toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[Stuu]

Note that at the end of this there is still no sun about which this planet is orbiting, no mention of the supernova that supplied the raw materials which went into orbit around the non-existent sun prior to accretion of that material into the planets, and presumably bright light on the surface of the earth with no apparent mechanism for its production. The light also appears to exist only after the appearance of the earth, whereas the light is an prerequirement of the existence of the matter depicted in 1.

But then Judeo-christian mythology doesn't do mechanisms or explanations, does it.

It just does assertions of magic.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

accretion of that material into the planets

You think clouds turned into planets and you accuse us of believing in magic? :chuckle:

The light also appears to exist only after the appearance of the earth, whereas the light is an prerequirement of the existence of matter.

Oh .. whoops. My picture is a little misleading on that front. Light almost certainly came first.

Thanks, Stuu. :up:

 

[Stuu]

You think clouds turned into planets and you accuse us of believing in magic?

I think dust and gas from a nearby supernova was dragged into orbit around our sun, the star that resulted from the action of the shockwave from that same supernova. Then the pieces accreted into planets over time, leaving the asteroid belt as an area where the strong gravitational field of Jupiter in particular made complete accretion of particles into a single planet impossible.

What do you believe, to that depth of explanation, and supported by the same amount of evidence that supports this proper scientific explanation for the appearance of the planets?

Oh .. whoops. My picture is a little misleading on that front. Light almost certainly came first.

So the order in Genesis is wrong. Did the little voices in the head of whichever Moses wrote this get a bit tangled up?

Will you be writing to all the bible publishers and pointing out that actually Genesis cannot be right?

Stuart

 

[Alate_One]

And, like you already know, there are multiple meanings for this one word. Thanks for listing them, but why can you not acknowledge the meaning that most obviously applies?

Pot, meet kettle.

"Shamayim" is a crucial concept in the Bible. There are at least three different shamayim or "heavens" in the bible: 1) The atmosphere where birds fly and clouds wander above the earth; 2) The heaven where the celestial bodies wander (wandering stars = planets) and stars reside; 3) The heaven where God and "the hosts of heaven" reside

Where did God plan to spend His time with people?

The hosts of heaven do not reside on earth. Heaven is not earth. Black is not white. This is unbelievable, even for you. You just can't admit Walt could possibly be wrong can you?

Above and below that which was being created. The water was on Earth. The firmament was created within the water. Thus the firmament was on Earth.

Except the firmament is called SKY!

Again, Alate, you've got a great big, long post with nothing in the way of reason.

Other than the fact that Shamayim means sky . . .

The one reference to any evidence contains the exact reason why my explanation is perfectly reasonable.

No it doesn't. Every time you say something is "perfectly reasonable", it is the opposite.

Why not quit with the name-calling, ad hominem, appeals to popularity or authority and general fluff and discuss this with some honesty?

I've given you the definition of the word. I've given you every possible reason and you still won't accept the truth. You're determined to twist traditional Christian doctrine (the location of God and his Angels) now into fitting the Walt Brown model. You are a true waste of time, it's like trying to explain to you that water is wet, and you keep insisting it is not in the face of the obvious.

 

[Stripe]

I think dust and gas from a nearby supernova was dragged into orbit around our sun, the star that resulted from the action of the shockwave from that same supernova. Then the pieces accreted into planets over time, leaving the asteroid belt as an area where the strong gravitational field of Jupiter in particular made complete accretion of particles into a single planet impossible.

Wow. :chuckle:

So the order in Genesis is wrong. Did the little voices in the head of whichever Moses wrote this get a bit tangled up? Will you be writing to all the bible publishers and pointing out that actually Genesis cannot be right?

:squint:

No. And I won't be in a hurry to change the item that I described as in error either.

Pot, meet kettle.

I gave clear and rational reasons for my explanation and for my choice in definition. You have given no reasons or explanations. You've hardly even started to explain what you think this passage even means.

The hosts of heaven do not reside on earth.

Who said they did? And who says they couldn't have?

Heaven is not earth.

No, it's not. But that's how Earth was designed - to be the abode of God (and man).

Black is not white. This is unbelievable, even for you. You just can't admit Walt could possibly be wrong can you?

Dr. Walter Brown might possibly be wrong. He even says so himself. He even describes situations in which he was wrong. Now, could you get over your fixation on that great scientist and engage in something like rational debate?

Except the firmament is called SKY!

It's called Heaven. And it is only "called" something because the name has meaning. And the meaning of that name most obviously is the abode of God.

Other than the fact that Shamayim means sky . . .

Heaven.

No it doesn't. Every time you say something is "perfectly reasonable", it is the opposite.

Reasons. You need to give reasons. :up:

I've given you the definition of the word.

And I've accepted the definition.

I've given you every possible reason and you still won't accept the truth.

You've given zero reasons. Let's list them:

[LIST=1]
[/LIST]

See? Zero.

You're determined to twist traditional Christian doctrine (the location of God and his Angels) now into fitting the Walt Brown model.

And you're determined to deny the possibility.

You are a true waste of time

Feel free to not talk to me. :wave2:

it's like trying to explain to you that water is wet

Water is wet.

and you keep insisting it is not in the face of the obvious.

Water is wet.

Genesis one quite clearly puts the firmament described in verses 6-8 on the surface of the Earth - in the midst of all the water that was on the surface of the Earth. God planned to live there so He called it His home - Heaven.

This analysis:

...is perfectly reasonable despite your insistence (and zero reasons) that it is not.

Have a nice day!

 

[Stripe]

Oh! Wait! I'm not wrong. :chuckle:

Read verse 2.

:mock: Stuu.

 

[eameece]

For one, schools typically do not offer a philosophy class. Second, I see no connection between what philosophers do and what creationism is. A glance through the largest philosophical database reveals that there are only 98 sources (out of around 375,000) that contain the word "creationism", and most of those are about ID and not YEC. Philosophers don't discuss creationism.

Philosophers can question the hidden assumptions that underlie science and the scientific method, as well as question religious assumptions.

 

[eameece]

It wasn't in response to you. It was in response to those who think teaching creationism should be relegated to philosophy classes.

NO, we said religion classes.

I expect you and I are in fundamental agreement about some of these issues; for example, I think the amount of exegetical maneuvering required to avoid the creationist reading of the Bible is unacceptable.

The best way to read the Bible is non-literal, metaphysical, philosophical, and symbolic. It is an account of changes in consciousness through Jewish and Christian history. Myths like the creation story have a deeper meaning, and I think that is its only relevant meaning, although it can be read on many levels.

 

[Stuu]

Oh! Wait! I'm not wrong. :chuckle:

Read verse 2.

:mock: Stuu.

You're not wrong about something? I find that impossible to believe.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

You're not wrong about something? I find that impossible to believe. Stuart

Bible says dark Earth at the start of Day 1. My picture lines up.

 

[Stuu]

Bible says dark Earth at the start of Day 1. My picture lines up.

Picture say earth there before light "created".

Reality say no matter exists before light exists.

Picture is fatuous bollocks.

Stuart

 

[voltaire]

Stuu. The light spoken of on day 1 is light that reaches the earth and can be seen with human sight. The light that is necessary for matter to exist could have existed in the very first verse. That is electromagnetic energy. But, matter could have existed in a plasma state with no electromagnetic force being created yet.

 

[kmoney]

For one, schools typically do not offer a philosophy class. Second, I see no connection between what philosophers do and what creationism is. A glance through the largest philosophical database reveals that there are only 98 sources (out of around 375,000) that contain the word "creationism", and most of those are about ID and not YEC. Philosophers don't discuss creationism.

Since my quote is what triggered this....

I have no problem with removing philosophy from what I said. I'll keep the rest though.

I expect you and I are in fundamental agreement about some of these issues; for example, I think the amount of exegetical maneuvering required to avoid the creationist reading of the Bible is unacceptable.

What exactly do you mean by "creationist"? Because as far as I know, no Christians avoid a reading of God being the creator. They may avoid a literal reading of the Creation story and a young earth though, which is probably what you meant.

I think my biggest problem is those who use the day-age theory or the gap theory. It seems like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. In my opinion they aren't being honest with the texts. But I don't think a literal reading is required. I am in basic agreement with Selaphiel who already responded to you.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I'm a YEC, and I take the creation account in Genesis literally, but I don't think a literal reading is absolutely required. I'd rather someone be flaky on the creation and confident in Jesus than the other way around.

 

[Squishes]

Philosophers can question the hidden assumptions that underlie science and the scientific method, as well as question religious assumptions.

Of course philosophers CAN do that; but what exactly does teaching students about, say, the problem of induction, have to do with creationism? It'd be wildly inappropriate to delve into creationism during a class on inferential logic.

NO, we said religion classes.

The best way to read the Bible is non-literal, metaphysical, philosophical, and symbolic. It is an account of changes in consciousness through Jewish and Christian history. Myths like the creation story have a deeper meaning, and I think that is its only relevant meaning, although it can be read on many levels.

I don't care what you think the best way to view Genesis is. I'm trying to figure out what public school class it would be appropriate for. So far nothing you describe leads me to believe it would be responsible to do so. It certainly doesn't belong in a philosophy class, and if the only way to teach the Bible is to dive in full-on mystic, then it would be appropriate only in religious schools or in graduate religious studies.

What exactly do you mean by "creationist"? Because as far as I know, no Christians avoid a reading of God being the creator. They may avoid a literal reading of the Creation story and a young earth though, which is probably what you meant.

By creationist I mean YECist.

I think my biggest problem is those who use the day-age theory or the gap theory. It seems like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. In my opinion they aren't being honest with the texts. But I don't think a literal reading is required. I am in basic agreement with Selaphiel who already responded to you.

It would be weird if a literal reading wasn't required but optional. What other book is it appropriate to do so with? Either "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" is true or it isn't, and what makes it true or false is whether or not God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days.

 

[Alate_One]

It would be weird if a literal reading wasn't required but optional. What other book is it appropriate to do so with?

The Bible contains all different kinds of literature. Genesis itself is a compilation of many different works. Why should we assume that they were all meant in the literal sense you are used to? In places, wisdom is described as a woman. Do you think that should be literally interpreted? In the ancient Hebrew culture the past was described as being in front of a person and the future as behind them. If something that basic seems backwards to us, why do you assume a plain reading of an English translation is all there is?

St. Augustine, one of the great early Christian thinkers, thought that creation didn't occur in six days, but one and that the seven days are essentially symbolic. He thought this partly because of light being created days before the sun. There's an organization to the days that doesn't follow a simple ordered list. Separate or order two things on one day, and fill those parts on the parallel day.

It nicely answers the tohu and bohu rhyme (formless and empty) in the first verse.

 

[Squishes]

The Bible contains all different kinds of literature. Genesis itself is a compilation of many different works. Why should we assume that they were all meant in the literal sense you are used to?

I don't assume that; I assume that verses that present themselves as metaphorical-- "God is like x"-- should be taken as metaphorical, and verses that are straightforward-- "In the beginning..."-- shouldn't. I can't imagine anyone reading Genesis for the first time and think that it wasn't a cosmogony.

In places, wisdom is described as a woman. Do you think that should be literally interpreted? In the ancient Hebrew culture the past was described as being in front of a person and the future as behind them. If something that basic seems backwards to us, why do you assume a plain reading of an English translation is all there is?

I don't assume that. It's clear there are portions of the Bible that are not meant to be taken at face value.

St. Augustine, one of the great early Christian thinkers, thought that creation didn't occur in six days, but one and that the seven days are essentially symbolic. He thought this partly because of light being created days before the sun. There's an organization to the days that doesn't follow a simple ordered list. Separate or order two things on one day, and fill those parts on the parallel day.

And why in the world would you do that? I can make sense out of anything if I look for a pattern and rearrange text like this.

It nicely answers the tohu and bohu rhyme (formless and empty) in the first verse.

Ok, but the stars are placed in the firmament on day 2, correct? That seems messy. And on day three God separates the seas, so fish would seem to correspond to day 3 and not day 2. It just seems too artificial and contrived. Further, it requires you to throw out any chronological element to the Genesis story, which seems, on the face of it, absurd. What do we do with all the days? Why number them? Why does all of Judaism through the time of Christ treat it as a creation story (and arguably, Jesus himself does).

 

[kmoney]

By creationist I mean YECist.

OK.

It would be weird if a literal reading wasn't required but optional. What other book is it appropriate to do so with?

Any book where you aren't certain of what the author intended? Any book where interpretation is in play? :idunno:

Either "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" is true or it isn't, and what makes it true or false is whether or not God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days.

Of course.

 

[Squishes]

Any book where interpretation is in play?

Do you have a less ambiguous criterion?

 

[kmoney]

Do you have a less ambiguous criterion?

Perhaps I didn't understand what you said, or were asking. Why is it weird to say a literal interpretation isn't required?