Creationist Science Text Book

[ccmanuals]

The joke is on you cc, this is satire, not even good satire, but it's purpose matches yours, to disparage Repubs. Two strikes against you now cc. A bad thread OP and now this. Consider the source. http://vacantmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/

O, really,

http://www.highlandernews.org/2978/c...lic-education/

[Ian McColgin]

We have one Biblical guess a few years after even Bishop Usher's but other biblicist push Adam back to 11,013 BC,

[S/V Laura Ellen]

O, really,

http://www.highlandernews.org/2978/c...lic-education/

Here is the Bill from a reliable source.

[Old Dryfoot]

Okay here is a stumper with regards to Adam & Eve. Minimum Viable Population... genetically the idea of two humans populating the world simply does not work.

[Flying Orca]

Well, that's just going to come back and bite them. There are no "scientific controversies" around evolution, and no alternative "scientific theories" with any kind of "scientific evidence". Anyone who tries to bring up ID or creationism will quickly find that they are not protected by this legislation.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

Okay here is a stumper with regards to Adam & Eve. Minimum Viable Population... genetically the idea of two humans populating the world simple does not work.

It would certainly result in a great deal of genetic abnormalities, explains a great deal about the current condition of mankind.

[Old Dryfoot]

It would certainly result in a great deal of genetic abnormalities, explains a great deal about the current condition of mankind.

I think genetically it would doom humanity to extinction in relatively few generations.

[pefjr]

O, really,

http://www.highlandernews.org/2978/c...lic-education/

Yes really. There are religious nuts on every corner. I don't think you read too well ...or you are so blindly partisan....yadda yadda.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

I think genetically it would doom humanity to extinction in relatively few generations.

You're forgetting the influence that the 'hand of God' would have on the issue.

[Tom Montgomery]

Adam was created in 4026 BC and died in 3096 BC.

Are you certain that he was not created in 4000 BC and died in 3070 BC?

[Old Dryfoot]

You're forgetting the influence that the 'hand of God' would have on the issue.

I knew I was missing something.

[AndyG]

Hang on a second...

How did that icthyosaur and that pliosaurus (page #1 of this daft thread) drown in the flood? Bad swimmers??

Andy

[Phillip Allen]

I'm not sure it's been taken into account that there many people who desire to be lied to... including political parties. an example of "our leaders are allowed to lie to us but your leaders should not be allowed to lie to you"

[skuthorp]

I'm not sure it's been taken into account that there many people who desire to be lied to... including political parties. an example of "our leaders are allowed to lie to us but your leaders should not be allowed to lie to you"

+1 Phillip, for many it's easier to believe a lie, even if they really know it probably is, than face reality and have to think. But not everyone is the same. My dad's experience in the war turned him completely away from belief, others had the opposite reaction.

[Peerie Maa]

^ mine as well, not what you would describe as having a good war.

[skuthorp]

^ mine as well, not what you would describe as having a good war.

I don't think there is any such thing except maybe for HQ wallah's that never leave home.

[hanleyclifford]

Okay here is a stumper with regards to Adam & Eve. Minimum Viable Population... genetically the idea of two humans populating the world simply does not work.

Scientists have established that all the DNA of the human family springs from one female specimen.

[ChrisBen]

Scientists have established that all the DNA of the human family springs from one female specimen.

And she's not the Eve of your bible.

[Old Dryfoot]

Scientists have established that all the DNA of the human family springs from one female specimen.

You might want to read up on that. You are speaking of Mitochondrial DNA and it's not the same thing. Also mtDNA (Mitochondrial Eve) is thought to have it's current origins some 140,000 to 200,000 (the two numbers that come to mind without checking a source) years ago.

[Peerie Maa]

Scientists have established that all the DNA of the human family springs from one female specimen.

No they have worked out the date where the current common ancestor was alive. That does not infer that she was the only one, just that the progeny of all of the others did not have offspring whose families are surviving now.
After all, if you consider that we each have two parents, four grandparents 8 g grandparents etc, and then work back through the generations, the worlds population runs out of ancestors quite quickly. A futile argument.

[Sam F]

Folks... this creationist fuss revolves around a publication produced by Bob Jones University.
Bob Jones? They're as fundi as they come. Nevertheless, Secularists can easily find common ground with those fundis.
Let me help...

I was a student at Bob Jones University in the mid 1970s when the first black student was admitted. I was there in 1978 when Pope Paul VI died, and I heard Dr. Bob Jones Jr. speak his now famous words: "Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, like Judas, gone to his own place." I remember students who were training to be Baptist preachers returning to campus bragging that they had visited a local Catholic church and spit in the font, then prayed for deliverance for all the devil worshippers who went there every Sunday. Every year we had the chance to hear Ian Paisley, the fiery Northern Irish Presbyterian preacher, deliver blistering attacks on Catholics during his annual American preaching tour.
http://www.catholicity.com/commentar...ker/04977.html

See? Bob Jones isn't all bad! Look at how much ya'll have in common!

[Tom Montgomery]

You bet, Sammy! As a thoroughgoing Secularist I look forward to my weekly trip to a Roman Catholic Church to spit in the font.

[Anthony Zucker]

Thru the years I've taken Bible study classes from several rabbis, reform, conservative and orthodox, all in the US. They all made the point that numbers in the Bible, particularly when refering to years, are subject to poetic license. I understand that heredi or ultra-orthodox can get vague on their numbers but few, today, go along with the adamancy of the world originating fewer than 10,000 years ago.

As for my Tennessee neighbors, I have no excuse.

Recently there has been an arguement that stores and government offices shouldnt offer services to people in Spanish. One legislator summed up all discussion by stating that, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ its good enough for us."

You just cant beat that arguement. There is no sense trying

[Peerie Maa]

thru the years i've taken bible study classes from several rabbis, reform, conservative and orthodox, all in the us. They all made the point that numbers in the bible, particularly when refering to years, are subject to poetic license. I understand that heredi or ultra-orthodox can get vague on their numbers but few, today, go along with the adamancy of the world originating fewer than 10,000 years ago.

As for my tennessee neighbors, i have no excuse.

Recently there has been an arguement that stores and government offices shouldnt offer services to people in spanish. One legislator summed up all discussion by stating that, "if english was good enough for jesus christ its good enough for us."

you just cant beat that arguement. There is no sense trying

rotfpmswl

[ljb5]

Folks... this creationist fuss revolves around a publication produced by Bob Jones University.
Bob Jones? They're as fundi as they come. Nevertheless, Secularists can easily find common ground with those fundis.
Let me help...


See? Bob Jones isn't all bad! Look at how much ya'll have in common!

Sam, your unique brand of myopia is evident in this post.

I'm not going to arbitrate a fight between Bob Jones and Catholics. That's like trying to figure out which soccer hooligan is justified for hitting the other guy with a beer bottle.

[Kaa]

Recently there has been an arguement that stores and government offices shouldnt offer services to people in Spanish. One legislator summed up all discussion by stating that, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ its good enough for us."

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/u...2;t=000448;p=1

Kaa

[Nanoose]

Historical-cultural context is missing from the interpretation.

When/who wrote it? to whom? why? (as best we can know). Given their context, what would the original, intended recipients of the work understood it to mean?

This essential component of interpretation is missing from everything touched on here - dinosaur's, flood, Adam, Job . . .

Seriously, peeps.

[John Smith]

Does this textbook tell us who created God?

[wardd]

Does this textbook tell us who created God?

one of my ancestors created god

[Chris Coose]

This essential component of interpretation is missing from everything touched on here - dinosaur's, flood, Adam, Job . . .

My early Pre-Vat II Catholic education included no context. Think the kids subject to this disturbing voo-doo text will be offered context?
What is the context for laws of the Levites? and even in context were these laws reasonable?

[Peerie Maa]

Just to stir the pot some more.

Many human 'prototypes' coexisted in Africa

By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

A new species of human: One of several co-existing in Africa two million years ago

Fossils from Northern Kenya show that a new species of human lived two million years ago, researchers say.
The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa.
The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from monkey to ape to modern human.
The research has been published in the journal Nature.
Anthropologists have discovered three human fossils that are between 1.78 and 1.95 million years old. The specimens are of a face and two jawbones with teeth.

"Nature was developing different human prototypes only one of which, our species, was ultimately successful”

Professor Chris StringerNatural History Museum, London

The finds back the view that a skull found in 1972 ago is of a separate species of human, known as Homo rudolfensis. The skull was markedly different to any others from that time. It had a relatively large brain and long flat face.
But for 40 years the skull was the only example of the creature and so it was impossible to say for sure whether the individual was an unusual specimen or a member of a new species.

With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H.rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans.
For a long time the oldest known human ancestor was thought to be a primitive species, dating back 1.8 million years ago called Homo erectus. They had small heads, prominent brows and stood upright.
But 50 years ago, researchers discovered an even older and more primitive species of human called Homo habilis that may have coexisted with H. erectus. Now it seems H. rudolfensis was around too and raises the distinct possibility that many other species of human also existed at the time
This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved from monkeys in a smooth linear progression. Instead, according to Dr Meave Leakey of the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, who led the research the find shows that there was a diversity early on in the evolution of our species.
"Our past was a diverse past," she told BBC News, "our species was evolving in the same way that other species of animals evolved. There was nothing unique about us until we began to make sophisticated stone tools."
In other groups of animals many different species evolve, each with new traits, such as plumage, or webbed feet. If the new trait is better suited to the environment then the new species thrives, if not it becomes extinct. According to Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, fossil evidence is increasingly suggesting that human evolution followed the same pattern.
The march of progress had many dead ends
"Humans seem to have been evolving in different ways in different regions. It was almost as if nature was developing different human prototypes with different attributes, only one of which, an ancestor of our species, was ultimately successful in evolutionary terms," he said.
According to Dr Leakey, the growing body of evidence to suggest that humans evolved in the same way as other animals shows that "evolution really does work".
"It leads to amazing adaptions and amazing species and we are one of them," she said.

from the BeeB

[Sam F]

Sam, your unique brand of myopia is evident in this post.

I'm not going to arbitrate a fight between Bob Jones and Catholics. ...

ljb5, your unique brand of myopia is evident in this post. I merely noted a fact: Fundis and Secularists share a common hatred of the Catholic Church.
How simple is that?

[Sam F]

My early Pre-Vat II Catholic education included no context...

Anybody may be badly taught, the circumstances are always unique. In my public school education, context, let alone critical thinking, was always absent.
Nevertheless, it is implausible that anyone's "Pre-Vat II Catholic education" was Fundamentalist à la Bob Jones. Quite implausible.

[Tom Montgomery]

I merely noted a fact: Fundis and Secularists share a common hatred of the Catholic Church.
How simple is that?

It is not simple. It is simplistic.

I am a secularist (someone who thinks religion does not belong in government or public education) and I do not hate the Roman Catholic Church.

[Keith Wilson]

I merely noted a fact: Fundis and Secularists share a common hatred of the Catholic Church.

This was once true, but lately not nearly so much. A very interesting political trend is that fundamentalist Protestants have to a very great extent put aside their dislike of the Whore of Babylon (sorry, just had to throw that in ;-) ) and made common cause with conservative Catholics on all sorts of social issues.

Re "mitochondrial eve":

That does not infer that she was the only one, just that the progeny of all of the others did not have offspring whose families are surviving now.

Not correct. All of the others did not have female offspring whose descendants are surviving now. Mitochondrial DNA is passed on through females only.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

It is not simple. It is simplistic.

I am a secularist (someone who thinks religion does not belong in government or public education) and I do not hate the Roman Catholic Church.

+1

[wardd]

ljb5, your unique brand of myopia is evident in this post. I merely noted a fact: Fundis and Secularists share a common hatred of the Catholic Church.
How simple is that?

i thought you were a fundi catholic

[Glen Longino]

i thought you were a fundi catholic

He is, but I doubt he will say so.

[John Smith]

Hmmm... you definitely have some paranoia issues. That is a wide encompassing statement that obviously can not be true. I doubt it is even close. Some that have been abused, maybe, would be justified in having "no use" for the RCC or CC, but that is as far as I can go. Hatred is self destructive. Disagreement does not =hatred. I doubt even you, as much negativity as you have put in writing about your feelings toward Atheists, actually hate me just because I deny your god exists. I don't hate you for denying the Twin FS/Monkeys.

I agree hatred is destructive. It's especially destructive when it is justified by religious beliefs.

If we move this discussion to another time frame, imagine Galileo and the hatred the religious folk must have had for him.

George Carlin once said on "Politically Incorrect" when attacked by a religiously inclined fellow who remarked that he (the religious fellow) had no responsibility to defend his postion to Carlin something to affect of: Yes you do. If you are going to hold ideas and view yourself as superior to me if I don't share those ideas, and you want to force them into laws or convert others to your belief, you most certainly do have a responsibility to defend those beliefs.

I'm sure that's a broad paraphrase, but it expresses Carlin's sentiment.

the question is, as I see it, if you hold a set of beliefs and those beliefs are proven wrong, at whom are you angry? And what happened to "the truth shall set you free"?

Or let's move to global warming. Seems the evidence is in: the earth is getting warmer. That doesn't mean they'll be no more snow. It does mean climates are changing.

One can either stick his head in the sand of religion and deny the evidence, as they did back in galileo's time, or they can take in the evidence and admit it is happening and may well be a problem and may well be caused in large part by people.

Would there have been any good to come out of never recognizing the earth is not the center of the universe?

[Sam F]

I merely noted a fact: Fundis and Secularists share a common hatred of the Catholic Church.

This was once true, but lately not nearly so much. A very interesting political trend is that fundamentalist Protestants have to a very great extent put aside their dislike of the Whore of Babylon (sorry, just had to throw that in ;-) ) and made common cause with conservative Catholics on all sorts of social issues.

Other than proving that politics makes for strange bedfellows you've demonstrated nothing.
Fact is that Fundis, to the extent that they stay Fundamentalist, despise the Catholic Church - and that's not going to change, because it can't.

[Sam F]

i thought you were a fundi catholic

There's no such thing.

[Peerie Maa]

I merely noted a fact: Fundis and Secularists share a common hatred of the Catholic Church.



Other than proving that politics makes for strange bedfellows you've demonstrated nothing.
Fact is that Fundis, to the extent that they stay Fundamentalist, despise the Catholic Church - and that's not going to change, because it can't.

Well Sam, if you claim to have such a fundamental knowledge of what other people really think

There's no such thing.

then you should allow wardd to state what you think on your behalf.

[wardd]

There's no such thing.

there is now

i'm a secularist and i think all religions are silly

[wardd]

a fundamentalist is not gauged in a vacuum but against others, so yes others can make the statement that someone is a fundamentalist

[John Smith]

Some are more fundi than others?

[Keith Wilson]

Fact is that Fundis, to the extent that they stay Fundamentalist, despise the Catholic Church - and that's not going to change, because it can't.

Nah. The word "Fundamentalist" comes from a series of essays published in the early 20th century by the Los Angeles Bible Institute called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (You can read them here if your stomach will stand it.). The articles definitely attacked "Romanism". However, the word has come to mean any conservative Evangelical Protestant, usually a biblical literalist. One central characteristic of Evangelical Protestantism is that there's no central authority and no fixed doctrine; it's sort of arrived at by consensus and is constantly evolving - about 100 years behind the rest of western thought, but definitely evolving. One thing they have definitely done lately is make common cause on many issues with conservative Roman Catholics. This probably isn't a development of which the original authors of The Fundamentals woud have approved, but modern Fundamentalists are doing it anyway.

[Tom Montgomery]

Nah....

One thing they [the Fundis] have definitely done lately is make common cause on many issues with conservative Roman Catholics.

Yep. Can they be political allies and still hate each other?

[Peerie Maa]

Yep. Can they be political allies and still hate each other?

easily, just look at the ConDemn coalition.

[Keith Wilson]

I'd say "creationist science textbook" is much like "kosher pork chop".

[Sam F]

Fact is that Fundis, to the extent that they stay Fundamentalist, despise the Catholic Church - and that's not going to change, because it can't.

Nah.

No? No about what?
Not this - which is simply fact:

The word "Fundamentalist" comes from a series of essays published in the early 20th century by the Los Angeles Bible Institute called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (You can read them here if your stomach will stand it.).

The articles definitely attacked "Romanism".

Sure did and Fundi's still do. I battle them regularly.

However, the word has come to mean any conservative Evangelical Protestant, usually a biblical literalist.

News flash! The Catholic Church is neither Protestant nor Biblical literalist thus never the twain shall meet.

One central characteristic of Evangelical Protestantism is that there's no central authority and no fixed doctrine; it's sort of arrived at by consensus and is constantly evolving - about 100 years behind the rest of western thought, but definitely evolving. One thing they have definitely done lately is make common cause on many issues with conservative Roman Catholics.

Yeah - politics makes for strange bed fellows. Didn't we already know that?
But you're mixing up your categories. Evangelicals are not necessarily Fundamentalist*. To the extent that they're not, then they may find broad areas of agreement with the Catholic Church.

This probably isn't a development of which the original authors of The Fundamentals wou[l]d have approved, but modern Fundamentalists are doing it anyway.

Only "fundamentalists" are doing it anyway. Since the media, in its bigotry and ignorance, chose to label anyone who firmly believes anything** as a fundamentalist ,then of course you are right. Unfortunately, I used the term Fundamentalist in its original meaning - if you want to use it's now meaningless meaning, then of course I am wrong - if it is even possible to be wrong about a meaningless term.
In the meantime... What are we to call real Fundamentalists? I have no idea!
You pick something. Call them Yo Momma if you want.
Nevertheless Fundimentalists, or whatever you wish to call them, stubbornly remain in their own category quite unaware of what you or I want to call them.



*The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical/fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.[9] Evangelicalism has therefore been described as "the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals" (Wikipedia)

**Other than the Secularist agenda which is different in that the belief required is not a belief.