Science standards under threat in Arizona

[Shad]

What makes evolution the only science theory that concerns Christians who argue for creationism?

If evolution were to be accepted as true it would mean their literalist interpretation of the bible is wrong. The two views are mutually exclusive. It's not all Christians just denominations with literalist views about the origins of humanity.

YEC have multiple issues with physics, geology, archaeology, dating methodologies, etc.

 

[Avoice1C]

That's what's so great about "The True Word Of God". It is all ambiguity.

Don't want to understand science, read Genesis literally and accept Bishop Ussher's chronology. Love science, Genesis is just allegory and poetry.

Don't like regular days, change the meaning to seasons or eternities.

Feel like owning slaves, it's OK, the Bible says so. Think slavery is bad, the Bible backs you up on that too.

As Zero Mostel said, "Something for everyone". (Except maybe a lesbian feminist)

To start with the Bible is not ambiguous.
I not only did not "change the meaning' to anything. I quoted sections of the Strong's Concordance definition of the word.
Paul said if one was a slave they were still free in Christ. The Bible describes what was going on at the time. It neither supports or disapproves of Slavery. Romans had slavery and it was different from U.S.'s version of it. Roman slavery a man could buy his freedom. In the slavery imposed on the blacks (sold into slavery by their brother black men) men could not.
Genesis is history as ancient man could understand it in Genesis 1&2. According to one Scientist/film maker named Jacoby most Scientists are looking in the wrong area and age.
My degree in Agricultural Industry required Biology, so, don't accuse me of a lack of understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To start with the Bible is not ambiguous.
I not only did not "change the meaning' to anything. I quoted sections of the Strong's Concordance definition of the word.
Paul said if one was a slave they were still free in Christ. The Bible describes what was going on at the time. It neither supports or disapproves of Slavery. Romans had slavery and it was different from U.S.'s version of it. Roman slavery a man could buy his freedom. In the slavery imposed on the blacks (sold into slavery by their brother black men) men could not.
Genesis is history as ancient man could understand it in Genesis 1&2. According to one Scientist/film maker named Jacoby most Scientists are looking in the wrong area and age.
My degree in Agricultural Industry required Biology, so, don't accuse me of a lack of understanding.

I believe he was referring to Old Testament slavery, which was not very different from U.S. slavery.

 

[Avoice1C]

I believe he was referring to Old Testament slavery, which was not very different from U.S. slavery.

in OT Slavery, according to God's law, every 7th year, slaves who were Israeli were to be released as was their property so they could return to it. Only if the slave loved his master and did not want to leave an awl was driven through his earlobe and he was a slave for life. Any other slave could buy his freedom at any time he acquired the funds. You might want to read the Book thoroughly before stating what it does and does not allow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

in OT Slavery, according to God's law, every 7th year, slaves who were Israeli were to be released as was their property so they could return to it. Only if the slave loved his master and did not want to leave an awl was driven through his earlobe and he was a slave for life. Any other slave could buy his freedom at any time he acquired the funds. You might want to read the Book thoroughly before stating what it does and does not allow.

Nope, you are conflating what was essentially indentured service with slavery. And the example you have was of how even an indentured servant could be tricked into lifelong slavery. Give him a wife that is a slave and when his term is up he would have to leave his wife and children behind as life long possessions of the slave owner.

 

[Avoice1C]

Nope, you are conflating what was essentially indentured service with slavery. And the example you have was of how even an indentured servant could be tricked into lifelong slavery. Give him a wife that is a slave and when his term is up he would have to leave his wife and children behind as life long possessions of the slave owner.

It was more like slavery as he was held for 6 years and released in the 7th. The Bible doesn't say, but I suspect the slave male could buy his wife and children if he had the funds. I don't think you read my post any more carefully than you've read the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was more like slavery as he was held for 6 years and released in the 7th. The Bible doesn't say, but I suspect the slave male could buy his wife and children if he had the funds. I don't think you read my post any more carefully than you've read the Bible.

Nope, that specifically applied only to Hebrews and not to slaves from other lands. Not only were they your slaves, so we're their children. Do you need the verses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Leviticus 25 44-46 for examole.

 

[1137]

Christians want to teach their creationism, atheists want to teach their materialism - and here I am looking back at how none of it really mattered until I was in college anyways. Most of what I learned was BS, you too. Leaps of logic, leaps of evidence, plain faith. It's hard to care.

 

[Bear Wild]

To start with the Bible is not ambiguous.
I not only did not "change the meaning' to anything. I quoted sections of the Strong's Concordance definition of the word.
Paul said if one was a slave they were still free in Christ. The Bible describes what was going on at the time. It neither supports or disapproves of Slavery. Romans had slavery and it was different from U.S.'s version of it. Roman slavery a man could buy his freedom. In the slavery imposed on the blacks (sold into slavery by their brother black men) men could not.
Genesis is history as ancient man could understand it in Genesis 1&2. According to one Scientist/film maker named Jacoby most Scientists are looking in the wrong area and age.
My degree in Agricultural Industry required Biology, so, don't accuse me of a lack of understanding.

Cannot believe you are trying to make Roman slavery sound anything but cruel. Slaves were worked to death, sent to gladiator pits for entertainment, and taken away from their home and family. Do you have any reference that is not biblical to show the number of slaves that bought their freedom and what percentage of the slaves could do that? There were black slaves in the American south that were treated better than most but that does not lessen how wrong the concept of slavery is. If the bible is the beliefs of those that are followers it should have made it clear that slavery may exist but it is wrong.
You may have been required to study biology but that does not mean you understand the theory of evolution.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Being a science teacher is about giving them education in science, not on theology or on creationism.

Neither theology, nor creationism are science, BB.

And fundamentalists are considered biased, because they frequently allowed their personal religious beliefs to cloud their judgement.

Behe, for instance, may be qualified a biochemist, but he allowed his personal ambition and his greed (the Discovery Institute bankrolled his pseudoscience and using media as propaganda) to taint his intellectual works.

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity is pseudoscience and hack job, where he used circular reasoning, not scientific method and not objective verifiable evidences to test his weak papers.

I met Dr. Behe... he embraced born again Christianity only after he found Christians' support for Black Box, where his Catholic brethren didn't support him wholeheartedly.

A cell has operations inside on the order of the city of Chicago, wrote Behe, and is more than "complex" but "incredibly complex", like CHICAGO. Pseudoscience?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think Jesus pulled your leg. He raised the bar and/or left things so nebulous that there will always be a justification for his missing.

I also foretell my return after my death. Easily. Verily I say to you, this will happen when the human race will be extinct. Believe me.

Ciao

- viole

I agree, you shall return, and also go to Heaven.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course fundamentalists can be science teachers.....anyone can, just as long as they teach science.

Is this too difficult for you to understand or something?

Not at all. Congratulations, we agree that all kinds of people can teach science in science class, or history in history class, and it only took dozens of posts!

Now, I would say that I'm unafraid of hearing both ID and other views in the same science class, and I wonder what your fear is, since you feel ID will not triumph in scientific inquiry. Wouldn't it HELP your case agenda if ID is taught in science class besides opposing views?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not at all. Congratulations, we agree that all kinds of people can teach science in science class, or history in history class, and it only took dozens of posts!

Now, I would say that I'm unafraid of hearing both ID and other views in the same science class, and I wonder what your fear is, since you feel ID will not triumph in scientific inquiry. Wouldn't it HELP your case agenda if ID is taught in science class besides opposing views?

ID isn't science. Therefore, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. It's pretty basic, really.

If someone wants it to be taught in a science classroom, then they need to scientifically demonstrate it. The theory of evolution is demonstrable, and the only scientific theory that adequately explains the available evidence. Hence the reason it's taught in science classrooms. You want something to be viewed from a scientific standpoint? Then it needs to be demonstrated from a scientific standpoint. Otherwise, keep it in the places where religion is taught. That's not a science classroom.

 

[viole]

I agree, you shall return, and also go to Heaven.

Me? Cool.

I used to be saved. Thrilled to know that I still am.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

Not at all. Congratulations, we agree that all kinds of people can teach science in science class, or history in history class, and it only took dozens of posts!

The key part there being "teach science in science class".

Now, I would say that I'm unafraid of hearing both ID and other views in the same science class, and I wonder what your fear is, since you feel ID will not triumph in scientific inquiry. Wouldn't it HELP your case agenda if ID is taught in science class besides opposing views?

As you noted above, we "teach science in science class", and because ID creationism isn't science, it doesn't get taught in science class.

 

[Avoice1C]

Nope, that specifically applied only to Hebrews and not to slaves from other lands. Not only were they your slaves, so we're their children. Do you need the verses?

Did you bother to r-e-a-d my original post? I already addressed the non Hebrew slaves. You can quote me the verses if you want anyway. I believe they could buy their freedom too.

 

[Avoice1C]

Cannot believe you are trying to make Roman slavery sound anything but cruel. Slaves were worked to death, sent to gladiator pits for entertainment, and taken away from their home and family. Do you have any reference that is not biblical to show the number of slaves that bought their freedom and what percentage of the slaves could do that? There were black slaves in the American south that were treated better than most but that does not lessen how wrong the concept of slavery is. If the bible is the beliefs of those that are followers it should have made it clear that slavery may exist but it is wrong.
You may have been required to study biology but that does not mean you understand the theory of evolution.

A solid B average does. Roman slaves could still purchase their freedom regardless of how crewel it was. I'm not ignorant of it's cruelty. Nor that of Hebrew slavemasters.
Paul said no matter how mean the master the Christian slave of said master was to work as if working for God Himself; with as much detail and muscle. Paul's word was not unaware of the cruelty of some masters. He just said to fulfill one's obligation to each master. I hardly painted a picture of slavery I merely noted how God's law treated it for Hebrew and Gentile slaves.

 

[Polymath257]

in OT Slavery, according to God's law, every 7th year, slaves who were Israeli were to be released as was their property so they could return to it. Only if the slave loved his master and did not want to leave an awl was driven through his earlobe and he was a slave for life. Any other slave could buy his freedom at any time he acquired the funds. You might want to read the Book thoroughly before stating what it does and does not allow.

Because this makes it *so* much better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you bother to r-e-a-d my original post? I already addressed the non Hebrew slaves. You can quote me the verses if you want anyway. I believe they could buy their freedom too.

Yes, I saw that you made an unsupported claim that a slave could somehow buy off its freedom. Since slaves do not get wages for their work how were they to do that? Please cite the verses that explain how this can be done. Or were you merely making **** up?