Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[WildTurkey]

Oh. So God was wrong when he said everything was VERY nice before Eve.

[bondserv]

You take flawed reasoning and impinge "chosen ignorance" on your detractors.

We know what you know, and we disagree. It is hard to disagree with a proven fact, however understandable to disagree with someone's theory. Theories are only interpretations of the facts, even if the theory is tauted by conventional wisdom.

If science were as pristine as the method comports, much of our disagreement would dissipate. Unfortunately, we have a large group of people who continue selling theory, as fact, every chance that they get, and many of them find the agenda so compelling they have systematically distorted the data. Humility is hard to find amongst the evo crowd. Telling.

Thought Police dispense with the idea of persuasion.

[WildTurkey]

Genesis 1:14 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and

He had already separated the day from the night on day one (1:4). Obviously, he is reiterating his creation much like your were rationalising Genesis 2 statements that sequenced the creation of animals after Adam.

[JohnnyM]

Your contention is not with me, but with God's Word.

Gen 2:18 - Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Chapter 1 tells us that man and woman were both created on day 6, so these events in Chapter 2 took place on day 6, meaning that Eve was created by the end of day six, thereby everything was good.

JM

[WildTurkey]

Your contention is not with me, but with God's Word.

It is with your capability to "interpret to fit" the bible on one hand but no only allow the literal interpretation on the other ...

Gen 2:18 - Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

After he found out that he was wrong when he thought the animals would be satisfactory companions.

Chapter 1 tells us that man and woman were both created on day 6, so these events in Chapter 2 took place on day 6,

Please cite.

[WildTurkey]

You take flawed reasoning and impinge "chosen ignorance" on your detractors.

Do you believe the earth was formed before the sun? Do you believe that angels keep the planes aloft?

I challenged some guy to prove that hypothesis but he refused my challenge then it failed the test for theory.

[Right Wing Professor]

One should realize that fanatical creationism is contrary to politeness.

Or in the present case, sanity.

Remember, kids, don't withdraw yourself from major psychotropic medications unless you're under a doctor's close supervision!

[WildTurkey]

Or in the present case, sanity.

I was trying to, um, be, uh, polite ...

[narby]

I'm just amazed at what posseses these people to be so stubborn about their interpretation of Genesis.

If someone was not already an atheist before starting these threads, I'm amazed they won't go that way in the end.

[WildTurkey]

Genesis clearly states that God created light on the first day. It is reiterated later with a reference to the sun in a passage about the fourth day so Johnny says we have to literally interpret that to mean that the sun was created on the fourth day thus counter to evolution.

Genesis 2 talks about Adam being alone and God creating the animals to give Adam company. However, this literal wording is in conflict with his teachings so he must reject it as false and a result of a poor translation.

[narby]

All this controversy about what "day" God did what is only relevant in that you must parse the meanings of multiple verses against each other and rationalize what the meaning is. Once you establish that it's necessary to parse verses, then you boil it all down, about the only thing you can say is that "God did it".

And since what God created, the earth, has produced prodigious evidence of Evolution, then it makes sence that God created Evolution.

If believers want to question anything, then they should stick with where the first life came from. No reputable scientist can really answer that question.

In the mean time, anyone promoting this fight over "Evolution" and "ID" is just working a con job no different than the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. They're stiring up the emotions of people using junk science and, oh by the way, you can donate to the cause at www.someplaceonthenet.com.

This whole debate I'm convinced is very bad for faithful people, very bad for conservatives, and a huge waste of time for anyone except those that oppose faithful people and conservatives.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Remember, kids, don't withdraw yourself from major psychotropic medications unless you're under a doctor's close supervision!

And remember kiddies, Darwinian racist theology was the guiding principle behind Nazism and its euthanasia policies, and is also the primary principle of Communism's "new man" theology.

Nazis and Communists also often used the tactics of accusing their political opponents of mental illness, drunkeness or drug use.

[WildTurkey]

This whole debate I'm convinced is very bad for faithful people, very bad for conservatives, and a huge waste of time for anyone except those that oppose faithful people and conservatives.

ditto. However, this is how our system works. Not always efficient and with frequent, if not rapid, swings of the pendulum.

[WildTurkey]

And remember kiddies, Darwinian racist theology was the guiding principle behind Nazism and its euthanasia policies, and is also the primary principle of Communism's "new man" theology. Nazis and Communists also often used the tactics of accusing their political opponents of mental illness, drunkeness or drug use.

Hmmm. Didn't you just use a Nazi/Communist tactic?

[WildTurkey]

Should have cc'd you instead of narby.

[unlearner]

"I don't understand. Johnny says to take it literally and you don't. Which one of you is correct?"

We agree that you do not understand.

I have not been following Johnny's conversations; what I have read of his is very accurate. I also read specifically that Johnny does not take the "four corners" literally.

The Bible contains figures of speech like other literature. It also contains a great deal of factual information.

Christ taught parables which were not intended to be understood literally as much as for the purpose of illustrating a spiritual truth.

There is nothing contextually that leads me to interpret Genesis 1 as anything but literal. If I were to be proved wrong on this, it would not be by forcing me to fit modern scientific observations into the text. It can only be by someone showing from the text itself that it is intended to be read that way.

"back in my posts, you will see I am not fixated on particular words"

I said you were fixated because when presented with a clear and logical refutation of the meaning you ascribe to "four corners" you simply repeat the same flawed arguments. You cannot accept that I do not have to view the use of this term as being literal, or the idea that even if taken literally does not necessarily imply a flat earth (as has been a source of contention long ago).

"make amends for implying something about my character that is not true"

I am not sure how I am assaulting your character. I am making a simple observation about what we have recently discussed. When two people debate, it helps to establish some foundational premise for the arguments of each participant. If we cannot even agree on the reference point from which to argue our points then there really is nothing left to debate. The point is moot.

I did not intend to insult you. Please do not take offense at my directness; it is not personal.

There are people I respect and get along well with who disagree on important subjects. A doctor who attends my church believes the most accurate interpretation of Genesis 1 requires an ancient earth. I am not persuaded by his logic, but we can still break bread together.

There are certain issues which would force me to part company as far as church goes, but this (ancient earth) is not one of them.

I agree with Johnny that evolution (as an origin of species and man) is incompatible with the Bible.

[js1138]

I think that Southack, on any other kind of thread, would be calling the NAS a bunch of pink pantied, kiche munching commie libs. He was desperate to find a way out of the corner. I have to say I admire his google skills. I have not found a single other instance of the word recessive used in reference to bacteria.

The word nonce refers to a word used only once in all of literature. Shakespeare added a pile of them. I don't know if there's a word to describe a word misused only once.

[WildTurkey]

When two people debate, it helps to establish some foundational premise for the arguments of each participant.

But that premise does not need to include what either party believes. Frequently, in debating classes and societies, parties are forced to take either side whether one agrees with it or not. The debate commences based on the merits of the argument without name calling and irregardless of the views of either party.

Bottom line, you violated the rules of debating AND stated a false assumption.

[WildTurkey]

You cannot accept that I do not have to view the use of this term as being literal, or the idea that even if taken literally does not necessarily imply a flat earth (as has been a source of contention long ago).

What I cannot accept is trying to force a literal interpretation where one thinks the bible fits his view and then forcing a liberal interpretation in other areas to make the bible fit their point of view. Does not wash.

[narby]

There are people I respect and get along well with who disagree on important subjects. A doctor who attends my church believes the most accurate interpretation of Genesis 1 requires an ancient earth. I am not persuaded by his logic, but we can still break bread together.

Then certianly you can recognize that whether old earth or new, the bottom line is that religious believers do not agree with each other. If believers cannot agree on the meaning of Genesis, then why should science pay any attention to them at all? It is for science to use it's methods that it defines to make it's decisions, and for religious people to stick with their religion.

ID IS NOT SCIENCE. And it should not be crammed down the throat of schools for religious reasons.