toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[voltaire]

The root of the word means
"to hammer out" and a
recent translation
translates it as "vault". It's
also referred to inJob
37:18. The sky is hard/
strong as a molten mirror.
NASB translates it this way
"Can you, with Him, spread
out the skies, Strong as a
molten mirror?
NIV like this
can you join him in
spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast
bronze?
This makes no sense with a
modern understanding of
atmosphere, but with a
hard vault separating
waters above and waters
below, it makes perfect
sense.
As does the imagery of the
great dragon's tail in
Revelation dislodging stars
and having them fall to
earth.
And his tail swept away a
third of the stars of heaven
and threw them to the
earth. And the dragon stood
before the woman who was
about to give birth, so that
when she gave birth he
might devour her child.
With our modern
understanding we know
that it is impossible for
stars to fall to earth, in fact
the earth would fall into a
star if it got near.
The bottom line is the Bible
was written by ancient
people, who had an ancient
understanding of how the
earth and the sky "worked".
And that is okay, because
the Bible's message of
salvation doesn't need
modern science. Science
simply isn't that important.--------The point of describing the sky as something hard and solid is to show it was strong enough to hold back the water below and the waters above. The firmament truly seperated the two areas of water. A solid dome would certainly do the trick. One thing you are mistaken about is limiting the firmament to the atmosphere. It included the stars too. The ancients may have believed the stars were in a solid dome but God did not say anything that was not true. The firmament was strong . The reference to being solid is to show immovability. It could not be shaken. It would not allow the waters to fall in on them. This fits actual reality. The water above the solar system never penetrated the atmosphere. As for stars falling to earth, God is not talking about solar bodies; he is talking about asteroids and meteors. They will indeed fall to the earth again as they did in noahs day.

 

[Alate_One]

Im not sure why you are going to such great pains to make sure firmament means a very hard solid shell covering the earth. Lets take it and go with it anyway. Its true that such a physical object is nowhere near what our atmosphere is. And your point? Yes, a dragon throwing down little points of light from such a shell would make sense to an ancient. So what? While it is true that it was ancient men who put ink to paper, it actually written by God himself.

Do we count you of the "automatic writing" camp? God has very poor grammar in your view then, since the book of Mark is well known to be written in very poor Greek. Obviously I don't think God was incapable of putting together better grammar but the human author was not. God didn't choose to "correct" his grammar since the meaning was still clear enough. Just as God didn't choose to "correct" ancient science. It simply wasn't important.

He inspired what was wrote. Nothing was written that he did not believe was true.

I agree with inspiration but you seem to have a different understanding of inspiration. Why then would Christ refer to a mustard seed as "the smallest seed there is" when this is quite obviously not the case. Why? because that's not the point and human beings, including Jesus on earth are speaking to a human audience of the time, not us in an era where so many put scientific "correctness" on a pedestal.

Everything he wanted man to know was written. The message of salvation doesn't need science , but the creation story is not about the message of salvation and God would not lie about how he created the earth.

I think you missed the main point of the creation story then. The point isn't how God created the earth. In reality it doesn't even say HOW other than mentioning six days and God speaking. It's easy to see the point when you immerse yourself in creation accounts from a similar time period. It is the DIFFERENCES Genesis has with those accounts that would have stood out to the ancient reader. You mean there's ONE God (and not many)? And He is good? And the earth is good? Those would have been totally foreign concepts to polytheists of the time. The promise of Christ is even there.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

You have an extremely narrow view of the creation account(s).

God created science; he certainly thinks it is important and would not make an unscientific statement.

God didn't create science. Science is simply a human construct for exploring God's creation. So teaching creation (as the op says) would imply teaching the results of our studies, i.e. science.

 

[voltaire]

That's because it was well
understood at the time to
mean a hard dome that
held up water above it, and
within the done the sun,
moon and stars were fixed.
You can read extrabilical
sources that were very
familiar to the writers of
scripture(and most early
Christians) to find out the
exact nature of the
firmament. This is
primarily from the book of
Enoch. It is even quoted in
the book of Jude.-------Even if all that is true, it does not stop there from being a literal firmament in which contained the sun , moon , and stars and which resided above and below bodies of water. This firmament was indeed strong enough to hold back the waters above and the waters below for what i think was close to 100,000 years. It certainly was not a solid and the bible never says it was literally. The image of a solid dome , if that was the intended allusion, was the perfect literary imagery to convey the properties of the actual, literal firmament.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

As does the imagery of the great dragon's tail in Revelation dislodging stars and having them fall to earth.

And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

With our modern understanding we know that it is impossible for stars to fall to earth, in fact the earth would fall into a star if it got near.

Your dishonesty astounds me. You know this passage isn't about literal stars. It's not even about meteorites. It's about angels.

Forget about creation -- I wouldn't let you teach Sunday school.

 

[voltaire]

Do we count you of the
"automatic writing" camp?
God has very poor grammar
in your view then, since the
book of Mark is well known
to be written in very poor
Greek. Obviously I don't
think God was incapable of
putting together better
grammar but the human
author was not------no. God did not use automatic writing. Mark was completely controlled by the Hol Spirit as were the other biblical authors. He wrote as he usually would, bad grammar and all. He would speak the mind of God though. God would tell him the truth and mark and others would relay that truth. Mark would not say anything God knew was not true and neither would moses. They also would not write anything that God was not telling them to write. This does not mean exact wording. The same truth can be written many different ways, even in poor grammar.

 

[Alate_One]

Your dishonesty astounds me. You know this passage isn't about literal stars. It's not even about meteorites. It's about angels.

Depends on the interpretation OEJ. Revelation isn't exactly clear cut save the letters to the churches in the early chapters. Besides there are plenty of other places where stars are said to "fall to earth".

My point was not to give the true meaning and application of the passage, but to point out the visual image is that of a dome sky with stars stuck into it. It makes no sense from a scientific perspective, period.

I definitely wouldn't want you teaching creation. As a matter of fact, I don't think you should ever teach Sunday school.

The problem is, "teaching creation" could mean any number of things. If I taught it, I would teach ALL of the perspectives, YEC, OEC, gap theory, evolutionary creation etc.

 

[voltaire]

Obviously I don't
think God was incapable of
putting together better
grammar but the human
author was not. God didn't
choose to "correct" his
grammar since the
meaning was still clear
enough. Just as God didn't
choose to "correct" ancient
science. It simply wasn't
important.-----God did not have to correct mark because mark wrote exactly what the Spirit was telling him. Mark perfectly translated the understand the Spirit gave and wrote it in broken greek and the reader who read it, understood the truth perfectly as God had originally intended. God did not correct the word firmament because even if moses had meant a solid dome, it was still the truth. Moses did not say the atmosphere and the solar system was a solid glass. He did not know what those things were. God did not correct bad science. God allowed the use of a word to convey an actual literal truth. There was an expanse strong enough to keep water out from above and below. The sun and the moon and the stars did indeed move within that expanse. There was nothing for God to correct. Moses did not explicitly say what that expanse was and therfore did not say anything false.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Depends on the interpretation OEJ. Revelation isn't exactly clear cut save the letters to the churches in the early chapters. Besides there are plenty of other places where stars are said to "fall to earth".

My point was not to give the true meaning and application of the passage,

Of course it wasn't -- that's my point.

but to point out the visual image is that of a dome sky with stars stuck into it. It makes no sense from a scientific perspective, period.

It's not meant to be taken literally. The dragon is a metaphor for the devil. The stars are metaphors for angels. The fallen stars are metaphors for demons.

The problem is, "teaching creation" could mean any number of things. If I taught it, I would teach ALL of the perspectives, YEC, OEC, gap theory, evolutionary creation etc.

And you'd lie, like you always do. You can't even accurately represent views that have been explained to you time and time again. How many times have you claimed I conceded something I never conceded or said something I didn't say?

You use some of the most dishonest debating tactics I've ever seen. You should really examine yourself and ask -- is this something that God's okay with?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Ah yes, the film where the organizers kicked out PZ Meyers from the screening, thus demonstrating that they are completely blind to irony.

Wasn't it a private, invitation-only screening that PZ Myers tried to crash?

 

[rexlunae]

Wasn't it a private, invitation-only screening that PZ Myers tried to crash?

No, it was a public screening which he registered to attend ahead of time like anyone else. That's how they knew to look for him. They didn't know to look for his guest, who he hadn't been required to name when he registered. His guest's name? Richard Dawkins.

Sure, it was a private venue, so they had every right to ask PZ to leave. But they can't manage it without hypocrisy.

 

[voltaire]

Why then would
Christ refer to a mustard
seed as "the smallest seed
there is" when this is quite
obviously not the case.
Why? because that's not the
point and human beings,
including Jesus on earth
are speaking to a human
audience of the time, not us
in an era where so many
put scientific "correctness"
on a pedestal.------Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed and he was not lying to his audience. He was making a parable. Everything he said concerning the mustard seed was true in the world he lived in. They could go out and verify what he said was true. God did not lie with the use of the word firmament and he did not lie with the use of the mustard seed. The firmament did exactly as the whole paragraph said it did. It was literally true. The mustard seed did exactly what the entire passage said concerning it for the purposes of a parable telling a bigger story. It would have been against Gods nature to say the mustard seed was the smallest known seed of the time was not actually the smallest seed. His listeners would have scratched their heads and would have totally missed the bigger point. Why would Jesus do that?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, it was a public screening which he registered to attend ahead of time like anyone else.

According to my sources, it was invitation-only, and he invited himself. I call that "crashing a party."

That's how they knew to look for him. They didn't know to look for his guest, who he hadn't been required to name when he registered. His guest's name? Richard Dawkins.

I'd have let Dick stay, since he was in the movie.

Sure, it was a private venue, so they had every right to ask PZ to leave. But they can't manage it without hypocrisy.

Public screening, private venue -- you don't see any contradiction here?

 

[Persephone66]

One film that I challenge you folks to watch is Expelled by Ben Stien. Ben Stien not a Christian. This documentary showed how the academic elites control the educational system.

Evolution and the Big Bang are the sacred cows of academia. Anyone that challenges these are put down.

:mock: Inzl Kett

Your level of ignorance rivals that of Stien.

 

[rexlunae]

According to my sources, it was invitation-only, and he invited himself. I call that "crashing a party."

Well, according to PZ, it was open-invitation, and he signed up like everyone else. He was intercepted in line, and asked to leave. They knew he was going to be there ahead of time, so they went looking for him. It could not be any more hypocritical. He was expelled from Expelled. Meanwhile, Dawkins, who they didn't know would be attending, saw the film and offered a number of comments without incident.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Well, according to PZ, it was open-invitation, and he signed up like everyone else. He was intercepted in line, and asked to leave. They knew he was going to be there ahead of time, so they went looking for him. It could not be any more hypocritical. He was expelled from Expelled. Meanwhile, Dawkins, who they didn't know would be attending, saw the film and offered a number of comments without incident.

So Dawkins stayed after all, huh?

 

[Sherman]

It has actual *science* in it!

As One eyed Jack has put it, your debating style is dishonest. I used to be an evolutionist. I was raised reading the Audubon Encyclopedias, and Jane Goodall's books on the great apes. I had a fascinastion with human evolution growing up. I had a few gnawing doubts in high school because the biology teacher dissed the concept of God and taught that Man was a chance accident.

Then I married a creationist. I thought the book he had were odd at first. Then I started reading them and discovered there were other models out there other than evolution and the big bang to explain origins. I find them more compelling.

To say the science of origins is solely based on the evolution and big bang models is dishonest.

 

[Sherman]

:mock: Inzl Kett

Your level of ignorance rivals that of Stien.

:mock: Persephone66

 

[rexlunae]

So Dawkins stayed after all, huh?

He did. They just pulled PZ out of line. They didn't know Dawkins was going to be there, so they didn't know to tell the thuggies to look for him.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

He did. They just pulled PZ out of line. They didn't know Dawkins was going to be there, so they didn't know to tell the thuggies to look for him.

I wouldn't expect any trouble from Dawkins. Myers, on the other hand, strikes me as one who acts like a mischievous child.

 

[PyramidHead]

Sure. How do we chose which religion has the best creation model?