Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JUGGERNAUT

Evoution taught in Amercia vs the World

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:04 PM)
Please share with us your infinite widsom of Bible passages that literally state the Sun revolves around the Earth?

He didn't say the bible said that, He merely said that a heliocentric viewpoint is contradicted by the bible. I think that the supposed existence of a firmament, first noted in Genesis and also popping up in Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi . . . certainly qualifies as being counter to our current understanding of our solar system.

Edited by FlaSoxxJim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 01:49 PM)
Electrosynthesis?  I'm assuming you meant electrophoresis.  And if your kid is running DNA gel separations and doing some genetics experiments than I'd say she's better off than lots of students.  As I said before, American science education is in a shambles and I'm the last person to defend its current state.

 

I don't undervalue the importance of math, physics, et al, and don't deny they are at the heart of biology.  But I disagree that our need for mathematicians and physicists is any more (or less) than our need to turn out capable life scientists.

 

Heh, in my 10th grade Principle of Bio class we did gel separations and extracted DNA from a kiwi. And I didn't think we were doing much. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:38 PM)
Now I suspect someone on the board will weigh in with "blame the parents" again but that simply states the left-wing ideology for everything: "we are right, you are wrong, & don't expect a compromise of any kind". 

 

 

Wait, did you have on a straight face when you wrote that? Seriously?

 

You may have been distracted when you posted that, most likely by a discussion you're having about your willingness to compromise your views on homework, or perhaps bulimia, or free agency rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:27 PM)
Heh, in my 10th grade Principle of Bio class we did gel separations and extracted DNA from a kiwi. And I didn't think we were doing much. :D

 

Now hold on. New Zealanders piss me off too, but I'm not advocating experimenting on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't say the bible said that, He merely said that a heleocentric viewpoint is contradicted by the bible.  I think that the supposed existence of a firmament, first noted in Genesis and also popping up in Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi . . . certainly qualifies as being counter to our current understanding of our solar system.

 

Wrong again. I'm not surprised the left is so ignorant of the most widely read & studied book in the history of mankind.

The most important Biblical references as they pertain to the origin of man:

From dust we came & dust we shall return.

 

If you interpret it right, Genesis got the order right. The key is to always refer to the Heavens as the universe of stars, or the sky. Essentially that which is greater than the Earth & surrounds the Earth.

 

1) Heavens (Universe, stars)

2) Earth (formed from the bombardment of space debris in the blackness of space.

3) Oceans (oxygen producing life forms caused the iron in the oceans to oxidize & fall to the ocean floor).

4) Ozone

5) Atmosphere

6) Sunlight (physics) - Obviously the light source is coming from the Heavens.

7) creation of night & day - Obviously the Earth is rotating on an axis & that causes a pt on the Earth to turn away from the light source.

8) reference to firmament (expansion) - the best way to interpret this is rain from the sky vs water in the ocean. We know that at the early creation of the atmosphere it rained upon the Earth in Biblical proportions (much greater than the 40 days & 40 nights).

9) Heaven is always interepreted as the sky or the Universe. Essentially that which is bigger than the Earth & that which surrounds it.

10) Drying out process - formation of land masses

11) Plants

12) day from night, seasons, years - this is just further explanation of 7) supporting that the Earth is revolving around the light source.

16) greater light to light the day, lesser light to light the night - this is a direct reference to another object revolving around the Earth (moon).

17) moving creatures, flying creatures, large creatures of the sea

18) cattle, beasts, creeping thing

19) man & then woman from a rib of man

 

The only thing contradictory in the story of Genesis is the time line. But that is easy to reconcile given that God is omnipresent & we know now it is theoretically possible to curve space & time. The idea that he could fold many 100's of millions of years into the span of a day is not inconceivable any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:24 PM)
The idea that he could fold many 100's of millions of years into the span of a day is not inconceivable any more.

 

The idea that biblical literalists are full of s*** is even more likely.

 

Genesis 1:8 -- And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God called the firmament Heaven.

 

God: "The Firmament equals Heaven."

 

Get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copermicus' great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III so that it would be protected from attacks by mathematicians & philosophers because it contradicted what was evident to both the prevailing common sense & our physical sense at the time. There was never an objection on a scriptural ground until the Protestants came on the scene. For nearly 75 yrs no challenge emerged from the Catholic side. This was due in part because Copernicus provided a reasonable interpretation of the creation story in Genesis that fit his model.

 

What these debates indicate is the difference in our education. To remain faithful to both science & religion you must become a student of history, philosophy, mathematics, metaphysics, & science. Whereas if you are simply faithful to science you 3 of the 5 are not essential.

 

Furthermore being faithful to religion forces the student to understand how the 5 relate to one another.

 

Now it's fairly obvious that a student faithful to both religion & science is tasked with having to develop a better understanding of both than a student who is just faithful to science. This explains why one appears as ignorant to the other.

Edited by JUGGERNAUT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:21 PM)
Now hold on.  New Zealanders piss me off too, but I'm not advocating experimenting on them.

 

To be fair, DBAH0 was a guest lecturer. Damn Oceaniacs. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that biblical literalists are full of s*** is even more likely.

God called the firmament Heaven.

 

God: "The Firmament equals Heaven."

 

Get it?

 

Hmm, so since you are taking it literally does that mean you are full of s***?

Context is more important than the literal meaning of the word.

 

if you are talking about any expansion relating to water & associate that expansion to Heaven (which no matter how you look at it clearly implies that which is above the Earth) then it is clear you are referring to rain.

 

Or do I have to explain how rain is created as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:57 PM)
Hmm, so since you are taking it literally does that mean you are full of s***?

Context is more important than the literal meaning of the word.

 

if you are talking about any expansion relating to water & associate that expansion to Heaven (which no matter how you look at it clearly implies that which is above the Earth) then it is clear you are referring to rain. 

 

Or do I have to explain how rain is created as well?

History: Santo said the Bible contradicts the contention that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

You asked for a Bible passage stating that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but I pointed out that is not what was said - only that a heliocentric viewpoint is at odds with waht is written in the Bible.

 

You spout several paragraphs of inane gibberish.

 

I give you the Biblical passage, chapter and verse, that explicitly states that the firmament = Heaven and is thus indeed at odds with a heliocentric viewpoint.

 

You return to the gibberish.

 

And so it goes. . .

Edited by FlaSoxxJim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resorting to personal attacks again? Why am I not surprised? So long as it stays in the realm of biology you remain civil & a reasonable debate can occur. But as soon as you step out of it you become testy & disrespectful. Sounds like a left-winger to me.

 

Just because you can't understand something is hardly reason to call in gibberish. But I suspect that happens a lot in your life. I don't know if I would call it gibberish but it certainly is lame for an atheist like yourself to take the Bible literally in an effort to refute an explanation that does the opposite.

Edited by JUGGERNAUT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:56 PM)
Resorting to personal attacks again?  Why am I not surprised?  So long as it stays in the realm of biology you remain civil & a reasonable debate can occur.  But as soon as you step out of it you become testy & disrespectful.  Sounds like a left-winger to me.

 

Just because you can't understand something is hardly reason to call in gibberish.  But I suspect that happens a lot in your life.  I don't know if I would call it gibberish but it certainly is lame for an atheist like yourself to take the Bible literally in an effort to refute an explanation that does the opposite.

 

 

You say left-winger liike it's a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 05:56 PM)
Resorting to personal attacks again?  Why am I not surprised?   So long as it stays in the realm of biology you remain civil & a reasonable debate can occur.  But as soon as you step out of it you become testy & disrespectful.  Sounds like a left-winger to me.

 

Just because you can't understand something is hardly reason to call in gibberish.  But I suspect that happens a lot in your life.  I don't know if I would call it gibberish but it certainly is lame for an atheist like yourself to take the Bible literally in an effort to refute an explanation that does the opposite.

 

There has been no personal attack, sport, just a criticism of your rambling posts. And YOU have been the one spouting off about left-wingers and the ignorance contained therein.

 

Stick to this one point. Try hard. You asked where in the bible a heliocentric viewpoint was contradicted. I showed you where. Then comes the spot where you're supposed to say, "Hey, you know, you're right," and we move on.

 

That is how a discussion works.

Edited by FlaSoxxJim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 05:19 PM)
You say left-winger liike it's a bad thing.

 

From what I can tell, only the left considers being called left-wingers or leftists an insult. To me, it's a designation to differentiate one political point of view from the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 08:24 AM)
From what I can tell, only the left considers being called left-wingers or leftists an insult.  To me, it's a designation to differentiate one political point of view from the other.

 

That's certainly true -- if "ignorant" or "nutjob," etc. is not included in the same sentence. With those epithets added it is clear that differentiating a political view is not the goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 08:12 AM)
That's certainly true -- if "ignorant" or "nutjob," etc. is not included in the same sentence. With those epithets added it is clear that differentiating a political view is not the goal.

 

Agreed. But scroll thruough the Dems only thread, and you'll see that is not what the complaint has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 09:34 AM)
Agreed.  But scroll thruough the Dems only thread, and you'll see that is not what the complaint has been.

 

You're probably right. I was only referring to this thread.

 

I wear the "liberal", "lefty", "progressive" monikers proudly. I'd like to be able to wear the "Democrat" moniker equally proudly, but the antics of the party sometimes make that difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 07:38 AM)
I wear my bleeding heart on my sleeve. Thank you very much.

Dude, you should really get that looked at. I take it Bush's health care system hasn't been to kind to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because you admitted that viewpoint depends on HOW you interpret those passages. It does not literally contradict the prevailing understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. The problem you are having in defending your point is that you are adherring to just ONE of the many meanings for the hebrew words that define those passages.

 

The truth is the hebrew words work like overloaded operators. They have multiple meanings depending on the context. Firmament is only one misunderstanding of the usage. Both firmament & fowl are bad choices for translations because they do not represent the more general usage of the original hebrew words. You can easily search on this to learn more but in general the hebrew word that fowl was translated from simply meant winged things. That can easily be interpreted as insects as much as birds. Likewise the hebrew word mapping to firmament fits more with expanse.

 

In fact the time reference itself doesn't even have to be compromised because the hebrew word used in the original text for "day" actually maps to an indefinite length of time.

 

Perhaps the biggest issue is perspective. But then if you understand logically the purpose for Genesis even that is not hard to understand. Genesis shifts from a perspective of looking at the Earth from the Heavens above to looking from the Earth to the Heaven's above.

 

With that understanding it's not hard to see that the placing of the Sun & the moon in the sky is nothing more than making such things clear to see from the perspective of the standing on the Earth.

 

If you wish to learn more I can post a link that has explained the hebrew origins & such in much greater detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html

He doesn't a fine job in explaining how ENS can lead to complexity in nature but he does a poor job in refuting ID. It seems his basis is rooted in the believe that ID commands that "the program" must be infailiable from the start. This defies the evolution of programming in computer science.

 

What he has basically explained is that natural selection is driven by a highly intelligent optimization function that acts like a garbage collector. In fact his explanation of the human eye suggests that this function acts like a derivative in calculus. Based on his explanation natural selection carries forth the most minute change because any change represents use. Anything else is eventually phased out.

 

That is very similar to how modern day garbage collection works in programming. It essentially allows for programmers to be lazy in their work. If they don't specifically release that which they no longer use the environment will do it for them.

 

At the core of any good garbage collector or optimizer is detailed knowledge of the syntax & grammar of a language, the OS it runs on, & the architecture it interfaces with.

 

Now I understand why Miller took the approach he did. He's refuting the multitude of ID arguments that are closely aligned with creationists that are more interested in refuting natural selection then they are making a general argument of intelligent design in nature. But if you narrow the argument down to focusing not on the merits of natural selection but rather it's random behavior his arguments against ID do not hold.

 

Again we are getting back to the context in which ENS should be taught. On the one side we have the neo-Darwinists who essentially want us to take it on faith that there is a random generator function built into nature with survival interests serving as it's domain bringing forth a range of mutation & inheritance. On the other side we have true-IDsts that believe the random generator function should not because considered Gospel truth because it's geological evidence is weak & it's DNA evidence is even weaker.

 

As to the benefit of ID it's obvious. The less you depend on random events the more you can control that system. This applies to computer science as much as it does to any science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 09:22 PM)
Good for Japan.

 

However, in America, I'm a big one on stuff that has been scientifically supported. I don't need to read that solar eclipses are because God is quite possibly pissed.

 

word. teach what works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
word. teach what works.

 

Oh logic! Apparently it's not a required class. Which is why everyone should have to take classes in the study of processes & systems. That which minimizes random elements is that which is more predictive.

 

Adoption of a true ID paradigm would lead to a greater influx of mathematicians into the world of geological study. That which is presently in control of neo-Darwinists would give way to those who are experts in probability & statistics.

Edited by JUGGERNAUT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×