The cast of characters testifying for Senate Bill 55 Wednesday supports my thesis that Senator Jeff Monroe’s bill purporting to “protect the teaching of certain scientific information is really just a ploy in his ongoing drive to force his Jesus into our public schools. Dale Bartscher, Florence Thompson, and Cindy Flakoll—fundie Dominionists all—told Senate Education Tuesday to pass SB 55, and Senate Education’s four theocrats—Monroe, Bolin, Jensen, and Klumb—said okee-dokee. Moderate Republicans Soholt and Solano and Democrat Heinert listened to the educators in the room—the Associated School Boards, the School Administrators, the Department of Education, the Large Schools, the teachers union, science teacher Anne Lewis, educator and biologist Dr. Rhea Waldman—and voted no (thank you).
The Senate showed a similar failure to grasp the difference between real science and Senator Monroe’s tremulous religion, passing SB 55 23–12. The majority ignored science teacher Lewis’s warning that Monroe is angling to undermine science and bring religion to science class:
…she takes issue with Monroe’s use of the language of “strengths and weaknesses of scientific information . . .”
That isn’t how scientists and science teachers should speak about science, Lewis said.
“In science, you talk about probability, you talk about uncertainty.” Such words “don’t have the value connotations that strength and weakness have, and takes scientific discussions far afield to talk about values more than data, she said. Especially for younger students, she said.
And she sees in those two terms what she calls Monroe’s “long game” to create an atmosphere in public school science classes that will incorrectly characterize scientific ideas and theories with a goal of posing creationism as a valid alternative to accepted scientific theories of evolution, or skepticism of climate change as scientifically equivalent [Stephen Lee, “Pierre Senator Sees Early Success for His Science Ed Bill,” Pierre Capital Journal, 2017.01.27].
If the House insists on following the Senate in its dunderheadedness, I propose a compromise:
- If Senator Monroe is sincerely concerned that teachers are being (in the words of SB 55) “prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information,” and
- if Senator Monroe really believes (as his borrowing of language for SB 55 and his past bills from the creationism-preaching Discovery Institute) that his religious doctrine constitutes “science,” then
- then Senator Monroe must accept that SB 55 gives teachers the right in public school classrooms to help students understand the weaknesses of his religious doctrine.
Next time I substitute in science class, Senator Monroe, will you protect my right to point out the uselessness of your religion in predicting empirical results? Next time I substitute in social studies, Senator Monroe, will you protect my right to point out the weakness of a religion that allows you and believers like you to elect a President who violates more of the Ten Commandments than I, an atheist, do? (Trust me, Senator Monroe: I can do that in an objective, scientific fashion, exactly as SB 55 dictates.)
If you want your religion in my classroom, and if you want a law guaranteeing my right to point out the weaknesses in your religion, well, by all means, keep SB 55 coming.
Didn’t the first incarnations of this bill specifically reference creationism or religion? Now that he has cut those portions out we are just supposed to forget that he wants to institute religious education in public schools?
If this wasn’t a pet bill of the religious right, legislators would be pointing out that it still doesn’t comport with the Constitution if the intent is to bring religion into the classroom. If they pass this bill, how much more taxpayer money is going to be wasted on legal fees defending their political crusades?
Maybe Scientologists can start teaching their beliefs in South Dakota schools:
a human is an immortal, spiritual being (thetan) that is resident in a physical body. The thetan has had innumerable past lives and it is observed in advanced Scientology texts that lives preceding the thetan’s arrival on Earth were lived in extraterrestrial cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices
Darin, yes, they did. I look forward to discussing the weaknesses of Senator Monroe’s “scientific” beliefs in my classroom. I suspect kids will enjoy the exercise as well.
Maybe with this bill, we can get Tom Cruise to start a compound for Scientology in the Black Hills:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4-20wfzZs
Creationism and “intelligent design” do not rise to the level of scientific hypothesis, much less theory.They are more along the lines of the Wild-Assed Guess (WAG). The differences among these concepts are fair topics for any class, i should think. It is also the responsibility of any educator/scientist to provide analysis and discussion of the differences between scientific and faith-based ways of learning about the world, and to contrast the results in terms of their utility as predictive tools for living in reality.
Creationism is disgusting. Fixed that for you.
You kristians don’t pray in public schools and public schoolers won’t think in your churches. Deal?
Cory, it is so frustrating as an educator that my legislators, when dealing with subjects they don’t understand, will not listen to experts to guide them. Instead they rely on their “values” to guide them. In what other areas of their daily lives do they ignore the experts and just make a decision based on how it feels? Do they want us to teach, during our health sciences courses, the weaknesses of abstinence and the strengths
of condoms in stopping the spread of std? The weaknesses of religion in our social sciences classes? Science is not a belief, it’s a process. Facts are facts whether you choose to believe them or not. SCREAM!!
The interesting part would be when these graduates come out of state run colleges and try to make it in the real world. Sending your transcripts and resumes to employers, that you graduated from South Dakota schools would be like reading a script from Comedy Central. Chemistry labs would cease, saves money. Science class would cease, save money. Biology, overrated. Agriculture classes, are you kidding me, unnecessary. Of course sports will cease so no one can see your pee pee, saves money as well. The old football fields will be gathering places for school baptisms and daily cross burning. All of this to protect ourselves from the women, the most dangerous of all creatures. Creationists must be able to abuse women as the gals gave Adam that damn apple.
District 17’s cracker barrel revealed Senator Rusch’s vote in support of SB 55. This is the bill intended to disrupt the ability of K-12 administrators to hold science teachers to State and local School Board standards and allowing junk science and religion into the science classroom. Rusch said he thought he was voting in support of academic freedom.
Good grief! Mark, how can an elected Senator be so uninformed about the background and intent of a bill he’s voting on? We apparently need to educate our House members more thoroughly.
The bill hasn’t been assigned to committee yet, but I would assume it goes to House Education. I check that roster… and uh oh: Thomas Brunner, Chip Campbell, Julie Frye-Mueller, Taffy Howard, Sean McPherson—that’s five right off the bat whom I’d bet will be happy to put creationism in our science classrooms. Can we pull the House back from fake science, or do we have to focus on the Governor?
I studied mathematics and science education at South Dakota State University, graduated with honor in the class of 1993, and became a state-certified public high school teacher:
https://apps.sd.gov/de04public/teacherlookup/HQTStatus.aspx?ID=20810&PRFID=-1
Microevolution is a simple change in allele frequencies as originally expounded in the mid 1860s by creationist scientist Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics. It’s a rearrangement of preexisting genetic information within a given kind of plant or animal, and it can be scientifically observed.
Macroevolution as proposed by Charles Darwin would require an actual net increase in genetic information. No one in the history of modern science has ever observed a net increase in genetic information due to any mutation or combination of mutations.
The anti-Christian left wants to use our tax dollars to deceive children from Christian families into believing the Bible has been scientifically disproved. That’s wrong, and this bill has my support.
Does not many micros make a macro? Did not that Mendel fellow work with beans or some sort of legume?
Science has disproven that we should do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
What experiment invalidated the Golden Rule?
Kurt says “The anti-Christian left wants to use our tax dollars to deceive children from Christian families into believing the Bible has been scientifically disproved. That’s wrong, and this bill has my support.”
Who in public education classrooms says anything about the Bible being scientifically disproved? In my years in public education, the Bible was not mentioned as a source of scientific knowledge, nor was their any mention of its truth or falsehood.
In fact, it appears to me that this law does exactly what Kurt abhors: It opens up a discussion by people with an agenda to insert religion into the classroom. Kurt is thinking that this law protects a discussion of creationism, but it also opens up the exact opposite discussion. Now the position of atheists that creationism has no basis in scientific discussion will be protected speech. Instead of leaving religion to churches, families and parochial schools, this new law is protecting attacks on religion just as much as it protects affirmation of religious beliefs.
Far from protecting faith based scientific views, this law opens up attacks on the very thing it seeks to foster. Be careful what you wish for!
I thought the same thing Darin. Maybe the bill will allow non-believers to explain in science class their reasons and help kids from religious families to see another side of their religion.
Think of the new freedom of our science teachers to compare, contrast and debunk the various religious creation stories. Indeed given the subject matter, Scientology springs to mind, along with the Mormon and Islamic stories, as something that might fascinate kids as possible alternatives to the Christian creation story for them to consider.
Was not young Ms. Howard removed from the Committee on Education and Instruction?
Can’t think of a single thing kristians have done in my lifetime that would endear them to me. kristians are the root cause of the majority of ills in the world. They are ,imho, the exact opposite of what their lord and saviour instructed them to be,
Kurt Evans, I have supported your wacky flakism, thinking it was just the wobbles of a shaky childhood and some unevolved questions about life and love.
Now, I realize that you are a fully evolved flake and batchit crazy person. I hope you never contact me again for support in your flaky batchit crazy political ambitions.
Grudznick, you are fully evolved as a fellow in the Kurt Evans group.
grudznick, his friend Bob, and Mr. Evans are several of the most well known Libertarians in South Dakota, indeed.
No one really cares what Evans says about support or non support, he is just another anti-American that lives in our midst.
grudz is a fraud. Evans is crazy. Newland is agnostic.
Mr. Evans, if I may clear one or two things up for you. You refer to “anti-Christians” as being on the “left” and I believe you are applying the wrong axis to the problem. In physics, there really is no difference between the left and right sides of the “X” axis in terms of positive or negative. In the “Y”, now, we might apply a brighter attitude to the up as opposed to the down, just due to the way we use those terms to speak of our outlook on things. But really, the “Z” axis would be better suited to your analogy here as it implies a backward-and-forward sense of things; thus you can clearly see the advancing, scientific view of the world as moving ahead into the future and the religious, mythological and “spiritual” side as behind the nexus and receding ever into the past. I hope this is helpful to you.
Nothing is helpful to folks in Evans’ quadrant.
‘I don’t know what kind of country you are going to have basing the country on whims, based on feelings, based on dogma, based on false information – that’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.’
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Dan Rather’s show, January 10 at 3:15pm ·
We could all benefit from talking more about science.
This man is a national – global – treasure, an astrophysicist who can communicate the spirit, essence, and importance of science better than almost anyone I have ever met.
https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/videos/10158027039545716/
Frankly, we should heat-up the tar for Monroe and his apologists. They are taking us back to the best-religion-picking witch burning era so heating the tar and gathering the pillows seems appropriate and something their minds seeped in medieval mythology, legend, and dogma would understand. It worked for the patriots against the Tories. I realize that dear Cory aspires having a civil debate. The problem with that approach is that not everything nor everyone is predisposed to persuasion via a debate. “Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.” – Brad Pitt as Wardaddy in the 2014 classic, Fury, No debate was going to free the patriots from George III’s tyranny; free the slaves; convince the National Socialist zealots to convert to free democracy. That is the gravity of the world-wide turmoil that potus unleashed this week with his thoughtless, and some unconstitutional, edicts.
Truth is that Monroe and his minions are minor actors – but if potus, nationalism, religious side-picking, and ethnic side-picking, don’t come to their senses here and abroad, then we are goose-stepping to the worlds 3rd conflagration – wrapped as were the past ones in the flags of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity. The human race is very clever (inventing stuff); yet very dumb (refusing to learn from failures of the past).
God did not simply wave His magic wand and then all of existence just suddenly existed. It is bizarre that some people want to teach that in school.
Adam, I believe that God did create the world. But that religious belief is not at odds with science in my opinion. There is no reason to teach religion in the science classroom or to teach science in the religious education classroom. In fact, our constitution prohibits the former.
Evans is completely wrong. Mendel did not coin the word microevolution, and he had nothing to say about evolution in general. He did describe how genetics works, but Darwin was unaware of his work (as was most of the scientific community until the 1900s). It is also disingenuous to accept the mechanism of microevolution but not macroevolution when the mechanism is the same.
Grudznick is on the right track in that according to Darwin, small changes that accumulate over many generations can have the net result of producing significant changes in form, function, and biodiversity.
Once creationists started to look increasingly ridiculous in denying the work of population biologists, many arrived on the strategy of saying microevolution is real but denying macroevolutionary changes since they weren’t present to observe them. To do this they ignore the fact that humans don’t live for millions of years, and they reject the fields of paleontology, biogeography, geology, and molecular phylogeny, as well as other molecular evidence like the presence of pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in our genomes as well as related ancestors in the same location.
Creationists also deny the accumulating effects of erosion on the Earth solely because it contradicts their beliefs about the age of the planet. Also using the excuse I can’t see it so I don’t believe it.
Evans definition of macroevolution is also flawed, but even accepting it, there are numerous examples of observed macroevolution. A mutation that leads to antibiotic resistance provides bacteria with a trait that did not exist before. Creationists could deny this is an increase in genetic information but will look silly doing so.
Another example, modern bread wheat, is hexaploid (six sets of chromosomes). It evolved from diploid ancestors that it can no longer breed with. Instant speciation. Six is more than two. The process that led to bread wheat can be duplicated in the lab.
There are other examples of observed and documented speciation events in plant species as well as those observed in fish (like ciclids), insects (like fruit flies), and animals (like mice, worms, and lizards).
In terms of long run experiments concerning macroevolution. Michigan State has been performing an experiment with bacteria for 20 years. After 33,127 generations, the population evolved the ability to feed on citrate, an ability it lacked previously.
It is unnecessary for any educator to point out that the bible is not a scientific document. It is self-contradictory—providing two accounts of life’s beginnings, one in which animals came first and the other in which man came first. One in which man and woman were created at the same time, and one in which man was created first. One in which stars were made before the earth, and one in which stars were made after the earth.
It is best for all to keep religion out of the classroom and to keep peer-reviewed scientific information in the classroom.
denature–Drop the mic, sir. I have never heard a better presentation.
Here! Here! Denature
“Denature” writes:
I’ve never said Mendel coined the word microevolution. He explained the changes in allele frequencies that cause it.
Microevolution is a rearrangement of preexisting genetic information. Macroevolution would require an actual net increase in genetic information. You’re right that Darwin was unaware of Mendel’s work in genetics. That’s one reason he was unaware of the limits of evolution.
Mendel himself was a creationist, so apparently that “strategy” began sooner than you suggest.
I’ve only pointed out that macroevolution would require a net increase in genetic information. I haven’t given a definition.
The Bible says very clearly that the earth was made before the stars, that animals were made before humans, and that Adam was made before Eve.
lots of smart people on here.
So what happens when the Sun obliterates the earth? Does God make that call?
What about those 4 trillion and counting galaxies that are made up of a billion to a trillion suns per galaxy? So the earth was first huh Evans? Dang aren’t we special.
I’m all for doing good for man and woman kind. Do it in the name of the miracle of life.
Jesus was homeless, brown and of questionable paternity…. and would be denied admittance into America today. oh wait he ‘qualifies’ because he is a Christian (God signed his certificate). Wow.
SD Republicans can just pass a bill authorizing the teaching of science AND “alternative science”! That should prepare students for college, especially if they go to Liberty U.
Spike, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about being here for another 4-5 billion years. Trump looks like he is bringing the Rapture. :-)
No Kurt Evans, Mendel described alleles, but that is not the same thing as explaining the cause of microevolution. He crossed true breeding varieties of peas with each other (artificially) and catalogued the results. That is not the same thing. At no point did he plant peas in different environments and determine how those environments affected the proportion of alleles in subsequent generations. Performing a test cross is not the same as studying population genetics.
Certainly you can argue that genes are necessary to explain how natural selection works at the molecular level in microevolution. But that applies just as much to macroevolution. What is the point? Why not credit everything to Lamarck or Aristotle?
By the way, you discount macroevolution because of the claim it can’t be observed. Mendel never observed the basis for alleles, he inferred it. But you seem to accept his work. Mendel didn’t know what DNA was, never saw DNA, was ignorant of meiosis, and lacked knowledge of how reproduction really worked. He was still able to describe heredity in a simplified manner.
Working biologists don’t define information the way you and the intelligent design crowd do. My examples also still stand. By your rationale, someone who is missing a chromosome or has suffered a gene deletion is no longer human because information has been lost. Also, it’s simple enough to look at examples of gene duplications and subsequent mutations that lead to novel functions of the new gene. But creationists are notorious for moving goalposts and changing the definition of what information mean. We don’t need this in our classrooms.
Most scientists in the nineteenth century were creationists. But they did not resemble modern day creationists. They were more honest actors trying to determine how things work. They were not science denialists. They adapted their beliefs based on rational evidence. It wasn’t until the 1920s that creationism became associated with Christian fundamentalism and opposition to evolution. The pathway to this view came more through the beliefs and works of seventh day Adventists than as a legacy of scientists of the previous century.
The bible is immaterial to the discussion at hand, but since you made the claims.
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . . When the morning stars sang together.”
“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Regardless, I think we can agree that teachers should never spend any of their time interpreting the bible for students, but should focus on evidence gained from rational means.
Pardon if I interrupt this fascinating discussion of genetics, evolution, etc. with a political question: Why does Mr. Monroe keep getting re-elected? Does the majority of voters in his district actually agree with these nutty opinions?
All Drumpf is bringing is a rupture or hernia.
There are many ” ology’s”
Biology
Sociology
Scientology
Theology
Etc
Each is the study of something
Now for Monroe there is more empirical evidence for Evolution
than there is for God.
May be he is working to get this point across in ALL SCHOOLS IN SO DAK.
Ed from Iowa: SoDak is a strange place. The voters here act like they have battered spouse syndrome. No matter the abuse they suffer, they welcome the batterer back, often with higher vote totals than the previous election.
This legislative session, there appears to be a competition: Who can introduce the most absurd proposal to add to the legal code or constitution? I’m not sure what the prize will be, but there will likely be no recriminations.
As a legislator, you can do just about anything you want to do, except get caught diddling an intern. I stress the “get caught” part. It’s particularly distressing to Republicans when one of theirs gets caught having carnal desires.
@Spike: “What about those 4 trillion and counting galaxies that are made up of a billion to a trillion suns per galaxy? So the earth was first huh Evans? Dang aren’t we special.”
I wouldn’t say Earth was first, “special” yes. Geologist Peter Ward and astrobiologist Donald Brownlee from the University of Washington argue “that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
Harvard astrophysicist Howard Smith agrees, after analyzing some 500 planets discovered outside our solar system, that the extreme conditions most likely to be found on those planets are probably the norm and that the conditions on Earth are likely an exception in the Universe.
Creationists are just about as smart as Trump’s youngest boy.
We went rom the Big Bang to the Earth in our solar system in 6 days, and on the 7th day, He rested.
Please – ROFL – oh please! Everything we know about everything is at odds with that creationst fairy tail.
Wished he/she/it had spent Sunday thinking things over we might not have been saddled with wingnuts of today.
The Republican party needs these kids to accept feelings as facts. They need people to elevate their alternative facts over the real opinions of scientists, doctors, teachers and others of genuine expertise. They are doomed if people want to peek behind the curtain.
I used to have a few beers with Jesus back in the old days. I liked his sister and pretty much had to get along with her brother. Good dude that was real. https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/did-historical-jesus-really-exist-the-evidence-just-doesnt-add-up/
“Denature” writes:
Changes in allele frequencies cause microevolution.
The point is that macroevolution as proposed by Charles Darwin would also require an actual net increase in genetic information, and no one in the history of modern science has ever observed a net increase in genetic information due to any mutation or combination of mutations.
They should only be credited for their own work.
The “intelligent design crowd” includes many working biologists.
That claim is absurd.
Your observations regarding creationist scientists in the nineteenth century are generally accurate, but your suggestion that modern-day creationists like me are dishonest, irrational “science denialists” isn’t.
Actually you’re the one who introduced the claim that the Bible “is self-contradictory—providing two accounts of life’s beginnings …” My statement was a response to your claim.
Evans writes
That claim is absurd.
jerry writes
Evans is absurd and off his rocker.
jerry writes
my claim is self evident that Evans is in need of Obamacare for mental health treatment. Good news! Ol Evans still has a couple of days to enroll in Obamacare. Obama saved him!!!!
If we are going to keep religion (creationism) out of schools, then it has to be an all or nothing thing. It is easier for the Public School to avoid teaching religion at all. (btw I am including historical teaching of Islam as well.) I have seen class lesson plans, which go much deeper into Islam than what would be required in a History lesson. It is my opinion that public K-12 schools don’t need to teach religion that is the job of Parents and Churches. Now teaching science to a specific political view point is equally wrong. While evidence can be strong for a particular theory, there are questions. Those questions are appropriate for instruction in the classroom.
Public schools should teach the science that is the least questionable – definitely not creationism – at all.
Kurt Evans: Microevolution IS changes in allele frequencies in a population over time. You are directly saying that changes in allele frequencies cause changes in allele frequencies. This is nonsensical. You ignore the causes of evolution, none of which Mendel studied. Is this what you think qualifies as pointing out the weaknesses of a scientific theory?
You keep parroting these claims of increased information without understanding the impact of what you are saying. Yes, a human losing status due to lost genetic information is absurd. But that’s the direct consequence of your claims regarding information as it relates to evolution.
That you read creationist propaganda that stated increased information has never occurred does not make it true. You continue to not respond to any of the examples I listed that directly fit your criteria. Why? Would the handwaving look silly? Would you have to point out what you actually mean by information?
You do understand that the unit of evolution is the population, not the individual right? Yet if a population went from 2 circulating alleles to 12, you would still say information hasn’t been increased based on some made up argument about information that has never seen the light of day in any respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The same applies to speciation events. Yet, you feel it valid for teachers to use this information in a science classroom.
You also continue to demand that evolutionary biologists have to observe some undefined increase in genetic information but accept that Mendel described alleles when he never physically observed one. You don’t pick and choose the science that is acceptable based on what appeals to you.
This is the problem with creationist arguments. They have been using similar arguments for decades and decades, just changing the wording occasionally to keep with the times. When their arguments are thoroughly debunked, they just keep repeating them. That is not science. That is not how it works, and that is not how it should be presented in a classroom.
If the intelligent design crowd was full of credible biologists, the Discovery Institute wouldn’t have to use stock photos when they want to utilize argument from authority. And they would publish. Nearly every significant science governing body has rejected intelligent design as legitimate. Over 95% of working scientists reject creationism as providing a credible explanation for biological diversity.
Re: bible. And the contradiction still remains.
For those tired or annoyed by my postings, here’s a cool video of antibiotic resistance evolving.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/
I taught life science and chemistry in South Dakota for 22 years, and the climate that produced SB55, among others reasons, is why I felt that I could no longer continue to teach in South Dakota. I now teach in a state that mandates the teaching of evolution and climate change, where I feel that I will not potentially lose my livelihood, for doing so. SD is not only the state that pays their teachers the most poorly, but they also perpetuate a hostile environment for educators in one of the most needed fields, science.
Boswell, you apparently don’t understand science. Read Denature’s explanations. Creationsism isn’t science. It raises no plausible, evidence-based scientific objections to the well-tested, well-evidenced theory of evolution. Instead, it takes the unnecessary polemical position that if we teach kids about genetics and natural selection, we’re prepping them for heresy. Monroe’s Jesus doesn’t need to come to science class and overturn the tables, because science class isn’t disproving the divinity of Jesus or the dominion of his Dad.
denature, your postings are not tiring or annoying to me. Stay the course as you are right on the money. In my opinion, the only way humans can continue to evolve and progress is with knowledge. That knowledge will come from legitimate science and not assquackery from the cult of the absurd.
Cory you’re reading what you want to read in my posts. I said Creationism should not be taught in school. The topic is too large and must include all religions to be all inclusive by the 1st Amendment. It is much easier to not include in the public K-12 at all. Now if Creationism is a science or not (I think you are debunking intelligent design) that is an opinion. There are plenty of Professors who would debate you on that. But there are some politically driven theories (Human Caused Global Warming) where alternatives should be taught. I remember in the 1970s when many experts were calling for a global ice age cause by carbon emissions.
Boswell, you realize that no one in America has ever proposed that we teach the Islamic creation story in schools?
Only wackadoodle Christians have proposed melding their church with everyone else’s state in this anti-American way.
And, yes, of course we know more today about global warming than we did in the 1970s. Big whoop.
denature, I am with jerry on your posts. They contain informative and interesting comments. I enjoy learning from posters like you who don’t try to sell us the “alternative facts.” Thanks for your efforts.
The main difference between and creationists and evolutionists seems to be that the former group starts with a conclusion and then rejects all evidence that contradicts the conclusion, while the later group starts with a hypothesis and then rejects or modifies that hypothesis based on whatever relevant evidence might tell them about its validity.
Boswell, that 70’s report was from the media, not science. One dude getting high is pretty much the tale of the tape.
“Denature” writes to me:
Of course not. Mendel described alleles, and changes in allele frequencies cause microevolutionary changes in heritable characteristics.
You’ve apparently misunderstood. What’s absurd is your assertion that losing human status is the direct consequence of my claims.
The examples you listed don’t directly fit my criteria and don’t seem persuasive enough to warrant responses.
The word evolution has a broad range of sometimes contradictory meanings, but I understand that non-genetic changes in an individual generally can’t be passed to offspring.
Those who rejected the Bible and insisted on millions of years of earth history didn’t get a firm foothold on most scientific institutions until the mid 1800s. Since then, unfortunately, those with an anti-Christian axe to grind have been attracted to certain fields of scientific endeavor in greater and greater numbers.
Cory writes:
Creationism doesn’t take any polemical positions, and nearly all creationists support teaching kids about genetics and natural selection.
In the tenth chapter of Mark, Christ Himself refers to the first chapter of Genesis when He says that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” If God had made humans male and female billions or millions of years after the beginning of creation, that would mean either that Christ was wrong or that we have no accurate record of what Christ taught. In either case, claiming to be a Christian wouldn’t make much sense.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Evolutionists often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject all evidence that contradicts that assumption.
Adam and Jerry I would also point out that Nobel Scientists have said that Global Warming is not as serious as put out by the Administration or the UN. It is a political position not necessarily a full proof case Teachers should be able to show that there is disagreement.
Kurt Evans are you trying to tie in “Intelligent Design” into the Bible and Christian faith? Be aware that you could use that same analogy to many Religious Faiths. So would you have the Public Schools burdened with teaching all of the various faiths? The reason I ask to be keeping with the First Amendment of the Constitution, you would have to include all. That’s why it should be an all or nothing situation. The topic is too big to cover. IMO
Accoring to Evans,
Another apparent “alternative fact.” By definition evolutionists can hypothesize that “supernatural events” do not exist, but will remain open to changing that hypothesis if credible evidence contradicts it. I know of no creationists that are open to the possibility that there is no God nor that the Earth was not created in the biblical fashion of choice.
An evolutionist is defined as “a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.” Theories are subject to revision and even rejection as the evidence improves.
Creationists believe in the “fact” of a biblical divine creation and any evidence that might contradict that “fact” must be rejected. The motive for such an intransigent position is strong, as it may well be based on a subliminal fear of eternal damnation for rejecting God and God’s word.
Creationism is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There shouldn’t be anymore that needs to be said.
“Evolutionists often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject all evidence that contradicts that assumption.”
And this is utter nonsense.
One thing that we are discussing here is how to explain the unexplainable – the unknown. Science accepts that there are gaps in knowledge; science forms a hypothesis; science tests that hypothesis with observable data. In contrast, religion jumps into the unknown with unobservable explanations derived from divine intervention. Those are untestable, and as matters of faith, not science. Our scientific history is filled with “faith/religious” place holders slowly being pushed out by scientific fact: the origin of the earth, the movement through the universe . . . When will religion see that the certainty of their beliefs now are just as certain of the (incorrect) beliefs before that were explained by science. Should anyone accept “because God wills it” as the answer to ANY question of science? Isn’t that the end of inquiry? Doesn’t that then become the answer for everything? Should we accept that where we are now has to be the end of scientific knowledge ever (because we filled in the rest with “God’s will”? I have always loved science because at its root is a push to “keep looking”; I am often frustrated by religion because it seems to often say “stop looking.”
I really see this all backfiring on Monroe (and supporters). Now it seems that a science teacher has the open invitation to hold religious theory up to scientific method. Other than an interesting thought about finding a watch on the beach, what scientific method leads us to intelligent design? “How do we know it didn’t happen that way” leads to all kinds of silly notions.
As to climate change and places where there is disagreement in the scientific community, I agree with acknowledging the controversy AND pointing out the idea of consensus and quality of science on each side. Learning to identify bad science can be valuable – just don’t create a false equivalence by saying the disagreement exists so both sides have equal validity. That is not science.
“Not enough of our society is trained how to understand and interpret quantitative information. This activity is a centerpiece of science literacy to which we should all strive-the future health, wealth, and security of our democracy depend on it. Until that is achieved, we are at risk of making under-informed decisions that affect ourselves, our communities, our country, and even the world.”
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
I was always very confused as to why people wanted their religious beliefs to be put under the same rigorous methods that science is. I am a scientist, and let me tell you, religion would not survive. Take the Bible: recent evidence against it being a 100% accurate document is the discovery of a Philistine village. They found jewelry and scented oils. Now we have evidence that the Philistine culture was not so Philistine.
As a scientist, I have tried to fight every bill like this that comes through our legislature. I have testified to the school board on the new science standards and how awesome they are, while others called all the collaboration “group think”.
It make me sad that my children will not be given the right information in school and that I may have to debrief them every night over what they’ve learned. And perhaps even set some things straight.
Dr B-take heart, it could be worse. I read today that the nut job head of the Science Committee for the fed (Lamar Smith, W-Texas) thinks people on the internet should have their opinions given the same weight as experts. He was talking about global warning but I’m sure his attitude crosses all fields.
Then he said if you want the unvarnished truth, ask the Potus Drumpf.
@Mike from Iowa
Don’t even get me started on Lamar. There’s too much to type it all here, so here’s a link. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/06/02/congressperson_lamar_smith_continues_his_attacks_on_science.html
He WAS the most dangerous government person to science, until Drumpf and his ilk got in.
Thanks for the link, Dr B. He’s a keeper (for the funny farm).
Darnit! I didn’t earn enough of Kurt’s attention to inspire him to quote me in his last comment!
That’s all I live for – ya know
Boswell, if global warming is “just a political position,” then my name is James Brown.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html
Mike Boswell asks:
Yes, but not in science class.
No, I wouldn’t want the public schools teaching any of them.
Adam writes:
Kurt Evans where does this fit? So are you saying exclude it from school? Then we have no more discussion.
But in fact “Intelligent Design” does fit many Religions. Including the top 3.
Yeah, those Scientologists really want to crack at it too.
Mr. Boswell, name that Nobel. Evans, stop eating that lead paint and go see the doctor about your mental capacity. If you do not have health insurance Obamacare can still get you covered if you talk to a Navigator about coverage. Good news, mental health is covered for you. So get it done Evans and be thankful for Obama. You know, Obama is black. Like the Biblical Jesus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus
Mike Boswell asks:
No, science teachers should be free to help students objectively analyze the weaknesses of macroevolution in a non-religious context.
How come Kurt doesn’t want to quote me, again? How about, “Only wackadoodle Christians have proposed melding their church with everyone else’s state in this anti-American way”? Aye Kurt?
Everyone wants a crack at telling their creation story – LOL. However, not everyone wants to teach kids fairy tails as fact.
Religon has no place in the public school class room, and creationism is a religious assertion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
So Kurt Evans are you saying they may teach intelligent design without mentioning any religion to give students an alternative to evolution. that’s a slippery slope
Dr. Boz., it’s all about Lord Xenu. Christian fairy tales can’t shake a stick to Scientology. Case closed.
Mike Boswell asks:
No, I’m only saying science teachers should be free to help students objectively analyze the weaknesses of macroevolution.
There you have it. Kurt Evans describes the purpose of this bill—to bring the supernatural into the classroom. This violates basic scientific principles, state science standards, and the Kitzmiller court decision.
Discussions on the first day in class, the components of science—testability, falsifiability, and verification—are out the window. Equal footing is given to fundamentalist Christian viewpoints of science as well as fundamentalist Islamic views (the other group associated with trying to get creationism in the classroom). No reason not to include astrology or tarot either. They all have something to say about the weakness of science.
Outside of testing outcomes, like whether a psychic can accurately make predictions, or whether faith healing works, the supernatural is not measurable. We can detect a gene. We can observe populations change over time. We can see the fingerprints of evolution in our genome. Results that supernatural explanations would not and have not predicted. The presence of a supernatural force is not testable nor falsifiable. That is why it has no place in a science classroom.
Every layperson here can see how my examples of evolution resulted in an increase in information. Except Kurt Evans. Because he is not using the word information as a scientific principle, he is using it as buzzword to enable science denialism. My examples don’t fit your criteria? No one here understands your criteria. You don’t explain it, provide no analysis, and just keep repeating the same trope phrase regarding macroevolution and information. Is it a conspiracy that science textbooks don’t use your criteria? The only people who try to use ‘information’ in the way Kurt Evans is trying are creationists. Our students deserve better than ill-defined buzzwords and bills from the Discovery institute.
Global warming—jerry is correct. The zombie trope of a consensus from the 70s saying cooling was on the way is false. Like all of these denialist talking points that keep getting repeated, they have been debunked before. But no matter, just keep repeating. We need to keep this kind of bad information and alternate history out of the classroom.
The cooling claim is readily testable. A literature survey of the ‘70s found 6 times more papers predicting warming rather than cooling. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Examining statements from scientific bodies of the time also don’t show any consensus concerning cooling. There were calls for more study. Compare that to today when almost all the major scientific bodies have put out statements that support the consensus—warming is real and human activities are the primary driver. Over 97% of working climate scientists accept this consensus as true. An analysis of peer-reviewed publications find almost all accept the consensus. This is almost unprecedented agreement among scientists.
Yet the zombie arguments remain. And this bill wants them in the classroom. Mike Boswell links to an American Thinker editorial that couldn’t even be bothered to update their claims. You’ve heard it before. Global warming ended in 1998. It was false then and treated a single year as representative of a long term trend (’98 was an el nino year, the next year was cooler, thus warming supposedly stopped). Since that time? 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016 have all been the warmest year on record. 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. Yet this bill wants to allow educators to provide demonstrably false information to students. Also we really shouldn’t be putting material from conservative think tanks or magazines into our science classrooms.
Only because an awkward, weird minority wish for it to be, we shall teach the Scientology version of creation in our public schools – for it is surely the truth.
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104274/what-scientologist-actually-believe
Can you see the danger?
Global warming isn’t real – especially if you believe the universe was made in 6 days, and of course, on the seventh day He rested.
Science or bust!
Denature, very well put – thank you for that.
Correct denature on the climate change. 97% agree that climate change is happening and being accelerated while the remainder only disagree on how the consensus was made. What is interesting to me on all of this, would be how rapidly it is coming. Right now, you can go to Miami, as well as anyplace along the East Coast of the US, and see how the rise of the vast Atlantic Ocean is deteriorating the shore line while inundating the underground fresh water sources for this great city. Believe in the scientific reports as written, or not. The fact is that you can actually go there and see for yourself. Mingle with with the locals, shoot the cool breeze and then pop the question, what do you do when the streets flood? Here is what the locals say. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article70145652.html
Mr. Boswell simply does not read his own links “As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint.”
Anthropomorphic, that is one big ol’ word that I do not use every day. Lets dive into that melting glacier water and see what it means.
“Anthropogenic climate change refers to the production of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. By examining the polar ice cores, scientists are convinced that human activity has increased the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has skyrocketed over the past few hundred years.”
Well then.
Here are articles listed from the link Mr. Boswell submitted as proof. Notice the assquackery
Articles & Blog Posts by Karin McQuillan
Donald Trump Confronting Voter Fraud Denial
Obama’s hatred of Israel will rebound
Leftists Ally with Jihadis in Our Public Schools
Why the Democrats Can’t Stop Calling the GOP Racists
Reprieve for Pilgrim Legacy this Thanksgiving
Bureaucratic Tyranny in Trump’s Crosshairs
Hillary’s health cost her the election
Guess what Ex-President Obama plans to focus on
Jews helped Trump win Florida
Hillary’s scary clown face terrifies voters
Trump and the Jewish Vote
Guilt by Association, Real vs Imagined
Those KKK Republicans
Media Anti-Trump Frenzy Will Backfire
Marie Antoinette in the White House
Explosion of Jihadi Activity on Campus
There Is Nothing Honorable about Losing to Hillary
Clinton’s VP pick Kaine: Promoting jihadis in America in exchange for cash
Those are just a few of how this scientific genius of an author is.
4 out of 5 dentists apparently recommend Trident gum, which is lower than the 97% agreement regarding climate change among scientists.
You’d think there would be a bigger uproar with the dentists…
That is only for patients who already chew gum doc. Monroe/Evans cannot chew gum and think at the same time, so they come up with this sewage to clog the learning system. Think of a classroom that you would try to teach when you looked out and all of the students had their heads up their backside. Welcome to SD-55, release the Inquisition for old times sake as they already wear the hats and sheets.
“Denature” writes:
Exactly where would you say I’ve described bringing the supernatural into the classroom?
On the contrary, I’m advocating objective scientific analysis of macroevolution in the context of testability, falsifiability and verification.
That’s an extremely deceitful misrepresentation of my position.
Yes, that’s why I’ve explicitly said above that I’m not trying to bring the Bible and Christian faith into science class (2017-01-30 at 23:28).
What kind of method would you say you’re using to determine what every layperson here can see? Is it scientific or supernatural?
You accuse me of using a buzzword, and you use the word denialism (again) in the same sentence.
In the form in which you listed them above, they don’t even come close.
What kind of method would you say you’re using to determine that no one here understands? Is it scientific or supernatural? You claim above that your examples “directly fit” my criteria. What kind of method would you say you’re using to determine that your examples directly fit them if you don’t even understand them? Is it scientific or supernatural?
Some science textbooks do.
In other words, macroevolutionists don’t raise questions about genetic information in order to address the scientific weaknesses of macroevolution. It’s unfortunate but generally true.
Kurt says
I say
Kurt says
I say
Kurt says
I say
Kurt says
I say
…and that’s how it went down.
ROFL COPTER
Yeah, denialism is a real thing with a definition and everything. Despite your continued refusal to define what you mean by increased information, I can spend a little time talking about denialism.
Denialism is the use of rhetorical tactics to provide the false appearance of legitimacy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The use of questionable and distracting rhetorical devices in lieu of actual discussion is necessary, given the presence of few supporting facts and the existence of strong scholarly consensus present in the peer-reviewed literature.
Some of the common tactics used by denialists are conspiracy, cherry picking, fake experts, moving goalposts, and employing logical fallacies. Groups that use these tactics include creationists, global warming deniers, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and anti-vaxxers. A strength and weaknesses paradigm in the classroom would allow all of these ideas equal footing with material present in the academic standards. They can all employ the same tactics you use. They all manipulate language and research to their ends.
You won’t share what you mean by increased information. You won’t even provide an example of what is necessary to fulfill your criteria. You aren’t just moving goalposts, you won’t event say where the goal posts are. You get to deny every example without explanation. Shouldn’t teachers explain things?
I have provided examples of the evolution of novel traits. Traits that had never before been seen in a population. Most people would see that as an increase in information. But not you. Because of reasons you won’t provide. You say increased information is necessary for macroevolution, but you never explain why that is the case. You provide no rational basis except you saying so.
I have pointed out how gene duplications can lead to the evolution of a novel gene. A gene with a DNA sequence that had never before been seen in a population. A gene that exists alongside the original gene that is still doing its thing. A gene that produces a protein with a function completely absent previously in a population. Most can clearly see this as new information. But not you. Because reasons.
You state that “Evolutionists often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject all evidence that contradicts that assumption.” But then claim no you don’t to bring evidence of the supernatural into the classroom. So why make the statement in the first place? Why are at least three of the people who testified for this bill creationists? Why did you complain that “The anti-Christian left wants to use our tax dollars to deceive children from Christian families into believing the Bible has been scientifically disproved” and use that as justification for your support of this bill? It’s because you don’t desire to bring the supernatural into the classroom?
You claim some textbooks use your criteria. I’m disturbed a textbook would use an invalid concept and pose it as science. Tell me what the textbooks are. Even if they are publications from the discovery institute and not actually used in any public school classroom, at least we could see what they actually say about information and maybe we could see the goal posts.
Kurt, as Darin and denature suggest, science teaching does not require luring children away from their religious beliefs. A good biology teacher can give students a solid understanding of evolution without saying one word about the validity of supernatural claims. A student can ace the evolution test, firmly believe in the scientific mechanisms that operate on Earth, and still believe in a supernatural power behind it all.
“Denature” writes:
Your suggestion that a strengths-and-weaknesses paradigm gives all ideas equal footing is absurd.
Of course they should. What’s your profession?
What kind of method would you say you’re using to determine what most people would see? Is it scientific or supernatural? If you’d like to try to formulate an argument that new traits can only arise from a net increase in genetic information, have at it.
“Bearcreekbat” had falsely suggested that macroevolutionists aren’t influenced by their assumptions.
You suggest above that I’m using “questionable and distracting rhetorical devices” given the presence of few supporting facts, but when I ask exactly where you’d say I’ve described bringing the supernatural into the classroom, your non-answer is a questionable and distracting rhetorical device.
Cory writes:
That’s obviously true, Cory. I took a 300-level course in macroevolution at SDSU, and when the instructor factored in his grading curve, I ended up with a final score above 100 percent for the semester.
In the tenth chapter of Mark, though, Christ Himself refers to the first chapter of Genesis when He says that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” If God had made humans male and female billions or millions of years after the beginning of creation, that would mean either that Christ was wrong or that we have no accurate record of what Christ taught. In either case, claiming to be a Christian wouldn’t make much sense.
Kurt says I made some false statements in this comment:
Kurt, please point out where in this comment that
I wonder what kind of hell Evans and Monroe created for themselves to be so bitter. These born again types have all done something in their past that shamed them for the event to happen, or that they perpetuated that shame on someone else. In order to live with themselves, the old must be killed off and then new spots on the old hide appear, or so they think. My guess is that Evans and Monroe were and still are bullies that have changed their spots somewhat, but that old devil is still in their details.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Filling in gaps of understanding with science (as understanding and measurement develops) that were once filled with religion isn’t heresy – it’s science. Holding on to religious dogma (albeit a revision of the old dogma) in the face of scientific refutation is neither science nor faith – it’s just denial.
I think SB55 should be amended so that anyone who cannot identify objective truth from alt-facts or unsubstantiated theories should be barred entrance from ANY classroom – be it science, history, math, english, PE . . .
Oops, I need to make a clarification – I would never advocate barring students from classrooms; the hyperbolic restriction is aimed at those who seek to teach and influence the next generation of thinkers.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
No, I said you’d made one false suggestion, and it wasn’t in the comment you quoted.
“Bearcreekbat” had written:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2017/01/28/creationism-in-disguise-sb-55-passes-senate/#comment-72614
What is “false” in the statement you quoted?
“Bearcreekbat” had written:
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
What’s false is your suggestion that macroevolutionists aren’t influenced by their assumptions. Macroevolutionists often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject all evidence that contradicts that assumption.
Now you are repeating yourself without providing any basis for your accusation. Although I didn’t use the term “assumption” in your quote, I am comfortable with that term since my choice of “hypothesis” is a synonym for assumption.
Lets substitute “assumption” for “hypothesis” in my statement to test your allegation against me:
I ask again what language in that phrase stimulates you to accuse me of suggesting that “macroevolutionists aren’t influenced by their assumptions?”
“Bearcreekbat” writes to me:
My response directly quoted your previous remarks and cited them as the basis for my accusation.
Since you’re suggesting creationists assume our conclusions, it would be more helpful to substitute the word assumption for the word conclusion as follows:
“The main difference between and creationists and evolutionists seems to be that the former group starts with an assumption and then rejects all evidence that contradicts that assumption, while the later group starts with a hypothesis and then rejects or modifies that hypothesis based on whatever relevant evidence might tell them about its validity.”
You suggest that creationists’ interpretations of the evidence are influenced by our initial assumptions, and you contrast us with macroevolutionists on that basis, which suggests that macroevolutionists’ interpretations of the evidence aren’t influenced by their initial assumptions.
In reality macroevolutionists often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject all evidence that contradicts that assumption.
You keep repeating this incorrect statement but you have yet to provide either factual evidence or a logical rationale for the statement. And as I pointed out earlier, this statement is inconsistent with the accepted dictionary definition of evolutionist: “a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.”
Note that the definition uses the term “theories.” And as a scientist, you already know that “theories” are subject to revision or modification as new evidence is acquired. Thus the dictionary contradicts your statement that macroevolutionists “reject all evidence that contradicts” any assumption (or hypothesis, or theory). Your statement simply is unsupported by long accepted definitions of the terms evolutionist, assumption, hypothesis, and theory.
And your comment:
is your incorrect interpretation of my comment. I used the term “conclusion” when describing creationists and the term “hypothesis” when describing evolutionists. And I did not say creationists’ interpretations of evidence were merely “influenced” by the conclusion, rather my point was that creationists start with the conclusion that cannot be influenced or modified in any way, regardless of what evidence is presented that contradicts their conclusion.
You continue to suggest that I am a liar who makes “false suggestions.” If I have made a “false suggestion” it certainly was not intentional, but was based on my understanding of the dictionary definition of creationist, which is “a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.”
But maybe both the dictionary and me are wrong. Are you now saying that creationists only “assume” rather than “conclude” that God exists and only “assume” rather than “conclude” that the Biblical creation story is correct? Are you saying that creationists are open to becoming atheists or evolutionists if they are shown evidence that God doesn’t exist or that the creation did not happen as described in the Bible? Wouldn’t such a position be inconsistent with having “faith” in God and the inerrancy of the Bible?
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
No, there’s no contradiction between believing in naturalistic macroevolution and rejecting the evidence against it.
My point is that macroevolutionists often do the same.
That isn’t what I was saying, but it’s probably true of some creationists.
That isn’t what I was saying either, but again, it’s probably true of some creationists.
Yes, believing there might have been errors in the writing of the Bible would be inconsistent with having faith in its inerrancy.
Kurt’s failure to embrace how God made man through the the vehicle of evolution of life (not just on Earth as it’s statistically impossible for Earth to contain the only life forms in the universe) – has taken him on a journey further away from God than the vast majority of Christians.
God wants us to continually discover and understand the true nature of existence. He doesn’t want His people trivializing what science will continue to discover about the mysteries of creation.
Kurt, when your head’s up your butt, like yours, ya just can’t see through the intestinal walls and body cavity enough to learn new things. Religion has to adapt to the ever growing compounding knowledge base humanity keeps on building – about reality, or people like me get to call you a closed-minded wishful thinker no matter how good at grammar you are.
Well Kurt, maybe you can explain how your argument that
is consistent with the accepted dictionary definition of “evolution,” (from which the term “macroevolution” comes). Your argument neglects to address the use and meaning of “theory” in that definition and the fact that, by definition, theories are always subject to revision based on new evidence.
If you have a credible link to confirm your statement that some macroevolutionists reject all evidence against macroevolution perhaps you can post it. I am relying on accepted dictionary definitions for my statements. I am curious to learn what sources have lead you to reject these dictionary definitions.
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
I’ve only said there’s no contradiction between believing in naturalistic macroevolution and rejecting the evidence against it. So far I haven’t made any “argument” in defense of that statement because it seems unlikely that an honest and reasonably intelligent person would need one.
If you want to discuss your definitions of the words evolution and theory, you should start by stating those definitions. Are you referring to the traditional scientific definition of a theory or to some general, colloquial definition?
Kurt fails to learn the meaning of words – just wants to contort them into his own grammatically correct definitions and arrangements suiting his closed-minded imaginary vision.
They are not “my definitions” Kurt, they are definitions provided by dictionaries and can be easily checked on line.
If we can’t even agree that dictionary definitions are a valid source of what words mean, then there is no point in trying to engage in an intelligent and meaningful discussion of any topic.
I’d written to “bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Then why are you refusing to state them?
What would be the point of repeating the dictionary definitions (some of which I have already set out in previous comments) when you will not accept dictionary definitions?
Here is an idea for you – just use your mouse to highlight whatever word you want to see the accepted definition of, right click on your mouse and select search Google for the highlighted word. Your first hit will be Google’s dictionary definition, and if you scroll down a bit you can also check out other dictionary definitions, such as Merriam-Webster, etc. Hope that helps!
I’d written to “bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You haven’t set out any dictionary definitions of evolution or theory in previous comments, so you can’t repeat them. The point of stating them for the first time would be to demonstrate that you’re not lying when you accuse me of contradicting them.
Excluding all other dictionaries, the two sources you’ve named list a combined total of more than a dozen variations on the definitions of each word. Even so, your accusations aren’t supported by any of them.
Kurt, I believe you are projecting in a very Trumpian manner. You demand that I provide definitions (which I already have for creationist and evolutionist – comment at 2017-2-3 at 12:47), yet you have not identified any credible source or definition to support your statement that:
You repeatedly made this statement, but you have provided no source for the claim after I pointed out that the claim is inconsistent with the definition of evolution and by extension macroevolutionist.
Here is a source from the National Academy of Science that might help you understand my point:
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
That difference between faith in creationism (which by definition new evidence cannot change) and the theory of evolutionist is what your incorrect statement about some macroevolutionists contradicts.
Kurt is a back woods radical. Jesus cries at the sight of his disingenuousness as well as his raw stupidity. Kurt is not one of His people.
Definitions won’t matter, now that Sessions is set to be confirmed Disciple on Earth tomorrow. We are doomed.
I’d written to “bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
It wasn’t a demand, just a suggestion and a question.
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You haven’t “pointed out” any such inconsistency. You’ve merely asserted it while refusing to provide definitions of evolution and theory to back up your claims.
Macroevolutionists often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject all evidence that contradicts that assumption. You claim the statement is incorrect, but you’re not even close to a logical refutation.
Kurt, then do you disagree with the National Academy of Science statement I provided for you?
Our dictionaries define an evolutionist as someone who accepts the scientific “theory” of evolution. According to the National Academy of Science “all scientific theories” are subject to revision based on newly available evidence. I am not sure that anything will help you recognize why your statement is incorrect if you reject this factual statement about the nature of scientific theories by the National Academy of Science.
Perhaps you are thinking of a person who might call himself a macroevolutionist, but chooses to believe things outside the definition. By analogy, some folks call themselves “Christians” but have beliefs that they feel justifies behavior contrary to how the Bible tells them a Christian is supposed to believe and behave. Today many folks who call themselves Christian are cheering Trump’s efforts to exclude poor refugees. Some of these folks have no trouble making false statements or coveting their neighbor’s property, or getting divorced, or committing adultery, and on and on. If that is what you mean by your statement, then you might have a point. Otherwise not so much.
Kurt’s only point is that he chooses to believe in alternative facts within an alternate reality that most people comfortably call “crazy land.”
There are many ways that a person can lose the neuroplasticity that allows the human brain to learn new things. Kurt might just be in his final years, or maybe he lost part of his brain in a car accident or something.
We should all pray for Kurt.
I’d written to “bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
That depends on whether one applies the traditional scientific definition of a theory or some general, colloquial definition.
Mine doesn’t: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolutionist
It’s called the National Academy of Sciences (plural).
All macroevolutionists believe things outside the definition. They often start with the assumption that supernatural events are impossible and reject any evidence that contradicts that assumption.
Adam writes:
Might be.
Kurt, the link you posted that you think does not “define an evolutionist as someone who accepts the scientific ‘theory’ of evolution” is a link to the definition of “evolution” rather than a link to the definition of “evolutionist.” Try the latter and see what you find.
Your new assertion that “All macroevolutionists believe things outside the definition” seems to lack any credible support in my google query of the your phrase. And sorry about the use of “Science” rather than “Sciences,” but what is your “plural rather than singular” point and how does it advance your argument?
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Yes, Merriam-Webster’s link for the word evolutionist directs to the definition of evolution. Since you’re the one who claims, “Our dictionaries define an evolutionist as someone who accepts the scientific ‘theory’ of evolution,” the absence of such a definition is your problem, not mine.
Maybe you ought to try it yourself:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
My point is that you’ve repeatedly misidentified the National Academy of Sciences, and there doesn’t seem to be any “argument” about it.
Well Kurt, you have convinced me that you will not acknowledge that your claim about the rejection of new evidence by some macroevolutionists is inconsistent with accepted dictionary definitions.
But the weakness of your claim seems clear since you have failed to provide any source for your repeated claim that some macroevolutionists reject all new inconsistent evidence. This failure implies that you made the claim up out of whole cloth and now you are having fun trying to gaslight me through misdirection, insults and contradictory comments.
Breaking for Evans: Devos has announced that schools must now flatten globes to conform with the new ideology of the old ideology.
“Bearcreekbat” writes to me:
That isn’t true. Would you say the same about your failure to provide a source for your assertions regarding creationists?
Jerry writes:
As I’d told you last month, Jerry, Christians never generally taught or believed the earth was flat. The myth that we did was fabricated by Darwinists in the 1800s, and the authors of school textbooks promulgated that myth for more than a century before it was debunked in the 1990s.
https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/12/30/hickey-reviews-2016-previews-2017-and-calls-for-open-party/#comment-69707
Nope. I disputed the accuracy of your assertion and asked for a source. I don’t recall you disputing the accuracy of my assertion that by definition creationists reject any and all new evidence that contradicts the Biblical version of creation, nor asking me to provide a source.
This Just In, from two hundred million years, ago. ? ? aka smoking gun
~195 MILLION YEAR OLD DINOSAUR DNA FOUND!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/01/oldest-proteins-ever-have-been-found-in-a-195-million-year-old-dinosaur-scientist-say/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.81c463a75ea7
Evans, you and Devos and Bannon make for quite a team. Now get to squishing those globes man while bringing out your 6,000 year old planet. Flat earthers unite! Starting with Evans!
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Where would you say you’ve made that assertion?
Porter Lansing writes:
The article at your link is from eight days ago, and there’s nothing in it about finding dinosaur DNA. It’s about finding dinosaur proteins. Prior to 2005, nearly all scientists believed it was impossible for proteins to survive for more than a few thousand years. Then a research team led by Mary Schweitzer reported extracting fragments of collagen from a T. rex fossil.
Rather than seriously considering the young-earth creationist view that the T. rex lived no more than a few thousand years ago, many macroevolutionists sought to refute the evidence that the extracted collagen was genuine. When the evidence proved too strong, they predictably changed tactics and began expressing awe and amazement that the collagen was still present after millions of years. The article at your link is essentially a modified version of Plan B.
This example is relevant to my suggestion that macroevolutionists often refuse to accept evidence that contradicts their assumptions.
Right, Mr. Evans. I see what you’re saying. As An Aside … I went through high school in SoDak in the 60’s without one mention of creationism in any science class. There’s no benefit to teaching it, one way or another. It’s an inconsequential subject unless you have a ulterior agenda. Do you have an ulterior agenda other than science, Mr. Evans. Is this about validation of your born-again, evangelical church?
I pray for Kurt – to one day gain the wisdom to discern between right and wrong. Not being able to grasp our ever accumulating understanding of reality is not a sin, but allowing the Devil to keep you traveling down the wrong path will always get you there.
Astrophysics and astronomical spectroscopy are really cool relatively new fields of study! Every single person working in those absolutely fascinating new fields all cringe at the thought of Earth Birthers still holding to fairy tales when the truth is so much more interesting than the fairy tale ever was.
Everybody knows jeebus squeezed dinosaur proteins out of the ones he rode hard and put up wet. That’s gospel according to some.
If you believe in science why do you keep saying “we are all the same.” You compartmentalize and reject science you don’t like just as good or better than these other goofballs. Maybe it’s even worse cause you think you’re logical and rational when in fact you ain’t. Too “progressive” too see and deal with the truth. Ideologues in a different color that’s all. Regressives, Politically Correct Libbie Preachers, ……..
Jerry Coyne on Race: A Reflection of Evolution
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/jerry-coyne-on-race-a-reflection-of-evolution/
Hypocrites puffing themselves up acting like others are ignorant all while you delude yourselves confirm one another with your Libbie values devoid of science and you think you should be teaching our kids and setting the curriculum. Hmmm.
What is a libbie value? Would that be like righteous, dare we consider that?
I pray for Grumpy Camper – to one day realize that Jesus only taught Libbie lessons about how people need to take better care of each other -instead of falling victim to the temptation of tossing each other to the wolves in a selfish capitalist survival of the fittest episode.
Jesus Christ pert near invented Liberalism. Conserva-Christians conserve far too much on their love of Christ.
Porter Lansing asks:
Explaining Christ’s teachings is always on my long-term agenda, but not for science class. This definitely isn’t about validation of any church.
Kurt, all you do is attempt to validate obsolete understandings to legitimize your or your churches belief system which is built more on faith than truth.
It’s crystal clear.
The Liberals’ War on Science: How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum
“Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.”
“…the study also found that these scholars were less willing to consider evolutionary explanations for other aspects of human behavior, especially those relating to male-female differences.”
“There’s no doubt that many left leaning academics have historically been quite skeptical about evolutionary psychology, presumably out of the fear that ascribing certain traits to biology suggests that they cannot be changed — and thus, can perpetuate inequality.” So they pick and choose just like the right wingers.
Come clean, CampRat … You’re just a closeted liberal trapped in a Haybilly body. A Red Tran-Neck, so to speak. C’mon out, l’il fella. We won’t tax you naked. ?
Grumpy Camper, there are no “libbies” (as you call them), whom I’ve ever known who reject evolutionary psychology in any way, shape or form. You might try poking your head outside of Trumpland once a while to talk with some real people now and then.
Mike Boswell had asked:
I’d replied:
“Teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution is different from teaching ID.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/in_the_public_i103480.html
Porter Lansing had written:
I’d written:
The Institute for Creation Research cites similar discoveries in its top news of 2016:
http://www.icr.org/article/9760
“Happy camper” posted:
Here’s an interesting discussion of Darwinism and race:
With Darwin Day Approaching, It’s Time for a Look Back at Evolution and American History
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/with_darwin_day103479.html
It’s really not that trivial.
Creationism is garbage. Everyone, who is anyone, knows it.
Kurt, your new comments and links raise a couple questions. First you state
Aren’t science teachers currently free to do just that?
And you link to an article from Evolution News that states:
That raises the question: are you a creationist or an advocate of intelligent design?
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
Most probably are, and I’d prefer to keep it that way.
Sarah Chaffee had written:
“Bearcreekbat” writes to me:
I’m a traditional young-earth creationist, primarily based on the strong historical evidence that Jesus Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true and the even stronger historical evidence that He rose from the dead. Some of the old-earthers in the ID community might prefer not to be identified with me, but I’d say they do a lot of good work despite our differences.
Teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution isn’t the same as teaching intelligent design, much less creationism.
Mr. Evans, you are insaner than most and you don’t even realize it.
Mr. Grudz … insaner than who? You? lol You should be so insane.
Despite their massive contributions to the community, gifted adults have not typically been revered. They get known as the mad scientist, the crazy artist, the self-destructive performer, the anti-social geek. When they were young, they were often identified as special needs children.
Why? Because the great majority of the world doesn’t understand them. Raw intelligence is not the only factor governing giftedness but it is a factor. Anyone with an IQ over 130 is regarded as in the gifted domain.
That does explain much of my childhood and young adulthood, Mr. Lansing. Thank you for settling my self-doubts about being insaner than some. You may have back another goat. A pretty one.
Take the test Grudzie and we’ll compare scores. I took it a couple months, ago.
http://www.free-iqtest.net/
Kurt, since you say that “most” science teachers probably are free to identify problems with current macroevolutionist theories, do you, as a creationist and a libertarian, see a need for this new SD law?
Thanks for clarifying that you are
Would you say your position is premised only on statements from the Bible and other early writings that Jesus accepted the Torah and from the Bible’s statements that Jesus did rise from the dead, or are there additional credible scholarly scientific resources that have influenced you? As a young earth creationist, are you open to reconsidering your views if new scientific evidence contradicts the “young creationist” position?
I’m bad at tests, Mr. Lansing. The pressure makes me poop. I think I scored an 82 when I was about 16 but that was a really long time ago before you were born and I’m sure the tests of changed a lot since then.
Same with me. The tests have changed. They’re easier on a computer with scratch paper and plenty of time. I believe it took me two hours to do 20 questions.
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
Some of the Founding Fathers initially opposed the Bill of Rights, arguing that it was unnecessary because the federal government was already limited to the powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. The counterargument was that the Bill of Rights was a necessary precaution to protect liberty in the future.
Regardless of whether any teacher is currently prohibited from objectively analyzing the scientific evidence, the bill strikes me as a reasonable precaution against such prohibitions in the future.
That’s a verbatim restatement of my remarks here last month:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2017/01/11/monroe-tries-again-to-sneak-religion-into-science-class/#comment-70330
I’ve been influenced by other credible scholarly resources, both scientific and historical.
Yes, but it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the direct historical evidence regarding Christ and His teachings would be outweighed by circumstantial scientific inferences about the unobservable distant past.
Kurt, other than the Bible, can you identify is “the direct historical evidence regarding Christ and His teachings” that you are referencing?
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
Not all of it, but this article identifies some:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/did-jesus-exist/
I don’t believe there is any doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual living person. I think he was , due to his birth and upbringing, a practicing Jew (as should be anyone who claims to follow him) and an unusually intelligent, thoughtful and peace-loving man. Because of his gentle nature, he turned to social and political activism in hopes of changing what he saw as injustice, much the same as Gandhi, King and Lennon in our time. And like these men he died violently because apparently there is just nothing people hate worse than being told we ought to be nice to each other. I don’t believe he would have wanted to become the idol that he is perceived to be today. That likely came about at the hands of individuals more in the mold of Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, men who saw the legend of Jesus as a way to turn a profit. I have no proof of any of this but it certainly seems, through study and observance (science) of what we see, to be far more likely than that some omniscient, omnipotent being sent a copy of itself to live and die horribly among us simply to make some obscure point about suffering.
I believe like you believe, JonD. But I KNOW that believing in Jesus doesn’t make you a good person. Being a good person makes you a good person.
“JonD” writes:
Most of the events in the Bible, including those surrounding Christ’s death and resurrection, were recorded soon after they occurred based on firsthand accounts.
It’s conceivable that the 500-plus people who reportedly saw Christ healthy after the crucifixion were all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. It’s also conceivable that, as many Muslims insist, God transformed Judas to look like Christ, and Judas rather than Christ was the one crucified. It seems to me that we need to ask whether those are the most reasonable explanations.
Ice core samples, alone, prove young Earth creationism is garbage.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
Kurt, thanks for the interesting link. How does your reliance on historical evidence of Christ and His teachings affect the young creationist position. Didn’t that creation they advocate take place long before Jesus was around? How do you think his existence advances the scientific arguments relied upon by the young creationist?
Adam writes:
Actually they don’t:
http://www.icr.org/article/8181/
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
The Hebrew Bible directly implies that the world was created around 4000 BC, and Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, even specifically referring to Adam and Eve as they’re described in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Kurt, your link is as garbage as the rest your BS. I’m actually offended at the idea that anyone would propagate it as some kind of remote truth.
It is for all to poop on.
Kurt, can you explain from a scientific perspective how you conclude the fact that “Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true” provides any independent scientific support for creationism?
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
No, I’m saying the evidence that Christ rose from the dead provides historical support for creationism.
Kurt misrepresents our Lord and Savior.
Kurt, do you mean that the opinion of Jesus (formed at a time when science was not very advanced) that Genesis was a correct explanation of creation constitutes “historical support” for the accuracy of creationist’s interpretation of Genesis?
And Kurt, would Jesus’ opinion constitute “historical support” if Jesus were not God (or part of the trinity) but a mere human?
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
The accuracy of any interpretation has to be evaluated on its own merits, but I’d definitely say Christ’s teachings constitute historical support for the truth of Genesis.
Yes, but much less.
Kurt, if Jesus is God, how would his viewpoint in the New Testament add anything that would give added weight to the story he told in Genesis? Wouldn’t it in effect just be God “begging the question” by stating that what he said in Genesis was correct – sort of like a witness confirming that what he said at an earlier time was correct?
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
No, the question is whether God told the story in Genesis, and you’re the one begging that question with a hypothetical presupposition that He did. A credible witness confirming his earlier statements gives added weight to those statements, and Christ’s confirmation of Genesis gives added weight to Genesis in much the same way, especially in conjunction with the historical evidence that He rose from the dead.
Kurt, you are correct that for the purpose of my inquiry I am assuming creationists take the position that God told the creation story in Genesis. Do creationists disagree with this assumption?
When you say
why would a statement that is repeated by the speaker be more credible than the initial statement? I can see how recanting a statement might lesson the credibility of an initial statement, but I don’t quite understand why repeating the statement gives it any more credibility than the initial statement?
And how do you assess whether the speaker was credible in either statement?
Quick follow up – how does a creationist connect the story of the resurrection with creationism, assuming he is satisfied that there is sufficient historical evidence confirming this event?
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You hadn’t said anything about creationists in your previous comment, and I didn’t say anything about creationists in my response. Whether God told the story in Genesis is the question at hand, and a hypothetical presupposition that He did begs that question.
Many probably do.
It wouldn’t. In your scenario the statement that’s repeated is the initial statement, and in any case, since Christ didn’t “repeat” Genesis, this seems like a rabbit trail.
In your scenario, I don’t.
The resurrection demonstrates Christ’s divinity, and Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, even specifically referring to Adam and Eve as they’re described in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Kurt believes in a LITERAL translation of the Bible.
He thinks The Lord made the universe, galaxy, and Solar system in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested.
Many people, like him, are very heavily medicated. Try not to blame the pharmaceutical companies; drugs don’t kill people, people kill people. LOL
Only the Lord knows …
Kurt, when you say “many” creationists “probably” disagree with the assumption that God told the creation story in Genesis it raises the question of why they consider themselves creationists. How can someone accept the creationist explanation without believing that God told the Genesis creation story?
Your use of the term “many” also raises the question whether “creationist” has a definition and what are the elements of that definition? If I want to become a “creationist” in fact, what are the specific beliefs that I must hold to fit within the definition?
And since there are two creation stories in Genesis rather than a single story (Genesis 1-2:4a and 2:4b-25), which one must I accept if I want to be a creationist in fact? Would it be the second story based on your statement that
since “Adam and Eve” are not identified by name in the first creation story at Genesis 1-2:4a?
When you say
that brings me back to my question why would Christ’s statements about the Hebrew Bible constitute strong historical evidence that a creation story is accurate?
OMG-Iran found the skeleton of a giant in a cave, All 2 meters of giant. In a cave with artifacts from a long time ago.
Maybe someone can place Goliath in Iran way back when, we’d have something.
Good one, BCB. I sense a cloud of gobbledygook approaching from Wessington Springs.
gob·ble·dy·gook -ˈɡäbəldēˌɡo͞ok/
nouninformal
language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
Adam writes:
Actually I think He’d made the universe, galaxy and solar system by the end of the fourth day.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Your stated assumption in that latter comment (2017-02-16 at 17:37) wasn’t that God told the creation story in Genesis. It was that creationists take that position. You’d written, “… I am assuming creationists take the position that God told the creation story in Genesis.”
You’ve been asking me a number of vague “how” and “why” questions about barely relevant statements I’ve never made. In this case the answer would depend on what creationist explanation you mean.
I’d say you have to believe the world was created.
In the nineteenth chapter of Matthew, Christ refers to Genesis 1:27* and Genesis 2:24** in the same sentence:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female[*], and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’[**]?”
It’s all part of the same story, but as I’ve already suggested, you don’t have to accept that story to be a creationist.
You’ve never asked me that question, but I’d say Christ’s public recognition of the Hebrew Bible as true constitutes strong historical evidence that Genesis is accurate mainly because of the strong historical evidence that He rose from the dead.
I think it is all fake news. You do not know any more about what Christ thought than the the people who wrote about him after he was long gone (if he even existed). If any of this were real, people would not be so criminal in all in what they do. Starting with politicians and working on up or down to everyone else. We are not even sinners, we are just cognizant of doing what we perceive as being right. We do not kill outright, but we kill by ignoring the plight of the poor, we do not steal outright, but we take more than we need because we can get away with it while cheering those that have done all of that in big big ways. The list goes on.
What was the unit of measure for “one day” before the Earth was created?
The question and answer helps us understand that these “God days” are metaphorical, not literal Earth days.
Kurt doesn’t pray hard enough to understand the truth of many things – has a partly broken relationship with God.
Kurt, first I apologize for not formulating my questions to your standards. And to the extent that you are willing to identify my mistakes, I will certainly try to correct my errors.
Next, are you saying there are not two creationist stories in Genesis?
Next, I seek to understand your statement that Christ’s public recognition of the Hebrew Bible as true constitutes strong historical evidence that Genesis is accurate mainly because of the strong historical evidence that He rose from the dead. But this does not explain why being “raised from the dead” is in any way relevant to, much less supportive of, the creationist position?
And your comment that to be a creationist that
is a bit confusing. I am unaware of anyone who argues our world was not created. Isn’t the question instead – how was our world created?
Adam writes:
There wasn’t one. The earth was created at the beginning of the first day.
No, but the question and answer would seem to help us understand that you don’t know the first thing—literally Genesis 1:1—about the Bible.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Depending on what you mean by creationist stories, there may be many more than two, but it’s all part of the same larger story.
For the record, I don’t believe you when you say you seek to understand, but it’s possible someone else reading this will.
As I’d told you in a comment to which you replied earlier today, “The resurrection demonstrates Christ’s divinity, and Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, even specifically referring to Adam and Eve as they’re described in the first two chapters of Genesis.”
No, that really isn’t the question.
LOL – God started with Earth and then built everything else afterwards – LOL
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/creationist-ken-ham-dinosaurs-fought-gladiator-battles-against-humans-and-giants/
This oughta be a good one for Kurt and bcb to auger about.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/creationist-ken-ham-dinosaurs-fought-gladiator-battles-against-humans-and-giants/
This oughta be a good one for Kurt and bcb to auger about.
Who knew dinos had opposable thumbs and could handle swords?
Good one mfi, Ham is a grifter for sure. In Evans pretzel twisting grifter world, you have to believe in the 6,000 farce or else how could that fake news continue. If Evans truly believed in the Book, he would have denounced the republican leadership for doing just the opposite all the things this Book is supposed to stand for. Evans is what is called a useful idiot to the republican party as a troll. They tolerate him to siphon votes from their opposition by giving him voice. As the crackpot grifter that he is, he can then spew this nonsense as something that has value to the republican party for its agenda.
Kurt says:
Why is that?
Then what do you think is the question?
mfi shares a story about Ken Ham, dinosaurs and giants (thanks mfi). Do you share Ham’s views?
When you say Christ’s divinity constitutes proof that the creation stories in Genesis are true, is that because whatever a divinity said must be true?
For example, in Matthew 13:31-32 (NIV) Jesus states “. . . a mustard seed . . . is the smallest of all seeds . . . .” Do you believe that a mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds because a divine Jesus said so, even though there are even smaller seeds, such as the orchid seed?
Good one, BearCreek … lol What would Sean Spicer say about the mustard/orchid question? “Those are your words, not President Jesus’ words. You said it … he only used your words. It’s your story with your words!!!” or “They’re fake seeds because the seeds are fake.” or “The President is a deity and if a deity says it, it’s true.”
Porter, have you been talking to Melissa McCarthy? I hear Spicer has been channeling her.
She’s doing a great job. Rosie O’Donnell is chomping at the bit to get that part, also. Gonna be sorry to see their season end.
I’m pretty sure that if a guy thinks ‘the Earth was created first and only then did God make everything else in the universe’ he must be handicapped in some way.
Mental illness is nothing to joke about. Kurt needs our prayers more than anything.
The Devil, himself, has Kurt so confused; he probably can’t even change a lightbulb in his own home.
I’d written to “bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
The main reason is probably your tendency to subtly misrepresent my statements.
As I’ve already indicated above (2017-02-17 at 16:48), I’d say the question is whether you believe the world was created.
Many of them, yes.
If Christ is divine in the traditional sense, then whatever He says must be true, but I’ve never said His divinity constitutes historical “proof” that Genesis is true. I’m saying there’s strong historical evidence that Genesis is true largely because of the strong historical evidence for Christ’s divinity.
You’ve omitted the first part of verse 31: “He presented another parable to them, saying …” You’ve also omitted some other relevant context: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field …”
I believe the specific, individual mustard seed the man sows in the parable is the smallest of all the seeds in the parable. There are no smaller seeds in the parable.
LOL, Grifter Evans has the answer, bcb has his number. In every mystery book, there is much the same kind of bylines and that follow mythology. The Norse legends and Gods, Roman legends and Gods or German ones are no different than that of the Jewish legends and Gods. The Brothers Grimm stories were as much of following stories told around the campfires as entertainment as well as keeping you in line as good little boys and girls. Creationism is about as real as the rest of the fairy tales, meant to frighten you into submission much like the Brothers Grimm’s stories of blood and horror as acceptable practice.
Bcb stung the grifter with the mustard seed though, damn, that was funny. Creationism should be between children and their parents beliefs. That is why there are different churches, else we would all be Catholics. Unless that is the plan, to be like Islam and only have two sects of the same religion and beliefs. There, solved it. That way you can always have war.
Kurt writes:
In Mark 4:30–32 (NIV) Jesus repeats the parable and compares the size of the mustard seed to “all the seeds that are on the earth.” Why wouldn’t such a statement include the much smaller orchid seed? Isn’t it the creationist viewpoint that the orchid would have been one of the plants that God created on the third day per Genesis 1:11-13 (NIV)?
And when you explain why you don’t believe me you give one express reason.
After reading your earlier complaints that I misrepresented some of your statements I have tried to quote you directly rather than using my own words to describe what I thought you were saying. Have I failed at that?
Is my use of the term “proof” rather than the term “evidence” what you believe to be a subtle “misrepresentation” of one of your statements? In my statement I used the term “proof” as a synonym for “evidence.”
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/evidence
Upon reflection and further investigation I see that for many scientists claiming to have “proof” is a much stronger more definitive statement than claiming to have mere “evidence.” Calling divinity “proof” rather than mere “evidence” that Genesis is true could mean giving “divinity” greater weight and importance than it deserves. And that makes sense if there is only mere “evidence” of “divinity” rather than any actual “proof.”
And when you give the “main reason” it makes me ask are there additional, but less compelling, reasons for your statement questioning my stated motives for asking you questions?
Finally, your answer “many of them, yes” raises the question: Which of Ham’s creationist views set forth in mfi’s link, if any, are not included in the “many” that you agree with?
There is ABSOLTELY ZERO science out there that says, “the Earth might have formed first and then the rest of the universe came second.”
Case closed. However, BCB navigates through Kurt’s weeds so well, with such patience, that it’s really quite the act of compassion.
God works in mysterious ways, Kurt. Sometimes, He speaks to us through others.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Another possible reading of the Greek is “all the seeds that are upon the soil.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Mark+4:30-32
Maybe there are no orchid seeds upon the soil in the parable, or maybe the mustard seed the man sows in the parable is smaller than any orchid seed. Either way, Christ says the specific, individual mustard seed the man sows in the parable is the smallest of all the seeds in the parable.
There’s more than one creationist viewpoint on the topic, but that’s mine.
At times, yes.
That one may have been unintentional, but yes, it’s a valid example.
There probably are.
The only one of Ken’s personal views that’s accurately set forth in that article appears to be his view that the design for the new diorama to be installed at the Ark Encounter is exquisite, and I’d agree with that view.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wdgmHdZUmB0/WKVAjC6D8uI/AAAAAAABkgA/tfvTyaqU_IksNK-RW8QvI6CyaJzpHjALwCLcB/s640/z%2Bcavemen.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tqUwZNF11RA/WKVAPfcQFtI/AAAAAAABkf4/URwdp1QfkYgo3riHtxJ4xMV4Q3pef3qRwCLcB/s640/z%2Bnietzsche.jpg
Bcb continues to drink grifter Evans milkshake. Who knew that something as small as an orchid seed could expose the weak underbelly of the complete fabrication of trying to pack 50 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag.
I continue to be amused with bcb’s outstanding patience, knowledge, as well as brilliance in neutering not only the grifter Evans, but Monroe and his grift as well. Bcb has shown the fake news of a 6,000 year old planet nonsense, the door. South Dakota does not need to waste resources in the classroom to prove we are as ignorant as Kentucky. Let Ham have his own grift, we here have Rounds and Joop to show our own brand of creationism.
mfi, your caveman is spot on. That is why mythology played such a part in those days before fire was controlled to cook with so we could develop our brain. Some of us continue to evolve while others argue the ridiculous.
Kurt, ah translation issues. Do orchid seeds fall upon the soil? And the “maybes” in your comments that seek to challenge the factual inaccuracy of Jesus’ statement, coupled with the insistence on using the weak term “evidence” in place of the more definitive term “proof,” clarify the weakness of the creationist creed.
Our discussion has reached a point where your comments have convinced me that my initial point is correct. When you cannot acknowledge the fact that Jesus was wrong in his statement about the mustard seed, I cannot expect you to consider in good faith any factual evidence, or even “proof” for that matter, challenging the creation story.
For creationists such as yourself it appears faith trumps reality.
mfi, great link! Jerry, thanks for your kind comments.
Thank you, gentlemen. :)
The Lord told me, today, that Donald Trump has the smallest male body part of all of the male body parts on earth.
I’m going to write that down (or maybe chisel it in stone) so that it stands the test of time, and people talk about it 2,000 years from now as if it’s the literal Gospel.
I didn’t say that, God did, those are His words not mine. When I repeated his words, I didn’t say that He did.
Adam, I can’t reliably tell the difference between the voice of God and an undigested bit of beef. Neither can any scientific method. Hence, my position on SB 55.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Yes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they had in Christ’s parable.
My comments don’t seek to challenge the factual inaccuracy of Christ’s statement. A parable isn’t factually accurate or inaccurate. A parable is fictional. If Christ wanted to symbolize the smallest individual seed using a kind of seed that was familiar to his listeners, that was His prerogative as the storyteller.
When Christ says this particular seed grows up and becomes the largest of all the garden plants in the parable, would you say He means there can never be a real-life garden with a plant larger than a typical mustard plant? Your whole line of reasoning is absurd.
No, you thought your initial point was correct initially.
Would you say Shakespeare was “wrong” in his statements about Romeo and Juliet?
For anti-Christians such as yourself, it appears arrogance does.
Cory writes:
Actually a number of scientific methods can be used to identify undigested beef.
Well, Cory, when good and reasonable people take the time to help well intentioned Christians to better understand the reality of the cosmos, you can be sure that you are have been a reliable witness, and you even a catalyst for God attempting to teach His people.
There are still priests who do exorcisms for people (like Kurt) who have demons clouding their judgement – filtering their reality – ruining the perception of the world that God intended for them.
These demon parasites won’t leave the human body on their own – you have got to actively exorcise them! Kurt, and his friends and family, have a lot of work and commitment ahead of them.
Kurt says:
Perhaps Christ’s reference to Genesis was also his prerogative since that story also was familiar to his listeners?
And as to your comment:
This is a good comparison – one beautiful fictional work to another.
I accuse you of relying on your “faith” and you respond by calling me an arrogant anti-Christian. Such words are usually not used in any complimentary sense. This raises two questions:
(1) How does calling me an arrogant anti-Christian square with Matthew 5:22 (whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire) and Ephesians 4:32 (Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you)?
(2) What is an “anti-Christian” anyway?
Adam, you cannot be reasonable with a grifter like Evans. Sometimes, it may seem that it would be best to just let them go into their mental caves and mutter to themselves. The grifter hopes that is the case.
The grift can only continue when you have those that think there is something in looking at a Cheeto and seeing a gorilla as in the grifters Shakespearean example. It is at that point, the debate just goes from amusing to just plain pity. This is the best Evans can do. This is it. To try to discredit a discussion by declaring his loss of the debate by claiming that the winners are “Anti-Christian”. The grifter Evans wants to change the subject matter itself, because he hears that slurping of his milkshake. Monroe and Evans sit now on the sideline scratching their collective melons and wonder how in the world they painted themselves into a corner. It also shows that bcb, Adam, mfi and others will continue to take the charlatan’s lunch money while exposing the Evans grift on a daily basis.
There is good news though, exposure to these kind of nutters is what it takes to show how grifters really work the system to their advantage. There is money in this kind of fake education for the right grift. These boys are on it man. By having this creationism as an acceptable scientific fact, puts education back into the stone age.
Adam writes:
You don’t have enough firsthand experience with me to make that assessment, although your seemingly delusional efforts to mock me suggest you may have enough firsthand experience with demons.
I’d written to “bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” replies:
Thanks. Are you going to answer?
Yes, or at least it should have been familiar to them.
To be clear, you suggest I’m relying on a “faith” that “trumps reality.”
You’d directly quoted the first two statements to which you responded in your last comment, but this is yet another example of your tendency to subtly misrepresent my words instead. I’d never actually called you arrogant until now, but you are.
I’d say calling you an arrogant anti-Christian is more qualitatively descriptive than an empty put-down like, “You fool!” I’d also say it’s not necessarily motivated by a lack of kindness, tenderness or forgiveness.
Someone opposed to Christ’s teachings.
Jerry writes:
A grifter makes money through illegal behavior, and you’re repeatedly libeling me.
Kurt spits in the face of patience and compassion; he attacks the messenger as a means to the end of disagreement. Worstly though, he stays captive behind plastic bars (surely devised by Satan) which he fails to realize that he can easily break out and become an even more realistic, and thereby closer to God, Christian than he ever thought possible. It’s quite sad really.
Evans, grifting is what it is. http://politicaldictionary.com/words/grifter/ You are what you are, grifting for political gain that is your game. Even you know full well that bcb bought out the can of whoop ass on you son. Your 6,000 year old universe is going nowhere and now your thrashing about like a hooked carp in the bottom of the boat. But a man got to grift if he is gonna stay in the game at campaign time. So carry one dude, we all await your next flip flop.
Almost every day, and admittedly, sometimes I do forget, but I pray for Kurt – and people like him. And I tell every other decent religious person around me to call upon the lesser amongst us (such as Kurt) to embrace the unveiling of the universe and all of creation that God made for us and many other life forms in the universe, as we discover and uncover its mysteries – not as the literal interpretation of every single English translated word of the bible.
Young people get it. Give a kid some decent genetics and a smart phone in this modern day, and then tell them the fairy tail of creationism and you’ll just make them laugh.
Kurt is no match for all the real religious leaders of the world who make a point to embrace all the tried and true truly common knowledge.
He’s also no match for any one of us – LOL
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2017/02/study-shows-that-exposure-to-religion.html
exposure to religion renders children unable to differentiate between reality and fiction. YIKES!!!
Kurt, first you wrote
When I pointed out this name calling you respond
Perhaps other readers might weigh in on whether they believe your first comment called me arrogant or not.
You claim I am arrogant, which seems to be an insult based on the definition “having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.” Perhaps you can share with us what comments I made that support your insult.
And I wonder how an objective reader would interpret whether calling someone an “arrogant anti-Christian” is “an empty put-down?” As for the “motivation” in such name calling, I wonder whether an objective reader would conclude that “kindness, tenderness or forgiveness” was the motivator?
Lastly, you define “anti-Christian” as someone “opposed to Christ’s teachings.” When Christ’s parable repeatedly taught us that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth, is it “anti-Christian” to argue that the orchid seed is in fact smaller?
Guilty as charged, yer Honor.
BCB may be a lot of things, most of which I can’t spell, but arrogant he is not.
I’ve always thought BCB was a highly intelligent, kind and compassionate liberal lady.
bcb, Scientists has just discovered 7 new planets that could be places for biological life formations. It is interesting the new discoveries that are being made all the time crackpot grifters like Evans, blather at why the moon eats the sun on our flat 6,000 year old planet most days here. It saddens me to think that grifters like these two ding a lings can continue to play the make believe harmful gig of creationism in that regard.
The stupid hurts when you deal with a political con man like Evans who now takes it upon himself to call you arrogant while flinging crap in every direction he can. The fool on the hill has been identified, thanks for smoking the him out. Oh, and carry on with that can of whoop, it is delightful to see him so hungry.
Jerry writes to me:
*—The contraction for “you are” is you’re. An easy way to keep this straight is to remember that the apostrophe replaces the letter a in are.
Adam writes:
*—The phrase you want here is fairy tale, not fairy tail.
Porter Lansing writes:
Why would a lady refer to herself as a bat?
“Bearcreekbat” asks:
A parable is fictional, and even within the context of His fictional parable, Christ doesn’t say anything about mustard seed in general. He describes one specific, individual grain of mustard seed that’s the smallest of all the seeds on the soil in the parable. If He wanted to symbolize the smallest individual seed using a kind of seed that was familiar to His listeners, that was His prerogative as the storyteller.
When Christ says this specific, individual grain of seed grows up and becomes the largest of all the garden plants in the parable, would you say He means there can never be a real-life garden with a plant larger than a typical mustard plant?
bcb, you are without a doubt, one of the greatest debaters that exists. I have seen some brilliant work done in my years, but this one is a true form of beauty. Usually, when you are dealing with a political grifter, it is difficult to have them take the chum at best. You put out a tiny orchid seed to deflate a con.
You bcb, have exposed the total lie of the 6,000 year old universe as bunk. There can be no mistake that Monroe’s plan is at best, a con for some kind of benefit for himself, as it is now clear, this is not about science nor is it about education. Life is funny like that sometimes when you can get a twofer with a outstanding brilliance. For the record, it is an even greater coup when you are in a cage match and then you land a well placed shot to the solarplexus (the second brain) and down goes the grifter with a thud. Now he wants to try to belittle you to take you off your game because you opened that can of whoop ass and he does not like its taste. Hard for him to deal with as his superior may well be a woman.
Biggest Orchid Species
The tiger orchid (Grammatophyllum speciosum) is the world’s largest type of orchid. The biggest on record weighed roughly 4,000 pounds. One hanging in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden is 12 feet wide, weighs 300 pounds and has hundreds of flowers blossoming on 17 spikes. Its stems are 7 feet long, but tiger orchid stems can grow over twice this long in some instances. Flower blossoms are about 6 inches in diameter. Though rare to spot in the wild, tiger orchids support themselves on tree branches in the jungles of Southeast Asia.
The mustard seed: “The mustard tree has been grown and written about by various cultures for centuries. Mustard trees have been found in various locations throughout the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent. The seeds are one of the smallest in the world and is considered a spice in many parts of the world, making its way along trading routes during history.”
How in the 6,000 year old universe world were there so many smaller seeds than that of the Mustard Tree that originates in our wrestling buddy country, Iran?
Interesting information about the beautiful orchid Jerry! Meanwhile, today the RC Journal reported that Monroe’s covert creationism as science bill has been defeated so our 200+ creation bill comments are now moot.
Your comment about my debate skills brings back a memory – Years ago I played in a chess tournament in Denver where I won my very first chess game against a Master player (but then quickly got torn apart by a Grandmaster). My mother-in-law laughed herself silly when my spouse bragged to her that I was now considered a “Master-beater.”
Meanwhile, did you ever notice that some debaters are like the guy at the make your own omelet bar who asks for substitutes? (credit to “Rhymes with Orange”)
And here is one for Kurt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batwoman
Jerry writes to me:
Your 6,000 year old universe is going nowhere and now your[*] thrashing about like a hooked carp in the bottom of the boat.
*—The contraction for “you are” is you’re. An easy way to keep this straight is to remember that the apostrophe replaces the letter a in are.
Kurt, is your response to Jerry an admission to being a hooked carp? You didn’t specially deny that you aren’t. I know how you smart guys like to play word games.
“Bearcreekbat” had asked:
I’d replied:
Jerry writes to “bearcreekbat”:
Speaking of debaters, maybe one of you would like to address the question I’d asked in my previous comment: When Christ says this specific, individual grain of seed grows up and becomes the largest of all the garden plants in the parable, would you say He means there can never be a real-life garden with a plant larger than a typical mustard plant?
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution isn’t the same as teaching intelligent design, much less creationism, and this discussion has value apart from the bill.
I’m glad you clarified that.
“Mike from iowa” asks:
That’s true. I didn’t deny that I’m not a carp. As a matter of fact, Mike, I freely acknowledge that I’m not a carp.
Looser dude, you done got spanked. bcb, Adam, mfi, hell even the house cat have your number. Spanked and tanked. Pretty pathetic, but deserving. An orchid seed, too funny. The fork has been stuck in you turkey, your** you are done. Go cry with your twisted little sister, Monroe.
Kurt Evans is a fool. He has no substance, no real backbone, and no significant brain power.
He’s also up against some solid brains, which gives him no real chance on this platform.
Seriously, Kurt, you and the radical few phony Christians are a joke. Everyone with a brain laughs at people like you. You don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of convincing anyone with an IQ over 90 of your BS.
In fact, the fact that Kurt even came here to type words shows his foolishness. But maybe it’s the stern hand of God that is trying to teach his stupid ass in any way He possibly can… and so we must toil with stupid and/or crazy people on God’s behalf whether we see it that way or not.
Please stop. Just stop.
Here ‘ya go, Kurt …
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 13:32 about the size of the mustard seed need not, and has no reason to, be interpreted as contradictory to scientific evidence for the following reasons.
In the first place, although, the orchid seed may be the smallest, or one of the smallest plant seeds, and thus smaller than the mustard seed, it is not necessary to consider Jesus’ statement in Matthew 13:32 as containing scientific error since the class of seeds with which the mustard seed is associated is the garden herb group (lachana) which may possibly be interpreted as being the “all the seeds” category to which reference is made in the earlier part of the statement, “all” there being limited to the specific group (lachana) under consideration in the total context of the verse. Since the mustard seed probably was cultivated in Palestine in ancient times, for its oil, it may be argued that Jesus, when speaking of this type of seed, was talking about it in a comparison with all those seeds which were planted by farmers for food. Since panton is used with the lachana group in the parallel passage in Mark 4:31, it may be further argued that the panton ton spermaton group in both Matthew 13:32 and Mark 4:31 is intended to mean only the lachana species, the “all the garden herb” group. In this limited context of garden herbs then, Jesus speaks of the mustard seed as extremely small.
With “all the seeds” being understood as limited in this way by the context, the minute orchid seed need not be considered as being included by Jesus in His statement. It is to be observed that if Jesus had said, “The mustard seed is smaller than the orchid seed,” He would have seemed to have spoken erroneously; but this He did not say.
Secondly, that the expression comparing smallness with the size of mustard seed was a common Jewish saying argues for the fact that scientific literalness and preciseness need not be pressed upon it, it being able to be understood then, as men certainly understand it now, as a general and popular expression of smallness.
However, it is to be realized that Jesus, in using the common Jewish proverbial expression of the mustard seed as a figure of smallness, did so only because the proverbial expression so used was a true and accurate statement, including those implications involving scientific data regarding the mustard seed, both as to its very smallness as a seed and to its moderate largeness when grown. – W. Harold Mare (master of gobbledygook)
Jesus apparently made another factual error when he incorrectly said in Mark 2:23-28 (NIV) that Abiathar was the high priest that David faced when taking and eating consecrated bread and giving some to his companions, which was lawful for only priests to eat.
This story about David set forth in 1 Samuel 21: 1-6 (NIV), identifies Abiathar’s father, Ahimelek, as the high priest rather than Abiathar. Thus Jesus erred in referencing Abiathar as the high priest in Mark 2:23-28 (NIV).
Such a mistake seems to further undermine the “divinity” argument for creationism.
Porter Lansing offers me a lengthy copy-and-paste he signs as follows:
Agreed. A waste of our time.
“Bearcreekbat” had asked:
I’d replied:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Do you regard changing the subject as one of your “debate skills”? What about misrepresenting statements?
Christ only says the event took place in the time of Abiathar the high priest. He doesn’t say Abiathar was the high priest David faced.
We agree that any mistake by Christ would seem to undermine the divinity argument, but we obviously don’t agree that your example demonstrates such a mistake.
It is a foolish dog who barks at a flying bird.
Kurt, I can’t defend my “debate skills” since I doubt whether I have any to defend but the 1st Amendment gives you the right to express your opinion denigrating whatever limited skills I might possess, if any, and labeling me in whatever that makes you feel better about yourself.
As for your statement
you are misrepresenting the correct language used in Mark 2:26 (NIV). Nowhere does it say “in the time.” Rather it says:
Why would you feel the need to substitute your words “in the time” for the Bible’s words “in the days?”
As for your comment about what Jesus meant in the statement, I see no real point in arguing with you. Instead, we can leave it up to our objective readers to decide whether Jesus was or was not stating that Abiathar was in fact the priest that David faced when Jesus reportedly said “In the days of Abiathar the high priest.”
Of interest perhaps to all. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/26/opinions/believer-personal-faith-essay-reza-aslan/index.html
WHO’S AHEAD, READERS? Evans or Bat? Out of 100 possible points, please assign each a score.
Jerry, great link – thanks! My favorite quote from Aslan’s piece is:
“Bearcreekbat” had written:
I’d replied:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
The phrases have essentially the same meaning, but the Greek uses a figure of speech referring to a historical time period, and more literal versions like the NASB translate it as “in the time of”:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Mark+2:26
My comment was about what Christ said. You’re the one making assumptions about what He meant.
I give BCB a 96 and Evans a 2 (only because he’s so amazing at spelling and grammar).
Agreed, Adam. Trying to prove that every word in the Bible is undeniable, pure fact is a foolish quest. It’s called “faith”, Mr. Evans. We that have it don’t need literal proof of Christ’s message. We know how to discern the essence of a parable. If you want to disbelieve carbon dating, so be it. It seems you’re more obsessed with teaching than with learning. Arrogance? Perhaps, but that’s no way for a former teacher to conduct his life. We learn continually. We teach when asked to do so.
I love when people argue about the wording of the Bible as it it had been written in English, or that nuances of 2000 years old language is the same today.
Porter Lansing writes:
I’m not saying I can prove that every word in the original manuscripts of the Bible was true, Porter, but I believe there’s strong historical evidence to support that view.
Carbon dating is never perfectly accurate, but there are many situations in which it’s essentially valid and useful.
I’ve spent nearly three decades studying origins science without knowing whether I’d ever have an opportunity to teach it.
Kurt’s reasoning skills are so lacking, I wouldn’t trust anything he ever had for sale. A cognitively handicapped person can study forever, but if the topic is above their capacity to understand, then they have little or nothing to offer in terms of understanding.
Carbon dating is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to proving just how old the Earth and universe is. Kurt lives his life with blinders on (like a horse who’s trainer won’t allow the horse to get distracted by peripheral vision).
I tell ya, Kurt, you’ve got the Devil’s blinders on, and it’s like they been surgically attached to your head.
Adam writes:
*—The word you want here is whose, not who’s. Who’s is the contraction for “who is.” An easy way to keep this straight is to remember that the apostrophe replaces the letter i in is.
All Kurt can do is critique my grammar and punctuation as he doesn’t know how to argue with any of my reasoning. I think it’s pretty clear that Kurt knows he’s an idiot.