Which religion's creation story should be taught?

actually, the hindu histories of catastrophism are highly aligned with science. they talk about the periodic destruction of the world -- ie: major exitinctions.and there are a lof hindu scientists.and there's a ton of muslim creationists. in fact, they're difficult to tell apart from the christian ones because they "borrow" bad christian creationist arguments wholesale. alot of their "source" is hovind. no, this argument fails all the time. fossil evidence does not fit your literal reading of genesis. every dating method agrees that they do not. didn't you say they were ok with this? behe's argument fails. wanna read my paper on it? you mean, no flood evidence? the people who were alive at the time might be concerned that they were underwater for 40 days. behemoth and leviathan are not dinosaurs. this can easily be shown by, oh, i dunno, reading the bible. see behe, above. you argued the uniqueness of the bible and lost. i've personally read several other similar texts. and jesus was apparently not all that unique. we actually have records of messiahs that said more or less the same thing, died in a similar way, and just happened to have a different name: apollonius was one such man. which is funny, seeing as how the bible itself is anything but consistent.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-16-2004 02:09 AM

i seem to remember the hindu theology of constant destruction-rebirth cycles strongly mimicing a scientific hypothesis about big-bang cycles.i wasn't aware age was a problem, but i never tried to line up the dates.

which has been observed. not to mention all the previously mentioned sciences that also disagree. evolution includes artifical selection, a process by which humans have input on animal "design" by selecting for various features. how is this NOT intelligent design, exactly?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-05-2004 03:15 AM

yes. no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists.

---

אָרַח

err, no. it means that congress is not allowed to formally establish a religion. this is, as you say, to prevent the restriction of religion by government: if one religion is mandated, any other group suffers. this issue is usually clouded in the minds of most christians, because they imagine that their particular sect would be the favoured religion. only in government from interfering with religion. and that includes the government establishing one (or, more loosely, favouring one over another). the best way to keep government out of religion, as it turns out, is to keep government neutral with regards to religion. and that means keeping religion out of government.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

there have been numerous threads on this in the past. i suggest you look for one. suffice it to say, the two present not only entirely different orders of creation, but different logic as well. in genesis 1, god creates everything mankind needs well in advance, to prepare the way for mankind. in genesis 2, god creates mankind first, and then creates everything else according to his needs. in both, mankind is the paramount creation, but they go about that point in two entirely different ways. the two are stylistically quite different. aside from the above theological point, look at the writing styles. here is the openning verse of each section:

quote:

---

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

​

-- Genesis 1:1

---

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

​

-- Genesis 2:4b

---

both begin roughly the same way: temporal dependent clauses, that reference god's creative act. one verse chooses ברא for the (infinitive) verb, the other עשה. as you may know, we've had many threads debating the different senses these verbs imply. one verse chooses definite objects, the other indefinite. and, more importantly, only one actually uses the name of god.

---

אָרַח

this is why we should use cladistics instead of linnaean taxonomy. "fish" are a paraphyletic group: all chordates excluding tetrapods. of course, if we just said "chordate", it would be true that every descendant of a chordate is also a chordate. yes. humans are apes the same way that we're mammals. and tetrapods. and chordates.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח