 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TheWord
Big Hamster
Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
It is impossible to understand the spirit of the word if we only think with a carnal mind. You will start putting to much emphasis on the TYPE and not the SPIRIT of the Word.
Do ya really think 1 day = 1 thousand years? Think about it real hard. If you do I would have to say that your understanding of Revelations would be a great Movie.
I would not even hazard a guess as to timelines but I do believe that it was God that did it all. When was the last time anyone hear read the white in the bible? Just provoking some thought....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i read that verse a little differently then some....it is not a formula for interpretation... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | P123 wrote: | Do you realize that evolution became widely-accepted as undisputed by the mainstream scientific community something like 100 years ago? Furthermore, since this is an issue of science, the scientific community is the only community whose opinion matters.
It really doesn't matter if the international league of bread bakers or car mechanics objects to evolution; they are not qualified to judge whether or not it is true.
Evolution is fact, and virtually everyone in the scientific community agrees. There is no credible dissent on the subject. It really is as accepted by scientists as the heliocentric view of the solar system. |
I disagree. Not all who hold to the creation theory are wacko un-educated Christians.
|
It seems that you have been running with an extremely biased crowd, and that this has given you a distorted view of academia. I'm really not making this up, and I'm really not hyperbolizing. If you go to any major research university on the planet, and then go to the department of biology, zoology, genetics, botany, etc. and try to find a professor who is a creationist, you're going to have a REALLY hard time. I don't have any hard figures on the subject, but I'm around academics every single day. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if more than 2% of biologists, zoologists, geneticists, botanists, etc. with Ph.Ds did not believe in evolution.
What I'm saying here really is a fact: the VAST majority of scientific experts completely support evolution, and ALL of the major scientific institutes on the planet without exception (the Royal Society, the NSF, NSERC, etc.) fully support evolution.
| sofyst wrote: |
Again, not all the Scientific community believe in evolution, some hold to another theory.
|
They're in a tiny minority, and furthermore they NEVER publish any anti-evolution papers. Here's an exercise in frustration and futility for you: try to find a scientific paper from a relevant and reputable journal which throws some doubt on evolution. You won't be able to, because ALL arguments against evolution are unscientific and can't get published.
| sofyst wrote: |
Secondly, the 'Scientific community', and 'virtually all people whose opinions on the subject matter (scientist)' believed that 'letting blood' helped to relieve a person of an illness.
|
Apparently periodic bloodletting is healthy. But if your point here is that scientists make mistakes, then rest assured that evolution is not an example of this. It is a mature and well-established theory kind of like Newtonian mechanics and gravity.
| sofyst wrote: |
And I'm thinking about the argument of them not being able to reason, or not having the reasoning powers that adults have...hmmmm.... |
They don't! All mammals are born helpless and completely without knowledge. This is why we have to have schools. If babies were born already complete with all of their parents' knowledge, just imagine how much educational effort that would save!
Children are also HIGHLY impressionable. You can tell them ANYTHING you want, and get them to believe it. This is for biological reasons; back during our caveman days, when little Johnny was told not to go near the crocodiles, it was very important that he did not have a sense of critical thinking. Children are designed not to challenge authority and to be completely malleable for this reason.
So like I said, they have not yet developed a mature sense of critical thinking, so the idea of letting them decide for themselves is a bad one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
P123, I will be the first to confess that perhaps my facts are wrong. I have always heard about Creation Scientist and those that want to teach the Intelligent Design. But I have never gotten that far involved in the whole movement given first my skepticism towards the Young Earth Theory, secondly my attraction towards Theistic Evolution, and third my distaste towards Christian Apologetics (the ploy whereby non-Christians are 'persuaded' to faith by reason and arguments). Therefore, I would say that you may have a point.
However, I will point out that it is not a good argument to point to the fact that no anti-evolution articles are published within reputable scientific journals. That would be as silly as me pointing to the idea that no reputable Theological journals would include atheistic articles. This is not because the atheist argument is completely worthless (some of them do pose a problem for Christians - or at least give reason for them to get off their lazy bums and THINK!!!), but because it is a Christian journal, they are naturally not going to include oposition... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | So like I said, they have not yet developed a mature sense of critical thinking, so the idea of letting them decide for themselves is a bad one. |
Exactly. At that age, they're just going to go with whatever sounds the most interesting to them. I know that I, for instance, very briefly seriously considered Greek mythology because it was actually entertaining.
| sofyst wrote: | | However, I will point out that it is not a good argument to point to the fact that no anti-evolution articles are published within reputable scientific journals. That would be as silly as me pointing to the idea that no reputable Theological journals would include atheistic articles. This is not because the atheist argument is completely worthless (some of them do pose a problem for Christians - or at least give reason for them to get off their lazy bums and THINK!!!), but because it is a Christian journal, they are naturally not going to include oposition... |
I'm pretty sure I could find examples of articles submitted and rejected, as well as the reasons for the rejection if you wanted. They aren't rejected because they support creationism, they are rejected because they are unscientific. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
However, I will point out that it is not a good argument to point to the fact that no anti-evolution articles are published within reputable scientific journals. That would be as silly as me pointing to the idea that no reputable Theological journals would include atheistic articles. This is not because the atheist argument is completely worthless (some of them do pose a problem for Christians - or at least give reason for them to get off their lazy bums and THINK!!!), but because it is a Christian journal, they are naturally not going to include oposition... |
Contrary to what anti-evolutionists are always saying, this is NOT how scientific publications work. There isn't some kind of vast conspiracy that is making sure that anti-evolution papers don't get published even if they are good. The peer-review process is very local, and does not involve a lot of people. Papers get sent to a few (probably less than five in most cases) people (the 'peers'), and depending on their comments and reviews it is accepted or rejected.
The reason why anti-evolutionists don't ever have their ideas published is because their ideas have no scientific merit. There's one thing you can say about science: if an argument has merit, then it will EVENTUALLY be accepted. It might take a year or two, but eventually the truth of scientific experimentation cannot be suppressed.
Anti-evolution is one of the oldest areas of 'research'. People have been attacking evolution for more than 100 years now. Is it honestly reasonable to think that they've had good, scientific arguments this whole time but that they're just not being censored by the scientific community???
Or is it more reasonable to conclude that maybe their criticisms simply have no scientific merit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | Anti-evolution is one of the oldest areas of 'research'. People have been attacking evolution for more than 100 years now. Is it honestly reasonable to think that they've had good, scientific arguments this whole time but that they're just not being censored by the scientific community???
Or is it more reasonable to conclude that maybe their criticisms simply have no scientific merit? |
I don't think that 'not' is supposed to be in there...
All I'm saying is that I don't think it an impossible thought.
I guess it would come again to our different personalities. To use the Bigfoot scenario again, if a man came up to you and I talking, and said that they believed in Bigfoot, I would be more inclined to believe him (given my fantastically intellectual self) and you would be more inclined to be a skeptic (given your belief in crazy ideas). 
The same is true for this 'peer review'. You would be more inclined to believe that it is honestly done, and they are open and accepting of anything that is 'valid'. Whereas I would be more skeptical and think, not necessarily that there is some giant 'conspiracy', but that the 'peers' would be less inclined to be openminded.
Understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silver Surfer
King Kong
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 2424
Location: Hayden, Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: Should public schools teach religion? |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Is there actually anyone here who thinks that their kids should be learning how to pray, what rites to perform, etc. in public school? |
NO !
'Spiritual things are spiritually discerned'
An UNsaved person cannot teach how Christians are to live.
| Quote: |
Should public schools teach that God exists and that Jesus died for all of our sins? |
Public schools should not have even a place in teaching children, anything in the first place, as it was always the churches place to teach everything a child should know.
The Bibles example of Christian education should have been followed by every parent who claims to be a Christian.
It should ALWAYS be the parents responsibility to educate their own childdren.
If Christian parents lived in obedience to the requirements of the divine Teacher, they would preserve simplicity in eating and in dressing, and would live more in accordance with natural law.
If the kingdom of God and His righteousness were the first and all-important consideration with parents, but little precious time would be lost in needless outward show (the latest fashions, the latest gadets, ect.) while the minds of their children are almost entirely neglected.
The precious time devoted by many parents to dressing their children for display in their scenes of amusements would better, far better, be spent in cultivating their own minds, in order that they may be competent to properly instruct their children.
It is not essential to the salvation or happiness of these parents that they use the precious probationary time that God has lent them, in amusments like video games, which promote violence, and other UNChristian behaviors..
Many parents plead that they have so much to do that they have no time to improve their minds, to educate their children for practical life, or to teach them how they may become lambs of Christ's fold.
Not until the final settlement, when the cases of all will be decided, and the acts of our entire lives will be laid open to our view in the presence of God and the Lamb and all the holy angels, will parents realize the almost infinite value of their misspent time.
Very many will then see that their wrong course has determined the destiny of their children.
Not only have they failed to secure for themselves the words of commendation from the King of glory, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord," but they hear pronounced upon their children the terrible denunciation, "Depart!" This separates their children forever from the joys and glories of Heaven, and from the presence of Christ.
And they themselves also receive the denunciation, Depart, "thou wicked and slothful servant." Jesus will never say, "Well done," to those who have not earned the "well done" by their faithful lives of self-denial and self-sacrifice to do others good and to promote His glory.
Those who live principally to please themselves instead of to do others good, will meet with infinite loss.
If parents could be aroused to a sense of the fearful responsibility which rests upon them in the work of educating their children, more of their time would be devoted to prayer, and less to needless display.
They would reflect, and study, and pray earnestly to God for wisdom and divine aid, to so train their children that they may develop characters that God will approve.
Their anxiety would not be to know how they can educate their children so that they will be praised and honored of the world, but how they can educate them to form beautiful characters that God can approve.
If parents would feel that it is a solemn duty enjoined upon them of God to educate their children for usefulness in this life; if they would adorn the inner temple of the souls of their sons and daughters for the immortal life, we should see a great change in society for the better.
There would not then be manifest so great indifference to practical godliness, and it would not be so difficult to arouse the moral sensibilities of children to understand the claims that God has upon them.
But parents become more and more careless in the education of their children in the useful branches.
Many parents allow their children to form wrong habits and to follow their own inclination, and fail to impress upon their minds the danger of their doing this, and the necessity of their being controlled by principle.
| Quote: |
Should creation be taught in school? If so, should it be taught in science class or some place else? |
IF a parent is foolish enough to allow someone else to teach their children..... I think that creation should be taught along with evolution theories....so that a person can make up their own minds on what they wish to believe.
The truths of God, will lose nothing by close investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know why there was a comma after that 'God', but o.k.
I for one am giddy that P is gonna get a little piece of SilverSurfer...good luck my friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
The same is true for this 'peer review'. You would be more inclined to believe that it is honestly done, and they are open and accepting of anything that is 'valid'. Whereas I would be more skeptical and think, not necessarily that there is some giant 'conspiracy', but that the 'peers' would be less inclined to be openminded.
|
That's not how peer-review works. It is much more robust than that. Do you seriously think that the science behind anti-evolution is good but that in over 100 years, EVERY SINGLE peer reviewer who has ever seen it has refused to publish it because they were closed-minded??? Come on! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: Should public schools teach religion? |
|
|
| Silver Surfer wrote: | | Public schools should not have even a place in teaching children, anything in the first place, as it was always the churches place to teach everything a child should know. |
Are you joking?
If you had your way, education would basically fall back into the horse and buggy days if not worse!
All interesting research would grind to a halt due to a lack of educated people! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silver Surfer
King Kong
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 2424
Location: Hayden, Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:47 am Post subject: Re: Should public schools teach religion? |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Silver Surfer wrote: | | Public schools should not have even a place in teaching children, anything in the first place, as it was always the churches place to teach everything a child should know. |
Are you joking?
If you had your way, education would basically fall back into the horse and buggy days if not worse! |
Do you realize that the people of those by-gone days were more of a Christian character than men of today ?
They had the time to REALLY study their Bibles, to know and understand what was in the Bible....instead of cherishing false ideas and doctrines as they do today.
| Quote: |
All interesting research would grind to a halt due to a lack of educated people! |
Really ?
That is not what the Bible says !
I was of the opinion .....
Higher than the highest thought can reach is God's idea for HIS children.
Godliness....'God-likeness'...is the goal to be reached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2313
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread seems to have morphed into two separate issues. 1) about education
2)evolution
Maybe we could get some moderator who could separate them and provide us with two threads not one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dim, I don't think that it would make a difference, no matter what the topic it is going to diverge into a couple of specific discussions depending on who gets involved;
If it is SS then it will turn into a saturday sabbath discussion. If it is P123 it will turn into an evolution is god or Bush is evil discussion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1532
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Dim, I don't think that it would make a difference, no matter what the topic it is going to diverge into a couple of specific discussions depending on who gets involved;
If it is SS then it will turn into a saturday sabbath discussion. If it is P123 it will turn into an evolution is god or Bush is evil discussion... |
Silver Surfer has talked about plenty of other things than saturday sabbath, and when has anyone on this board ever said evolution is god? Methinks that was an ill-spirited comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
