Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

Funnily enough, I just noticed this posted in response to another thread I'm following...

The Tainted Word of God

I suggest you read the thread (I've only just begun to, myself).

I'm not suggesting, in an attempt to change your viewpoint, any. Moreso just providing you with food-for-thought.

I'm enjoying your thread here, and our debate.

Originally posted by jephers0n

Furthermore, can you please prove to me that the 'word' actually came from god?

The bible says

Numbers 22:18 (King James Version)

18And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.

www.biblegateway.com...:18&version=KJV

Are you suggesting that Balak was not the king of Moab, and the bible story made up the kingdom of Moab, because it was a good story. And Balaam, the fictional character speaking to the fictional king of the fictional kingdom spoke of the word of the LORD, my God?

reply to post by randyvs

There was a time when the Bible was the only source for science Pal.

What?

I've come to expect crazy posts from you, but this one is unsurpassed for wilful, purblind ignorance--and dishonesty.

The universe had a beginning - Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.

Every culture in the world, including those far more ancient than the Hebrews, has a creation myth. Genesis was written around 1,400BC. The Sumerian creation myths are at least a thousand years older.

The universe was created from the invisible(atoms) - Hebrews 11:34

Epistle to the Hebrews written 50-100AD. Democritus of Abdera formulated atomic theory, c.400BC

The dimensions of the universe were created - Romans 8:38-395

Meaningless. We don't even know the universe was created.

The universe is expanding - Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5,
Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16

Every one of these verses (except the last) are paeans to the power of God, who made the earth and 'stretched out the heavens', meaning, made the sky. Try as you might, you cannot torture them to yield a statement that the universe is expanding. Clearly, no such observation is implied.

And there is no sixteenth verse of the twelfth chapter of the Book of Zecharaiah.

Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory) Genesis 2:3-47

Genesis 2:3: And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

The connexion you make is so futile it doesn't even deserve a comment.

The universe is winding down and will "wear out" - Psalm 102:25-278

It says that heaven and earth will grow old and die. I suppose this could be taken, at a very long stretch, to be a metaphor for entropy. I'll give you this one for charity's sake.

Describes the correct order of creation - Genesis 1

I don't see any mention of single-celled organisms, which are neither animals nor plants, but rather more like the first than the second.

Where are the blue-green algae?

Birds came before land animals?

What babbling rubbish.

Number of stars exceeds a billion - Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229 (Also I think that this one predicts that man will also exceed the billions)

Genesis 22:17:

I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky...

Jeremiah 33:22 says something similar about David.

Well, there are less than fourteen million Jews in the entire world.

Mind you, there are about 700 million Muslims, who also claim to be descendents of Abraham.

Anyway: number of stars in our Galaxy alone: roughly 100 billion.

Number of stars in the universe: estimated at around 10^23, i.e ten thousand times a billion times another billion. And more are forming all the time.

Looks like God's got some way to go before he keeps his promise. Or perhaps he just meant all the visible stars in the sky? The number of stars visible to the naked eye is less than ten thousand.

Every star is different - 1 Corinthians 15:41

Yes. Different in 'splendour', whatever that means. What does it mean?

On second thoughts, never mind.

Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups - Job 38:31

The Pleiades are indeed a single star cluster. Orion is not--the stars comprising it range in distance from 240 to 1,300 light-years from Earth. The Great Nebula in Orion is even further, between 1,500 and 1,800 light-years away.

Light is in motion - Job 38:19-20

Nonsense. It just says that light and darkness 'dwell' in different places. Again, you're torturing the text, trying to make it yield content it does not contain.

The earth is controlled by the heavens - Job 38:33

Whatever does that mean? And how do you imagine the text can support such a reaading?

Earth is a sphere - Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:10

The verse says 'circle', not 'sphere'. Don't you know the difference? Didn't Isaiah?

At any time, there is day and night on the Earth - Luke 17:34-35

More text torture. Incidentally, the text clearly says 'on that night'.

Earth is suspended in space - Job 26:7

Yet it has foundations (Job 38:4)? Odd.

Right, that's enough. I'm tired of this, and I'm tired of you. What you have done is take verses from the Bible, tendentiously reinterpret them in the light of modern scientific knowledge that certainly was not obtained from, or even inspired by, the Bible, and claim that this somehow shows that the Bible is full of scientific facts. Anyone who reads the texts without preconception can see you're being dishonest in your claims--and also that the claims are extremely stupid.

What a sorry hash you make of Christian apologetics. You should beg forgiveness of your fellow-Christians for making such a laughing-stock of their faith. There is much that is noble about it, and it certainly does not deserve to be smeared and daubed with this kind of garbage.

[edit on 7/3/10 by Astyanax]

This thread is a strong argument against allowing home schooling.

Originally posted by jephers0n

Originally posted by 911stinks
I see the bible as the story of mans education. Keep a healthy respect for the forces out there that are unknown.

Think about electricity. How mysterious it was only 200 yrs ago? Today, we take it for granted. But for those who truly understand electricity, it is still, just as mysterious.

That's kind of my point..

I have no idea what you folks are talking about, electricity isn't mysterious, now gravity, that's the force we don't really understand, but electricity is well understood by those who truly understand it, such as me, so I'm living proof your statement is false. Now if you had said gravity instead of electricity, then I'd have to agree with you, as I don't know of anyone who claims to understand gravity completely.

Back on topic, I like the way the story linked in the OP ends:

Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.

Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.

"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."

Parents must at least educate their kids as well as Adam Brown. He doesn't have to agree with science or evolution, but he does need to understand why scientists believe it and according to that, he does.

Still, I have to imagine it will be a little rough for him pursuing a career in science if he disagrees with science.

Originally posted by 911stinks

Originally posted by jephers0n

Furthermore, can you please prove to me that the 'word' actually came from god?

The bible says

Numbers 22:18 (King James Version)

18And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.

www.biblegateway.com...:18&version=KJV

Are you suggesting that Balak was not the king of Moab, and the bible story made up the kingdom of Moab, because it was a good story. And Balaam, the fictional character speaking to the fictional king of the fictional kingdom spoke of the word of the LORD, my God?

That is somewhat what I am inferring, but not exactly. I also asked you for PROOF, NOT A QUOTE FROM THE DISPUTED SOURCE.
To quote the thread which I linked earlier, I see it more this way:

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I studied theology in college. One thing I learned very quickly is that there are a couple of different ways to look at the bible.

One. God dictated the bible, word for word. This view allows no room for error, judgement, or cultural bias. You may hear some folks who claim this view but do argue that some "problems" have occurred during various translations.

Two. God inspired the bible, using humans to right it. This view means the bible is clouded by human thoughts, misunderstanding, cultural views, etc. Not ot mention translation errors, as stated above.

The Bible is a collection of books or stories. Most of the Old Testament was passed down in the form of oral tradition....in other words, families telling it to each other without writing it down. Centureis later, when someone did make the effort to write the stories down, is it possible that the stories had changed, perhaps fundamentally?

developing the biblical canon

Not every book considered to be biblical made it into the bible. And the catholics have a separate section of extra-canonical books called the apocrhrypha (spelled that wrong, I'm sure). View the link above to see a timeline for the canoniztion of the bible.

I was raised Christian. After years of study, thinking, and hearing alternative viewpoints, I now consider myself Christian Agnostic.

That's a completely made up description, of course. I keep the title Christian because I identify with the values and mores I grew up with. I consider myself Agnostic because I'm searching.....searching.....searching....

The Tainted Word of God

The entire post there sums it up pretty well, as does the point of the thread sourced. I once again suggest you read it, if only just for some food-for-thought. I don't post to derail this thread, just to add more to this discussion, as it does hold merit with this thread as well.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by jephers0n]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


I have no idea what you folks are talking about, electricity isn't mysterious, now gravity, that's the force we don't really understand, but electricity is well understood by those who truly understand it, such as me, so I'm living proof your statement is false. Now if you had said gravity instead of electricity, then I'd have to agree with you, as I don't know of anyone who claims to understand gravity completely.

I used gravity earlier... I merely meant, that 200 years ago, electricity was 'magic'.
Not that it's misunderstood to this day

no fx....a sqirrell on a wheel, huh!

Originally posted by jephers0n
Funnily enough, I just noticed this posted in response to another thread I'm following...

The Tainted Word of God

I suggest you read the thread (I've only just begun to, myself).

I'm not suggesting, in an attempt to change your viewpoint, any. Moreso just providing you with food-for-thought.

I'm enjoying your thread here, and our debate.

I think that some people confuse the entire bible as the words of God. In the bible, when God speaks, it says, "and the Lord said". The rest of the bible are words of the people who have heard the word of the Lord and written it down.

The only time God ever wrote anything, is the ten commandments on the stone tablets.

Did the people who claimed to have heard God's word correctly interpret it and transcribe it into a collection of books called the Torah?

I guess one has to weigh how much books are of useful reference for historical value.

Plato, Socrates are studied in schools as historical fact, but the bible is rarely studied in a University setting.

Now, who is narrow minded? The teacher who decides what is right and wrong, or the parent teaching their kids that the world is full of choices, and to make proper decisions, both sides of the coin must be examined carefully.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]

Correct me if I am wrong,some states are requiring parents, who
home-school their children, to have a 4 year college degree.
Then some states just require a high school diploma.

I know what a lot of you are belly aching about,you only want
evolution taught to children,not creation.That is why a lot of parents
home-school their children,or place them in church run schools.

Originally posted by 911stinks


Plato, Socrates are studied in schools as historical fact,


[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]

Why shouldn't they?`They were genuine historical persons who contributed to our understanding of the world and whose existence and work is documented and understandable.

Plato and Aristotle and the rest of the gang are pretty much required to have a sound understanding of where we come from intellectually. I really don't get what you mean by that. They are significant both for history and philosophy and are therfore still studied extensively.

but the bible is rarely studied in a University setting.

That's just not true. While there probably are more philosophy majors than there are people studying theology, there is a huge amount of (in my opinion too much) scientific research and schooling going on. Theology is alive and well in most Universities.



[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by 911stinks

Plato, Socrates are studied in schools as historical fact, but the bible is rarely studied in a University setting.

Now, who is narrow minded? The teacher who decides what is right and wrong, or the parent teaching their kids that the world is full of choices, and to make proper decisions, both sides of the coin must be examined carefully.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]

Your example is flawed. Teachers are there to teach their field. I could argue that the parents are the narrow minded ones, by the exact same token. All of my teachers have always encouraged me to make my own choices, just as my parents have, as I'm sure there are many who would agree. The teacher, doesn't necessarily decide what is right and wrong, but the board of education, they sure do.

Now, I think the parents, teaching these children, and indoctrinating the children from birth to think that certain way are narrow minded, and CAUSE more narrow mindedness.

I still respectfully stay on the other side of the coin.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by 911stinks


Plato, Socrates are studied in schools as historical fact,


[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]

Why shouldn't they?`They were genuine historical persons who contributed to our understanding of the world and whose existence and work is documented and understandable.

but the bible is rarely studied in a University setting.

That's just not true. While there probably are more philosophy majors than there are people studying theology, there is a huge amount of (in my opinion too much) scientific research and schooling going on. Theology is alive and well in most Universities.

AHA! You return!

Any answers to my responses to your rude posts directed at me earlier?
I'm still waiting...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


I have no idea what you folks are talking about, electricity isn't mysterious, now gravity, that's the force we don't really understand, but electricity is well understood by those who truly understand it, such as me, so I'm living proof your statement is false. Now if you had said gravity instead of electricity, then I'd have to agree with you, as I don't know of anyone who claims to understand gravity completely.

Great. So you can tell me why the electron is in magnetic orbit around the Nucleus?

When electrons are ripped from their orbit through opposing magnets, what makes them want to go to ground?

Electricity and magnetism are related. Magnetism is related to gravity. Saying you know one and not the other, shows your lack of understanding of either one of them.

reply to post by 911stinks


also, I still await the answer to this question I posted earlier...

Originally posted by jephers0n

I'll leave this now never ending debate with a thought for YOU.


Considering we "now" posess free will, which got us kicked out of that good ol garden...
Would your god be happier if you just took for fact all in that (now) god-forsaken book, based on faith?

or

Would he be happier if you used that free will to find out if faith was the right choice or not?

Thanks in waiting for your response!

reply to post by jephers0n


Hey I was really surprised to find you accusing me. I went back and read through and yes you're right I kind of blundered with the quoting function.

If you can forgive my temper and read again you'll see that I didn't mean to irk you. You were making the point that evolution, historically, is a theory. I made the point that this theory has been demonstrated experimentally to be accurate with a high probability - the same thing as with gravity. We have never proven that gravity exists in a material sense as we never will with evolution. But many experiments and arguments point to the fact that they are the most fruitful explanations we have up to date.

You were asbolutely justified in pointing out that it is a theory. The problem is that people that don't understand what that means try to construct a criticism of the factual value of observed evolutionary mechanisms by saying they are only a theory. I did automatically assume that that was your point, and that is why I brought up gravity - because it shares the same problems. I find the point that if you say evolution is only a theory in the sense that it is not factual is the same thing as saying that about gravity. Consistency would demand that someone who is inclined to deny the one would also deny the other.

I noticed your answer and sorry that I missed it.I guess we are in overall agreement from what I read there. Don't read too much into my tone sometimes the combination of being in a hurry and and reading code words ("just a theory") can tick me off. Sorry for that.

Originally posted by jephers0n
reply to post by 911stinks

 

Would he be happier if you used that free will to find out if faith was the right choice or not?

Like I said before, I spent the better part of my life trying to find the answer to that question.

I can tell you this. There was a time in my life, where I was more concerned with success (valued in money) rather that success (valued in spiritual fulfillment). I find much more peace, happiness and life fulfillment when I pursue spiritual knowledge, and trust that God will open doors for me to fulfill my families material needs, and sometimes wants.

The doors he opens are usually challenging, and not always convenient, but I choose to recognize they are there, and they are from God because it is good for me, and it will help to feed my family.

I don't go to church, and I don't attend mass prayer meetings, but I do talk about my beliefs.

God, is in my beliefs.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by jephers0n

 

Hey I was really surprised to find you accusing me. I went back and read through and yes you're right I kind of blundered with the quoting function.

If you can forgive my temper and read again you'll see that I didn't mean to irk you. You were making the point that evolution, historically, is a theory. I made the point that this theory has been demonstrated experimentally to be accurate with a high probability - the same thing as with gravity. We have never proven that gravity exists in a material sense as we never will with evolution. But many experiments and arguments point to the fact that they are the most fruitful explanations we have up to date.

You were asbolutely justified in pointing out that it is a theory. The problem is that people that don't understand what that means try to construct a criticism of the factual value of observed evolutionary mechanisms by saying they are only a theory. I did automatically assume that that was your point, and that is why I brought up gravity - because it shares the same problems. I find the point that if you say evolution is only a theory in the sense that it is not factual is the same thing as saying that about gravity. Consistency would demand that someone who is inclined to deny the one would also deny the other.

I noticed your answer and sorry that I missed it.I guess we are in overall agreement from what I read there. Don't read too much into my tone sometimes the combination of being in a hurry and and reading code words ("just a theory") can tick me off. Sorry for that.

Understandable. We're in agreement then, and, funnily enough, I noticed that the post I originally quoted... Well, he seems to be in agreement with us as well!... What else could we have used, in place of gravity, though, since it's quite possible for us to actually figure out, and conquer that one, at some point in the future... whereas evolution, being in the past, very very distant past, is a different story.

Gravity is observable right now.
Evolution (theoretically ) has already happened.

reply to post by jephers0n


Actually, evolution is happening before our eyes. Every time a new strain of bacteria or virus develops resistance to our medicine, it is because the species that causes it has "evolved."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by jephers0n

 

Actually, evolution is happening before our eyes. Every time a new strain of bacteria or virus develops resistance to our medicine, it is because the species that causes it has "evolved."

Do you really want to open up the whole, genetic modification, dna manipulation can of worms?

Man is largely responsible for much of the disease that occurs today. All the natural population managers have been modified into killing mechanisms for the military 1000's of times over.

Who knows what life would be like if the military didn't mess with nature for the purpose of killing people.