Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[Retro Rob]

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.

I was being misrepresented. Even the Bible states animals existed before humans and Adam named them all.

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.

Glad you pointed that out.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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

Ok... so? Could that be because the biblical genealogies are virtually complete?

Matthew 1 and Luke 3

Is that the only one?

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

Yes, but my question asked how significant that affect would be. If we're taking merely plus or minus 300 years it doesn't really change anything. The biblical chronology is off by billions from observed reality.

Well, Rob M. isn't the thing by which we test the scriptures 😉

But he is a person who represents these beliefs here on the forum.

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.

What I mean to say is that the bible describes things existing at most several days before humans began to exist. The reality is that things have existed for billions of years before humans appeared.

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.

We must deal with differing interpretations, and any of the interpretations described here by me are interpretations held in earnest by other self-identified Christians. If you take issue with any of those interpretations, you are invited to qualify your authority to dismiss them.

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.

I'm not particularly concerned about anything having to do with Saul of Tarsus.

 

[Schmide]

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.

This is the irony of this crap. You say just shut it and ignore it but these bible thumpers are trying to put religion on the same level as science. They're not even close to relate-able let alone in the same curriculum. Science dudes never go after creationists but creationists go after science. It really shows the creationists inadequacies.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I was being misrepresented. Even the Bible states animals existed before humans and Adam named them all.

They existed a day or two before humans in the bible. In reality they existed for millions of years before humans.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is the irony of this crap. You say just shut it and ignore it but these bible thumpers are trying to put religion on the same level as science. They're not even close to relate-able let alone in the same curriculum. Science dudes never go after creationists but creationists go after science. It really shows the creationists inadequacies.

My point was that if doesn't agree with what's in the Bible, he should just close it and stop reading it instead of misrepresenting something he obviously has very little understanding of.

I've stated that the Bible and evolution are incompatible, didn't I?

 

[Retro Rob]

They existed a day or two before humans in the bible. In reality they existed for millions of years before humans.

I'm not so sure of that seeing how it stated in Peter that 1,000 years are as a day to God.

Based on that, it could be a day (1,000 years) in God's eyes.

 

[sandorski]

If Adam named all the animals, why are there still Species being discovered that have no names?

 

[stormkroe]

Ok... so? Could that be because the biblical genealogies are virtually complete?

Well, if you believe humans have been around for 100k+ years, as I certainly do, they you have to believe that they aren't virtually complete. I believe they are all true, in that, as I said before, father, or 'ben' or 'bar' can mean what we call 'grandfathers' (and any amount of 'greats' in there) or simply a patriarch, like Abraham is the 'father' of the Israelites which is thousands of years.

Is that the only one?

How many do you need? Repetition is not required to express the information

Yes, but my question asked how significant that affect would be. If we're taking merely plus or minus 300 years it doesn't really change anything. The biblical chronology is off by billions from observed reality.

Whoa whoa whoa... how can genealogies be off by 'billions from observed reality'? 'Observed reality' shows humans came around a hundred thousand years ago, not billions.

But he is a person who represents these beliefs here on the forum.

And Phokus is a person who represents liberals on here, does that mean that the liberal ideology lives or dies by what he says?

What I mean to say is that the bible describes things existing at most several days before humans began to exist. The reality is that things have existed for billions of years before humans appeared.

As I said before, the word 'yom', translated as 'day' there has different meanings in Hebrew, which is a necessity in a language of only about 8700 words. Even in english, 'day' has many different meanings, such as 'day of the dinosaur' or 'it's hot during the day'. I totally agree that things existed billions of years before humans.

We must deal with differing interpretations, and any of the interpretations described here by me are interpretations held in earnest by other self-identified Christians. If you take issue with any of those interpretations, you are invited to qualify your authority to dismiss them.

I don't dismiss peoples beliefs based on my authority any more than you do, which is to say, I don't and I don't think you do either. But as I said before, I don't require authority to dismiss the idea that 'Paul wasn't even born until after Jesus died' when I can look at history and see that he was born in A.D. 5 as a citizen of Rome. In the same way, YOU don't require authority to dismiss the idea that people had dinosaurs as pets when you can look at carbon dating and see that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as man.

I'm not particularly concerned about anything having to do with Saul of Tarsus.

I wasn't bringing him up because of something specific to Paul, just as an example like I did up above here. If you read it again you can't really take it any other way.

 

[stormkroe]

If Adam named all the animals, why are there still Species being discovered that have no names?

This is a great question. The Bible teaches that Man is the last created life on earth. If what it says is true, there will be NO species newer than Humans ever found period. So there you go, a flaw you can't get an answer to. The thing is, there haven't been, so far, any species that appeared in the fossil record after mankind first appeared.

So even though we're finding new species today, they're all dated before mankind.

This, of course, only applies to what the Bible speaks about as 'creations', not like the breeding (hybridization) of a new dog or the variances in rabbits that the observable portions of evolution has brought on.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, if you believe humans have been around for 100k+ years, as I certainly do, they you have to believe that they aren't virtually complete. I believe they are all true, in that, as I said before, father, or 'ben' or 'bar' can mean what we call 'grandfathers' (and any amount of 'greats' in there) or simply a patriarch, like Abraham is the 'father' of the Israelites which is thousands of years.

Or we could simply accept the parsimonious explanation that the biblical account is erroneous.

How many do you need? Repetition is not required to express the information

if it is your suggestion that additional examples exist, it is not unreasonable to expect evidence that these examples exist. Do you have any? It appears you do not.

Whoa whoa whoa... how can genealogies be off by 'billions from observed reality'? 'Observed reality' shows humans came around a hundred thousand years ago, not billions.

Oh it differs from real human history by several hundred thousands of years, and it differs from the actual history of the universe by billions. If course, the difference between those two in the bible is merely a few days.

And Phokus is a person who represents liberals on here, does that mean that the liberal ideology lives or dies by what he says?

If you take issue with a position he has advanced, start a new thread. This is nothing more than a red herring.

As I said before, the word 'yom', translated as 'day' there has different meanings in Hebrew, which is a necessity in a language of only about 8700 words. Even in english, 'day' has many different meanings, such as 'day of the dinosaur' or 'it's hot during the day'. I totally agree that things existed billions of years before humans.

It's unfortunate that the bible does not appear to agree with you.

I don't dismiss peoples beliefs based on my authority any more than you do, which is to say, I don't and I don't think you do either. But as I said before, I don't require authority to dismiss the idea that 'Paul wasn't even born until after Jesus died' when I can look at history and see that he was born in A.D. 5 as a citizen of Rome. In the same way, YOU don't require authority to dismiss the idea that people had dinosaurs as pets when you can look at carbon dating and see that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as man.

The point is that it isn't myself that has allegedly misrepresented the bible. I have only reported what other earnest Christians have claimed is described in the text. How can an impartial observer determine whether it is you it them that "misrepresents" things?

I wasn't bringing him up because of something specific to Paul, just as an example like I did up above here. If you read it again you can't really take it any other way.

But in the case of Genesis and the history of existence it's pretty clear that there are several intensely competing interpretations.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I was being misrepresented. Even the Bible states animals existed before humans and Adam named them all.

Does it now?
It also states the opposite!
Genesis 1:25-27

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Compared to

Genesis 2:18-19

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.#
meet…: Heb. as before him


And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Pick your poison...

 

[Retro Rob]

Does it now?
It also states the opposite!
Genesis 1:25-27

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Compared to

Genesis 2:18-19

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.#
meet…: Heb. as before him


And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Pick your poison...

Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.-Genesis 2:5–4:26.

The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) God tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.-Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.​

 

[Lonbjerg]

Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.-Genesis 2:5–4:26.​

The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) God tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.-Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.​

Only an ignorant science denier would take the bible's words for truth....but nice to see you try and conform facts to fit with your indoctrination.

Besides...evolution tells us Adam&Eve is bogus, those are the facts:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...doff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/

Genes don't lie...unlike religous people.

Adam&Eva are debunked....by scinece...via our wonderfull genes.

Deny that...and you just confirmed you ARE a scinece-denier...not matter the FUD you post.

 

[Retro Rob]

Only an ignorant science denier would take the bible's words for truth....but nice to see you try and conform facts to fit with your indoctrination.

Besides...evolution tells us Adam&Eve is bogus, those are the facts:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...doff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/

Genes don't lie...unlike religous people.

Adam&Eva are debunked....by scinece...via our wonderfull genes.

Deny that...and you just confirmed you ARE a scinece-denier...not matter the FUD you post.

What's the point of us carrying on any further with the discussion then, you and I?

You are not the first person I've had this disagreement with, and won't be the last. Life happens, we take it, and keep it moving.

G'day!

 

[WelshBloke]

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.

Wait so the 9/11 attacks were OK because those were gods will (to the people who perpetrated them) as well?

 

[Lonbjerg]

What's the point of us carrying on any further with the discussion then, you and I?

You are not the first person I've had this disagreement with, and won't be the last. Life happens, we take it, and keep it moving.

G'day!

Stop lying.
You ARE a science-denier.

Live with it.

And don't pretend to be anything else...fucking muppet!

 

[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....

This is something I thought about.

True, sometimes there is insufficient information and that is what I've personally seen for myself at times.

However, the book would probably have so many volumes, that those volumes could fill the entire empire state building several times over if each and every detail about each and every person covering each and every aspect of their lives were written down in it. It would take a person a lifetime to even read through it.

John said just that (exaggerating) when talking about writing down every detail about the life of Jesus (John 21:25)

I would say we have what's important in a condenced fashion. Even Biographies that I've looked into are written in a detailed, yet condenced fashion, or the book would span an indefinte number of volumes maybe.

For instance, I don't need to know what Jesus ate for breakfast every morning, or what he said while walking pass a random stranger while on his to the Synagouge.

When I need more details about a certain Bible account, I am more than willing to search out additional information (while reading other scrpitures before and after the one I am reading) to get the information I need. Even sometimes, you have to take it at it's word. That's just how things are sometimes. If you have faith that something you're reading is true, then you don't need to question every little thing.

That's what study is all about.

 

[3chordcharlie]

This is something I thought about.

True, sometimes there is insufficient information and that is what I've personally seen for myself at times.

However, the book would probably have so many volumes, that those volumes could fill the entire empire state building several times over if each and every detail about each and every person covering each and every aspect of their lives were written down in it. It would take a person a lifetime to even read through it.

John said just that (exaggerating) when talking about writing down every detail about the life of Jesus (John 21:25)

I would say we have what's important in a condenced fashion. Even Biographies that I've looked into are written in a detailed, yet condenced fashion, or the book would span an indefinte number of volumes maybe.

For instance, I don't need to know what Jesus ate for breakfast every morning, or what he said while walking pass a random stranger while on his to the Synagouge.

When I need more details about a certain Bible account, I am more than willing to search out additional information (while reading other scrpitures before and after the one I am reading) to get the information I need. Even sometimes, you have to take it at it's word. That's just how things are sometimes. If you have faith that something you're reading is true, then you don't need to question every little thing.

That's what study is all about.

Rob, your faith is perfectly fine with me. I actually admire it.

It has to stay out of science. You must sit down, learn, and understand the definition of 'theory'. The way you are using the word is much closer to what a scientist would call 'hypothesis'.

Science and Religion need not be truly at odds, but when it comes to the physical world - the part that we can examine and understand in detail - it is always going to be the responsibility of Religion to perform the mental gymnastics to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

Failing that, do not expect to ever convince a rational person that faith-based reality deserves even a mention in an empirical study, class, theory, etc.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Rob, your faith is perfectly fine with me. I actually admire it.

It has to stay out of science. You must sit down, learn, and understand the definition of 'theory'. The way you are using the word is much closer to what a scientist would call 'hypothesis'.

Science and Religion need not be truly at odds, but when it comes to the physical world - the part that we can examine and understand in detail - it is always going to be the responsibility of Religion to perform the mental gymnastics to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

Failing that, do not expect to ever convince a rational person that faith-based reality deserves even a mention in an empirical study, class, theory, etc.

Even Dali Lama gets that part:

http://cafephilos.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/the-dalai-lama-on-science/

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”

People like Rob M. does it in the wrong way.
They reject facts (evolution) when they collide with their superstition..and then lie about not being a science-denier.

I can at least repect the Lama for this...but not Rob M....because he is full of shite.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, your faith is perfectly fine with me. I actually admire it.

It has to stay out of science. You must sit down, learn, and understand the definition of 'theory'. The way you are using the word is much closer to what a scientist would call 'hypothesis'.

Science and Religion need not be truly at odds, but when it comes to the physical world - the part that we can examine and understand in detail - it is always going to be the responsibility of Religion to perform the mental gymnastics to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

Failing that, do not expect to ever convince a rational person that faith-based reality deserves even a mention in an empirical study, class, theory, etc.

Thanks.

I've mentioned that evolution and the Bible are incompatible.

I will say this, the Bible isn't out of touch with reality. It just isn't scientific, and that's a fact. I don't think I even claimed it was scientific.

I personally don't get overly-excited about science, because in truth, scientific advancement has done wonders for both my personal and professional life, but it has proven to be used for extremely destructive means.

Some scientific advancement has allowed stupid people to kill on much wider scale than people did way back when when the bow and arrow put folks on the top of the food chain.

On the other hand, it's advanced medicine, technology, space travel and many other things that I currently enjoy reading about and using.

People like Rob M. does it in the wrong way.
They reject facts (evolution) when they collide with their superstition..and then lie about not being a science-denier.

I can at least repect the Lama for this...but not Rob M....because he is full of shite.

This guy has become my number one fan! He can't keep my name out of his mouth, or my quotes from his posts...

Forum fame!

 

[Lonbjerg]

This guy has become my number one fan! He can't keep my name out of his mouth, or my quotes from his posts...

Forum fame!

I love the way you take a dump on the core christian values..."jebuz" would have been so proud of you :wub:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Thanks.

I've mentioned that evolution and the Bible are incompatible.

Only certain interpretations of the Bible are incompatible with evolution.

I will say this, the Bible isn't out of touch with reality. It just isn't scientific, and that's a fact. I don't think I even claimed it was scientific.

no, it certainly isn't scientific, and if your interpretation of the bible cannot be reconciled with evolution, it is your interpretation that requires adjustment.

I personally don't get overly-excited about science, because in truth, scientific advancement has done wonders for both my personal and professional life, but it has proven to be used for extremely destructive means.

Some scientific advancement has allowed stupid people to kill on much wider scale than people did way back when when the bow and arrow put folks on the top of the food chain.

That's like saying you don't follow baseball anymore because someone once used a bat to beat a person to death. Me, I won't ride in cars anymore because a drunk driver once killed a pedestrian. 🙄

On the other hand, it's advanced medicine, technology, space travel and many other things that I currently enjoy reading about and using.

And of course those advances in modern medicine stem from our thorough understanding of evolution.

 

[Retro Rob]

Only certain interpretations of the Bible are incompatible with evolution.

Nope, won't be drawn into a debate about this. This is your opinion, you can have it.

no, it certainly isn't scientific, and if your interpretation of the bible cannot be reconciled with evolution, it is your interpretation that requires adjustment

Again, your opinion. Nope... won't even debate it. Have your opinion.

That's like saying you don't follow baseball anymore because someone once used a bat to beat a person to death. Me, I won't ride in cars anymore because a drunk driver once killed a pedestrian. 🙄

Did I say that science shouldn't be used because people misuse it? No, I didn't. My point was simple -- anything can be used for both good and evil, science, the Bible, religion.. anything... even a baseball bat.

Sorry for disrupting your infallible view of the scientific world, Taxt.

And of course those advances in modern medicine stem from our thorough understanding of evolution.

Doesn't mean I have to accept Evolution to take advanatage of said advances. I reject evolution, and use science and it's advances without a hitch! 😎

Does that upset you?

 

[alzan]

The Big Bang, Evolution attempt to explain how we got here; spirituality/religion attempt to explain why we're here.

I don't think so. Genesis 1:1 "God created the heavens and the Earth" I think the two are completely incompatible. They both offer different explanations of how we got here.

One is a statement of religious faith, the other is an explanation based on observation of the physical laws and properties of our universe and it's inhabitants. And that's one reason why they shouldn't be taught together in the science curriculum. Have a comparative mythologies class and the various religious myths can be compared and discussed.

Did I say that science shouldn't be used because people misuse it? No, I didn't. My point was simple -- anything can be used for both good and evil, science, the Bible, religion.. anything... even a baseball bat.

Sorry for disrupting your infallible view of the scientific world, Taxt.



Doesn't mean I have to accept Evolution to take advanatage of said advances. I reject evolution, and use science and it's advances without a hitch! 😎

Does that upset you?

A certain percentage of people will always misuse science or religion; it's an individual problem.

You can certainly choose to not accept evolution, a scientific theory that we know more about than we do of gravity; yet there aren't too many people that don't accept that gravity is real. And the ones that don't accept it are either: in a substance-induced altered state of consciousness; suffering from a mental illness or responding to an extreme emotional stress factor in their lives.

 

[Paul98]

Nope, won't be drawn into a debate about this. This is your opinion, you can have it.



Again, your opinion. Nope... won't even debate it. Have your opinion.




Did I say that science shouldn't be used because people misuse it? No, I didn't. My point was simple -- anything can be used for both good and evil, science, the Bible, religion.. anything... even a baseball bat.

Sorry for disrupting your infallible view of the scientific world, Taxt



Doesn't mean I have to accept Evolution to take advanatage of said advances. I reject evolution, and use science and it's advances without a hitch! 😎

Does that upset you?

You seem to be confusing fact and opinion. I can't help at laugh at the pure stupidity of your posts. Oh I don't believe in the fact of evolution, but have no problem using evolution and what comes about from it.

I suggest people simply stop responding to you as clearly you are so far gone from reality and logic that you are unable to be reached.