Should scientists demand evolution is taught in churches?

[LittleNipper]

Since when is history science? And depending on what part of the Bible you are talking about, where is the correlating evidence or documentation?



No, but it does get exaggerated.



What history book does that???? Guess the Bible isn't a history book if you are claiming that.



I don't see how teaching evolution will have any effect of God's design. For that matter, there is no clear description of God's design. How do you know you teaching evolution is not part of it?

You really need to get your story straight here Nip, the Bible can't both be a history book or tell the future. And as a history book, it is interesting that there is not that much evidence supporting it's telling of history.

Since when is history not the thread that makes scientific research understandable and ties the research of individuals/groups together. Archeology is most certainly a science. And unbias archeology has not contradicted the Bible. Teaching evolution will not hurt GOD in the least; however, presenting it without honest misgivings exposed only serves to insult the education process. The Bible does present both historic fact and prophetic guidance of the coming of the CHRIST. It also is a guide to how to live a righteous life, while demonstrating what happens when people ignore that DIVINE guidance. I would even go so far as to say that the economic mess that this world is facing is only speeding REVELATIONS along and likely opening the eyes of those who are searching for truth. The last Depression set the stage for Hitler and the re-establishment of Israel. The next great depression may just set the stage for the Rapture and the emergence of the Anti-Christ (who will try to deceive Israel and will then attack it).
Proving cause and affect.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Since when is history not the thread that makes scientific research understandable and ties the research of individuals/groups together. Archeology is most certainly a science. And unbias archeology has not contradicted the Bible.

You mean like archaeological study pointing out Exodus didn't happen or how many date or time periods are off in the bible. Woops. Those darn archaeologists correcting the bible, silly them. Unbiased does not mean a bunch of Christian psuedo scientists get together to "reinterpret" facts so they can fit into the not so good book.

Teaching evolution will not hurt GOD in the least; however, presenting it without honest misgivings exposed only serves to insult the education process.

Teaching that Jehova exists wont make him any more real either. If you knew anything about the scientific method you'd know that new data is constantly gathered and that theories and other aspects of science are always considered tentative.

The Bible does present both historic fact and prophetic guidance of the coming of the CHRIST. It also is a guide to how to live a righteous life, while demonstrating what happens when people ignore that DIVINE guidance.

Having tiny bits of historical data of a semi accurate nature juxtaposed between historical inaccuracies and mythology does not a history book make.

The latter part is pure moralistic opinion. Personally I consider the Bible's morality pretty disgusting.

 

[LittleNipper]

You mean like archaeological study pointing out Exodus didn't happen or how many date or time periods are off in the bible. Woops. Those darn archaeologists correcting the bible, silly them. Unbiased does not mean a bunch of Christian psuedo scientists get together to "reinterpret" facts so they can fit into the not so good book.



Teaching that Jehova exists wont make him any more real either. If you knew anything about the scientific method you'd know that new data is constantly gathered and that theories and other aspects of science are always considered tentative.


Having tiny bits of historical data of a semi accurate nature juxtaposed between historical inaccuracies and mythology does not a history book make.

The latter part is pure moralistic opinion. Personally I consider the Bible's morality pretty disgusting.

Actually, you are entirely wrong concerning the Exodus. It seems that some "experts" were looking for years in the wrong time period. It seems now that the evidence pointing to a strict interpretation of the Bible is correct. They presented a whole special program on PBC less than a year ago. Totally interesting ---- the guy was not a Christian. I believe he was Jewish.

I like to consider my own "tenative" views rather than to have to only memorize "the politically correct, Constitutionally approved, onesided version as scientific."

I consider the morality of the Holy Bible so far superior to anything anyone else has tried to dream up in a vain attempt to usurp the obvious ----- monkey's uncles, "gay rights, " and abortion freedom not withstanding...

 

[BigBadWlf]

Since when is history not the thread that makes scientific research understandable and ties the research of individuals/groups together. Archeology is most certainly a science. And unbias archeology has not contradicted the Bible.

Actually it has

Archeology has found no walls around Jericho No remnants of walls. No examples of walled cities for thousands of years around the time Jericho was supposed to have fallen

The archaeological evidence shows that the distinct cultural group known as Israelites emerged from indigenous Canaanite tribes within Canaan rather than migrating in with Abraham.

No evidence of Hebrew enslavement in Egypt

The conquest of Cannon never happened

No evidnce of the slaughter fo the innocent

There are hundreds of examples of human settlments pre-existing the world wide flood thath have been in constant habitation.

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually it has

Archeology has found no walls around Jericho No remnants of walls. No examples of walled cities for thousands of years around the time Jericho was supposed to have fallen

The archaeological evidence shows that the distinct cultural group known as Israelites emerged from indigenous Canaanite tribes within Canaan rather than migrating in with Abraham.

No evidence of Hebrew enslavement in Egypt

The conquest of Cannon never happened

No evidnce of the slaughter fo the innocent

There are hundreds of examples of human settlments pre-existing the world wide flood thath have been in constant habitation.

Yes, they did find walls and it seems they fell out and the city was burned.

The Israelites intermarried with the people who did not leave. Even King David took the wife of a Hittite --- the Bible says so. Samson married a Philistine --- the Bible says so. So exactly, what are you trying to distort.

The Egyptian had another name for the Hebrew slaves.

Next you will be saying that the Holocaust was a Jewish plot...

There is every indication that the Great Sphinx existed differently and was fully submerged.

 

[MarcusHill]

Yes, they did find walls and it seems they fell out and the city was burned.

The Israelites intermarried with the people who did not leave. Even King David took the wife of a Hittite --- the Bible says so. Samson married a Philistine --- the Bible says so. So exactly, what are you trying to distort.

The Egyptian had another name for the Hebrew slaves.

Next you will be saying that the Holocaust was a Jewish plot...

There is every indication that the Great Sphinx existed differently and was fully submerged.

Sources, please.

 

[LittleNipper]

Sources, please.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn039/jericho.html

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch04.htm

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html

 

[Risen Tree]

Wait, wait, I think I get it! Is this the thread where the more inconsistent the argument, the better?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I personally believe that the history of the earth/universe/humans should not be taught at all in public schools-period!

Neither evolution nor creationism nor "intelligent design" nor any other theory. Because no doctrine of the origins of mankind and the universe can be proven. Scientists can no more prove evolution than Christians can prove creationism. I think it's folly to teach anything as fact that is nothing more than unproven theory.

In the end, it all comes down to personal faith-nothing more and nothing less. Faith in its very essence means that it is not proven, but believed. It can be argued that there is evidence for you faith, whether evolution, creationism or other, but undeniable proof is mutually exclusive of "faith". Evolution is a faith like any other that is being paraded as scientific proof. It may have a scientific basis, but in the end lacks hard proof, so it falls into the category of faith and belief.

Just look at how scientists can get it so very wrong on such simple matters. Like the size of a "planet". As most of you know, scientists have only recently discovered that Pluto is much smaller than originally estimated, and it is no longer classified as a planet. This involves nothing more than simple measurements of a body in space, one that is in existance, not one that was once known to have existed. If this is how scientists can get it so wrong on the simple case of measuring a star's size, one that is out there today, how can I put my faith in what they tell me happened millions and billions of years ago?

Common sense tells you that when scientists say this and that occurred millions/billions/trillions etc of years ago, it is pure speculation. It may be scientific speculation, but speculation nevertheless.

Leave the speculations and theories of how man and the universe was formed out of public schools. Religious or secular. This is my opinion.

You obviously do not understand the scientific method since a theory starts as a hypothesis at which time there has to be evidence that supports the original hypothesis. After that it is published in a peer reviewed format at which time other scientists either debunk it or add further evidence to support it from their own research. Once it has supportable evidence that can be recreated it is elevated to theory.

Evolution is a theory and as such has quantifiable evidence supporting it, Creationism is a Hypothesis and has no evidence supporting it.

 

[cantata]

BlackSabb, do you also advocate the abolition of the teaching of atomic theory or gravitational theory in schools?

*bump*

 

[MarcusHill]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn039/jericho.html

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch04.htm

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html

My bad. What I meant to say was peer reviewed sources.

 

[Risen Tree]

My bad. What I meant to say was peer reviewed sources.

But they are peer-reviewed! Their own peers look at the articles, and say, yeah let's go print that!

 

[SiderealExalt]

My bad. What I meant to say was peer reviewed sources.

LoL.

So does Nipper A. Say doh in an eerily Homer like fashion and correct that error.

Or

B. Accuses the dirty nonbelievers of trying to "stack the deck" and only supporting those sources that share similiar conclusions.

I swear, the conspiracy theory that must be at work to discredit the good book in such a manner must be vast and well funded.