Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
77,901 - 77,920 of 115,340 Comments Last updated 10 min ago
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82557 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Look before you leap!
Just an advice. She asked a question about education and i gave her what she deserves. Both Atheist and Theist are educated, are you against that?
I'm not against being educated at all. I just didn't see anyone demonstrating they were in the comment I replied to.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82558 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>There is not much that is contradicted by science. You will find that there are more stuff in the bible that can be scientifically explained then there is that is contradicted.
As for morals, I don't really care about them. If it is your concern, I suggest you find someone who does.
Well, the science that does contradict the Bible, is attacking the foundational stories of your religion....the very heart of Christian Dogma is contradicted by science.

It is contradiction that is going to topple your favorite myths.

The morals that the Bible is contradicting are pretty serious stuff for law abiding citizens of the 21st. century.

You see your God and Jesus of the Bible condone slavery and various violent forms of reprisal to small indiscretions, the repression of women, and the killing of gays.

Now I can understand many people are dead set against gays, but they shouldn't be allowed to kill them. Do you really want to kill your child for talking back to you....Or kill your neighbor for working on the Sabbath??

How about making the blacks slaves again..do you want to accept and promote this as the Bible and Jesus does.

These are all moral things the Bible condone, that we as a enlightened and moral society do not do--or advocate.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82559 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible doesn't "teach" the world is flat, as in "Yea, verily, I sayeth unto you, the world is flat."
However....
The Bible’s flat earth/solid sky dome universe
http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earth...
Excerpts:
You, and the site you are linking to are reading into the bible in order to come to those conclusion. The wording is vague enough by today's terminology that you can easily do so but in the limited vocabulary of the time, it was sufficient enough to convey a correct understanding of the shape of the earth.

Flat is imposed by the reader's bias, you as well as anyone else making the claim of a flat earth is injecting their own bias into the translations. It really is that simple.

But, if you insist the bible teaches the world is flat, you should be able to find canon that echos this teaching. To date, there is absolutely none that I know of. But please, go right ahead and show me where there is some. There certainly was some for the geocentric earth hypothesis- that was also derived from people pretending to know and not the bible, but it is illustrative of how the early worshipers understood the world around them. No one believed the bible teaches a flat earth until recently when people like you attempted to pick through it and claim it was wrong. The only people who believe the bible teaches a flat earth are those trying to claim it is wrong.

Do you see a problem there? If not I can explain it to you. There is no flat earth until it was created by the very people trying to claim that because of it, the bible is flawed. This is like saying pluto is not a planet and all of astronomy before 1999 is wrong because of a vote on a definition in the mid 2000's. It's a fallacious argument put forth by ignorant people attempting to find flaws where they do not exist (and yes, there are flaws in the bible) in order to satisfy a need of their own.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82560 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Shhh!
That's supposed to be kept secret.
Oops.

Shadding ap.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82561 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You, and the site you are linking to are reading into the bible in order to come to those conclusion. The wording is vague enough by today's terminology that you can easily do so but in the limited vocabulary of the time, it was sufficient enough to convey a correct understanding of the shape of the earth.
Every quote I gave you suggests the idea of a flat circular disc covered by a dome with holes in it.

Let those reading along on this thread decide which of us is making sense and which of us is BSing.:)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Flat_earth

Excerpts

The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post biblical times.[2][3][4]

[2] Like the Midrash and the Talmud, the Targum does not think of a globe of the spherical earth, around which the sun revolves in 24 hours, but of a flat disk of the earth, above which the sun completes its semicircle in an average of 12 hours.(The Distribution of Land and Sea on the Earth's Surface According to Hebrew Sources, Solomon Gandz, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 22 (1953), pp. 23-53, published by American Academy for Jewish Research.

[3} The Egyptian universe was substantially similar to the Babylonian universe; it was pictured as a rectangular box with a north-south orientation and with a slightly concave surface, with Egypt in the center. A good idea of the similarly primitive state of Hebrew astronomy can be gained from Biblical writings, such as the Genesis creation story and the various Psalms that extol the firmament, the stars, the sun, and the earth. The Hebrews saw the earth as an almost flat surface consisting of a solid and a liquid part, and the sky as the realm of light in which heavenly bodies move. The earth rested on cornerstones and could not be moved except by Jehovah (as in an earthquake). According to the Hebrews, the sun and the moon were only a short distance from one another.- How to cite this article: MLA (Modern Language Association) style: "Cosmology." Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier Online, 2012. Author: Giorgio Abetti, Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri-Firenze.

[4] The picture of the universe in Talmudic texts has the Earth in the center of creation with heaven as a hemisphere spread over it. The Earth is usually described as a disk encircled by water. Interestingly, cosmological and metaphysical speculations were not to be cultivated in public nor were they to be committed to writing. Rather, they were considered to be "secrets of the Torah not to be passed on to all and sundry" (Ketubot 112a). While study of God's creation was not prohibited, speculations about "what is above, what is beneath, what is before, and what is after" (Mishnah Hagigah: 2) were restricted to the intellectual elite.(Topic Overview: Judaism, Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Ed. J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. p477-483. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson).

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82562 Mar 24, 2013
The stupid is very powerful with adif today.
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No. you showed they had a word the meant a toy called a ball. That is not a sphere and it is idiotic of you to insist that they should have used it in order for your infertile mind to grasp a concept that the vast majority of everyone else has been able to.
In my world balls, with the exception of footballs and rugby balls, are spherical. Or in other words, a ball is a sphere.

What geometric shape do you think that a ball has?
<quoted text> Face it, the people of the time were able to understand the word used at the time and you are somehow not. It's ok, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know these things but you do have to let go of your fictitious reality you have created and be open to what is real.
No, I understand the word. As I said, if there is doubt you have to use the meaning from context. In context a flat Earth is described, never a spherical one.
<quoted text>And here is your problem. As I explained already- although in words probably too big for you to comprehend, that is you describe a ball without using the word sphere, you end up with almost an identical description of circle. Therefor if you ever did describe a ball without using the word that was invented after the fact, you would see how stupid your argument is. You have failed to do it and now you are projecting your insecurities and failures onto others.
I don't. But then I didn't fail geometry class. You already gave proof that if you didn't fail you should have.
<quoted text>I responded, I told you that the verses- all 4 not 3 of them, did not say what you think they said and that you were losing it. You are the obsessed with injecting flat into everything when it is no where near the source- yet you claim people aren't addressing what is not there as being a sign of their failures. Well, it's your failures and as you have consistently failed throughout this entire conversation, you simply do not know what you are talking about.
I also like how you claim people run away from the big bad sub when they have other things to do. Not everyone has the luxury of living in their mom's basement with no responsibilities and can hang out on the internet 24 hours a day. One day, if you ever grow up, you will know that too. But until then, there will be a lot of people laughing at you just like I am right now. IT is almost sad how pathetic you are but I'm betting you have a lot of people encouraging you to show how ignorant you are so you will never notice it yourself. BTW, it's sort of like midget wrestling, they are only encouraging you to laugh at the spectacle you create of yourself. It's like giving a kid a lemon- you know it's wrong, but laugh every time they try to bit into it and make that sour face.
Uh huh. Those were the verses where demonstrated that you don't understand geometry so have no standing in an argument of the beliefs of the shape of the Earth by the ancient Hebrews.

I don't mind if creatards laugh at me. They are the laughing stock of the Earth, I guess somebody has to give them some pleasure.

Meanwhile you are guilty of what the translators of the Bible were not guilty of. You are trying to claim that the writers of the Bible had knowledge that they did not.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82563 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You, and the site you are linking to are reading into the bible in order to come to those conclusion. The wording is vague enough by today's terminology that you can easily do so but in the limited vocabulary of the time, it was sufficient enough to convey a correct understanding of the shape of the earth.
Flat is imposed by the reader's bias, you as well as anyone else making the claim of a flat earth is injecting their own bias into the translations. It really is that simple.
But, if you insist the bible teaches the world is flat, you should be able to find canon that echos this teaching. To date, there is absolutely none that I know of. But please, go right ahead and show me where there is some. There certainly was some for the geocentric earth hypothesis- that was also derived from people pretending to know and not the bible, but it is illustrative of how the early worshipers understood the world around them. No one believed the bible teaches a flat earth until recently when people like you attempted to pick through it and claim it was wrong. The only people who believe the bible teaches a flat earth are those trying to claim it is wrong.
Do you see a problem there? If not I can explain it to you. There is no flat earth until it was created by the very people trying to claim that because of it, the bible is flawed. This is like saying pluto is not a planet and all of astronomy before 1999 is wrong because of a vote on a definition in the mid 2000's. It's a fallacious argument put forth by ignorant people attempting to find flaws where they do not exist (and yes, there are flaws in the bible) in order to satisfy a need of their own.
How can there be flaws in a divinely inspired book?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82564 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Every quote I gave you suggests the idea of a flat circular disc covered by a dome with holes in it.
Let those reading along on this thread decide which of us is making sense and which of us is BSing.:)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Flat_earth
Excerpts
First, quoting wikipedia is foolish when there is no controlling authority. Second, as I said before, the only way you get a flat earth is if you read it into it. That is your problem, not mine.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82565 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You, and the site you are linking to are reading into the bible in order to come to those conclusion. The wording is vague enough by today's terminology that you can easily do so but in the limited vocabulary of the time, it was sufficient enough to convey a correct understanding of the shape of the earth.
No, once again that is your sin. You are assuming that they knew the Earth was spherical. There is no evidence in the of that in the Bible or in the other writings of that time.
Flat is imposed by the reader's bias, you as well as anyone else making the claim of a flat earth is injecting their own bias into the translations. It really is that simple.
No, once again, your mistake. Not our mistake.
But, if you insist the bible teaches the world is flat, you should be able to find canon that echos this teaching. To date, there is absolutely none that I know of. But please, go right ahead and show me where there is some.
No, there is none because there really is no need of any. Can you think of any canon that is dependent upon the shape of the Earth? Because of that there was no need, nor was the church very powerful when their error was realized. It was a problem that did disappear by ignoring it.
There certainly was some for the geocentric earth hypothesis- that was also derived from people pretending to know and not the bible, but it is illustrative of how the early worshipers understood the world around them. No one believed the bible teaches a flat earth until recently when people like you attempted to pick through it and claim it was wrong. The only people who believe the bible teaches a flat earth are those trying to claim it is wrong.
Do you see a problem there? If not I can explain it to you. There is no flat earth until it was created by the very people trying to claim that because of it, the bible is flawed.<snip of incredibly flawed analogy>
Really, what canon supported the geocentric Earth hypothesis? The real problem was that the church had too much power when this discovery was made. Pope Urban tried to put an end to science but ultimately failed. The same is happening today in the evolution debate. Religious people are trying to force their false ideas into school, and they will fail too.

adif, it is easy to reinterpret the Bible after the fact. That is what you have been doing. If you want to claim that the Bible is perfect, or even near perfect that is not allowed.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82566 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the science that does contradict the Bible, is attacking the foundational stories of your religion....the very heart of Christian Dogma is contradicted by science.
No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to every day life.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>It is contradiction that is going to topple your favorite myths.
You don't know what you are talking about.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>The morals that the Bible is contradicting are pretty serious stuff for law abiding citizens of the 21st. century.
You see your God and Jesus of the Bible condone slavery and various violent forms of reprisal to small indiscretions, the repression of women, and the killing of gays.
Obviously you so not understand the bible or the story of Jesus. Perhaps when you learn a bit about it you can come back and play.

By the way, slavery is alive and well today. What on earth makes you think it isn't? Every state arrest and binds people to work programs for violations of their laws.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Now I can understand many people are dead set against gays, but they shouldn't be allowed to kill them. Do you really want to kill your child for talking back to you....Or kill your neighbor for working on the Sabbath??
You really do not understand the Christian religion. IF you did, you wouldn't not have even come close to those statements. The bible is a record of covenants with god, all of what you listed is old covenants and not supported under the new covenant. What you are actually saying is, do you really want to ignore the covenant with Christ and go back to the old covenants that do not apply any more? That is the only way to make your statement sound sane in the reality of Christianity.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>How about making the blacks slaves again..do you want to accept and promote this as the Bible and Jesus does.
These are all moral things the Bible condone, that we as a enlightened and moral society do not do--or advocate.
Why are you only concerned with the blacks? There was white slaves, Chinese slaves, indian's and many other slaves. slavery exists and thrives to this day in Africa, as well as is implied in the US as almost every state forces it's incarcerated populations to work in some fashion to either help pay for their keep or benefit the society they were plucked out of.

But all of that is moot due to your ignorance anyways. Those were the accepted ways of the past in the bible. They are not justified in the new testament or the new covenant with God. You should really try to understand what you are going to talk about before speaking. Of course there are idiots who claim to be christian who do not understand that too, but I suspect they got their biblical teachings from the same idiot you did.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82567 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>First, quoting wikipedia is foolish when there is no controlling authority. Second, as I said before, the only way you get a flat earth is if you read it into it. That is your problem, not mine.
These are not the early days of Wikipedia. It cannot be changed willynilly the way it was in the past.

Yes, it still has errors, but it actually has less errors than other encyclopedias. In fact in a study done in 2005 it was found to be about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. They both had about the same number and seriousness of errors in the group of articles that were checked.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82568 Mar 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>How can there be flaws in a divinely inspired book?
Don't ask me, I never said it was infallible. I said the idiots claiming the flat earth are wrong in their interpretations and they are suffering from the same logic problems they claim creationist suffer from.

Don't mistake getting something that was written right and understood in the proper context with blindly believing in what it says.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82569 Mar 24, 2013
Now adif is trying to claim that the Bible is antislavery.

Verses please.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#82570 Mar 24, 2013
The bible is pro-slavery. And other nonsensical bullshit.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82571 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, once again that is your sin. You are assuming that they knew the Earth was spherical. There is no evidence in the of that in the Bible or in the other writings of that time.
Whoa.. You mean there is no evidence of a term created well after the bible of created within the bible itself. Stop the presses and alert the pope.

FFS, why are you insisting that something that didn't exist as a term can only be construed as if the term always existed? Don't you see who fallacious that is?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is none because there really is no need of any. Can you think of any canon that is dependent upon the shape of the Earth?
Can you think of any canon dependent on the sun revolving around the earth?

In other words, you are saying no, there is none and none will not be found.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, what canon supported the geocentric Earth hypothesis? The real problem was that the church had too much power when this discovery was made.
lol.. You obviously are confused little boy. Ever here of Galileo?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Pope Urban tried to put an end to science but ultimately failed.
Ha.. you are a loon. Urban did no such thing. He trialed Galileo for heresy because Galileo insulted the church but refrained from any harsh punishments on him. Galileo, if any other person, would have been executed and instead he was simply put under house arrest. The church didn't even rebuke his expansion of Copernicus' heliocentrism- just banned Galileo's works on it due to his direct insults (and no, it wasn't his work that insulted the church, it was Galileo making direct statements about them). The Church unbanned his work after others had recreated it and it was well established.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The same is happening today in the evolution debate. Religious people are trying to force their false ideas into school, and they will fail too.
I hear that but have not seen it ever happen. I've seen where they have attempted to put disclaimers alongside evolution and where they have attempted to add I.D. to the curriculum, but to me, you sound like a frightened confused little boy who only has part of the information.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>adif, it is easy to reinterpret the Bible after the fact. That is what you have been doing. If you want to claim that the Bible is perfect, or even near perfect that is not allowed.
I never said the bible was perfect, I said you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about. Go on, go back and show me where I ever said the bible was perfect or correct or always right or anything close to it.

Here you go inserting your worldview into something where it doesn't belong again. I said you were wrong on a number of things, I said it didn't matter in comparing evolution to creation because evolution could have been created with the creation, and you are injecting your fears that I'm a bible thumper and arguing against all logic that you have to be correct. Well, you are wrong, you are not very scientific, you suffer the same problems the christian fundamentalist do in blindly believing something, even injecting your bias in order to make it fit.

You are no different then you decry except you have willingly demonstrated how much of a failure you are to us all here.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82572 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
These are not the early days of Wikipedia. It cannot be changed willynilly the way it was in the past.
Yes, it still has errors, but it actually has less errors than other encyclopedias. In fact in a study done in 2005 it was found to be about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. They both had about the same number and seriousness of errors in the group of articles that were checked.
What in the hell are you talking about? I never said it could be changed willy nilly, I said there is no controlling authority. Many of the articles are little more the reprints of other articles created specifically to get points and bias across.

Wikipedia is not an authority, it is a starting place for reference.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82573 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Now adif is trying to claim that the Bible is antislavery.
Verses please.
Dude, go get some education on religion. I mean seriously, you have floundered and flopped around long enough making a fool of yourself. Understand the covenants God made with his people, what they mean, and why they are important. You are completely clueless about the bible and yet profess to know it all.

I'm serious, you are making a complete fool of yourself now. IF you do not understand the covenants and what they mean, then you really have no right discussing the bible. It will all elude you anyways. Maybe it is all over your head and above your IQ, I don't know. But you certainly are demonstrating that you do not understand it.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82574 Mar 24, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
The bible is pro-slavery. And other nonsensical bullshit.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
And what covenant was Leviticus under?

Oh, I get it, you are saying that just because something is in it, it is all pro whatever just like a law book is pro erotica, pro rape, pro robbery, because it describes acts defined in law considered to be rape and sexual imposition or theft. It makes clear sense now, if it is ever mentioned in it, then the end result is that it supports it all right?

Like I said, learn what a covenant is and what the different ones meant.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82575 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, go get some education on religion. I mean seriously, you have floundered and flopped around long enough making a fool of yourself. Understand the covenants God made with his people, what they mean, and why they are important. You are completely clueless about the bible and yet profess to know it all.
I'm serious, you are making a complete fool of yourself now. IF you do not understand the covenants and what they mean, then you really have no right discussing the bible. It will all elude you anyways. Maybe it is all over your head and above your IQ, I don't know. But you certainly are demonstrating that you do not understand it.
Once again you are making the error of assuming that today's thinking is correct and is supported by the Bible. You keep making the same mistake. In the past the Bible was used to defend slavery. It is clear that neither Jesus nor any of his followers were anti-slavery, in fact St. Peter sent a slave back to his master.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#82576 Mar 24, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
The bible is pro-slavery. And other nonsensical bullshit.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
You are using Old Testament doctrine to argue against followers of the New Testament's Jesus followers? That's funny. If you have a problem with being treated like goyim you should take it up with the orthodox Jews not the Christians.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 21 min polymath257 172,630
Science News (Sep '13) 39 min Ricky F 2,849
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 49 min Chimney1 346
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 51 min MikeF 350
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 136,419
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 9 hr DanFromSmithville 224
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••