Well interestingly enough I never mentioned we had to pick a particular designer.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thank you for illustrating my point so well. I knew I was on the right track.

Right track about what?

 

[rjs330]

And how did you determine which interpretation was the "proper" one?

Here is a refutation - the bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. This is false. Orchid seeds, for example are much smaller.

Thanks to your challenge, I have disproved the bible.

Or will you go all Apologetics on me, and try to re-interpret Scripture to escape that falsehood, as so many 'ministries' do?

I suppose you are also going to claim the Bible is wrong because Jesus doesn't have hinges or that we are not sheep. After all he said he was a gate and also called us sheep. Oh and by the way Jesus also said the tree grows to be the greatest of all shrubs too and we all know that wasn't true either. So Jesus was wrong on both counts. But let's just remove all understanding of obvious literary use in the passage. "The kingdom of heaven is like" should clue us in that Jesus is about to give us a parable which is not meant to be a biology lesson. Much like his other references to what the kingdom is like.

 

[Aman777]

And how did you determine which interpretation was the "proper" one?

The KJV is the oldest and most read and less altered of the other versions. We live today in the last days and the KJV is obviously the one which God wanted us to read. The proper interpretation of the KJV AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. God's Truth MUST agree with every other discovered Truth or it is NOT God's Truth.

Here is a refutation - the bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. This is false. Orchid seeds, for example are much smaller.

It's a parable showing a small start for a Great Religion, which grows into a very large tree/organization, which loves to wear fine robes and have the chief place at the table. I call the organization a Tree, since dirty birds/lodge in it's branches. Trying to make teaching stories agree literally is foolishness and demonstrates one's illiteracy of Scripture.

Thanks to your challenge, I have disproved the bible.

In the end, your knee will bow to the Truth.

Or will you go all Apologetics on me, and try to re-interpret Scripture to escape that falsehood, as so many 'ministries' do?

Since you have NO idea what Scripture is saying, its easy to fool you. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

Well interestingly enough I never mentioned we had to pick a particular designer.

So you would convert to Hinduism if there was evidence that Krishna was the designer?

 

[tas8831]

I suppose you are also going to claim the Bible is wrong because Jesus doesn't have hinges or that we are not sheep.

Why would I do that when I just proved that the bible was wrong about mustard seeds?

After all he said he was a gate and also called us sheep.

I have the ability to tell the difference between metaphor and claims of fact - many creationists do not.

Saying that the mustard seed is the smallest is clearly supposed to be a factual statement. Saying Jesus is a gate is clearly metaphorical.

Not that hard - but in your desperation and frustration that you set yourself up for a fall, you'll engage in whatever silly antics you feel you must.

"The kingdom of heaven is like" should clue us in that Jesus is about to give us a parable which is not meant to be a biology lesson. Much like his other references to what the kingdom is like.

So you are claiming that a parable is totally false and made up? Parables are basically analogies - isn't at least a part of an analogy supposed to be true?

Wiki says:

"A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of analogy."

Matthew
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

I guess you are doing Apologetics? Which as best I can tell is little more than excuse-making and equivocation/post-hoc rationalization.

A cop out, as it were.