Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]SRT08 wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?

JMHO.

I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.

Linette

Got a reference for the sun revolving around the earth? [/quote]

One of those two obviously move and since the earth is fixed and does not move, what is going to move.

There also is a battle where the sun, not the earth, is prevented from moving so that the battle can finish.

62

[quote]orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

I’m going to have to ask you to show the references…and references to “the four corners of the earth” don’t count because that’s an expression we still use today. I’ve never heard of this.

There are none.

There is nothing more absurd, ironic and hypocritical than folks who don’t know the Bible spouting off as if they do, perpetuating hear-say while condemning so called biblical mythology.

Agreed. They are so bent on attacking it, any crap they hear through word of mouth that allows them to hate it more somehow becomes fact.

The earth is flat as a bible verse? I doubt he even heard this about the bible from anywhere.

Agreed x2.

Strangely, Isaiah 42:11 says: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”

Edit: for contextual purposes, in the verse I quoted, the prophet was speaking of the awesome power of God in relation to the idols that mankind tends to make to worship instead of worshipping the true God…showing the foolishness of idolatry. Nothing is comparable to Him, least of all any idols made by mans hands.

Sounds NOTHING like a flat earth, eh?

In fact, as Isaiah was written somewhere around 740-700BC, this would predate any other “discovery” of the fact that the earth is round.

And flat.

Which was the original claim.

[/quote]

Where do you see “proof” of flat anywhere in what I said?

63

[quote]orion wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?

JMHO.

I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.

Linette

Got a reference for the sun revolving around the earth?

One of those two obviously move and since the earth is fixed and does not move, what is going to move.

There also is a battle where the sun, not the earth, is prevented from moving so that the battle can finish.

[/quote]

Yet another misapplication due to inaccurate context. And again, no notations (no surprise really).

64

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

I’m going to have to ask you to show the references…and references to “the four corners of the earth” don’t count because that’s an expression we still use today. I’ve never heard of this.

There are none.

There is nothing more absurd, ironic and hypocritical than folks who don’t know the Bible spouting off as if they do, perpetuating hear-say while condemning so called biblical mythology.

Agreed. They are so bent on attacking it, any crap they hear through word of mouth that allows them to hate it more somehow becomes fact.

The earth is flat as a bible verse? I doubt he even heard this about the bible from anywhere.

Agreed x2.

Strangely, Isaiah 42:11 says: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”

Edit: for contextual purposes, in the verse I quoted, the prophet was speaking of the awesome power of God in relation to the idols that mankind tends to make to worship instead of worshipping the true God…showing the foolishness of idolatry. Nothing is comparable to Him, least of all any idols made by mans hands.

Sounds NOTHING like a flat earth, eh?

In fact, as Isaiah was written somewhere around 740-700BC, this would predate any other “discovery” of the fact that the earth is round.

And flat.

Which was the original claim.

Where do you see “proof” of flat anywhere in what I said?[/quote]

Well a circle is round and flat.

A sphere however is round and not flat.

Unless there is such a thing as biblical geometry too.

65

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?

JMHO.

I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.

Linette

Got a reference for the sun revolving around the earth?

One of those two obviously move and since the earth is fixed and does not move, what is going to move.

There also is a battle where the sun, not the earth, is prevented from moving so that the battle can finish.

Yet another misapplication due to inaccurate context. And again, no notations (no surprise really).
[/quote]

Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

emphasis mine

Better?

66

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Psalms 19:4-6 In them hath he (Yahweh) set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

67

[quote]orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?

JMHO.

I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.

Linette

Got a reference for the sun revolving around the earth?

One of those two obviously move and since the earth is fixed and does not move, what is going to move.

There also is a battle where the sun, not the earth, is prevented from moving so that the battle can finish.

Yet another misapplication due to inaccurate context. And again, no notations (no surprise really).

Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

emphasis mine

Better?[/quote]

Gee…a misinterpretation once again on your part, Einstein.

As Push gave the example earlier (I’ll modify it a bit): If a scientist today said that sunrise is at 6:22 AM, does he actually says the sun will rise??

Obserbvational writing vs. scientific. Know which one is which.

Get real.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

I’m going to have to ask you to show the references…and references to “the four corners of the earth” don’t count because that’s an expression we still use today. I’ve never heard of this.

There are none.

There is nothing more absurd, ironic and hypocritical than folks who don’t know the Bible spouting off as if they do, perpetuating hear-say while condemning so called biblical mythology.

Agreed. They are so bent on attacking it, any crap they hear through word of mouth that allows them to hate it more somehow becomes fact.

The earth is flat as a bible verse? I doubt he even heard this about the bible from anywhere.

Agreed x2.

Strangely, Isaiah 42:11 says: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”

Edit: for contextual purposes, in the verse I quoted, the prophet was speaking of the awesome power of God in relation to the idols that mankind tends to make to worship instead of worshipping the true God…showing the foolishness of idolatry. Nothing is comparable to Him, least of all any idols made by mans hands.

Sounds NOTHING like a flat earth, eh?

In fact, as Isaiah was written somewhere around 740-700BC, this would predate any other “discovery” of the fact that the earth is round.

And flat.

Which was the original claim.

Where do you see “proof” of flat anywhere in what I said?

Well a circle is round and flat.

A sphere however is round and not flat.

Unless there is such a thing as biblical geometry too.

[/quote]

Oh my gosh…you’re serious about this nitpicky stuff huh? No allowance for figures of speech or anything else.

Wow.

69

[quote]orion wrote:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Psalms 19:4-6 In them hath he (Yahweh) set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.[/quote]

Once again, if a scientist says that the sun will rise and set, he’s as wrong as the Bible, right?

70

And before I get too much involved in this thread (too late), I’m going to drop out of this debate because it’s the same problem over and over…and I’m tired of repeating myself.

71

Actually all of you people are scientifically wrong. Movement, especially in the context of space, is entirely relative.

The only thing you can scientifically do is to record speeds and movements from a specified moment frame.

Point being there is really no absolute perspective on movement. From the moment frame of the earth (something I would assume of the writers of the bible) the sun very much goes around the earth.

And even more technically an orbit is actually a straight path in space time making the idea of the earth going “around” the sun technically incorrect. The earth is moving in a straight line, space-time is curved by the suns gravity. For all you idiots that said the earth goes around the sun, go read up on general relativity (the current model for planetary motion) and then open your mouth.

See I can use the technicalities of science to mock your writing too and this science has been available for decades.

72

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually all of you people are scientifically wrong. Movement, especially in the context of space, is entirely relative.

The only thing you can scientifically do is to record speeds and movements from a specified moment frame.

Point being there is really no absolute perspective on movement. From the moment from of the earth (something I would assume of the writers of the bible) the sun very much goes around the earth.

And even more technically an orbit is actually a straight path in space time making the idea of the earth going â??aroundâ?? the sun technically incorrect. The earth is moving in a straight line, space-time is curved by the suns gravity. For all you idiots that said the earth goes around the sun, go read up on general relativity (the current model for planetary motion) and then open your mouth.

See I can use the technicalities of science to mock your writing too and this science has been available for decades.
[/quote]

Bam.

Plus, anything quoted from an English language bible can’t be taken at face value anyway, translators often take liberties with the original text, particularly when dealing with figures of speech.

But… it doesn’t really matter. Evolution is the best answer science has at the moment. That doesn’t mean its right, or infallible, just that it makes sense in light of the evidence.

Science is based on the premise that what exists, exists. Since the existence of God must be taken on faith, God has no place in science. This is not an indictment of God, rather, it is fundamental to the scientific method.

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s faith. I do have a problem with faith being taught as science. If you’re going to insist that the Christian creation story be taught as an alternative to evolution, then other creation stories ought to be taught as well, since they are equally valid from a faith-as-science perspective.

73

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
fireflyz wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

I couldn’t find the earth is flat, but something on it being stuck in one place and unmoving, so the sun must revolve around it. What it does do is provide a handy price list for a virgin. I think the point was that the bible makes many indefensible statements, do bible literalists believe in these statements too?

I don’t think the bible ever comments on the earth being flat or the sun revolving around the earth. That was, IIRC a view put forth by certain clerics and writers during the middle ages and assiduously defended by the papacy.

That quotation pertains to Jewish law. I’ve never understood why Christians look to the old testament for guidance/belief. Wasn’t Christ’s coming supposed to free them all from that? As a historical read on were the Judaic-Christian beliefs came from I can see it’s relevancy, but to give it the same credence as Christ’s teachings is a mindfuck. All of course IMHO.

You can’t pick and choose bits of the bible. If you do that, you accept that there is an external morality which you’re applying, which negates the need for a bible. You also question the accuracy or validity of the book as a religious guide. You do that, then who’s to say the bits about Jesus aren’t made up or invalid? Either the whole lot is canon, or any bit you wanna use needs back up.[/quote]

I disagree. With Christ’s coming there also came a new one in which to enter heaven: faith aone. Further, the old testament contains the torah and other books, but as history shows, rabbis through the generations picked and chose what books to allow in it. I agree that it did prophesy how the Christ would be known, but that was a message to Jews. Until Christ actually came it was for Jews only and not Gentiles. Also, I don’t believe that Christ ever said that those writing after him would be writing through “divine guidance”. The first gospel was written about 60 years after Jesus was put on the cross. The other books that make up the new testament were also summarily chosen by later generations of the church. I mean the Catholic bible contains books not found in a Protestant bible. So who is right? I personally believe that by looking at the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and crossreferencing the portions where Jesus was speaking, it is probably the closest one can come to discerning Christ’s unadulterated message.

All the other books were written by mere mortals thinking mortal thoughts to other mortals. I understand Jesus didn’t write the aforementioned gospels himself, but they were written about what he said. Ultimately, I think the reason for all of the other books is because the message is so simple that it is hard for people to believe. I know some will say that faith without works is nothing, but look at the thief on the cross. He simply believed that Jesus was who he said he was and he was told that he would go to heaven. The act of faith, as we should all know, is a supremely tough conviction to hold to unswervingly. And that is the beauty, IMO of Jesus’s message.

I realize that you hold your opinion and I mine, but I wanted to clarify where I was coming from and why I don’t think the Old Testament should form any base to Christianity other than as a history of where the Judaic-Christian background came from. Given my choice between believing in the words of Jesus (as much as they can be discerned) and believing the writers and the men who chose to include those books, I’ll take Christ.

/end hijack

74

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
SRT08 wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?

JMHO.

I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.

Linette

Got a reference for the sun revolving around the earth?

One of those two obviously move and since the earth is fixed and does not move, what is going to move.

There also is a battle where the sun, not the earth, is prevented from moving so that the battle can finish.

Yet another misapplication due to inaccurate context. And again, no notations (no surprise really).

Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

emphasis mine

Better?

Gee…a misinterpretation once again on your part, Einstein.

As Push gave the example earlier (I’ll modify it a bit): If a scientist today said that sunrise is at 6:22 AM, does he actually says the sun will rise??

Obserbvational writing vs. scientific. Know which one is which.

Get real.[/quote]

Hey, the Lord told the sun to stand still and it did.

So did the moon.

You asked, delivered.

Make of it what you will.

75

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In addition the Catholic churches denouncement of the Copernicus model essentially ended in the 1620s, not that long after Galileo came out with his theories. Also donâ??t forget that Galileo was devout roman catholic.

People are under the impression that religion and the religious are so scientifically backward, and it just isnâ??t true. Regardless of what the media tells you Catholics stopped officially believing in a geocentric universe about the same time astronomers did.

I canâ??t stand the way Catholics get treated, and I hate Catholicism.[/quote]

Hate Catholicism? You should give it a try sometime.

76

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
orion wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

I’m going to have to ask you to show the references…and references to “the four corners of the earth” don’t count because that’s an expression we still use today. I’ve never heard of this.

There are none.

There is nothing more absurd, ironic and hypocritical than folks who don’t know the Bible spouting off as if they do, perpetuating hear-say while condemning so called biblical mythology.

Agreed. They are so bent on attacking it, any crap they hear through word of mouth that allows them to hate it more somehow becomes fact.

The earth is flat as a bible verse? I doubt he even heard this about the bible from anywhere.

Agreed x2.

Strangely, Isaiah 42:11 says: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”

Edit: for contextual purposes, in the verse I quoted, the prophet was speaking of the awesome power of God in relation to the idols that mankind tends to make to worship instead of worshipping the true God…showing the foolishness of idolatry. Nothing is comparable to Him, least of all any idols made by mans hands.

Sounds NOTHING like a flat earth, eh?

In fact, as Isaiah was written somewhere around 740-700BC, this would predate any other “discovery” of the fact that the earth is round.

And flat.

Which was the original claim.

Where do you see “proof” of flat anywhere in what I said?

Well a circle is round and flat.

A sphere however is round and not flat.

Unless there is such a thing as biblical geometry too.

Oh my gosh…you’re serious about this nitpicky stuff huh? No allowance for figures of speech or anything else.

Wow.[/quote]

Sure, a “circle” is “a figure of speech” for “sphere”.

Well I say it is a “figure of speech” that means something “round” and “flat”.

The same prophet Isaiah:

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a SPHERE into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house. (Isaiah 22:18)

Here he uses duwr “sphere” instead of chuwg “circle”.

Interestingly enough duwr can be sused to describe “encircling” whereas chuwg remains reserved for circles that are, um, flat.

In related news, bats are not a kind of bird, even if the bible says so.

77

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
In addition the Catholic churches denouncement of the Copernicus model essentially ended in the 1620s, not that long after Galileo came out with his theories. Also don�¢??t forget that Galileo was devout roman catholic.

People are under the impression that religion and the religious are so scientifically backward, and it just isn�¢??t true. Regardless of what the media tells you Catholics stopped officially believing in a geocentric universe about the same time astronomers did.

I can�¢??t stand the way Catholics get treated, and I hate Catholicism.

Hate Catholicism? You should give it a try sometime.

[/quote]

To be fair I mean I disagree with their doctrine, I have tried it and I don’t hate Catholics.

78

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually all of you people are scientifically wrong. Movement, especially in the context of space, is entirely relative.

The only thing you can scientifically do is to record speeds and movements from a specified moment frame.

Point being there is really no absolute perspective on movement. From the moment from of the earth (something I would assume of the writers of the bible) the sun very much goes around the earth.

And even more technically an orbit is actually a straight path in space time making the idea of the earth going �¢??around�¢?? the sun technically incorrect. The earth is moving in a straight line, space-time is curved by the suns gravity. For all you idiots that said the earth goes around the sun, go read up on general relativity (the current model for planetary motion) and then open your mouth.

See I can use the technicalities of science to mock your writing too and this science has been available for decades.

Bam.

Plus, anything quoted from an English language bible can’t be taken at face value anyway, translators often take liberties with the original text, particularly when dealing with figures of speech.

But… it doesn’t really matter. Evolution is the best answer science has at the moment. That doesn’t mean its right, or infallible, just that it makes sense in light of the evidence.

Science is based on the premise that what exists, exists. Since the existence of God must be taken on faith, God has no place in science. This is not an indictment of God, rather, it is fundamental to the scientific method.

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s faith. I do have a problem with faith being taught as science. If you’re going to insist that the Christian creation story be taught as an alternative to evolution, then other creation stories ought to be taught as well, since they are equally valid from a faith-as-science perspective.[/quote]

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of creation stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

79

[quote]Amiright wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually all of you people are scientifically wrong. Movement, especially in the context of space, is entirely relative.

The only thing you can scientifically do is to record speeds and movements from a specified moment frame.

Point being there is really no absolute perspective on movement. From the moment from of the earth (something I would assume of the writers of the bible) the sun very much goes around the earth.

And even more technically an orbit is actually a straight path in space time making the idea of the earth going �?�¢??around�?�¢?? the sun technically incorrect. The earth is moving in a straight line, space-time is curved by the suns gravity. For all you idiots that said the earth goes around the sun, go read up on general relativity (the current model for planetary motion) and then open your mouth.

See I can use the technicalities of science to mock your writing too and this science has been available for decades.

Bam.

Plus, anything quoted from an English language bible can’t be taken at face value anyway, translators often take liberties with the original text, particularly when dealing with figures of speech.

But… it doesn’t really matter. Evolution is the best answer science has at the moment. That doesn’t mean its right, or infallible, just that it makes sense in light of the evidence.

Science is based on the premise that what exists, exists. Since the existence of God must be taken on faith, God has no place in science. This is not an indictment of God, rather, it is fundamental to the scientific method.

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s faith. I do have a problem with faith being taught as science. If you’re going to insist that the Christian creation story be taught as an alternative to evolution, then other creation stories ought to be taught as well, since they are equally valid from a faith-as-science perspective.

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of creation stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

[/quote]

All science REQUIRES a measure of faith. So to say there should be no faith involved is a little too far.

80

[quote]Amiright wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s faith. I do have a problem with faith being taught as science. If you’re going to insist that the Christian creation story be taught as an alternative to evolution, then other creation stories ought to be taught as well, since they are equally valid from a faith-as-science perspective.

Faith and religion has no place in the class room. How do you not have a problem with FAITH being taught as SCIENCE? There are thousands upon thousands of creation stories… faith just has no place in public schools… keep it in the private institutions.

[/quote]

…reading comprehension fail.