Inside a Bible Belt Classroom

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Now, when humans began moving north out of Africa as the Ice Age ended,

which ice age?

[hillbilly]

Boreas, forgive me for my last quote. It sounded rude. Sorry bout that.


Help me make some sense out of this though. According to my figures, people haven't had all these thousands and thousands of years to evolve. Bible is complex, and ya'll know by now it's alot for me to try to take in with poor learning skills, but, from what I 'think' I understand is man is only 2,000 years old since the flood. Even originating in one place and then migrating to new lands, wouldn't we still speak the same language we spoke before splitting up? How many different languages were called aboard the ark? Alot to me doesn't make very much sense.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

Help me make some sense out of this though. According to my figures, people haven't had all these thousands and thousands of years to evolve. Bible is complex, and ya'll know by now it's alot for me to try to take in with poor learning skills, but, from what I 'think' I understand is man is only 2,000 years old since .

We need to ask Sarah!

She says man and dinosaurs walked earth together, just like in the movies and dinosaurs go back millions of years.

This guy Dr. Kent Hovind real real smart, like Sarah!
Here he explains it to us just like Sarah would.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2951687298593#

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

Boreas, forgive me for my last quote. It sounded rude. Sorry bout that.


Help me make some sense out of this though. According to my figures, people haven't had all these thousands and thousands of years to evolve. Bible is complex, and ya'll know by now it's alot for me to try to take in with poor learning skills, but, from what I 'think' I understand is man is only 2,000 years old since the flood. Even originating in one place and then migrating to new lands, wouldn't we still speak the same language we spoke before splitting up? How many different languages were called aboard the ark? Alot to me doesn't make very much sense.

Well, the flood was supposed to have been long before the time of Christ and He lived 2000 years ago. Back in the 1600s an Anglican Archbishop named James Ussher sat down with the Old and New Testaments and set out to discover the age of the Earth. Ussher determined that the Earth was born the night before Sunday, October 23, 4,004 BC. So the Earth is coming up on it's 6,014th birthday. As you will probably guess, I think this is complete and utter nonsense.

There is something interesting about the world 6,000 years ago. It's the time that people began to organize themselves into complex societies, the basis for the way we live today. It's when people started systematically keeping historical records. This happened in the Middle East, the land which the Old Testament talks about. So, the Prophets and Patriarchs of the Hebrews wouldn't have had access to information older than around 6,000 years.

What you're talking about above is pretty much the Creationist argument for world history and I'm not surprised that you say it doesn't make much sense to you. That's because it doesn't make much sense. The Bible was never intended to be an historical or scientific document. The fact that some folks try to make it into one has caused a lot of trouble.

Anyway, according to anthropologists, the oldest known direct ancestors of modern humans lived around 4.5 million years ago. They weren't human. Scientists call them "hominids" which more or less means "like humans". By that time the earth was already very old (around 4 billion years old).

The first humans, beginning with Homo habilis ("handy man"), appeared around 2.5 million years ago. They were really primitive. They didn't really look like us very much but they walked erect, had culture, made tools, etc. There were several other steps on the way, finally getting to Homo sapiens (us) a little less than 100,000 years ago.

The thing is, an all-powerful God who has existed for all time could have created the world in any way and at any time He chose to. To insist that He did it in a way that we humans can understand, at a time which placed us in the world from its beginnings and especially in a way specifically designed for our benefit, is just human arrogance.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

We need to ask Sarah!

She says man and dinosaurs walked earth together, just like in the movies and dinosaurs go back millions of years.

If humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist then how did Fred Flintstone get any work done?

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

We need to ask Sarah!

She says man and dinosaurs walked earth together, just like in the movies and dinosaurs go back millions of years.

This guy Dr. Kent Hovind real real smart, like Sarah!
Here he explains it to us just like Sarah would.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2951687298593#

OMG, the Christian Right never ceases to amaze. At least this friggin' moron has been locked up for a decade before he can brainwash more gullible goobers.

And we think the Taliban's crazy. His kind in our midst frightens me more than any Middle Eastern cave-dweller.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

Boreas, forgive me for my last quote. It sounded rude. Sorry bout that.


Help me make some sense out of this though. According to my figures, people haven't had all these thousands and thousands of years to evolve. Bible is complex, and ya'll know by now it's alot for me to try to take in with poor learning skills, but, from what I 'think' I understand is man is only 2,000 years old since the flood. Even originating in one place and then migrating to new lands, wouldn't we still speak the same language we spoke before splitting up? How many different languages were called aboard the ark? Alot to me doesn't make very much sense.

Taking the Bible literally, mankind is still more than 2,000 years old. The New Testament times - the times of the New Covenant - are around 2,000 years. I haven't taken the time to go back through all of the generations identified in Genesis, although I'm sure some scholars have, but I think the Old Testament times covered several thousand years. From a literal Biblical perspective, man has survived past the flood for several thousand years.

Of course the controversy arises when some of the best scientific techniques available provide data that is inconsistent with the Bible being an historic account of the development of mankind. It is not only inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution, but with carbon dating, anthropological findings, astronomy, and other scientific means of measuring space, time, and biology. The Bible is even inconsistent within its own text.

However, for those who don't see the bible as a history book, but as a collection of moral and spiritual principles, communicated through the perspective of ancient writers, it takes on a different kind of truth. I don't believe that a God who loves the creatures on the earth would wish to deprive humans of their ability to reason and develop as a species. To the extent that the literal text of the Bible is inconsistent with our developing comprehension of scientific principles, it should not lead to Christians rejecting such scientific findings.

Indeed, the more we learn through science and other intellectual endeavors, the better we are able to apply the greatest of the moral teaching from the Bible - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As we learn more about the consequences of our actions on the environment, on health, on hunger, and on other aspects of living, we can direct our actions to better serve the purposes of the Golden Rule. That use of scientific advances seems to this simple person to be a better means of fulfilling the New Covenant than condemning others because they don't comply with a series of rules developed in the harsh reality of living on this earth thousands of years ago.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

[QUOTE=hillbilly;32600]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Actually, the "Out Of Africa" hypothesis would suggest that "ar differnt skeeins" resulted from black people evolving lighter skins in response to the reduced solar radiation of more northerly latitudes. Wonder how them good ol' boys'd lak thayut.


I'll tell how this good ole boy likes that. He knows better. Show me one fuckin' WHITE man in Africa thats EVOLVING black. We are different, plain and simple. We are all different for a reason. Why? How bout because it's the way God wanted it.

Uh, it happened over a period of hundreds of thousands of years...........

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Well, the flood was supposed to have been long before the time of Christ and He lived 2000 years ago. Back in the 1600s an Anglican Archbishop named James Ussher sat down with the Old and New Testaments and set out to discover the age of the Earth. Ussher determined that the Earth was born the night before Sunday, October 23, 4,004 BC. So the Earth is coming up on it's 6,014th birthday. As you will probably guess, I think this is complete and utter nonsense.

There is something interesting about the world 6,000 years ago. It's the time that people began to organize themselves into complex societies, the basis for the way we live today. It's when people started systematically keeping historical records. This happened in the Middle East, the land which the Old Testament talks about. So, the Prophets and Patriarchs of the Hebrews wouldn't have had access to information older than around 6,000 years.

What you're talking about above is pretty much the Creationist argument for world history and I'm not surprised that you say it doesn't make much sense to you. That's because it doesn't make much sense. The Bible was never intended to be an historical or scientific document. The fact that some folks try to make it into one has caused a lot of trouble.

Anyway, according to anthropologists, the oldest known direct ancestors of modern humans lived around 4.5 million years ago. They weren't human. Scientists call them "hominids" which more or less means "like humans". By that time the earth was already very old (around 4 billion years old).

The first humans, beginning with Homo habilis ("handy man"), appeared around 2.5 million years ago. They were really primitive. They didn't really look like us very much but they walked erect, had culture, made tools, etc. There were several other steps on the way, finally getting to Homo sapiens (us) a little less than 100,000 years ago.

The thing is, an all-powerful God who has existed for all time could have created the world in any way and at any time He chose to. To insist that He did it in a way that we humans can understand, at a time which placed us in the world from its beginnings and especially in a way specifically designed for our benefit, is just human arrogance.

John

Thank You.

And, some white people will fight the notion that the human race originated in Africa, tooth and nail until the day we bury their asses, because admitting even the remotest possibilty of this would mean they are descended from.....GULP.....AFRICANS!!!!

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And we think the Taliban's crazy. His kind in our midst frightens me more than any Middle Eastern cave-dweller.

But, John, that's why God gave us nukes, B2s, smart bombs and Predator drones. So that our crazies can do even more damage than their crazies when the religious warfare shit finally hits the heavenly fan. We're on the road to glory, my brother, and the tour guides are a bunch of whacko cult zealots with nuclear aspirations, spurred on by the voices in their heads and their unshakable love of the Celestial Tooth Fairy.

Geez, get with the program, son!

Dave