Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[lotus503]

If everything the science coudn't explain didn't exist there would be a lot of shit we would have to ignore.

True science cannot disprove the existence of the soul. But the only thing that can explain its existence is the imagination.

 

[Throckmorton]

If our concienceness is nothing more than electrochemical impulses then we should be able to recreate that in a lab yet me can't.

That's a pretty ridiculous fallacy. Something has to be supernatural if we can't reproduce it in a lab?

 

[lotus503]

That's a pretty ridiculous fallacy. Something has to be supernatural if we can't reproduce it in a lab?

They have in fact recreated spiritual experiences with DMT.

Soon they will prove all spiritual experiences are bio chemical functions.

 

[Abraxas]

I hope I am answering this correctly, but when the Hivite men of Gibeon elected to seek peace with Israel, they were promptly attacked by “five kings of the Amorites” and escaped destruction only because of an all-night march by Joshua’s forces and God's miraculous intervention. -- Jos 10:1-27; 11:19.

After this battle and after Joshua’s succeeding campaign throughout the land, the power of the Amorites in the S of Palestine was evidently broken. Still, the Amorites in the northern regions joined with other tribes in an alliance that engaged Israel in battle at “the waters of Merom.” Disastrously overwhelmed, the Amorites are never again mentioned as constituting a major danger to Israel. (Jos 11:1-9) A remnant remained, but their territory was greatly reduced.

They evidently kept fighting against God, and if I am understanding this correctly, they were not wiped out completely.

God had a coventant with Israel, which included protecting them from people who wanted to kill them.

Anyone still alive by Joshua 11:9 was then killed in Joshua 11:14. Joshua killed every human being from an enormous number of kingdoms. Putting that in context, yes, they were their enemies but they were in large part their enemies because Israel, under Joshua, had a tendency to conquer and slaughter her neighbors. I'm not seeing context here that makes this okay, other than God commands it which feeds back into my remarks on cruelty. What am I missing? What makes it okay for Joshua to kill every man, woman, and child in Debir or Eglon?

 

[Matt1970]

Yet.

Skynet.

 

[Abraxas]

Skynet.

I don't know what that means. My point is just because the technology doesn't currently exist to make a perfect copy of a human consciousness now, one, does not mean consciousness is not an arrangement of physical matter, only that we cannot duplicate that arrangement, and that two, as technology progresses we may well be able to create a copy of consciousness in the future given sufficient time to develop the technology. Microprocessors were impossible to create in a lab a hundred years ago too, nothing changed in the fundamental nature of the universe that enabled them, only our capacity as humans.

 

[Retro Rob]

Anyone still alive by Joshua 11:9 was then killed in Joshua 11:14. Joshua killed every human being from an enormous number of kingdoms. Putting that in context, yes, they were their enemies but they were in large part their enemies because Israel, under Joshua, had a tendency to conquer and slaughter her neighbors. I'm not seeing context here that makes this okay, other than God commands it which feeds back into my remarks on cruelty. What am I missing? What makes it okay for Joshua to kill every man, woman, and child in Debir or Eglon?

Like I mentioned earlier, it's reallly silly to call God's actions into question when we never understand all the details... particulary thousands of years after something happened.

He obviously had good reason, hence all the other reasons for Him conquering other nations to protect his people from current and future dangers.

Just like with the Flood, a cruel God would not have told Noah to tell people about the impending danger for 50 years... he preached that long. He also judged that hearts of man was bad all the time. (Gen 6:5) Obviously, He felt the need to destroy evil men while preserving those who would listen. Is that cruel?

Or with Sodom and Gomorrah. The men of the city wanted to have intercourse with God's angels. (Gen 19:4-5) He spared Lot and his family, and even mentioned that not even ten men were righteous (Gen 18:32) and if there were, he would have spared the city. Obviously, since it was destroyed, not even ten good men were there!

Issuing warnings and giving people opportunity isn't cruel.

This is why I say people have to read and understand what they're reading before calling anything cruel.

 

[Abraxas]

Like I mentioned earlier, it's reallly silly to call God's actions into question when we never understand all the details... particulary thousands of years after something happened.

He obviously had good reason, hence all the other reasons for Him conquering other nations to protect his people from current and future dangers.

Just like with the Flood, a cruel God would not have told Noah to tell people about the impending danger for 50 years... he preached that long. He also judged that hearts of man was bad all the time. (Gen 6:5) Obviously, He felt the need to destroy evil men while preserving those who would listen. Is that cruel?

Or with Sodom and Gomorrah. The men of the city wanted to have intercourse with God's angels. (Gen 19:4-5) He spared Lot and his family, and even mentioned that not even ten men were righteous (Gen 18:32) and if there were, he would have spared the city. Obviously, since it was destroyed, not even ten good men were there!

Issuing warnings and giving people opportunity isn't cruel.

This is why I say people have to read and understand what they're reading before calling anything cruel.

Yes, but in the first line you also said we never understand the details. If there is insufficient information to understand in the source material to provide context that justifies Joshua roaming the streets of Gezer as it burned, moving from house to house, cradle to cradle, taking even the infants and impaling them on his sword as they cried and wailed, confused and terrified and never having committed a wrong against God or Israel in their brief lives, why should we assume these infants had it coming?

No context is provided that makes it okay, no context I can think of could make it okay.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't know what that means. My point is just because the technology doesn't currently exist to make a perfect copy of a human consciousness now, one, does not mean consciousness is not an arrangement of physical matter, only that we cannot duplicate that arrangement, and that two, as technology progresses we may well be able to create a copy of consciousness in the future given sufficient time to develop the technology. Microprocessors were impossible to create in a lab a hundred years ago too, nothing changed in the fundamental nature of the universe that enabled them, only our capacity as humans.

Skynet was the computer system in Terminator than became self aware.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, but in the first line you also said we never understand the details. If there is insufficient information to understand in the source material to provide context that justifies Joshua roaming the streets of Gezer as it burned, moving from house to house, cradle to cradle, taking even the infants and impaling them on his sword as they cried and wailed, confused and terrified and never having committed a wrong against God or Israel in their brief lives, why should we assume these infants had it coming?

No context is provided that makes it okay, no context I can think of could make it okay.

I hear you, but I don't think you're understanding me. My first human reaction is like your's "why would he do something like that".

The difference between me and you, is that I didn't write it off as cruel and unjust behavior. I honestly looked up some information because the God I've read about, as you yourself stated, is a God of love -- New Testament.

Joshua obviously trusted in God based on previous experience and did what he was commanded. God protected Isreal from the days of Moses tll his day. I'm not saying Joshua never asked God why, but based on what he heard or read of regarding the flood, sodom, and others experiences, he trusted God enough to do as commanded.

As a child, you never really understand why your parents ask you to do what they do, or why they set certain rules. However, since they love you and care for you, you know they have your best interest at heart. I am sure servants of God felt and feel the same way.

Questioning God's motives on everything you read in the Bible won't help you to understand it, particualry if you have already well-established opinion about His morality or the lack thereof.

 

[Schmide]

Joshua obviously trusted in God based on previous experience and did what he was commanded. God protected Isreal from the days of Moses tll his day. I'm not saying Joshua never asked God why, but based on what he heard or read of regarding the flood, sodom, and others experiences, he trusted God enough to do as commanded.

Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

Enough said. You're not rational!

 

[Darwin333]

The whole scientific community got turned on it's ear when it found life forms surviving right in the thermal vents on the bottom of the ocean. I believe that was in the early 90’s and it greatly expanded what scientists had previously believed were the thresholds for life. Recent discoveries near the polls has further expanded those tolerances. There are billions of galaxies out there with billions of stars in each. Odds are there are a lot more planets like ours out there and what we define as conditions suitable to sustain life get changed all the time.

Exactly. A lot of people think of human life when talking about having the "right conditions for life" but as we look around our own planet we find all sorts of life that we previously didn't believe could possibly live in that environment.

The fact is, conditions on earth were just right for OUR life to develop. There is no telling what other type of life could have developed in other conditions.

 

[Darwin333]

Like I mentioned earlier, it's reallly silly to call God's actions into question when we never understand all the details... particulary thousands of years after something happened.

He obviously had good reason, hence all the other reasons for Him conquering other nations to protect his people from current and future dangers.

Just like with the Flood, a cruel God would not have told Noah to tell people about the impending danger for 50 years... he preached that long. He also judged that hearts of man was bad all the time. (Gen 6:5) Obviously, He felt the need to destroy evil men while preserving those who would listen. Is that cruel?

Or with Sodom and Gomorrah. The men of the city wanted to have intercourse with God's angels. (Gen 19:4-5) He spared Lot and his family, and even mentioned that not even ten men were righteous (Gen 18:32) and if there were, he would have spared the city. Obviously, since it was destroyed, not even ten good men were there!

Issuing warnings and giving people opportunity isn't cruel.

This is why I say people have to read and understand what they're reading before calling anything cruel.

I dunno, killing a bunch of babies who had absolutely nothing to do with his people being enslaved instead of getting off his ass and coming down here and bitch slapping the pharaoh himself. Hell, send Michael to stick that flaming sword up the pharaohs ass and I bet he lets his people go. Naw, lets just fuck everything and everyone up, including most people who had nothing to do with his issue, and after seriously fucking everything up lets kill a bunch of innocent kids and babies. If the kids were truly evil or "bad" why would he give the pharaoh the opportunity to save them in the first place and why the torture beforehand?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I share the same number classy does,

Which number was that? I did not see him cite one.

but am now currently looking up some info to back it.

I'm eager awaiting your follow up post.

You gotta link for that, taxt?

Have you heard of this great new internet tool?

 

[Darwin333]

regardless of whatever else is going on in this thread, there is very clear proof that the bible is indeed prophetic.

The bible states that any man who lies with another man as he would lie with a woman shall be stoned. Gay marriage and marijuana were legalized at the same time, so clearly, a man who lies with another man can indeed be stoned. Unfortunately, christians have simply been using the wrong meaning of stoned.

lmmfao!!

 

[Darwin333]

He's referring to a Biblical standpoint.

As far as biblical history goes, Adam was created in 4026 BCE, or something around that. Evolution, if I am correct, states we came from a common ancestor long before then.

This is what makes the two incompatible.

Where does the bible state Adam was created in 4026BC?

 

[Retro Rob]

Which number was that? I did not see him cite one.

He said between 7-10 thousand years.

 

[sandorski]

Name one thing attributed to "God's" personality or Israel's conquests that did not exist amongst the hundreds of other "gods" or dozens of Nations of the same time period.

The only really remarkable things are:

1) That Yahweh is still recognized as a "god"
2) That the people of Israel still exist despite being uprooted so long ago

Even given those 2 points, their remarkability is greatly diminished when you consider the contiguous existence of Culture/Religion in the Far East, which coincidentally occurred in relative isolation from Western Civilization.

 

[Retro Rob]

I dunno, killing a bunch of babies who had absolutely nothing to do with his people being enslaved instead of getting off his ass and coming down here and bitch slapping the pharaoh himself. Hell, send Michael to stick that flaming sword up the pharaohs ass and I bet he lets his people go. Naw, lets just fuck everything and everyone up, including most people who had nothing to do with his issue, and after seriously fucking everything up lets kill a bunch of innocent kids and babies. If the kids were truly evil or "bad" why would he give the pharaoh the opportunity to save them in the first place and why the torture beforehand?

That's the beauty of the Holy Scriptures. The book closes the same way it opens. If you don't agree with what's in there or find things morbidly offensive, then fine. Close the book, leave it alone and shut up about it. Not too hard to do.

 

[sandorski]

That's the beauty of the Holy Scriptures. The book closes the same way it opens. If you don't agree with what's in there or find things morbidly offensive, then fine. Close the book, leave it alone and shut up about it. Not too hard to do.

What makes them "Holy"?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

He said between 7-10 thousand years.

And you derive that figure... how?

 

[stormkroe]

And you derive that figure... how?

Glad I came back today. I'd like to point out that the Bible does not demand that date. It's derived from genealogies in the Bible that go back to Adam. There are ages listed beside them so it seems just a simple issue of math.

The problem is, those genealogies are not exhaustive. There are a couple different places where they are listed and they're not identical. The problem is, once again, Hebrew has a TINY vocabulary, English does not. Often when speaking of sons or fathers, they're speaking in a patriarchal sense, like grand fathers or sons, great great great, etc.

I keep up to date on as much science as I possibly can through podcasts, lectures, and debates during my work days, and I think the generally accepted date for humans coming on the scene is around 150k +/- 50k years ago which fits just fine with Biblical creation.

There's a LOT of misrepresenting the Bible in this thread, it's not a matter of opinion just like there's a LOT of misrepresenting science here.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Glad I came back today. I'd like to point out that the Bible does not demand that date. It's derived from genealogies in the Bible that go back to Adam. There are ages listed beside them so it seems just a simple issue of math.

See Ussher, as described above.

The problem is, those genealogies are not exhaustive. There are a couple different places where they are listed and they're not identical.

Which places?

The problem is, once again, Hebrew has a TINY vocabulary, English does not. Often when speaking of sons or fathers, they're speaking in a patriarchal sense, like grand fathers or sons, great great great, etc.

And this affects the derived age of humans to what degree of significance?

I keep up to date on as much science as I possibly can through podcasts, lectures, and debates during my work days, and I think the generally accepted date for humans coming on the scene is around 150k +/- 50k years ago which fits just fine with Biblical creation.

Not according to Rob M. and only if you suppose nothing existed before humans did. Only an idiot believes that.

There's a LOT of misrepresenting the Bible in this thread, it's not a matter of opinion just like there's a LOT of misrepresenting science here.

There are allegations of biblical misrepresentation, but there are actual misrepresentations of science.

 

[Retro Rob]

And you derive that figure... how?

I actually came to the general 7-10 thousand years because I didn't think there was a record of human lifesyle, dealings, agriculture, or other stuff dating back past like before the 4000 BCE period.

I searched the 'net, saw something about a document dating around 3000, and even 2000, so I honestly don't know based on the research (or the lack thereof) that I've done.

If I'm wrong, I am wrong. Not the first time I've been wrong about something, and won't be the last....

 

[stormkroe]

See Ussher, as described above.

As I said before, Ussher had little reason to think they weren't complete or virtually complete.

Which places?

Matthew 1 and Luke 3

And this affects the derived age of humans to what degree of significance?

It affects the derived age by exactly the amount of people left out of the lineages.

Not according to Rob M. and only if you suppose nothing existed before humans did. Only an idiot believes that.

Well, Rob M. isn't the thing by which we test the scriptures I'd also like to point out that I've never seen anyone believe that nothing existed before humans, I think you might be misrepresenting him.

There are allegations of biblical misrepresentation, but there are actual misrepresentations of science.

No, there are actual misrepresentations here. You can say that Biblical 'facts' are alleged, but it is possible to actually misrepresent what the Bible says, whether you believe what it says or not. To say that the Bible tells us that Jesus will defeat Satan with a gun that shoots poison tomato bombs would be an actual misrepresentation. Likewise, when John said earlier that forgiveness of sins wasn't taught until Paul came no the scene is an actual misrepresentation.