Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught

Not on your showing. Oh, I wondered why you put the bizarre phrase "transitory things" into your explanation.Now I know. It's because the lexicon allows "water" to metaphorically mean 'transitory things", so that allows you to classify the accretion disc as water, because it only lasted a few million years. That is soooo transitory.Well, if that's what it takes to make something "water", then pretty much everything is water. Why should we take the reference to water in Genesis as referring to the accretion disc, out of all the other "transitory things", except that you really want to?I mean, if scientists had proved that the whole solar system was caused by a giant space turtle sneezing, then you could say: "See, the turtle sneeze was a transitory thing, clearly the Bible meant that when it said 'water', so once more the Bible is right, behold the wisdom of the Bible." The way you're reading the word "water" you could make the Bible fit any account whatsoever of the origin of the solar system, since that process, being finished, is "transitory" according to your understanding of the word.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

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

But they weren't watery. And they had Form. You are sprouting/spouting bullshit again. Rather, still.

And we should give a red rat's ass about what Herr Haeckel proposed a century and a half ago? Why? What were his opinions on heavier-than-air aircraft, or on television?Do you really think that knowledge of life did not increase at all between Haeckel and Cavalier-Smith?

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.

(1) Well, if you just want to claim that you can interpret the Bible in such a way as to be consistent with science, go ahead. But in that case you should be talking to Young Earth Creationists.(2) 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.All you've come up with is an interpretation of Biblical language consistent with the statement that the sun, moon, earth, etc, came into existence at some time (not necessarily the same time), in some way (unspecified). It doesn't particularly fit with the scientific account of how it happened any more than with any other account.You can show how science can be reconciled with the Bible, but not how the Bible is actually scientific. You make the question of what "water" means and what "day" means and what "created" means and so forth that it could fit any account whatsoever about creation. It fits the scientific account only because it's so vague that it would also fit the space turtle sneezing.(3) As far as your interpretation of Hebrew goes, I confess I know no more than you. But also, no less, because you don't speak Hebrew either, do you? Like me, you just look at the lexicons.Well, actual Hebrew scholars don't interpret the scriptures the same way as you, and what is more, nor did the actual Jews.So you would be putting yourself in a strange position, wouldn't you? You'd be saying: "None of the Jews, who actually spoke Hebrew, understood the meaning of the Hebrew text. Whereas I, who cannot speak Hebrew, have understood it completely. And it was written by an all-wise God who wanted to send a message to humanity, and yet out of all humanity, I, the non-Hebrew-speaker, am the first and only guy to understand the message."No-one, including all the people who can actually read Hebrew, has interpreted Genesis like you do. And apparently God let that situation stand for thousands of years. And now suddenly you, the guy who can't even read Hebrew, are The Chosen One who can finally explain to us what it really means?

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)

LOLSEZ 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.

"Watery-like" includes gases, mostly hydrogen, that are at around the pressure of the best vacuums that we can create here on Earth? And disks are "formless?"You are a Silly Person, kofh2u, and your father smells of elderberries.

Well of course it's vague.You come up with a definition of "water" that could include humans leaving Africa, the formation of an accretionary disc, the formation of the universe by a giant turtle sneezing, and the last time I ate a sandwich ... yes, that's extremely vague. And you are wrong.Show me. Go on, show me. You say that Genesis is specific. Well then, show me where it specifically favors the accretional disc rather than a turtle sneezing.All you have so far is that Genesis talks about water and water is transient. Well, so is a giant space-turtle sneezing.

The formation of supercontinents happened more than once, and Pangea was not the first supercontinent to form as far as we know. Rodinia is the first so-called supercontinent that we have evidence for. While we have evidence that they existed and a general knowledge of how the plates fit together, it is far from complete and Pangea, at least, had a bounded ocean in between the land forms.By the way, Pangea won't be the last and some models suggest the formation of a new supercontinent some time in the deep future.So if we were to believe your version of things, Pangea formed on the third day and Rodinia on the first? Does the bible talk of a third iteration of supercontinent?

No we shouldn't, because there are other lifeforms besides plants and animals.Changing ideas in science to conform to what the context of the bible is is exactly why the geocentric model was retained regardless of what the actuality of the earth/sun relationship was.

Actually none of us are calling Genesis vague. Most of the people you are arguing with have a specific meaning of the literal words of Genesis in mind. For example, I understand that Genesis describes a global flood of water actually lifting the keel of Noah's ark above the highest mountain.You are the one trying to make the Bible literal and inerrant by making it vague. According to you, no one can actually determine what the Bible says until a scientist uncovers evidence.If your method were of interpretation were correct, I would expect you to drop this Nostradamus style faux-prophesying and to instead read the Bible and announce some scientific knowledge in advance of science discovering it (or at least in advance of you knowing about it).

But you also are arguing that this "flood" is impossible and hence means that if the Bible writers were either dead wrond,... or that they meant that as a Simile.Either the Bibke is wrong or the writers could not directly reported facts so unbelievable that they were setting down as such.You are choosing to make the bible wrong.But if one chooses to double check the idea, there is supporting factual evidence the they did this.If one chooses to assume the writer used the Literary Arts to send forth this information into such a future tiime as our own, when we (the wise), would understand, he would also somewhere say that was the case:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.