[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth


suddenly invalidates all your CE theories, doesn't it.  you can always tell when someone's running out of ideas in an argument. hehehe.

also, Job does talk about the earth not being suspended by anything.

Sorry?

I'll admit not checking the date of Job until after you mentioned it, but even if it implies a spherical earth (which is in itself a big leap of faith, based on mythologies of that time and around that area, including the literal hebrew translation of the OT), only the furthest back estimate would place it as before the Greek concept of the spherical earth, assuming that a) the Greeks were the first in Western europe (which I'm not sure of; I know that the spherical or circular earth concept was common and accepted enough by around 400-300BC for it to be depicted on coins, something which was more likely to come from, say, the Romans or Greeks than Judaism) and b) that Job itself was not reinterpreted over time.

And, for the bugger-knows-how-manyth time, there is a clear contradiction between the interpretation of 'earth' in that hangeth upon nothing quote, with other uses of the earth; the most blatant being, of course, describing the earth as having foundation.

And another being "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas...; which would clearly differntiate the 'earth' as being land, and hence not the planet.

Also;
[q]Exodus 20:4
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.[/q]

[q]Genesis 1
   2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

   2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

   3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

   4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

   5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

   6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

   7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

   8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

   9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

   10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

   11And G[/q]
(1 implies that the water existed before land; i.e. the predominant ancient - IIRC - belief in the middle east that the 'world' was land surrounded by an endless ocean or river.  6/7 implies earth/the land sits on top of water.  Hebrew use of 'firmament' apparently corresponds to a beaten metal plate)

[q]
Genesis 7

  11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

   12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
[/q]
(implies that heaven is a physical object within the sky; i.e. the ancient model of foundation-earth-heaven shaped in a sort of dome.  The 'hangeth upon nothing' would in that context refer to the whole kit and kaboodle)

In fact, the more I read of the - for lack of a better term - genesis of the Ot, the more I'm led to conclude it meant a flat earth, given the mythological origins influencing the Ot writers(please read http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm if not already).

Even if the bible was the first - by your very liberal and foresighted interpretation - do identify these concepts in Western Europe, it is still centuries behind the concepts of Vedic literature in India.  So this 'knowledge' would neither be divine nor unique, as it was already known earlier and elsewhere through observation.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by aldo_14



[q]
Genesis 7

  11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

   12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
[/q]
(implies that heaven is a physical object within the sky; i.e. the ancient model of foundation-earth-heaven shaped in a sort of dome.

:lol:And when it rains cats and dogs, it really is raining cats and dogs. But, I'm not gonna get involved in this.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Ace
*Smacks Bobboau*

did I say archaeology?

no...

I was actualy thinking more along the lines of cultural anthropology, the people who study the way cultures veiw themselves and others, and how there related and the traditions and history (both real and legendary) ect...ect...

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian


Evolutionary theory provides no data on the topic of intelligent creators.  Therefore, it is neither a threat nor a boon to any side in the "Does God exist?" debate.

Precisely, and the topic of this discussion is whether "Does God exist?" belong in a school setting. Particularly in a science class. WeatherOp has been quite straightforward in answering this. Some of the people in this discussion continue to dodge the question though.

BTW: I don't think any scientific theory on the beginning of the universe necessarily conflicts with a belief in God either, but that's off topic.

[Bobboau]

and you know the earth is suspended, buy the sun, if it werent for the sun pulling on us all the time we'd go flinging off into space, so the earth in fact is suspended by something.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Bobboau


did I say archaeology?

no...

I was actualy thinking more along the lines of cultural anthropology, the people who study the way cultures veiw themselves and others, and how there related and the traditions and history (both real and legendary) ect...ect...

Since archaeology is smacked into anth, and every 'thumper I've spoken to thinks I'm supposed to be some sort of christian crusader out to prove the bible right for them by being interested in archaeology, it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

[Grey Wolf]

Abiogenesis could possibly have a bearing on the existence of a creator. Evolution does not.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Kamikaze


Precisely, and the topic of this discussion is whether "Does God exist?" belong in a school setting. Particularly in a science class. WeatherOp has been quite straightforward in answering this. Some of the people in this discussion continue to dodge the question though.

BTW: I don't think any scientific theory on the beginning of the universe necessarily conflicts with a belief in God either, but that's off topic.

Yes and I still stand by that. So, lets put this debate in the history books.

Let me start by saying, there is not any scienctific evidence on ID, while I see evidence all over the place that does not count as science. Now, lets hit the other side, there is also no evidence of the universe starting by itself. So, what should be taught, nether of it.

But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.

So, to uphold the Neutrality of the Constitution, you ether teach both or none. As you don't force ether on anyone.

Anything else that needs to be added? If not, lets end this thread.

[StratComm]

While, if there ever may be a rational argument that ID would make sense in, that's not the point.  Origins of the Universe, if they are ever properly taught in public schools, would be so taught in a Physics class.  Those pushing ID are trying to get their pseudo-religious crap pushed into Biology classrooms.  There, it has absolutely no place even under the pretense of there being conflicts with scientific explanations for the origin of the universe.

However, the statement that Big Bang theory shouldn't be taught does not follow from a discussion on where the universe came from.  There's a whole lot of evidence (I'd dare say nearly irrefutable, but that's asking for trouble) that points to an expanding universe, and everything we can see shows that the spreading goes back as far as anything in the Universe.  Therefore it follows that everything originated from the same point in space if the curve is extrapolated back far enough.  What came before that is certainly open to debate, but Big Bang theory is very sound science.  And it shouldn't be pushed out because it steps on some people's philosophical toes.

And you certainly cannot equate Natural Selection with Big Bang theory in terms of provability.  There are countless REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of natural selection at work.  You can't just leave that out.  Nor can you say that there was a creator that established the world as it is today with the same credibility, as it in this case actually goes very much against hard scientific evidence.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by WeatherOp

Let me start by saying, there is not any scienctific evidence on ID, while I see evidence all over the place that does not count as science. Now, lets hit the other side, there is also no evidence of the universe starting by itself. So, what should be taught, nether of it.

But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.
 

I agree with the first part of your post, but not the second.

First of all, please provide some scientific evidence of natural selection or the big bang theory being incorrect. Note that the big bang theory does not actually explain what happens before the universe started expanding. The big bang theory only explains what happened a *very* small amount of time after the expansion of the uinverse started.

Second, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science. Obviously the big bang theory depends on something existing prior to the expansion of the universe (some hypothesize it was a special form of energy), but it cannot explain what this beginning was in its current state. That's perfectly acceptable. The big bang theory matches the observed evidence (e.g. cosmic background radiation) and makes sense by itself. Another theory (or an extention of the big bang theory) will need to explain what came before.

Another example of this is gravity. We do not yet know exactly what causes gravity, but we know what it does. Some people are trying to show how quantum field theory applies to gravity. Others are trying to find a "gravitron" particle or gravity wave. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach Newton's law of gravity in school.

By the way, it would not be acceptable for science teachers to teach God as a possible cause of the big bang. That's not even an acceptable scientific hypothesis, it's outside the field of science entirely. Science cannot address anything that is not testable.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Personally, you can believe in either form... Darwinism or Intelligent Design (Made it sound cooler than Creationism... kinda like the new tone to it ), but to me I'd rather believe in one because it gives me more to look forward to...

[StratComm]

But Darwinism isn't a system of beliefs.  The two are not equivalent.  I don't know how many times that has to be stated.  And it certainly doesn't provide justification for teaching it in schools.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by StratComm
But Darwinism isn't a system of beliefs.  The two are not equivalent.  I don't know how many times that has to be stated.  And it certainly doesn't provide justification for teaching it in schools.

That's the core idea behind ID, to confuse the ignorant (not neccissarily stupid, just ill informed) that the Theory of Evolution & Intelligent Design are completely equal, valid arguements. It's sad to admit, but a good portion of the United States - at least in the states where the ID debate has already occurred - holds this belief; that the two are completely equal and should be treated that way. Tin Can has shown this rather well, in his mindset that 'Darwinism' is on par with religeous belief. Without a doubt, this is a view perpetuated by ID proponents.

EDIT: @Tin Can; You don't have to have faith to know Evolution is right, as the evidence holds up quite nicely. Faith is something that only religeon truly needs, as without faith (blind faith I might add), there is absolutely nothing holding up any notion of a higher being.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.

We're getting off topic again. Do you agree with ID in biology classes? Do you agree with evolution in biology classes? Why?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


:lol:And when it rains cats and dogs, it really is raining cats and dogs. But, I'm not gonna get involved in this.

You've already illustrated my point; it's impossible to clearly demarcate which parts of the bible are parable/mythologically derived and which are (or, rather, could be) literal descriptions.  

Indeed, that very phrase 'raining cats and dogs' could well be taken literally without foreknowledge of the culture that created it; it could be twisted into all manner of different meanings, from the literal sense of raining animals, or so the most abstract sense of some strange belief that animals are thrown down from the sky rather than born.

Because of this, it's very easy for someone - say Stealth here - to go back, read it, and fit in interpretations based upon existing 3rd party knowledge (i.e. scientific or philosophical concepts).  My understanding is that the most consistent anthropology/mythology in that area, at that time, would make it highly likely the OT was written based on an agglomeration of multiple, flat earthist creation myths, and conveys that message.

(that would not, of course, mean the NT shared the same view; it was written after Pythagoras and the spherical earth was accepted theory)

Even if you accept that sort of liberal* reinterpretation, it still doesn't make the bible a valid source as it can only be verified through independent empirical investigation; nee science.

Hence why, to go back OT, ID has no place in the classroom, as it has not literal/factual basis.  Ignoring the fact we've gone, what, 6 pages and seemingly not a single person has been able to define what ID is beyond 'God did it'.

*if someone doesn't know the meaning of the word liberal in that context, they're getting a kicking

Originally posted by WeatherOp


Yes and I still stand by that. So, lets put this debate in the history books.

Let me start by saying, there is not any scienctific evidence on ID, while I see evidence all over the place that does not count as science. Now, lets hit the other side, there is also no evidence of the universe starting by itself. So, what should be taught, nether of it.

But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.

So, to uphold the Neutrality of the Constitution, you ether teach both or none. As you don't force ether on anyone.

Anything else that needs to be added? If not, lets end this thread.

There is no scientific basis for any creator (empirical evidence, etc).  The bible is not valid in this regard either (see above).  

More importantly, there is no scientific (testable, observable) theory for either a) the creation of the universe by God or b) the creation of life by God.

In the case of a) we can test many of the hypotheses behind the big bang theory based on observing, for example, cosmic background radiation; up to the first few nanoseconds of its existance (bearing in mind time was created at the big bang, which was an exponential increase, so there's still a hell of a lot to find).   So there is an explanation being formed for the reasons behind it, the physics, etc, and the aforementioned evidence is supporting that.

(cosmic background radiation is a perfect example of scientific hypothesis being tested; it was predicted a big bang would leave cosmic background radiation, and lo and behold, they found some.  this sort of testable scenario is what is absent from all religious based doctrine)

It's not complete, of course, but no-one has ever said that.  But it's the best supported theory, and if we want to expand it we need to keep asking questions, not throw it away.

There is no explanation, let alone observable evidence of God creating the universe.  Nor is there any attempt to explain how or why God existed before all other matter.  That explanation does not fit any of the accepted criteria required for a scientific theory; hence it is not science.

b)There is plenty of evidence for evolution, etc.  But none for ID, and no theory to even examine for that.  (brief, cos this bit has been done to death)

Remember, if you wish to teach Christian creationism in science, you have to teach all other creation mythologies.  Ever.  Because they all have the same amount of supporting evidence, and all can be bent liberally to suit.

What you should do, IMO, is teach (the various tenets of religious) creationism in Religion Education (as you point out, none of the 'evidence' for ID is science, it's religious/belief based and thus should be put into RE), and Evolution, etc, in Biology (i.e. the appropriate science class).  To place ID in a science class, without it holding any form of scientifically testable or validatable qualities as science is sheer folly.  In the event of an unexplained part of, say, evolution or the big bang, the explanation is simply 'this is being investigated'.  

Not prejudging another, evidenceless explanation, whatever that may be.  I would judge it to be a massive violation of church and state if the explanation for every unanswered question was determined to be 'God'.  Don't know 5+5?  Put God!  It would be simple indoctrination, and based on the debate I've seen here and elsewhere, completely inaccurate and factually wrong.

By holding science as inherently aetheistic, too, you're making a major mistake in exactly what science is.  Science is effectively agnostic; the issue of God in science is determined by evidence, not feelings.  So long as there is no evidence, it would be wholly fallacious to involve God as science.  As the concept of a supernatural diety/dieties is inherently un(and dis)proveable, too, it can never have a role in the reasoning of science; what use is a universal 'maybe'?

Would you amend mathematics classes to teach pi=3 because the bible says so?  Otherwise is 'forcing' 3.14...etc onto people, by your statement.

Science in science class, religion in RE class.  What the hell is wrong with that?!

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of science.  Science - evolution being the example here - abhors the concept of faith.  It relies upon empirical evidence, and testable hypotheses.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I differ on that, since we can't really see how far back our "evolutionary" stages went, as far as how we turned into man from ape. The simple principle is that we just don't know. We can take swings at it, guess as to what we might have evolved from, and try and explain it, but we never know. The same goes with Intelligent Design. We just dont know...

You have to put your faith in either one because both have explanations we can't or have yet to prove, and both have explanations for things to come we can't forsee.

[karajorma]

Utter nonsense. Are you seriously stating that unless we see something happen ourselves we can never deduce what must have happened?

Are you saying that suppose you come across a fallen tree you couldn't ever say whether it was a normal tree that must have fallen over or a strange kind of mutant tree that grows sideways along the ground simply because you didn't see it fall over?

[.::Tin Can::.]

When taking a swing at something as big as something we wont ever know, then yes, I'd rather see it myself.

In the end, can we prove any of it? Not really. We can look at things, try and find out how far back they date, maybe relate them to another species, but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria.

Are you saying that suppose you come across a fallen tree you couldn't ever say whether it was a normal tree that must have fallen over or a strange kind of mutant tree that grows sideways along the ground simply because you didn't see it fall over?

Exactly. We have no idea.

[vyper]

... I assume the stump was just out of your cone of vision then?