4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[laughinReaper]

No, creationism is a faith based construct most commonly associated with the Bishop Ussher (died 1656 if memory serves) who calculated the age of the Earth based on the number of people written about in the Bible and how long they were reported to have lived.

The Bible itself, and its evolution makes for fascinating reading. The Catholic Church being responsible for major edits and choosing which books would be included, the Gospel of St. Thomas most famously being excluded.

No, there is no true evidence for creationism. There is considerable evidence for evolution and the methodology of evolution, below are a few examples....

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

A closer look at a classic ring species: The work of Tom Devitt

Where's this so called evidence that makes evolution valid scientific theory?

Read and learn. Creationism as a whole doesn't exist till 1600. The Catholic Church never preached it. In fact they actively support scientific exploration into evolutionary science. No, "creationism" is the construct of evangelical church goers, with no basis in scripture or fact.

I don't have church affiliation so what any church believes is immaterial to me. I simply believe a higher intelligence worthy of my respect,created humans. To me that is basic creationist theory and doesn't have to line up with any specific churches belief system. Many people believe a higher intelligence that created the universe,it's not just limited to Judeo Christians. I believe the earth is as old as science says it is. I don't believe humans and dinosaurs co existed and I believe the bible reflects that when God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the earth. You can't replenish something unless something was once there. Something was,dinosaurs.this also makes a vague suggestion that the earth is older than Adam and Eve.

 

[laughinReaper]

In science we are taught to question our beliefs and modify those beliefs as new evidence is found. In religion, we are taught not to question the word of God and certainly not to change it but rather to defend it. That is exactly what the Creationist does, presents evidence to defend the faith, but never to modify it.

If I made known my personal beliefs I'd be branded a heretic. I always question but I also always find an answer. I make a point to keep my mind clear of main stream Christian method teachings. I read the bible with emphasis on the words of Christ and occasionally the words of wisdom from a fellow parishioner.

 

[laughinReaper]

If science can't prove a theory than its just an Idea,mythology,fairy tail,dogma, and absolutely no different than a faith based theory.

If that's true, then we would have to add to your list of fairy tales the atomic theory and the germ theory because they can't be proved because proof only exist in mathematics. Science can only offer evidence and there is huge amount of evidence of evolution. Much of the evidence is very technical from a number of fields. However there is much evidence of natural selection which is a key element in the theory of evolution that can be observed today.

The theory of evolution consist of a number of postulates and many conclusions. The postulates are accepted by almost all scientists. The conclusion drawn from those postulates, which there are thousands vary in their degree of acceptance. This is the case with all scientific theories.

I could spend all day listing links with evidence of evolution from dozens of different scientific disciplines, but judging from your posts it would be a waste of energy.

I believe in survival of the fittest,natural selection,thinning of the herd and all that. Even someone riding the short bus can see that's how life works.

It would be a waste of time,but I thank you for the friendly debate. What I really want is equal footing in schools.when you consider the amount of people who don't believe evolution is correct,all those faith based people,I think we have been more than tolerant having evolution crammed down our throats. Seriously evolutionists are worse than a pack of Jehovah Witnesses. Basic creationist theory/ancient alien theory,and I do mean very basic,should be taught. It's provable because we basically do it now in labs. For anyone to say life on earth couldn't have been created has their head in the sand.

 

[Flopper]

Where's this so called evidence that makes evolution valid scientific theory?

Read and learn. Creationism as a whole doesn't exist till 1600. The Catholic Church never preached it. In fact they actively support scientific exploration into evolutionary science. No, "creationism" is the construct of evangelical church goers, with no basis in scripture or fact.

I don't have church affiliation so what any church believes is immaterial to me. I simply believe a higher intelligence worthy of my respect,created humans. To me that is basic creationist theory and doesn't have to line up with any specific churches belief system. Many people believe a higher intelligence that created the universe,it's not just limited to Judeo Christians. I believe the earth is as old as science says it is. I don't believe humans and dinosaurs co existed and I believe the bible reflects that when God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the earth. You can't replenish something unless something was once there. Something was,dinosaurs.this also makes a vague suggestion that the earth is older than Adam and Eve.

I also believe God created humans, I just believe the process is explained by evolution. The Bible does not say how God created man. Who's to say that the creation process was not evolutionary.

The only reason we have creationism today is due to one verse in the Bible, God created man in his own image. Christian theologians could have interpreted that verse liberally as I'm sure some liberal Christians do. They have made some wild interpretations but an interpretation that allowed man to ascend from the lowly ape was unacceptable and from a single cell was unthinkable. As long as Darwin restricted his ideas to plants, theologians could have cared less but when he include man, that was stepping on Superman's cape.

For me,just like the ancients who believe lighting bolts were hurled to earth by a God, I have no problem attributing the origin of all matter and energy to God because there is no theory that adequately explains it. The Big Bang theory which is supported by a lot of evidence only explains the early development of the universe, not the true beginning. I suppose someday, scientist will be able to explain it, but I won't be around to worry about it.

 

[Oldguy]

Read and learn. Creationism as a whole doesn't exist till 1600. The Catholic Church never preached it. In fact they actively support scientific exploration into evolutionary science. No, "creationism" is the construct of evangelical church goers, with no basis in scripture or fact.

I don't have church affiliation so what any church believes is immaterial to me. I simply believe a higher intelligence worthy of my respect,created humans. To me that is basic creationist theory and doesn't have to line up with any specific churches belief system. Many people believe a higher intelligence that created the universe,it's not just limited to Judeo Christians. I believe the earth is as old as science says it is. I don't believe humans and dinosaurs co existed and I believe the bible reflects that when God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the earth. You can't replenish something unless something was once there. Something was,dinosaurs.this also makes a vague suggestion that the earth is older than Adam and Eve.

I also believe God created humans, I just believe the process is explained by evolution. The Bible does not say how God created man. Who's to say that the creation process was not evolutionary.

The only reason we have creationism today is due to one verse in the Bible, God created man in his own image. Christian theologians could have interpreted that verse liberally as I'm sure some liberal Christians do. They have made some wild interpretations but an interpretation that allowed man to ascend from the lowly ape was unacceptable and from a single cell was unthinkable. As long as Darwin restricted his ideas to plants, theologians could have cared less but when he include man, that was stepping on Superman's cape.

For me,just like the ancients who believe lighting bolts were hurled to earth by a God, I have no problem attributing the origin of all matter and energy to God because there is no theory that adequately explains it. The Big Bang theory which is supported by a lot of evidence only explains the early development of the universe, not the true beginning. I suppose someday, scientist will be able to explain it, but I won't be around to worry about it.

Just because Adam was the first man created in God's image does not necessarily mean he was the first humanoid. Much depends upon what it means to be created in God's image.

It couldn't mean that he was created to look like God physically because God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body to copy (or, didn't until Christ), so that's out.

What it means is that Adam was the first man to receive an immortal soul, a breath of God's own immortality. He was set apart from every other creature on earth in order to have an eternal relationship with the eternal God. He may have been an entirely new creation, or he may have been simply the first humanoid to have a soul. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal may have been his physical ancestors, but HE was different and brand new because of that soul.

If that were true, it would eliminate an awful lot of the disagreements between creation and evolution, wouldn't it?

Just food for thought.

 

[westwall]

Evolution is pure conjecture. Remains that have common links with humans does not prove that we evolved from them. Kinda curious what indisputable observations do you have? What indisputable evidence should be taught in school? It doesn't exist. What you have is species with commonalities and 0 evidence that one became the other. You also can't prove a higher intelligence did or didn't make hybrids that you have mistaken for evolved creatures. Evolution is just as much faith based as Creationism and Alien theory. Need I remind everyone that science can be wrong. Science once thought the sun traveled around the earth and our solar system was the center of the universe. Problem with that type of thinking is it prevents the advancement of science.

No, evolution is well known and there is ample evidence to support it. The Gallapagos islands are an excellent microcosm of how and why evolution occurs. The Wallace line in Australasia is yet another example of evolution and evolutionary processes in operation.

Creationism is also well known. Microorganisms on an island are a far cry from evolving humans. Kinda like saying a positive result in lab rats equals a cure for humans. Explain the Wallace line cause I don't see it what a natural barrier has to evolution.

The Wallace line isn't a natural barrier, that's the point. Critters could move about freely but the Wallace line shows they evolved on their own islands and through plate tectonics some were drawn closer together while others were separated. One part of the Line is 22 miles apart yet one side is Asian, the other Australian type fauna. On the other hand there are islands hundreds of miles apart that have the same life forms.

 

[laughinReaper]

No, evolution is well known and there is ample evidence to support it. The Gallapagos islands are an excellent microcosm of how and why evolution occurs. The Wallace line in Australasia is yet another example of evolution and evolutionary processes in operation.

Creationism is also well known. Microorganisms on an island are a far cry from evolving humans. Kinda like saying a positive result in lab rats equals a cure for humans. Explain the Wallace line cause I don't see it what a natural barrier has to evolution.

The Wallace line isn't a natural barrier, that's the point. Critters could move about freely but the Wallace line shows they evolved on their own islands and through plate tectonics some were drawn closer together while others were separated. One part of the Line is 22 miles apart yet one side is Asian, the other Australian type fauna. On the other hand there are islands hundreds of miles apart that have the same life forms.

The Wallace line shows that certain critters have preferences in habitat not evolution.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Why certainly there is proof of God. Say we have two nations. One nation follows scriptural principles and one nation totally fights against it. If the "Christian" nation becomes safe, wealthy, pleasant and a desirable place to want to live --- and the other nation becomes poorer, dangerous, disease ridden, and a place to flee from ---------- that would seem to indicate that there is something happening. Now, if this happens over and over, during the course of thousands of years a logical person should come to the conclusion that GOD is the answer.

Why does Little Nipper ignore all of those 3rd world poorer, dangerous and disease ridden Christian nations?

 

[Derideo_Te]

No their is not. What you have is random bones of the ape family but what you don't have is proof that one became the other. A wolf and a Chihuahua are from the canine family but are completely different breeds. It can not be proven that the different bones evolved or are similar but different breeds. Nor can it be proven that we are or are not created hybrids by a higher intelligence and said bones are the product of that hybridization. All you have is old bones and one possibility when there are multiple possibilities. Honestly ruling out other positions without proving then incorrect is crappy science.

Evolution is well established and proven scientific fact. The "old bones" are only one aspect of the science. In addition there is biology and genetics which both support evolution. Perhaps if you actually studied the subject matter instead of just mindlessly rejecting it you would have a better understanding of how the process does in fact work. Mankind has been using biology to breed both plants and animals that are better suited to our needs. This is simply taking advantage of the evolutionary process and shaping it to meet our own ends.

No that's the popular opinion you've been spoon fed. What you don't have is absolute proof that ape A. gave birth to new species ape B. I find your premise on hybridization interesting. Ancient Alien theory puts forward that beings of a higher intelligence may have done hybridization experiments on us hence the progression of the human species. Can we prove it? No but then again neither can you prove evolution happened.

Scientific FACTS are not "popular opinion" no matter how much you you might want them to be. There are peer reviewed scientific FACTS proving evolution. Your ignorance is only an impediment to you. The rest of the nation and the world know better.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't have church affiliation so what any church believes is immaterial to me. I simply believe a higher intelligence worthy of my respect,created humans. To me that is basic creationist theory and doesn't have to line up with any specific churches belief system. Many people believe a higher intelligence that created the universe,it's not just limited to Judeo Christians. I believe the earth is as old as science says it is. I don't believe humans and dinosaurs co existed and I believe the bible reflects that when God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the earth. You can't replenish something unless something was once there. Something was,dinosaurs.this also makes a vague suggestion that the earth is older than Adam and Eve.

I also believe God created humans, I just believe the process is explained by evolution. The Bible does not say how God created man. Who's to say that the creation process was not evolutionary.

The only reason we have creationism today is due to one verse in the Bible, God created man in his own image. Christian theologians could have interpreted that verse liberally as I'm sure some liberal Christians do. They have made some wild interpretations but an interpretation that allowed man to ascend from the lowly ape was unacceptable and from a single cell was unthinkable. As long as Darwin restricted his ideas to plants, theologians could have cared less but when he include man, that was stepping on Superman's cape.

For me,just like the ancients who believe lighting bolts were hurled to earth by a God, I have no problem attributing the origin of all matter and energy to God because there is no theory that adequately explains it. The Big Bang theory which is supported by a lot of evidence only explains the early development of the universe, not the true beginning. I suppose someday, scientist will be able to explain it, but I won't be around to worry about it.

Just because Adam was the first man created in God's image does not necessarily mean he was the first humanoid. Much depends upon what it means to be created in God's image.

It couldn't mean that he was created to look like God physically because God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body to copy (or, didn't until Christ), so that's out.

What it means is that Adam was the first man to receive an immortal soul, a breath of God's own immortality. He was set apart from every other creature on earth in order to have an eternal relationship with the eternal God. He may have been an entirely new creation, or he may have been simply the first humanoid to have a soul. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal may have been his physical ancestors, but HE was different and brand new because of that soul.

If that were true, it would eliminate an awful lot of the disagreements between creation and evolution, wouldn't it?

Just food for thought.

If only humanity has an "immortal soul" then you are essentially stating that all other living things on this planet are soulless. There are a great many pet owners who would disagree with you on that point. Putting that aside you open up the next question as to when does the "immortal soul" arrive and depart the physical body? Perhaps the most interesting question of all is are Near Death Experiences examples of the "immortal soul" getting a "sneak peak" at "heaven"? Lastly is there only a single way in which this "immortal soul" is going to end up in "heaven"? Just my 2 cents worth of food for thought.

 

[Flopper]

I don't have church affiliation so what any church believes is immaterial to me. I simply believe a higher intelligence worthy of my respect,created humans. To me that is basic creationist theory and doesn't have to line up with any specific churches belief system. Many people believe a higher intelligence that created the universe,it's not just limited to Judeo Christians. I believe the earth is as old as science says it is. I don't believe humans and dinosaurs co existed and I believe the bible reflects that when God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the earth. You can't replenish something unless something was once there. Something was,dinosaurs.this also makes a vague suggestion that the earth is older than Adam and Eve.

I also believe God created humans, I just believe the process is explained by evolution. The Bible does not say how God created man. Who's to say that the creation process was not evolutionary.

The only reason we have creationism today is due to one verse in the Bible, God created man in his own image. Christian theologians could have interpreted that verse liberally as I'm sure some liberal Christians do. They have made some wild interpretations but an interpretation that allowed man to ascend from the lowly ape was unacceptable and from a single cell was unthinkable. As long as Darwin restricted his ideas to plants, theologians could have cared less but when he include man, that was stepping on Superman's cape.

For me,just like the ancients who believe lighting bolts were hurled to earth by a God, I have no problem attributing the origin of all matter and energy to God because there is no theory that adequately explains it. The Big Bang theory which is supported by a lot of evidence only explains the early development of the universe, not the true beginning. I suppose someday, scientist will be able to explain it, but I won't be around to worry about it.

Just because Adam was the first man created in God's image does not necessarily mean he was the first humanoid. Much depends upon what it means to be created in God's image.

It couldn't mean that he was created to look like God physically because God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body to copy (or, didn't until Christ), so that's out.

What it means is that Adam was the first man to receive an immortal soul, a breath of God's own immortality. He was set apart from every other creature on earth in order to have an eternal relationship with the eternal God. He may have been an entirely new creation, or he may have been simply the first humanoid to have a soul. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal may have been his physical ancestors, but HE was different and brand new because of that soul.

If that were true, it would eliminate an awful lot of the disagreements between creation and evolution, wouldn't it?

Just food for thought.

Cain went to the land of Nod, took a wife, bore a son and build a city, so there must have been another race or tribe of people there.

In my opinion, the Bible describes how we should live our lives and our relationship with God. It was never intended to be a book of science or history. The Bible does not go into details that are irrelevant to this purpose such who lived in the land of Nod or the length of a day during creation. Therefore there is plenty of room for scientific theories such as evolution unless you take the Bible literally, which is ridiculous since it's been edited, translated, and interpreted for two thousand years. Today there are over 50 known versions of the Bible, most of which are available today.

In Genisis 4:16:
Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

 

[newpolitics]

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Why certainly there is proof of God. Say we have two nations. One nation follows scriptural principles and one nation totally fights against it. If the "Christian" nation becomes safe, wealthy, pleasant and a desirable place to want to live --- and the other nation becomes poorer, dangerous, disease ridden, and a place to flee from ---------- that would seem to indicate that there is something happening. Now, if this happens over and over, during the course of thousands of years a logical person should come to the conclusion that GOD is the answer.

This would be the conclusion of an illogical person, as the cause could be any number of things. Confusing correlation and causation is a common fallacy for creationists. Your hypothetical is just that: a hypothetical. The irony here is that using this hypothetical, you have affirmed, by your logic, that no god exists. In reality, the nations that are more religious, tend to be more destitute , while those more atheistic tend to be much more orderly and safe (ie, Scandinavia) by nearly all metrics of well-being.

 

[Flopper]

Evolution is well established and proven scientific fact. The "old bones" are only one aspect of the science. In addition there is biology and genetics which both support evolution. Perhaps if you actually studied the subject matter instead of just mindlessly rejecting it you would have a better understanding of how the process does in fact work. Mankind has been using biology to breed both plants and animals that are better suited to our needs. This is simply taking advantage of the evolutionary process and shaping it to meet our own ends.

No that's the popular opinion you've been spoon fed. What you don't have is absolute proof that ape A. gave birth to new species ape B. I find your premise on hybridization interesting. Ancient Alien theory puts forward that beings of a higher intelligence may have done hybridization experiments on us hence the progression of the human species. Can we prove it? No but then again neither can you prove evolution happened.

Scientific FACTS are not "popular opinion" no matter how much you you might want them to be. There are peer reviewed scientific FACTS proving evolution. Your ignorance is only an impediment to you. The rest of the nation and the world know better.

Absolute proof only exist in mathematics. In science, no matter how much evidence there is to support a theory, it will always remain a theory. When someone says "it's just a theory" or there is no absolute proof of a scientific theory, indicates they really don't know what they're talking about.

The main postulates that makeup the theory of evolution remain the same. As with any widely researched and accepted scientific theory, there are thousands of conclusions. Most of those conclusion have stood up to peer research and review but some have been modified or discarded.

The theory of evolution, like all scientific theory is never complete. It is always evolving. This is a major difference between creationism and the the theory of evolution. Creationism can't change without a change in the scriptures it is based on. Evolution is always subject to change based on scientific evidence.

 

[Oldguy]

I also believe God created humans, I just believe the process is explained by evolution. The Bible does not say how God created man. Who's to say that the creation process was not evolutionary.

The only reason we have creationism today is due to one verse in the Bible, God created man in his own image. Christian theologians could have interpreted that verse liberally as I'm sure some liberal Christians do. They have made some wild interpretations but an interpretation that allowed man to ascend from the lowly ape was unacceptable and from a single cell was unthinkable. As long as Darwin restricted his ideas to plants, theologians could have cared less but when he include man, that was stepping on Superman's cape.

For me,just like the ancients who believe lighting bolts were hurled to earth by a God, I have no problem attributing the origin of all matter and energy to God because there is no theory that adequately explains it. The Big Bang theory which is supported by a lot of evidence only explains the early development of the universe, not the true beginning. I suppose someday, scientist will be able to explain it, but I won't be around to worry about it.

Just because Adam was the first man created in God's image does not necessarily mean he was the first humanoid. Much depends upon what it means to be created in God's image.

It couldn't mean that he was created to look like God physically because God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body to copy (or, didn't until Christ), so that's out.

What it means is that Adam was the first man to receive an immortal soul, a breath of God's own immortality. He was set apart from every other creature on earth in order to have an eternal relationship with the eternal God. He may have been an entirely new creation, or he may have been simply the first humanoid to have a soul. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal may have been his physical ancestors, but HE was different and brand new because of that soul.

If that were true, it would eliminate an awful lot of the disagreements between creation and evolution, wouldn't it?

Just food for thought.

If only humanity has an "immortal soul" then you are essentially stating that all other living things on this planet are soulless. There are a great many pet owners who would disagree with you on that point. Putting that aside you open up the next question as to when does the "immortal soul" arrive and depart the physical body? Perhaps the most interesting question of all is are Near Death Experiences examples of the "immortal soul" getting a "sneak peak" at "heaven"? Lastly is there only a single way in which this "immortal soul" is going to end up in "heaven"? Just my 2 cents worth of food for thought.

Yep, those are good questions which I've thought about.

But, for now, I'll simply answer the last one. Yes, there is but one way to heaven that's by faith in Jesus Christ. "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

 

[Oldguy]

I also believe God created humans, I just believe the process is explained by evolution. The Bible does not say how God created man. Who's to say that the creation process was not evolutionary.

The only reason we have creationism today is due to one verse in the Bible, God created man in his own image. Christian theologians could have interpreted that verse liberally as I'm sure some liberal Christians do. They have made some wild interpretations but an interpretation that allowed man to ascend from the lowly ape was unacceptable and from a single cell was unthinkable. As long as Darwin restricted his ideas to plants, theologians could have cared less but when he include man, that was stepping on Superman's cape.

For me,just like the ancients who believe lighting bolts were hurled to earth by a God, I have no problem attributing the origin of all matter and energy to God because there is no theory that adequately explains it. The Big Bang theory which is supported by a lot of evidence only explains the early development of the universe, not the true beginning. I suppose someday, scientist will be able to explain it, but I won't be around to worry about it.

Just because Adam was the first man created in God's image does not necessarily mean he was the first humanoid. Much depends upon what it means to be created in God's image.

It couldn't mean that he was created to look like God physically because God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body to copy (or, didn't until Christ), so that's out.

What it means is that Adam was the first man to receive an immortal soul, a breath of God's own immortality. He was set apart from every other creature on earth in order to have an eternal relationship with the eternal God. He may have been an entirely new creation, or he may have been simply the first humanoid to have a soul. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal may have been his physical ancestors, but HE was different and brand new because of that soul.

If that were true, it would eliminate an awful lot of the disagreements between creation and evolution, wouldn't it?

Just food for thought.

Cain went to the land of Nod, took a wife, bore a son and build a city, so there must have been another race or tribe of people there.

In my opinion, the Bible describes how we should live our lives and our relationship with God. It was never intended to be a book of science or history. The Bible does not go into details that are irrelevant to this purpose such who lived in the land of Nod or the length of a day during creation. Therefore there is plenty of room for scientific theories such as evolution unless you take the Bible literally, which is ridiculous since it's been edited, translated, and interpreted for two thousand years. Today there are over 50 known versions of the Bible, most of which are available today.

In Genisis 4:16:
Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

Most of the Bible can be taken literally, but not all of it. Even Jesus spoke in parables, which aren't literally true unless there really was a guy who built his house on sand, etc. The key to interpreting the Scriptures (or, rightly dividing the truth as it's called) is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Among other things the Spirit does, He guides and directs our understanding of the Word of God. And, the only way to obtain the indwelling Spirit is by professing Jesus Christ.

In other words, just as the Bible says, the Scriptures are gibberish to unbelievers. If you really want to cut through the chaff and get to the core of the Bible, you've got to believe first.

Personally, I believe the Genesis account of creation is part literal and part allegory, but that seems to be a minority position in Christianity. So be it. If Genesis is literal, it must mean the Cain went out and married some sister of his which the Bible does not reveal was born yet. I've seen some of the most convoluted "biblical" reasonings to explain that which can be imagined.

 

[westwall]

Creationism is also well known. Microorganisms on an island are a far cry from evolving humans. Kinda like saying a positive result in lab rats equals a cure for humans. Explain the Wallace line cause I don't see it what a natural barrier has to evolution.

The Wallace line isn't a natural barrier, that's the point. Critters could move about freely but the Wallace line shows they evolved on their own islands and through plate tectonics some were drawn closer together while others were separated. One part of the Line is 22 miles apart yet one side is Asian, the other Australian type fauna. On the other hand there are islands hundreds of miles apart that have the same life forms.

The Wallace line shows that certain critters have preferences in habitat not evolution.

They evolved to fit their habitat.

 

[numan]

Evolution is pure conjecture....

I see that Neanderthals are well represented on this discussion board.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just because Adam was the first man created in God's image does not necessarily mean he was the first humanoid. Much depends upon what it means to be created in God's image.

It couldn't mean that he was created to look like God physically because God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body to copy (or, didn't until Christ), so that's out.

What it means is that Adam was the first man to receive an immortal soul, a breath of God's own immortality. He was set apart from every other creature on earth in order to have an eternal relationship with the eternal God. He may have been an entirely new creation, or he may have been simply the first humanoid to have a soul. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal may have been his physical ancestors, but HE was different and brand new because of that soul.

If that were true, it would eliminate an awful lot of the disagreements between creation and evolution, wouldn't it?

Just food for thought.

If only humanity has an "immortal soul" then you are essentially stating that all other living things on this planet are soulless. There are a great many pet owners who would disagree with you on that point. Putting that aside you open up the next question as to when does the "immortal soul" arrive and depart the physical body? Perhaps the most interesting question of all is are Near Death Experiences examples of the "immortal soul" getting a "sneak peak" at "heaven"? Lastly is there only a single way in which this "immortal soul" is going to end up in "heaven"? Just my 2 cents worth of food for thought.

Yep, those are good questions which I've thought about.

But, for now, I'll simply answer the last one. Yes, there is but one way to heaven that's by faith in Jesus Christ. "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

So how do you explain life long Atheists who have had NDE's and also end up reporting that they were in "heaven"?

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I voted "other" because I find it real hard to believe that the test is on the level.

And if it is for real, I feel sorry for the kids going to that school.

And even sorrier for the kid that aced it.

Don't feel sorry for the kid who aced it. He got an 'A'. If he is at all intelligent then he knows the correct answer on any test is the answer the teacher wants. He doesn't have to buy into it to get 100%.

 

[Foxfyre]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

You did read in the Snopes evaluation that this is a test put out by a very small fundamentalist Christian School in which the parents agree to strict, fundamentalist Bible teaching when they enroll their kids? I don't object to the religious content but do feel sad when incorrect science is taught. But it is their right by our Constitution to profess and believe what they wish and there is no provision for the State to do anythng about that.

I was educated in a very super religious, conservative part of the country in public schools, but we celebrated Easter and Christmas and Thanksgiving as a religious holidy. The choir performed Handel's Messiah and other traditional religious Christmas music in the Christmas concert, we had student led prayers to begin every student assembly and every sporting event, a Bible reading for show and tell was perfectly acceptable, and all us seniors attended a Baccalaureate service as part of the graduation traditions.

And I got an excellent science education. Things were only a tad more secular in the public schools my kids attended and they also got excellent science educations. I would not put my kids in public school now because I believe they would be taught incorrect science based on secular liberal doctrines rather than honest science. The other extreme and all that.