Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[freedumb2003]

Do we have any list of mathematicians publicly signing statements that 1+1 does not equal 2 and, therefore, other ideas should be taught?

We would if it said so in the Bible. Remember this argument breaks into 2 essential parts: "The Bible Says So" and "it is too complicated." My argument addresses the first. Let me then move on -- how about the theory of Gravity? String Theory? There are significant debates about these within the scientific community, but the foundations are available as science.

This is the problem. You want evolution taught in the same absolute format as mathematics when it just ain't so. Evolution, as it pertains to the origin of man, is not in any way similar to the mathematic certainty that 1+1=2. To believe that it is - which is really what this debate is all about - takes much more faith than believing the Bible. When the real mathematicians point out the almost statistical impossibility of man resulting from some single cell organism - they are not allowed in the classroom because it is not science.

Show me one accredited publication where such a statement is made.

Your comparing evolution to the certainty of mathematics lifts the veil and exposes the problem that most evo's have. It is a "theory" in no way comparable to other scientific or mathematical facts. I know - now I'm going to have explained to me what a "theory" is for the thousandth time.

1. I was being exemplary, but nonetheless evolution belongs in the science milieu, creationism belongs in the philosophical one. Your complex strawman attacking evolution does not resuscitate Creationism as an "alternate theory." Creationism is mythology.

2. You don't get to frame the debate by stealing the terms (I judged debate for many years). You can post what you think is a "theory" until the cows come home.

[js1138]

That has to be the stupidest post I have read in the 6 years I have been here.

But true, nonetheless.

[WildHorseCrash]

If you want biblical discussion on the shape of the earth, and the motion of the earth and planets, you have to go to the oldest writings: The epistles of Enoch. There is considerable description therein, and it is all in keeping with the current general understanding of the solar system.

My understanding of Enoch is that it is consistent with the standard near-east flat-earth cosmology. But I'd be interested in hearing your view.

As to whether the earth hangs on nothing, it definately appears to hang on nothing, and to that extent, the description in Job is accurate for the purpose of the statement, and the context thereof.

Something that is hanging is suspended or fixed so that the acceleration of the gravity to which it is subject is arrested. The Earth, however, is neither suspended nor fixed, and the acceleration of the Sun on the Earth is not arrested. The Earth is constantly falling in toward the Sun, although its tangential velocity is sufficient to miss hitting the Sun, and it means that the Earth is constantly falling around the Sun.

I don't see how this can accurately be described as hanging, in any factual sense.

[Mamzelle]

re: You can post what you think is a "theory" until the cows come home.)))

He is most certainly free to do exactly that.

[Elsie]

Nuh uh. Jesus was a volunteer. And sin put Him on that cross. My sin and your sin.

 

Yup!

 

 

NIV John 1:29
   The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

 

 

NIV John 10:17-19
 17.  The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again.
 18.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
 19.  At these words the Jews were again divided.

 

 

[freedumb2003]

When Evolutionists lie (think hoaxes) they are 'exposed' and then 'we move on'.

Yes, and it is other Evolutionists who find these haxes because of the strict application of the scientific principle.

The hoaxes don't undermine the underlying theory and are almiost always some individual shooting for fame and glory (think Falwell of Gene Scott for Religion).

OTOH, CRIDers lie on these threads. We have exposed them time and time again. Yet, I defy you to find a single Evo post that contains either a purposeful logical fallacy or flat out lie. I can do so for CRIDers.

[Elsie]

Ignorance can be cured.

You are right.

[WildHorseCrash]

Oh no. Rules of engagement. The burden of proof is on you. Nice try.

Oh no. You made no actual, specific argument against any of the descriptions of the biblical items I mentioned. As such, there is no "burden of proof" because there is no argument. I'm not the public library. Do your own research. Nice try.

[Elsie]

Especially after ToryHeartland reststed the temptration to support the claim that the United States of America was built by a bunch of bums.

I thought that was Australia!

No, wait; that was criminals.

[Elsie]

Also, though I am not a expert on the history, I believe that there were a series of religious movements in the 19th Century United States ('The Great Awakening,' of which I think there were several waves) which altered the cultural landscape, if not also the political.

Which we doubtless need again!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can post what you think is a "theory" until the cows come home."

In the same way Clinton can insist on his own definition of *is*. Anit-evos don't seem to get that though they may be perfectly within their rights to pick and choose what they want words to mean, it doesn't mean they are correct. Cafeteria science is no better than cafeteria religion.

[Mamzelle]

re: Yet, I defy you to find a single Evo post that contains either a purposeful logical fallacy or flat out lie.)))

Now, what would be the point of that, when you'd just redefine "lie" or "fallacy".

I can point you to a thread about a "new species" of fruit fly being launched where no new species existed, nor exists now (three years later). It's a thread full of wishful thinking and hopeful expectations, but no new species was created. Just an outlandish claim--a lie, as most people understand lying. I'm sure you'd just say that "new species" does not really mean "new species" and that I need to get back to biology class.

FRevos argue in bad faith--

[WildHorseCrash]

Without context, your opinion of these references is rather meaningless,

The context is that the bible's cosmology is consistent with that of the authors' contemporaries in Egypt and Mesopotamia--i.e., a flat earth surrounded with water covered by a vaulted heaven on which the sun, moon and stars traversed. What kind of context are you looking for?

but even taking them at face value, the two that are underlined actually suggest the relationship of a [raised] point on a curve, rather than a [raised point on a straight line.

True, they are consistent with a flat surface and with some curved surfaces. (I say some, because if the curve was steep enough, it would be inconsistent) However, they are wholly inconsistent with a raised point on an oblate spheroid, such as the Earth. Which is the point I am making.

[freedumb2003]

Cafeteria science is no better than cafeteria religion.

Well stated. It is important we stay true to the principles of science.

But I just didn't want to watch this degenerate into a debate on terminology. I don't have enough stack space to keep BR14 back (IBM M/F joke).

[Elsie]

And if God was all-powerful, He wouldn't require a sacrifice to forgive sins.

Some folks are complaining that others on this thread SPEAK for God.

You, however, know how HE works!

[P-Marlowe]

But true, nonetheless.

Right! The only reason I'm here on this forum is to discredit the Conservative movement.

Which side of this war is the ACLU on?

And in the last 50 years, what issue have they ever been "right" on?

[Elsie]

I will match my education, rationality and, more importantly, the "fruit" of 53 years of living with just about anyone on this sight and I find the whole idea of man coming into existence through chance over how ever many years the evo's deem to be required at any given point in their argument to be absolutely preposterous.

HMmmm..... ;^)

[WildHorseCrash]

On the whole, they are inconsistent, without a great deal of interpretation and apologetics, with anything approaching the modern understanding.

Kinda works into the poetic/literal thingy; eh?

As poetry, it is fine. Poetry is art; it is inherently subjective. My point is that is isn't factually accurate. The claim that the bible, literallly speaking, contains scientifically accurate and true cosmological statements (which is the essence of the "the bible is scientifically prescient" claim) is objectively false.

[WildHorseCrash]

There is something logically wrong with this sentence, but I can't figure out what.

I was being ironical, a little bit.

[Elsie]

Then time has failed well I double post!

Man, it looks like yer FINGERS failed!

Didn't you mean WHEN?

--EvoDude