The Word on Creationism

Leauki

Join Date 02/2004

+85

The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.

For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)

But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

religion

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I know it's good enough for you. That's the problem

no the problem Leauki is NOT the Hebrew. The problem is your interpretation of it. My gut feeling/guess is you are listening to very liberal Hebrew scholars givng you their interpretation. Because what you've been writing here and there shows me you are not adhering to the traditional Jewish literal translation of the Hebrew.

Elohim is plural. Ok, we know that. We see in scripture that God was the maker of the world. We see in scripture that Christ was the maker of the world. We see in scripture that the Holy Spirit was the maker of the world. How can that be? Three in one.

How about the shema? Deut 6:8

"Hear O Israel; The Lord our God (Elohim-plural) is one Lord."

Now notice this:

We know Elohim is plural right? How about "one"...as in the Lord is one?

If you go back to Gen 2:24 you'd read this:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be ONE flesh."

The word one is the same word as in the Shema. The word one is used of the union of Adam and Eve to describe two persons in one flesh. That's a pictue of what the trinity is. They are three Gods in one. One God revealed in three ways.

Successfully updated karma reason!

They are three Gods in one.

Hmmmm....saying "three Gods" is a confusing way of explaining
it.

There are three Persons in one God....One God revealed in three ways.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Leauki,

We both agree Elohim is a plural form of the Hebrew word for God. I arrived at that conclusion from reading Genesis 1:26 and its use of the words "us" and "our" and understand that to mean that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I seem to understand the plurality as stated by Moses in Genesis in the same way that the prophet Isaias 47:16-17 understood it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well he's a Neuro Scientist working on his Ph.D. He's also a very strong and solid Christian believing in Creationism

Good luck to him finding new breakthroughs in neuro science without using embryonic stem cells.

Successfully updated karma reason!

ok, from your POV and it's your opinion. But there are many out there who would disagree with you. Have you ever heard of Answers In Genesis? Many, many scientists worldwide believe different Leauki.

Actually, my point of view doesn't come into. Science has a definition and it is not dependent on my point of view.

Show me where the more Christian the nation, the stupider the science......show me the money!

I didn't say that "the more Christian the nation, the stupider the science", KFC.

Italy is a perfectly Christian nation, Catholic and everything, and they are at the forefront of scientific research.

It's _Creationism_, not _Christianity_ that holds science back.

Want examples for that? Look at any majority Muslim country that doesn't teach evolution and instead relies on "Islamic science" (which happens to teach EXACTLY the same, word for word, as the Bible about creation, and, like you, they also take it literally).

And if your son happens to mention in his research that there is no explanation for something he found except that "G-d made it", we'll see whether he will get his Ph.D..

I, for one, am really curious whether there is a university in the US stupid enough to certify "research" based on faith rather than reproducible facts as "scientific".

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2006/11/science-fiction.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

no the problem Leauki is NOT the Hebrew. The problem is your interpretation of it.

Actually, I just translated the text word for word. My interpretation is totally different still.

My gut feeling/guess is you are listening to very liberal Hebrew scholars giving you their interpretation.

Actually, no. I rely mainly on Maimonides, a 12th century scholar mainly followed by non-Haredi orthodox Jews.

I quoted Maimonides in our discussion about angels, remember?

He was not a "liberal scholar", even though liberal and conservative Judaism (as well as orthodox Judaism) agree with his teachings.

Because what you've been writing here and there shows me you are not adhering to the traditional Jewish literal translation of the Hebrew.

I'm not sure how it can show that because what I wrote here was a word-for-word literal translation of the text in question.

I wrote down EXACTLY what the words mean. I even kept the Hebrew word order in the translation where at all possible.

Elohim is plural. Ok, we know that. We see in scripture that God was the maker of the world.

"Elohim" is a name. The word is derived from a plural for "god". He was the maker of the world, but he was not more than one. (Which is, incidentally, the Bible keeps repeating that he is one.)

We see in scripture that Christ was the maker of the world.

We don't. You see it in your scripture. The Hebrew text says nothing of the sort. And we are looking for hints in the Hebrew text, I thought.

We see in scripture that the Holy Spirit was the maker of the world. How can that be? Three in one.

Could be different perspectives. Could be that the "New Testamant" has been made up by clever Romans. Could be lots of things.

The one thing it can't be is a Trinity.

Deut 6:8 "Hear O Israel; The Lord our God (Elohim-plural) is one Lord."

I am sure you know that that is 6:4.

The text is

"Shema` yisrael YHVH 'eloheynu YHVH 'echad."

"Hear Israel YHVH is our god YHVH is one."

Word for word:

"shema`": hear (singular, imperative I think)

"yisrael": Israel (aka "people of Israel")

"YHVH": actual name of G-d, pronounced "adonai" in Rabbinic Judaism, correct pronunciation is NOT "jehova"

"'eloheynu": "'eloh" = "god" (like Arabic "'ilah"), "-nu" = "our", "eloheynu" = "our god" (singular)

"YHVH": name of G-d as above

"'echad": one (masculine, feminine would be "'echat')

The word "Elohim" is not even in there.

If you were looking for a sentence in the Bible that SPECIFICALLY addresses the question (if it had come up back then) and rules out a trinity, I suppose that would be it.

The word one is used of the union of Adam and Eve to describe two persons in one flesh. That's a pictue of what the trinity is.

Actually, that's a picture of what a duo is.

There are dualist religions based on the same Semitic legends too. I believe the Mandaeans have such beliefs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I seem to understand the plurality as stated by Moses in Genesis in the same way that the prophet Isaias 47:16-17 understood it.

(I assume you mean 48:16. I am beginning to think that you guys get these quotes from quote collection Web sites that have, over time, got the assignments wrong because of constant copying. 47:16 I cannot find. But googling for it, I found references to it on Christian sites. Perhaps I am confusing things here, or my copy of the Bible is numbered differently.)

Seems to me like Isaiah is speaking for himself and says that G-d sent him.

It's a lot of words in that sentence.

The one you are looking for, I think, is "ruach" (RVH), which, according to milon.co.il means

"wind; spirit, soul, nous; air; direction; ghost, fantom, genie, hobgoblin, imp, incubus, jinn, jinni , kobold, phantom, shade, sprite, bogey, bogy; mind"

I know it as "mind". I would use it, for example, to say things like "in my mind".

Translating it as "spirit" seems a bit poetic to me. It's a way of using a fancier word for "mind" when referring to G-d's mind. It's entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately, translating it as "genie" or "hobgoblin" would be just as correct.

I suppose it simply means "sent by G-d" (i.e. the prophet acts in the mind of/the interest of G-d).

"Ruach" is the only word I can see with an "-o" ("his") suffix and a "v-" ("and") prefix. It appears at the end of 16 as VRVHV.

(Trust me, in Hebrew the three "V" don't look funny because one automatically parses the first one as \v\ ("and"), the second one as a vowel (\u\) that isn't part of the root, and the third one as \o\ (which as a suffix means "his"). I only noticed that it looks odd when I transliterated it letter for letter.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

you are listening to very liberal Hebrew scholars

I think I should also add that I thought that I made it clear that I do not so much listen as read; meaning that I don't rely on scholars but also look at what they looked at.

This battle of wits between us seems now to consist of you guys quoting from Web sites and I verifying whatever you find. It's good for me, because I learn a lot reading the Bible and translating. And I assume we are entertaining lurkers. But what's in it for you?

And:

I do have a question for you about being a Jew.

If you have questions about Judaism, please ask a rabbi. I am really not qualified to answer very specific questions. I am not a scholar.

If you were wondering about why I spent Saturday programming, the answer is "because I was bored".

I refrain from productive and creative work on Shabbes but I do use computers and study. As I said before, I am not religious.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And I assume we are entertaining lurkers

Indeed. lol

Successfully updated karma reason!

Indeed.

Glad to hear it.

And? Learned anything useful?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lula posts: quote]Leauki,

We both agree Elohim is a plural form of the Hebrew word for God. I arrived at that conclusion from reading Genesis 1:26 and its use of the words "us" and "our" and understand that to mean that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I seem to understand the plurality as stated by Moses in Genesis in the same way that the prophet Isaias 47:16-17 understood it.[/quote]

Leauki posts:

Sorry about that, Leauki, yes, I mistyped....I mean Isaias 48:16-17.

Believe me, I am NOT one to use websites especially when discussing the meaning of Sacred Scripture. I, too, share your frustration with those who do.

Back to Isaias 48:16-17. To quote from the Jewish edition of the Old Testament:

"Come ye near unto me, and hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and His spirit. 17 Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy GOd that teach thee profitable things, that govern thee in the way that thou walkest."

Note what I highlighted. Here three distinct persons are named in the Godhead by Isaias. The Lord God Eternal, God, the Spirit and Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

What are we to learn from these 2 verses if not they are a veiled revelation of the Blessed Trinity? Of course they are becasue the Son is sent by the Father and his Spirit to redeem mankind. Of this Saint Anslem taught, "If some say that the Holy SPirit, too, sent the Son, as He himself says through the prophet: "And now the Lord God has sent me...",
we should understand that the verse refers to the Word made flesh, who came into the world in order to redeem it, according to the will and desire of the Father and the HOly Spirit."

Now, underlying all this is the realization on the part of many Jews that acceptance of belief in the Trinity carries with it belief in Christ Jesus as the Messias, the Second Person of the Triune God. The problem is that many Jews are encouraged in their rejection of the Trinity becasue some in churches claiming to be Christian have departed from this basic Christian belief.

Anyway, those Jews who have been blessed with the grace of seeing and believing in God in His Tri-unity have been elevated from the severity of the Jewish concept of Him as a strict Ruler, to the love of God as a Father, a Sacrificing Son, and a Sanctifying Spirit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

It's _Creationism_, not _Christianity_ that holds science back.

Want examples for that? Look at any majority Muslim country that doesn't teach evolution and instead relies on "Islamic science" (which happens to teach EXACTLY the same, word for word, as the Bible about creation, and, like you, they also take it literally).

Where is your RESEARCH? You're TOTALLY ignoring what I'm showing and asking you to do. I told you and showed you with a premiere Scientific Journal (not even Christian) that it's about the money. The Muslim countries ARE NOT giving the money to scientific programs. That's it. It has nothing to do with Christianity or Creationism. It's about money.

Hmmmm....saying "three Gods" is a confusing way of explaining
it.

There are three Persons in one God....One God revealed in three ways.

yes this is true Lula. What I'm saying tho...is Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jehovah of the OT is God. They are all God which make up the one triune God.

Good luck to him finding new breakthroughs in neuro science without using embryonic stem cells.

We don't need embryonic (destroying life) cells when we can very well use adult stem cells (without destroying life) which have a better track record. But let me see if I can get a quote from him on this and get back to you.

And if your son happens to mention in his research that there is no explanation for something he found except that "G-d made it", we'll see whether he will get his Ph.D..

that's not how the program works. He's already got a 4.0 in the schooling part of it. All he has to do is finish his research and to publish it.

All of his senior Ph.D's who are surrounding him think he's brilliant and guess what? They have NO idea he's a Christian. They've tested him orally and by regular exams, they've watched him, they've had discussions at length with him and yet he's a Christian. One of them even told him (not knowing) that those Christian Scientists are idiots.

So who really is the idiot?

Actually, no. I rely mainly on Maimonides, a 12th century scholar mainly followed by non-Haredi orthodox Jews.

I quoted Maimonides in our discussion about angels, remember?

exactly. You just proved my point. He's going against the traditional teaching of Judiasm which is what I thought. I would implore you to be balanced (at least) to check out the traditional views of the Hebrew community as well.

He was the maker of the world, but he was not more than one. (Which is, incidentally, the Bible keeps repeating that he is one.)

Well you said that Elohim was plural right? THAT IS FACT.

Now you say "he was the maker of the world but he wss not more than one." THAT IS NOT FACT BUT OPINION. You have to use the bible as a whole to interpret correctly. Even if you just use the OT as a whole. You can't take out one verse, give me the meaning and then give me your opinion as fact on the meaning.

We don't. You see it in your scripture. The Hebrew text says nothing of the sort. And we are looking for hints in the Hebrew text, I thought.

Could be different perspectives. Could be that the "New Testamant" has been made up by clever Romans. Could be lots of things.

The one thing it can't be is a Trinity.

Well, I can show you the trinity with JUST the OT scriptues. I can show you CHRIST in the OT scriptures. As far as the clever Romans? Well the NT was written by Jews, not Romans and this is FACT supported by Jewish historians OUTSIDE of scripture.

I am sure you know that that is 6:4.

yes, typo. Sorry

"YHVH": actual name of G-d, pronounced "adonai" in Rabbinic Judaism, correct pronunciation is NOT "jehova"

now, you keep saying this. All Jehovah is is English version of YHWH. The Lord literally YHWH probably pronouced Yahweh is the most significant name for God in the OT. It's actually mentioned 6,823 times and is usually associated with the holiness of God.

Actually, that's a picture of what a duo is.

yes, but the point is, the word one in Genesis is two as one. Elohim is three in one or as one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Seems to me like Isaiah is speaking for himself and says that G-d sent him.

Let's look at it carefully. To me it looks like God himself speaking going back to v15 read:

"I, even I, have spoken, yes I have called him; I have brought him and he shall make his way prosperous. Come you near to me, hear you this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning from the time that it was, there am I and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, has sent me."

Some would say it is Isaiah and some would say that we can see the Trinity in this verse. They would say the "me" is a reference to the preincarnate Christ who is here associated with the Lord God and the Spirit.

I'd have to do further research before I could say right off.

This battle of wits between us seems now to consist of you guys quoting from Web sites and I verifying whatever you find. It's good for me, because I learn a lot reading the Bible and translating. And I assume we are entertaining lurkers. But what's in it for you?

No Leauki. I NEVER use web sites when I converse like this. It's rare I used them to begin with. I have tons of books (from all centuries of learning) as well as many bibles at all times around me. I've got one right here I use by my computer as we type. I've been studying the bible for over 35 years. I don't need web sites and besides that the Web sites are fairly new to my way of studying and thinking.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Believe me, I am NOT one to use websites especially when discussing the meaning of Sacred Scripture. I, too, share your frustration with those who do.

Good.

Note what I highlighted. Here three distinct persons are named in the Godhead by Isaias. The Lord God Eternal, God, the Spirit and Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

G-d is named many things in the Tanakh, referred to as lots of different personalities. Sometimes three of them are listed in a sentence or two. Sometimes more are listed.

Your quote lists four: the lord, his spirit, thy redeemer, and the Holy One of Israel.

"and now the Lord God hath sent me, and His spirit. 17 Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel;"

This is 17 in Hebrew:

"kah amar YHVH galkha qadosh yisrael ani YHVH eloheykha melamedkha leho`il medarikekha bderekh telkha"

This is a lot more difficult than Genesis. It's a lot of words and I'm not sure if I guessed all the vowels correctly.

Let's see:

"kah": "thus" (why not?)
"amar": "said"
"YHVH": name of G-d
"galkha": "thy liberator" (or "thine redeemer" if you will)
"qadosh": "holy" (adjective, masculine singular)
"yisrael": people of Israel
"ani": "I" (in Exodus He still used "anoki" which sounds more Aramaic)
"YHVH": ...
"eloheynkha": "thy god"
"melamedkha": "thy teacher" (from "lilmod" = "to learn")
"leho'il": "to be useful" (infinitive, had to look it up)
"maderikekha": "thy guide" (looked it up and guessed best translation)
"bderekha": "on (the) path" ("in" plus "path")
"telkha": "you go" (imperative of "lelekhet" = "to go")

"Thus said Adonai, thy redeemer, the holy of Israel: I, Adonai, am thy god thy teacher to be useful thy guide on the path you (must) go."

You see, that sentence alone makes Him five things: redeemer, holy of Israel, god, teacher, and guide. Add the two from the previous sentence and you have a god who is seven. You can even deduct "holy" if you like. He still remains redeemer, god, teacher (to be useful), and guide (on the path to go).

Successfully updated karma reason!

And? Learned anything useful?

Yes. That some people are intelligent and others are toasted

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good luck to him finding new breakthroughs in neuro science without using embryonic stem cells. We don't need embryonic (destroying life) cells when we can very well use adult stem cells (without destroying life) which have a better track record. But let me see if I can get a quote from him on this and get back to you. And if your son happens to mention in his research that there is no explanation for something he found except that "G-d made it", we'll see whether he will get his Ph.D.. that's not how the program works. He's already got a 4.0 in the schooling part of it. All he has to do is finish his research and to publish it. All of his senior Ph.D's who are surrounding him think he's brilliant and guess what? They have NO idea he's a Christian. They've tested him orally and by regular exams, they've watched him, they've had discussions at length with him and yet he's a Christian. One of them even told him (not knowing) that those Christian Scientists are idiots. So who really is the idiot?

KFC, you talk a lot about your son training for a Ph.D. in neurology and how he is a devout Christian and opposed to evolutionary theory. Why are fundamentalists such as yourself so opposed to evolutionary theory but silent on gravity or quantum mechanics? I'm no Biblical scholar but doesn't someone in the Christian Bible "stop the sun in the sky" (these being geocentrists)? Doesn't this fly in the face of our current understanding of gravitational forces? An earlier (Christian) poster was trying to say that, for him (and I expect for many people who consider themselves Christians), the Bible is a book of moral instruction and spiritual comfort, not a guide to understanding how the world works (what makes electrons orbit an atomic nucleus, why grass grows on your lawn, et cetera). Are these people not real Christians?

I'm also curious to know, because you cite Answers in Genesis, what Ken Ham can teach your son and others in schools and universities about how to conduct a scientific investigation of any given phenomenon. This is the same Ken Ham who believes that he has evidence that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with the earliest humans, yes? Groups of organisms that are separated by over sixty million years of (gasp!) evolution (or just time, if it makes you feel better)?

Your personal religious beliefs do not constitute science. That's the point of this thread. And if your son tried to pass off his religion as science, how far do you think he would get in his career? I can pretty much guarantee you he'd be looking for a job at Liberty University, the Discovery Institute, or some like-minded institution.

And Leauki was also correct in his original point: science is not concerned with the abstract notion of truth. Science is interested in discovering things about the natural world using a combination of empirical, experimental, and historical analyses. Science doesn't say anything about whether your god is three entities or one entity or even a fairy story made up by a group of long-dead nomads. Your god is not subject to objective empirical observation, and thus your faith in your god is a different kind of "knowledge" from the body of knowledge that comprises science. I know lula will say something suggesting that there is no knowledge that cannot be gained from a personal relationship with her deity or reading the right scriptures but that, of course, is just her opinion and her belief.

The Louisiana Legislature this week passed a bill allowing the use of "alternative educational materials" in public schools for the teaching of such topics as evolution and global climate change. This bill, being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, is another thinly-veiled attempt to introduce "intelligent design" into science classrooms under the guise of "freedom." Let me see if I can make this plain by means of a graphic example: if I took a dump in the toilet and told everyone that this is how the universe was formed, and I got a whole bunch of people to believe it, that DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENCE. Yet we're expected to swallow the notion that "intelligent design" should have equal footing with evolutionary theory not because it has undergone and survived the scrutiny of academia (quite the contrary) but because it happens to be more compatible with the religious beliefs of a minority in this country (fundamentalist Christians). I, for one, am sick and tired of outside nutjobs like DI trying to come into this state and make our already "just barely better than Mississippi"(tm) education system even worse. New Orleans still doesn't have a school system except for a few charter schools three years after Katrina and now we need to teach kids about religion in science classes?!

Successfully updated karma reason!

that's not how the program works. He's already got a 4.0 in the schooling part of it. All he has to do is finish his research and to publish it. All of his senior Ph.D's who are surrounding him think he's brilliant and guess what? They have NO idea he's a Christian. They've tested him orally and by regular exams, they've watched him, they've had discussions at length with him and yet he's a Christian. One of them even told him (not knowing) that those Christian Scientists are idiots. So who really is the idiot?

It's going on 4 years now it's been attempted to explain this simple concept to you and it still hasn't sunk in. I've run out of ways to explain it, try asking your son to explain the difference between a Christian scientist and Christian science.

If your son uses Christian science in his thesis he will rightfully not get published and not get his Ph.D so I sincerely hope he can explain this to you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Why are fundamentalists such as yourself so opposed to evolutionary theory but silent on gravity or quantum mechanics? I'm no Biblical scholar but doesn't someone in the Christian Bible "stop the sun in the sky" (these being geocentrists)? Doesn't this fly in the face of our current understanding of gravitational forces?

the one who discovered gravity was a Christian. So? What's your point? Christians belive in gravity just like the secular. No diff. The one instance (book of Joshua) about the sun being stopped in the sky is very contraversial and has many meanings too long to go into here but suffice it to say it's sort of like saying the sun sets and rises. We know it doesn't but it's a way of speak so to speak.

well I can tell you this..... Whenever the Christian school he attended comes up in a discussion because of his background it's usually not good for my son. They all know that it's a Christian University and that it would teach the Christain POV on origins contrary to the evolutionary thought. But one very knowledgeable Ph.D who gave my son a 3 hour oral exam did go to the head researcher at my son's current post grad college and say....I'm paraphrasing "I don't know what Liberty is teaching, but we should find out. This kid knows what he's talking about." The reason this was said was because this "kid" from Liberty beat out all the others who graduated from secular universities in both written and oral exams

An earlier (Christian) poster was trying to say that, for him (and I expect for many people who consider themselves Christians), the Bible is a book of moral instruction and spiritual comfort, not a guide to understanding how the world works (what makes electrons orbit an atomic nucleus, why grass grows on your lawn, et cetera). Are these people not real Christians?

I agree it's a book of moral instruction and spiritual comfort. It's not a tech book. I agree. But I would disagree that the answers aren't in there about the understanding how the world works. It's quite clear in scripture and repeated (read Job especially) that God is in complete control of the universe. And there is some scientific facts in there that have not been contradicted by science. But yes, agree nothing specifically on electrons or any of that. As far as if that person is a Christian...I don't know. I would have to know more about this person and how they feel about the essentials of the historic Christian faith to better determine. Believing the bible is or is not a science book is not essential. Therefore it has no bearing on belief.

I agree. Zilch. He knows this. He would never work at DI though. That's why he keeps his beliefs to himself. He doesn't push anything. He does the work. He knows his stuff and origins doesn't come into play. He actually is looking at going to Yale next to do some research work and he'll probably be accepted. He probably will, someday at the end of his career, be at one of those places (not DI) you cited. In fact LU has already invited him to come and work for them when he finishes up this degree. He told me that would kill his career.

Right now he's thinking about writing a book. If/when he does. I'll let you know.

It's going on 4 years now it's been attempted to explain this simple concept to you

I haven't been on JU four years so you must be referring to someone else.

asking your son to explain the difference between a Christian scientist and Christian science.

I will do that.

If your son uses Christian science in his thesis he will rightfully not get published and not get his Ph.D so I sincerely hope he can explain this to you.

He won't. He's not dealing in origins. It should't even come up. But you're right. He would never get published. No disagreement there.

See that's the fallacy. You can be a scientist and be a Christian and believe in the Christian belief in origins and otherwise be perfectly able to mesh with other secular scientists. It's only when the subject of origins (basically) that comes up is this a problem.

You may want to take a look back at history and see how many really good reputable scientists were believers. And yet they made incredible discoveries. Imagine that! You might be surprised.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I haven't been on JU four years so you must be referring to someone else.

Okay almost 3 years, it just seems like 4.

I will do that.

Good, just out of curiosity ask him if he thinks astrology is a science too.

See that's the fallacy. You can be a scientist and be a Christian and believe in the Christian belief in origins and otherwise be perfectly able to mesh with other secular scientists. It's only when the subject of origins (basically) that comes up is this a problem.

No there's only a problem when the supernatural is used to explain the natural world, the scientific field is not relevant.

You may want to take a look back at history and see how many really good reputable scientists were believers. And yet they made incredible discoveries. Imagine that! You might be surprised.

Or I might not be surprised that you still don't get it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

e don't need embryonic (destroying life) cells when we can very well use adult stem cells (without destroying life)

Please do some research so you can learn why embryonic stems cells are used as opposed to adult stem cells.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Okay almost 3 years, it just seems like 4.

well....if you're wrong there.........how many billions of years have we been here?

Good, just out of curiosity ask him if he thinks astrology is a science too.

and that's an intelligent question to ask? Com'on Stubby don't you know the answer to this question?

No there's only a problem when the supernatural is used to explain the natural world, the scientific field is not relevant.

My mantra:

The Christian Scientists use the same evidence as the secular scientist. They just have a diff interpretation or world view at their foundation. Same Science, same evidence diff interpretation...get it?

Stubby says:

If your son uses Christian science in his thesis he will rightfully not get published and not get his Ph.D so I sincerely hope he can explain this to you.

KFC responded:

He won't. He's not dealing in origins. It should't even come up. But you're right. He would never get published. No disagreement there.

and then Stubby replies:

Or I might not be surprised that you still don't get it.

what don't I get?

as far as this...from KFC

You may want to take a look back at history and see how many really good reputable scientists were believers. And yet they made incredible discoveries. Imagine that! You might be surprised.

again, what don't I get? Are you telling me I'm wrong? If so, please explain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your personal religious beliefs do not constitute science.

Actually it's a two way street...Religious belief does constitute knowledge of science. Take for example that the Holy Bible stated that the earth is a sphere long before we had scientific empirical knowledge of that fact.

And empirical science constitutes religious belief...

Creationists believe that empirical science will never discover any data which can concusively contradict Scripture. So far, we haven't been proven wrong.

The idea that scientific analysis of natural phenomena is the only valid path to knowledge is central to the closed mindset to the philosophy of Naturalism or Scientism. Belief in a Creator God is regarded as unscientific.

The Evolutionist viewpoint offers only a naturalistic explanation of the material universe whereas the Creationist viewpoint goes further and acknowledges the existence of an unseen and supernatural Creator, called God.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Please do some research so you can learn why embryonic stems cells are used as opposed to adult stem cells.

This is directly from my son tonight which is pretty much what I've read from diff publications out there.

Embryonic and adult stem cells are defferently different. Molecular
biologists prefer embryonic stem cells because of their "potential"
usefullness as they can be manipulated to turn into anything (unlike adult
stem cells). But as far as I know, no productive break throughs have been
made yet. There are far too many variables and unkowns to deal with
when dealing with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have been
relatively more sucessful in preclinical trials. But still, stem cell
research has a long way to go.

I don't do stem cells. Its a hot topic in science, but they're messy.
If you can get something to work for you, then you'll get a few high
profile publications out of it for sure. But there are a bunch of people
out there all working on the same stuff. I prefer my projects where I
know that I'm the only one in the world doing my project. That ensures
that nobody will publish my work before I can get to it.

and now I remember way back why he decided to choose this field he's in. It was because he wouldn't be dealing with the stem cell issue. He didn't want to be pulled into this issue knowing as a Christian he couldn't take part in the embryonic stem cell research.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

This is the same Ken Ham who believes that he has evidence that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with the earliest humans, yes? Groups of organisms that are separated by over sixty million years of (gasp!) evolution (or just time, if it makes you feel better)?

Ken Ham is not the only one who suggests that dinosaurs were contemporaries with humans. The Bible suggests that this is true by describing what many people believe to be a dinosaur. The suggestion that these "groups of organisms are separated by over sixty
million years of evolution (or time) indicates the presupposition that
evolution is in fact true.

the Bible is a book of moral instruction and spiritual comfort, not a guide to understanding how the world works (what makes electrons orbit an atomic nucleus, why grass grows on your lawn, et cetera).

Furthermore....the Bible IS in fact a guide to understanding how the world works. For example, the Bible is the first in world history to explain that the earth hangs in space. Another example, the Bible is the first in world history to explain that individuals are "knit" together in the womb (versus the homunculus hypothesis, or any other previous heldscientific beliefs).

Science is not concerned with the abstract notion of truth. Science is interested in discovering things about the natural world using a combination of empirical, experimental, and historical analyses. Science is about truth. It is about discovering certain facts or truthsthat can systematically describe the world around us. Even Richard Dawkins states that the Bible (and Christianity) makes scientific claims.

Successfully updated karma reason!