Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 51 of 100 (690955)
02-18-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Eli
02-18-2013 12:01 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
And you have been told, seeing that you've tried to pass this crap off numerous times, that "deshe" does not mean "first sparks of life."
Yes, it means the "first" life to sprout on earth...
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 12:01 AM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Eli, posted 02-20-2013 12:30 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 52 of 100 (690957)
02-18-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Larni
02-18-2013 8:20 AM


Psychology and Sociological research follows the scientific method; making them science.
They are considered Soft Sciences because they are not Empirical.
They do not "follow" (?) the Scientific Method.
What they argue does not start with a hypothesis that is subjected to an empirical experiment to rule it a theory.
We can not predict the future in sociology, especially notable in the area of the economy.
The term soft science is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Soft science is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from hard science, with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science.
What is Soft Science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 8:20 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 12:40 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 55 of 100 (690985)
02-18-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Larni
02-18-2013 12:40 PM


LOL... conjecture...
Every piece of psychological research has a hypothesis. What piece of psychological research does not have a H0?
I find it astounding that you can use the word 'conjecture' without irony.
?
The SOURCE I provided a link for said "conjecture."
I think from reading your quick draw superior criticisms you are going to have a loy of surprises if you keep posting here.
NOTE:
What is Soft Science?
The term soft science is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Soft science is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from hard science, with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 02-18-2013 12:40 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 02-19-2013 6:18 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 56 of 100 (690986)
02-18-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
02-18-2013 12:17 PM


In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
1) "In the beginning" is a temporal reference. But your statement is false because at the beginning there is nothing that can reasonably be called "the Earth"
2) And that is a very clear indication that your "inferences" owe far more to modern science than they do to the text.
1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.
It has become clear that with the advent of modern science we now can see what the Bible writers inferred in the rather unique duality of the language used.
If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.
But don't pretend that makes the reader right and the bible wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2013 12:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2013 12:33 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2013 1:27 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2013 10:23 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 64 of 100 (691279)
02-21-2013 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Eli
02-20-2013 12:30 PM


Strong's dictionary for "deshe"...
It does not mean "first life." It means the simplest of vegetation occurring on dry ground.
You can SEE what it says as well as I do:
"The FIRST sprouts of the Earth"....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Eli, posted 02-20-2013 12:30 PM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Eli, posted 02-21-2013 10:04 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 65 of 100 (691281)
02-21-2013 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
02-20-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
Let's assume just for argument that the preference for more than two kingdoms is a choice.
Now that is big of you guys, to let us use the science that explains what te Book of Genesis means by referring to the Two Kingdom System.
Apparently you just favor the six kingdom system, but all six have there legitimate place for use as the yellow information inthe legend will confirm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2013 9:19 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 66 of 100 (691283)
02-21-2013 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
02-20-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
Why do bacteria and yeast belong in the plant kingdom? That choice simply cannot be justified. Where did anaerobic organisms belong?
The Chart below illustrates how the bacteria that first appeared on earth fits into the Plant Kingdom. Its a science thingee some just don't understand:
But all that is required here is that the Bible is not wrong in stating thatthe Plant kingdom appeared first, followed by the Animal Kingdom some 200,000 years later, as plants produced the necessary Oxygen the supported their respiratio.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2013 9:19 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Eli, posted 02-21-2013 10:08 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2013 11:29 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 67 of 100 (691286)
02-21-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2013 12:33 AM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
Why don't you go see if you can convince some YECs of your interpretation of the Bible?
The way the Dialectic works is that You bash the YEC Theist with your science ridiculing which is the Anti-theist that pushes veryone into the Synthesis that is neither your argument against Genesis nor there argument for it.
As they realize that I am defending the Bible while telling you that at the moment of the Big Bang, the earth, the sun, the stars, the galaxies, etc were all created as far as the matter for them appearing, but they would take form over billins of years.
We know that Genesis was inferring this from the second sentence in Genesis:
The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:
Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2013 12:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 02-21-2013 9:34 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2013 11:42 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 73 of 100 (691463)
02-22-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2013 11:42 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
Hold on. I thought that we'd already established that when Genesis talks about water, it means people. But now it means "transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun" as well?
And I suppose there may even be instances where it means water.
... but as you suggest, the literary arts do use the figurative concept of flowing through" in regard to a flood of peoples in the Noah story.
A search of scrioture will show that this idea of a "flood" of troops or people has been used by the bible writers before, elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2013 11:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 1:44 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 74 of 100 (691465)
02-22-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes
02-21-2013 11:29 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
Cyanobacteria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific classification
Domain: Bacteria
Phylum: Cyanobacteria
Cyanobacteria (/saɪˌnoʊbkˈtɪəriə/), also known as blue-green bacteria, blue-green algae, and Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis.[3] The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the bacteria (Greek: κυανός (kyans) = blue).
You are not a fool, since it is important that you try me on all this stuff in order to realize that I have done the homework and doubled checked all these possible criticisms that might show that everything does pan out.
As you follow along and try to "catch me" on making unfounded assertions, I have the opportunity to demonstrate the point of view i have choosen to take on many possible choices that might be available in some case of another.
But it becomes clear that consistently chose the word use and facts that tend to make scripture conform with the Truth.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2013 11:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 1:22 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 77 of 100 (691476)
02-22-2013 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2013 1:44 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
Transitory means "in between."
Like in between the time the whole watery masses of the entire Solar System roated as one large singular disc until that ime when each of the members of the solar System had taken Form and had been void of a recognizable solid Sphere.
The Literary Arts use these kinds of expression in simile, not metaphor, so the reader will relate to what the writer is trying to communicate semantically:
But of course, it is not my intention that you will come to agree with me.
I know it is human nature to oppose things that criticize your initial mockery of the Bible.
I am merely supplying the sources, science, dictionary meanings, and analysis that demonstrate interpretations which one could use in support of scrioture, if one so choose to so do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 1:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 02-22-2013 2:39 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 2:52 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 78 of 100 (691477)
02-22-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2013 1:22 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
1) Cyanobacteria are sometimes called "blue-green algae", but they're not actually algae phylogenetically.
2) Where that chart says "algae" it does not include cyanobacteria according to (a) the people who made the chart (b) any living scientist you care to name.
1) This is why I said before that the Six Kingdom Systems are questionable in classifying Bacteria as a Kingdom, since Bacteria represent Grades rather than Clades, and so are REJECTED as Phylogenetic Systems.
2) It does in the Two Kingdom and the Three kingdom Systems

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 1:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 02-22-2013 2:47 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 81 of 100 (691483)
02-22-2013 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coragyps
02-22-2013 2:39 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
But they weren't watery. And they had Form. You are sprouting/spouting bullshit again. Rather, still.
Lame...
The whole Solar System was a watery-like formless mass that gradually coalesced into the geometric spherical bodies we now see:
All this unfounded pretense aimed to diminish the obvious correspondence of Scripture with Science is merely the flip side of your previous distain for the Bible people who could not or would not be reasonable in the face of correction.
You are funny, actually, as you try to wiggle out from under an pretty clear correlation between exactly what Genesis syas and the facts of science tell us today.
But, the matter isnt whether YOU judge these congreucies to hold, but whether the future see churches filling up with people who agree that science is "proving" the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 02-22-2013 2:39 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 02-22-2013 4:09 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 83 of 100 (691486)
02-22-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
02-22-2013 2:47 PM


Re: Is this what you propose to teach?
And we should give a red rat's ass about what Herr Haeckel proposed a century and a half ago?
Of course we should, when we realize that the context of Genesis 1:11 on refers ONLY to plants and animals.
Since "one or another of of the Kingdom-level classifications of life is STILL widely employed as a useful way of grouping organisms,"... why fault me, or the bible writers, or the church, or the scriptures???
(SEE YELLOW HIGHLITE)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 02-22-2013 2:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Eli, posted 02-22-2013 8:17 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3906 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 84 of 100 (691487)
02-22-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2013 2:52 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
If you want to claim to atheists, agnostics, deists, other non-Christians, etc, that the Bible demonstrates actual scientific knowledge, then I think you're on a loser here. As I pointed out, your interpretation of the Bible makes it so vague as to make it almost meaningless. Yes, it would allow the scientific point of view. It would also allow the giant space turtle sneezing.
LOL
SEZ YOU....
Vague,... hahahaaaaaaa.
That is the basis of all this debate, that I say Genesis is dead on clear and specific while you started a few years ago with the erroneous assumptionthat Genesis was so vague you ould mock the bible, mock Religion,mock the churches and the church people.
Here, funny as it is, you merely repeat your side of the argument by re-stating your loser position about a vague Bible.
1) Is a Big Bang "In the beginning" so vague as to NOT tell us directly that the Uniuverse was not always there, as scientists argued might have been the case before Hubble's time????
2) Could the specific mention of the Panthalassic Ocean forming for the first time during the geological era of the third "day" of the Creation be any more specific in one sentence or two, saying "ALL the waters UNDER heaven were GATHERED TOGETHER into ONE place?"
There WAS one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together around Pangaea.
Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):
1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Anartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),...
...and it was so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 2:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2013 4:30 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 87 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 4:48 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2013 12:05 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024