How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Spock]

IMO, it is a testament of those who experienced the times. Each saw and wrote as they interpreted things. Some items may be totally correct while others may be wrong if only for spelling or personal recollection. The overall 'story' of the book is not History but history and His Story.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

100% reliable? You must be joking right? Because I know that you are.

As to your example - 100 % wrong.

"Solomon's mines" have not been found. I know this for a fact because I was watching a new documentary on it about a month ago. There is an ancient mine site in Israel (I think) that is called by that name - but only to draw in tourists.

The documentary's verdict was that Solomon's mines were in Africa and the evidence of it is long gone - but they showed a current mining site in Africa that probably looks similar to what Solomon's mines looked like.

i'm not kidding and i found your asumption that i was joking laughable any way i'm dissapointed in the history channel that they have taken to revising history and forgetten about Dr. Nelson Glueck.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

100% reliable? You must be joking right? Because I know that you are.

As to your example - 100 % wrong.

"Solomon's mines" have not been found. I know this for a fact because I was watching a new documentary on it about a month ago. There is an ancient mine site in Israel (I think) that is called by that name - but only to draw in tourists.

The documentary's verdict was that Solomon's mines were in Africa and the evidence of it is long gone - but they showed a current mining site in Africa that probably looks similar to what Solomon's mines looked like.

i'm not kidding and i found your asumption that i was joking laughable any way i'm dissapointed in the history channel that they have taken to revising history and forgetten about Dr. Nelson Glueck.

Well, the history channel _has_ been known to muddle the facts when it doesn't fit their worldview.

They quite often do bios on biblical characters. They usually follow this pattern.


So and so is described in the Bible as being this way. But was he really _that_ way....

So and so may not have been this way, but we do know he did such and such...

Was so and so this way, as tradition says, or are historians correct in saying that he was _that_ way...

Well, the history channel _has_ been known to muddle the facts when it doesn't fit their worldview.

They quite often do bios on biblical characters. They usually follow this pattern.


So and so is described in the Bible as being this way. But was he really _that_ way....

So and so may not have been this way, but we do know he did such and such...

Was so and so this way, as tradition says, or are historians correct in saying that he was _that_ way...

[HOBBIT]

This topic is kinda off topic - but all I'm saying is this:

The bible is not 100% reliable. That is just silly, and in my opinion, people should not be taken seriously who believe that.

Saying that everything is correct and "100 % reliable" is just the same as just discarding all of it.

And you gave an example that is most certainly not "100% reliable"



The description for the show I watched a month or so ago:

Host Josh Bernstein leads us on an epic 4,000-mile journey in search of the lost gold of King Solomon--sailing across the Red Sea, plunging down a Zimbabwean gold mine, and traveling deep into the Ethiopian Bush.

Of all the rulers mentioned in the Bible, King Solomon was purportedly the wisest...and the richest! The reason? His access to vast quantities of gold. According to the Bible, the source of his legendary wealth was the goldmines located in the mysterious land of Ophir. Yet, what the Scriptures can't tell us is where Ophir might be found today.

[HOBBIT]

This topic is kinda off topic - but all I'm saying is this:

The bible is not 100% reliable. That is just silly, and in my opinion, people should not be taken seriously who believe that.

Saying that everything is correct and "100 % reliable" is just the same as just discarding all of it.

And you gave an example that is most certainly not "100% reliable"



The description for the show I watched a month or so ago:

Host Josh Bernstein leads us on an epic 4,000-mile journey in search of the lost gold of King Solomon--sailing across the Red Sea, plunging down a Zimbabwean gold mine, and traveling deep into the Ethiopian Bush.

Of all the rulers mentioned in the Bible, King Solomon was purportedly the wisest...and the richest! The reason? His access to vast quantities of gold. According to the Bible, the source of his legendary wealth was the goldmines located in the mysterious land of Ophir. Yet, what the Scriptures can't tell us is where Ophir might be found today.

You seem to find it so ludicrous that someone would believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, yet you haven't given one concrete reason for saying so. Other than its just silly...which isn't a valid point of argument.

And saying that the billions of people in history who have considered the Bible to be the inspired Word of God cannot be taken seriously is truly ridiculous.

You seem to find it so ludicrous that someone would believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, yet you haven't given one concrete reason for saying so. Other than its just silly...which isn't a valid point of argument.

And saying that the billions of people in history who have considered the Bible to be the inspired Word of God cannot be taken seriously is truly ridiculous.

[Curubethion]

Atheistic evolution assumes a number of things, and not everyone realizes them.
1. Because of Conservation of Matter and Energy, the sum total of matter and energy in the universe has always existed from the dawn of time.
2. Life spontaneously arose from this "primidorial soup" of nonliving matter, and it spontaneously evolved into complex creatures.
3. Humans somehow evolved culture, and every other animal didn't.
These beliefs seem to require as much faith as Chrisianity...and Christianity seems like a much more attractive religion-don't you think so?

[Curubethion]

Atheistic evolution assumes a number of things, and not everyone realizes them.
1. Because of Conservation of Matter and Energy, the sum total of matter and energy in the universe has always existed from the dawn of time.
2. Life spontaneously arose from this "primidorial soup" of nonliving matter, and it spontaneously evolved into complex creatures.
3. Humans somehow evolved culture, and every other animal didn't.
These beliefs seem to require as much faith as Chrisianity...and Christianity seems like a much more attractive religion-don't you think so?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

This topic is kinda off topic - but all I'm saying is this:

The bible is not 100% reliable. That is just silly, and in my opinion, people should not be taken seriously who believe that.

Saying that everything is correct and "100 % reliable" is just the same as just discarding all of it.

And you gave an example that is most certainly not "100% reliable"



The description for the show I watched a month or so ago:

I'd just have to ask Have you read the bible?? is there a particular reason you believe it to be qustionable??

and on solomons mines I'd like you to please click here

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

This topic is kinda off topic - but all I'm saying is this:

The bible is not 100% reliable. That is just silly, and in my opinion, people should not be taken seriously who believe that.

Saying that everything is correct and "100 % reliable" is just the same as just discarding all of it.

And you gave an example that is most certainly not "100% reliable"



The description for the show I watched a month or so ago:

I'd just have to ask Have you read the bible?? is there a particular reason you believe it to be qustionable??

and on solomons mines I'd like you to please click here

[Spock]

One persons belief is anothers myth. Truth is not the same for all and yet it may be truth.

[Spock]

One persons belief is anothers myth. Truth is not the same for all and yet it may be truth.

[Radagast The Brown]

Why should we believe to the Bible, if we don't believe in God? The whole book is based on God. We don't know if there's a God, then why believe a book that's based on that belief..?

There are parts proven right that's written in the Bible.. but it proves nothing about the other parts, IMO.

You can see bias in the Bible, too - look at Chronicls... the book is obviously pro-Judah, it ignores David's and Solomon's sins for instance.. Going to Kings(1) chapters 11-12, in the first chapter the reason for the creation of 2 seperate kingdoms is Solomon, later in chapter 12 the reason becomes Rehoboam, his son. Then there's this verse, 15, probably put there by the editor, explaining the inconsistency.
And I find the book Job quite an evidence as well... God was kind of mean there.

I'm not saying they can't be explained, I'm sure the problems can be if you're creative enough.. And there are plenty more... and of course there are things that happened not that long ago like WW2.. IMO it should make anyone wonder what's the proof for God. And then, the Bible based on God.

[Radagast The Brown]

Why should we believe to the Bible, if we don't believe in God? The whole book is based on God. We don't know if there's a God, then why believe a book that's based on that belief..?

There are parts proven right that's written in the Bible.. but it proves nothing about the other parts, IMO.

You can see bias in the Bible, too - look at Chronicls... the book is obviously pro-Judah, it ignores David's and Solomon's sins for instance.. Going to Kings(1) chapters 11-12, in the first chapter the reason for the creation of 2 seperate kingdoms is Solomon, later in chapter 12 the reason becomes Rehoboam, his son. Then there's this verse, 15, probably put there by the editor, explaining the inconsistency.
And I find the book Job quite an evidence as well... God was kind of mean there.

I'm not saying they can't be explained, I'm sure the problems can be if you're creative enough.. And there are plenty more... and of course there are things that happened not that long ago like WW2.. IMO it should make anyone wonder what's the proof for God. And then, the Bible based on God.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Why should we believe to the Bible, if we don't believe in God? The whole book is based on God. We don't know if there's a God, then why believe a book that's based on that belief..?

There are parts proven right that's written in the Bible.. but it proves nothing about the other parts, IMO.

You can see bias in the Bible, too - look at Chronicls... the book is obviously pro-Judah, it ignores David's and Solomon's sins for instance.. Going to Kings(1) chapters 11-12, in the first chapter the reason for the creation of 2 seperate kingdoms is Solomon, later in chapter 12 the reason becomes Rehoboam, his son. Then there's this verse, 15, probably put there by the editor, explaining the inconsistency.
And I find the book Job quite an evidence as well... God was kind of mean there.

I'm not saying they can't be explained, I'm sure the problems can be if you're creative enough.. And there are plenty more... and of course there are things that happened not that long ago like WW2.. IMO it should make anyone wonder what's the proof for God. And then, the Bible based on God.

bias and truth are intrinsically connected you can't have truth without some bias

i will get back to you on the chronicles stuff i don't have time right now

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Why should we believe to the Bible, if we don't believe in God? The whole book is based on God. We don't know if there's a God, then why believe a book that's based on that belief..?

There are parts proven right that's written in the Bible.. but it proves nothing about the other parts, IMO.

You can see bias in the Bible, too - look at Chronicls... the book is obviously pro-Judah, it ignores David's and Solomon's sins for instance.. Going to Kings(1) chapters 11-12, in the first chapter the reason for the creation of 2 seperate kingdoms is Solomon, later in chapter 12 the reason becomes Rehoboam, his son. Then there's this verse, 15, probably put there by the editor, explaining the inconsistency.
And I find the book Job quite an evidence as well... God was kind of mean there.

I'm not saying they can't be explained, I'm sure the problems can be if you're creative enough.. And there are plenty more... and of course there are things that happened not that long ago like WW2.. IMO it should make anyone wonder what's the proof for God. And then, the Bible based on God.

bias and truth are intrinsically connected you can't have truth without some bias

i will get back to you on the chronicles stuff i don't have time right now

[HOBBIT]

but not in this topic.