Thomas Grisham) wrote: >Mark Isaak <a...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message <news:p67b00lp5sov1cqe1ad3qnucv8brvjsms6@4ax.com>... >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:25:47 +0000 (UTC), jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John >> Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>> >qswitch2.removet...@passagen.se (Staffan S) wrote in message <news:b3c0ff23.0401132259.2a35ec5d@posting.google.com>... >> >> You seem to claim that the US educational system is special in that it >> >> is the only one that teaches "Naturalistic Evolution". I challenge you >> >> to substantiate that claim, or clarify what you really mean.
>> >It's not the only nation that teaches Naturalistic Evolution, it's the >> >only one that teaches it due to the founding document of its country >> >(a.k.a. the U.S. Constitution).
>> What is "naturalistic evolution"?
>Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all >things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are >observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
That is, most emphatically, not even close to true. Modern science adheres to no such proposition. In fact, science adheres to the proposition that *not* all things can be explained. Nature comes in only because that is the only place scientists have been able to find recurring observable processes.
The Naturalism you refer to is supported only by creationists, who make God a natural observable process that explains all things.
>> If it is evolution with the >> provisio that God is excluded, then the U.S. Constitution *prohibits* >> teaching naturalistic evolution.
>At this time, the teaching of Naturalistic Evolution is not considered >actionable as the government inhibiting religion under the >Establishment clause . . .
If I knew of a teacher taught your version of "Naturalism", I would most certainly be citing the Establishment clause in my complaint. Evolution does not rule out God, and saying it does is an insult to evolution and to God.
-- Mark Isaak a...@earthlink.net "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
<ethanrog...@hotmail.com> wrote: >in article hcvf00dhea5pc38o0hk5dt44i1epvri...@4ax.com, Stanley Friesen at >sar...@friesen.net wrote on 1/16/04 10:03 AM:
>> jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>>> catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> <news:qlmd00tqa2hll5lr2k6btmvf5envbcf2a3@4ax.com>... >>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:49 +0000 (UTC), jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John >>>> Thomas Grisham) wrote: >>>>> Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all >>>>> things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are >>>>> observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
>>>> That isn't true. "Science" only asserts that natural processes are the >>>> only ones that *science* can study.
>>> Exactly how does the content of your rebuttal differ from the previous >>> statement? I could shorten it! Modern science adhers to the >>> predisposition of Naturalism. What isn't true?
>> That this is a statement about reality. Science doesn't require that >> there *be* nothing else, only that anything else is beyond the *scope* >> of science.
>Agreed, but then you get those who take another step and say that anything >beyond the scope of science is worthless, meaningless and since there's no >scientific evidence for it, it doesn't exist.
Indeed, that mindset is the entire basis for "scientific" creationism and intelligent design creationism.
> Is it understandable at all >why people would have a problem with that?
It is less understandable why people who accept it themselves would have a problem with it.
-- Mark Isaak a...@earthlink.net "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
>"Mark Isaak" <a...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message >news:ui7b00d7pqp4cpbj5s3n3ugigl89mttes3@4ax.com... >> It doesn't support evolution, but the whole sticks to snakes thing >> done by Moses and the Pharaoh's men contradicts the creationist >> position that change can only happen within "kinds".
>unfrtunately, that was because of God's direct interference, so I don't >think it would count.
Remember, the Pharaoh's priests did it, too. That sort of magic was not limited to God.
-- Mark Isaak a...@earthlink.net "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
> >Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message <news:8sbc00dv3jr1f6d29o9cvi20jglfaqu6n5@4ax.com>... > >> jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote: > >> >If I'm to believe the statements made on talk.origins, then the > >> >American public is the poorest evolutionary educated people in the > >> >world.
> >> Very possibly.
> >> > If this is so, it is because Naturalistic Evolution is the only > >> >form of evolution that can be taught in U.S. public schools.
> >> But not for this reason - as that is the *only* *scientific* version of > >> evolution.
> >> The reason appears to be the deliberate ignorance of science by many > >> Fundamentalists.
> >I find that hard to believe.
> Perhaps so, but I have seen it in operation. My own uncle *refuses* to > understand evolution. He is blinded by his religious beliefs which > require him to reject it, so he has to view it as something absurd. His > view of what evolution is are so far from the reality that they are a > joke, but no amount of explanation will change his understanding of > evolution one iota.
> >Fundementalists are a minority of the religious community and an even > >smaller minority of the U.S. population. Referencing the numbers of > >American fundementalist "leaning" church members, domestic and foreign > >(Britannica Book of the Year 2003), I can't imagine that we're talking > >about more than 5 million people, maximum (located predominantly in > >the Old South).
> Hardly. Kansas is a strongly Fundemantalist state. (They are not, > quite, a majority there, but they are very powerful). I know of > thriving Fundamentalist churches in Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota.
> And here in Los Angeles there are many *large* Fundamentalist churches - > enough of them so that I had a hard time locating a *non* Fundamentalist > church. This is a large part of why I am now a member of a Lutheran > church.
> [Note there are even Fundamentalist Lutherans - such as the Missouri > Synod].
> > That's less than 2 percent of the total population.
> I think this is a gross underestimate. I suspect there may be close to > 5 million Fundamentalist right here in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
The total number of Protestants in the U.S. is about 70 million. The major denominations are not involved. I suppose there could be small factions within the mnajor denominations, but mostly it seems to be the Pentecostal minority spread across diverse denominations which makes up the mass of the Fundementalist movement.
I can't in good conscience give you 7 million Fundementalists because on groups this size, a rule of politics is that 10 percent activism must lead to revolution or at least critical internal reorganization. If there were 7 million Fundementalists, then there would be a Protestant revolution happening in religion. I've seen no sign of that! I feel generous to give you hypothetically 5 million and I feel that's a realistic number (probably high) considering that activism is difficult for individuals to maintain.
You also have to realize that the perception in Southern California is more ritual than actual. It's the center for TV and movies, therefore a certain amount of religious identification is meant to calm the fears of Middle America. Lucifer himself would be wearing a big golden cross and a fish symbol tie tack in his lapel as he molests children and sells heroin on the streets of L.A. . There's a reason they put Disneyland in Orange County.
> > It > >seems completely unrealistic to conclude that they could have a > >noticable effect on public understanding... it would practically be a > >miracle in the self-centered, wholesale materialistic culture of the > >United States (Well, I guess that explains it!... God's on their > >side).
> Actually, the US culture is amazingly *religious* - even Puritanical. > Even England is more secular than the US.
Thomas Grisham) wrote: >catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message <news:afde0092rifhofp3vc3prb3d0qaltvk35f@4ax.com>... >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:39:40 +0000 (UTC), jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John >> Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>> >> >Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all >> >> >things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are >> >> >observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
>> >> That isn't true. "Science" only asserts that natural processes are the >> >> only ones that *science* can study.
>> >Exactly how does the content of your rebuttal differ from the previous >> >statement? I could shorten it! Modern science adhers to the >> >predisposition of Naturalism. What isn't true?
>> Science neither claims that "all things can be explained" by science nor >> that it can exclude the possibility that things are "effected by any other >> means". Science has a predisposition to naturalism the same way >> mathematics has a predisposition towards numbers. Nature is the *subject* >> of science.
>I see in your bebuttal a contradiction. At first, you assert that >science is not to be expected to explain all things (which makes >science a subset of all things and I've no difficulty with that). >However, you conclude that "Nature is the subject of science" (which >would seem to make nature a subset of science and I really don't see >it that way).
I don't know what you are getting at here. Science is not a "thing" with separate existance. Science is the *method* by which humans study nature. Science does not encompass nature anymore than humans encompass nature. Humans are a part of nature (though some theists assert - without any scientific evidence - that humans are *partly* outside nature).
How does any of that make nature a subset of science?
>If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing >is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved), >then I think we can be on the same page.
Then any god that exists is just a part of of nature? That *would* make such a god a subset of nature and less than the sum of nature. That would also make *you* the adherent of philosophical Naturalism, instead of scientists.
>> >> >Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved >> >> >through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology, >> >> >Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that >> >> >reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in >> >> >many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not >> >> >effected by any other means.
>> >> >Theistic Evolution (Pope-approved) is the current scientific position >> >> >of the Catholic church that agrees that reaccurring processes have >> >> >evolved through time and are evident in many fields of science which >> >> >are observable in nature and yet may be effected by other means >> >> >(presumably deity). Granted, this statement cuts to the chase of the >> >> >Papal proclaimation, however I feel it is a fair and accurate >> >> >representation of what the Pope conveyed and is the basis for >> >> >evolution instruction where Catholicism has influence over the >> >> >curriculum.
>> >> Even the Pope doesn't claim there can be scientific evidence for god, >> >> AFAIK.
>> >It's a word trick!
>> >Modern science defines deity as supernatural. Supernatural is not >> >natural. Modern science adhers to Naturalism, therefore there can be >> >no scientific evidence of anything supernatural.
>> There can be no *scientific* evidence for the supernatural (any more than >> there can be *mathematical* evidence for the supernatural). It is beyond >> the competancy of science. That isn't a limitation on the supernatural, it >> is an admitted limitation on science's ability to produce *evidence* of the >> supernatural under science's self-imposed rules.
>The metaverse hypothesized in M Theory is in all practical senses >supernatural (at present) and there is mathematical evidence for it. >Of course, they don't call it supernatural because Naturalism would >force them to abandon the field, but what would you call something >beyond the observable universe, functionally unreachable and >untestable?
"Speculation". Which is *exactly* what many, if not most, scientists call M theory. At best, it is *potential* science that is awaiting some method of being tested. The supernatural, since it cannot be tested, isn't even potential science.
>It would seem that those self-imposed rules only apply to >those, who don't know any better.
Science can hypothesize. It is even encouraged. The very process often leads to new discoveries. But the fact remains that even its adherents do not consider M theory well-founded scientifically or anything much more than an intriguing possibility with attractive mathematical "elegance".
>> >Any such evidence >> >would be labelled an anomoly and therefore ignored, dismissed or held >> >without comment. By this method, any such evidence is functionally >> >excluded by the philosophy of Naturalism.
>> I'm sure that people who adhere to the *philosophy* of Naturalism agree. >> But, as you yourself have pointed out in Dini's case, one need *not* adhere >> to such a philosophy in order to *do* science. You simply can't confuse >> *which* you are doing at any point.
>Well, that's what the debate over evolution in the classroom is about. >Dini's teaching college students (which under Doe v. Sue Potter are >not considered impressionable enough to be protected by the >Establishment Clause).
Law is my field and you are incorrect. That is *not* the test of the Establishment clause, even after all the attempts to erode it. The _Doe_ case actually confirms that.
>There is no oversight to the content of what he >calls "evolution". With a decade of teaching "Theistic Evolution" to >Catholic clergy, I sincerely doubt that he'd teach anything else.
You have no basis to say that except, perhaps, projection.
>Certainly, we can't help that individuals are individuals and teach >from their own perspective, but we should be aware of what that >perspective truly is and in Dini's case, there was too much hysteria >for anyone to care.
As far as I can tell, the only one suffering hysteria around here is you. You have offered nothing but innuendo concerning what Dini taught or teaches.
>> >I'm sure the Pope understands that deity if philosophically excluded >> >from the scope of modern science. I doubt that he believes that modern >> >science is beyond the scope of deity.
>> I'm sure I don't understand what you were trying to say there.
>Simply, that the Pope sees Catholicism as having greater scope than >science.
And I'd agree. Religion seeks to answer questions that science cannot, as I've been saying all along. Many people recognize that, including, as far as I can tell, most scientists who are theists.
>> >> >Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was >> >> >challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his >> >> >interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the >> >> >scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position >> >> >were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of >> >> >Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic >> >> >clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout >> >> >Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria >> >> >involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being >> >> >require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a >> >> >letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
>> >> C'mon!
>> >I hadn't a clue they were teaching theistic evolution until I looked >> >up Dini's background. He spent ten years teaching the Pope's version >> >of evolution to the priesthood.
>> Have you ever attended a Catholic college or university? I have. I've >> gone though entire courses taught by Jesuit priests where the word "god" >> was never mentioned. What you are claiming is nothing but (faintly >> bigoted) baseless insinuation.
>You're not really suggesting that they're teaching atheism, that the >spirit of God is absent from the evolution of the world, that there is >no Creator? If you can confirm that they are, then a Neo-Protestant >movement should be pending.
Ethan Rogati <ethanrog...@hotmail.com> wrote: >in article hcvf00dhea5pc38o0hk5dt44i1epvri...@4ax.com, Stanley Friesen at >sar...@friesen.net wrote on 1/16/04 10:03 AM: >> That this is a statement about reality. Science doesn't require that >> there *be* nothing else, only that anything else is beyond the *scope* >> of science.
>Agreed, but then you get those who take another step and say that anything >beyond the scope of science is worthless, meaningless and since there's no >scientific evidence for it, it doesn't exist. Is it understandable at all >why people would have a problem with that?
Certainly - however that has *nothing* to do with science per se. It is a *philosophical* stance with regard to existence. There is nothing in the scientific method that requires making such a leap. The peace of God be with you.
jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>The total number of Protestants in the U.S. is about 70 million. The >major denominations are not involved. I suppose there could be small >factions within the mnajor denominations, but mostly it seems to be >the Pentecostal minority spread across diverse denominations which >makes up the mass of the Fundementalist movement.
The vast majority of Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and several other major denominations are now Fundamentalist. As are numerous smaller denominations - such as Calvary Chapel.
>I can't in good conscience give you 7 million Fundementalists because >on groups this size, a rule of politics is that 10 percent activism >must lead to revolution or at least critical internal reorganization.
Not all Fundamentalists are *activists*. My uncle is a good example of that as well. He is a staunch Fundamentalist, but by and large he just lives his life.
>You also have to realize that the perception in Southern California is >more ritual than actual. It's the center for TV and movies, therefore >a certain amount of religious identification is meant to calm the >fears of Middle America.
The Fundamentalists churches here are not particularly associated with the media. Nor are they mainly for show. I have visited several of them. The fervor is very deep, and very disturbing, as is the degree of indoctrination and brainwashing.
Indeed, outside of the so-called mainline denominations (ELCA, Episcopal, Methodist, Anglican and the like), it is hard to find a *non* Fundamentalist church here in LA and Orange counties.
jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>I see in your rebuttal a contradiction. At first, you assert that >science is not to be expected to explain all things (which makes >science a subset of all things and I've no difficulty with that). >However, you conclude that "Nature is the subject of science" (which >would seem to make nature a subset of science and I really don't see >it that way). If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing >is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved), >then I think we can be on the same page.
Ah, but that is a disputed issue, and not one many of us would agree with. It is also a *philosophical* (or religious) conclusion, not a scientific one.
>The metaverse hypothesized in M Theory is in all practical senses >supernatural (at present) and there is mathematical evidence for it.
A. If it has physical existence, and our Universe is causally connected to it, I would deny that it is supernatural.
B. *Mathematical* "evidence" is not, IMHO, evidence for actual existence. At most it is evidence that its existence is not self-contradictory.
>> I'm sure that people who adhere to the *philosophy* of Naturalism agree. >> But, as you yourself have pointed out in Dini's case, one need *not* adhere >> to such a philosophy in order to *do* science. You simply can't confuse >> *which* you are doing at any point.
>Well, that's what the debate over evolution in the classroom is about.
If evolution is *properly* taught, then the philosophical positions are treated as side matters, and not part of the primary curriculum. Evolution *per* *se* is agnostic on which philosophy one takes with regard to nature, and so it is inappropriate to teach any such as if it were part of the science.
>Dini's teaching college students (which under Doe v. Sue Potter are >not considered impressionable enough to be protected by the >Establishment Clause). There is no oversight to the content of what he >calls "evolution".
Well, that seems odd, to me. Most universities have some requirements on the content of courses.
>With a decade of teaching "Theistic Evolution" to >Catholic clergy, I sincerely doubt that he'd teach anything else.
He shouldn't even have been teaching it to them. It is *not* science, and does not belong in a science class, period.
>I'm implying that the Establishment Clause is being attacked from all >sides, top to bottom. The Fundementalists would be happy campers if >they could get theistic evolution taught in public schools or any form >of evolution that assumes deity.
>It's a matter of being careful about what you want. As currently >applied, the Establishment Clause insures that one godless >interpretation of what we are is shoved down the throats of public >school students.
No it doesn't. It establishes that the *extraneous* *philosophical* issues are left out of *science* classes. Nothing should be said *one* *way* *or* *the* *other* about the existance/involvement of any deity in any natural process in any science class. Such issues are *irrelevant* to the science.
>Certainly, you're aware the Constitution is under attack, as well.
Certainly. But the major threats to it right now are Bush and Ashcroft.
> >I see in your rebuttal a contradiction. At first, you assert that > >science is not to be expected to explain all things (which makes > >science a subset of all things and I've no difficulty with that). > >However, you conclude that "Nature is the subject of science" (which > >would seem to make nature a subset of science and I really don't see > >it that way). If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing > >is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved), > >then I think we can be on the same page.
> Ah, but that is a disputed issue, and not one many of us would agree > with. It is also a *philosophical* (or religious) conclusion, not a > scientific one.
Right. There's a distinction between philosophical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism) and science, which involves methodological naturalism.
Science makes no metaphysical claims regarding whether, as John Thomas Grisham put it, "nature is all things and nothing is truely unnatural or supernatural." Science is silent on the issue.
Therefore, one can accept the theory of evolution as good science, and at the same time, one can believe in one or another religious system involving a supernatural deity or deities.
The problem, as we know, is that certain religious systems teach that their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of creation, and that that process involved miracles rather than the sorts of natural processes studied by science. Therefore, they can't reconcile what science teaches with their theology and religious tradition. Therefore, they reject modern science, at least with regard to those parts of the "process of creation" which are important to their theology.
It's a very interesting psychological and cultural phenomenon, from a social scientific perspective (although I realize that it doesn't seem so very interesting to those pro-science folks who keep banging their heads against a brick wall by trying to reason with those people who hold to such theological views).
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:14:13 +0000 (UTC), "I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKnotmyemail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>What's to "justify"??? That's like using Humpty Dumpty to "justify" >gravity!
IOW, something most fundies would find perfectly "logical". -- "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26 (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at optonline dot net
You will be changed, in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye.
You shall be a new creature
For the old is passed away, behold all things are become new.
The only reason it is commonly said the bible is not for evolution is that those that act as though they own the bible (church, harlot, interpretors)actually stole it like they did the robes from the bottom of the cross and have put them on to say what they want them to say and will not allow any spirit even from God to interpret otherwise. But like the sign of the whale, they will not control Moby Dick and they will soon be exposed. The smallest of points overlooked will soon alter the largest of equations (dna) and render all the interpretations meaningless. Stephentree
>> > > >> Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes >> > > >> from >> > > >> the bible could be used to support evolution?
>> > > >> Kid Cool
>> > > > * >> > > > The bible was written by bronze-age goatherders and otherwise >> > > > uneducated peasants a couple of thousand years ago.
>> > > > Evolution was described by Darwin, Wallace, and others in the mid-19th >> > > > century.
>> > > > I don't think you will find anything in the bible that speaks to >> > > > evolution, and if you do, it is a fluke.
>> > > > But then, most of what you read in the bible is a fluke.
>> > > > earle >> > > > *
>> > > > "It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; >> > > > and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; >> > > > and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; >> > > > and upwards of a thousand lies."
>> > > Asking if the bible could be used to justify evolution is like asking if >> > > the >> > > lord of the rings could be used to justify evolution.
>> > Mmm...but it could justify sexual selection for men with facial hair. >> > Hubba hubba. The problem is, such choices...
>> * >> "Hubba hubba"???
>> You're older than I thought you were!
>> earle
>Nah, I just love the pop culture of bygone days. My grandparents (both >sets) were a big influence in my life. My house is slowly filling up >with Deco/Nouveau furniture, I'm an "old movie" fan, and I have a >penchant for corsets and long, gracefully trailing skirts.
>On those rare Saturday mornings that I have free. I curl up in a >flannel nightgown with a bowl of cereal (often healthy, but sometimes >sugary-disgusting) while on the couch and turn on Looney Tunes. >Sometimes, instead of cartoons, I watch one or more movies from the >1930's->40's and then at some point, dejectedly get off the couch with >my empty cereal bowl and go back to work in the real world, boy howdy.
And me already married.
One of my best birthdays was a viewing of a double bill of _The Maltese Falcon_ and _Casablanca_, in a real movie theater, with a date who had never seen either. I wished I had a fedora.
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC), "Kid Cool" > > <kccsubATcomcast....@giganews.com> wrote:
> > >Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes from > > >the bible could be used to support evolution?
> > Genesis has two examples of "artificial" selection. In one > > place, Laban promises his son-in-law Jacob all the future spotted > > animals to be born in his flocks. He then removes the spotted animals > > to elsewhere. He thus selects against spotted offspring in the flocks > > Jacob has care of.
> > In turn, Jacob develops a magical technique for making > > breeding animals give birth to spotted offspring. But the bible > > describes how he only uses this technique on the stronger animals, > > thus selecting for stronger offspring. It is a small step from this > > to "natural" selection.
> We did this a month or so ago. I recall it all began with Ecc 3:19
> -- > John Wilkins > "And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Bad news everyone. I don't think we use Leviticus 19:19 as an arguement that God recognizes "macro evolution" (kinds evolving). I went onto www.biblegateway.com to search out the use of the word "kind." in the Torah, or 5 books of Moses. I then went to http://www.bible.ort.org to review the actual Hebrew. Since that is the original language, it is the primary source. None of the translation issues and mistranslations that permiate the KJV.
I found the following verses used a word lemino, leminah, leminehu which are all variations on the same word. I found it translated as kind and family. In Lev 19:19, I found the word kilayim, which is translated as "species." The verses in question are: Genesis 1:11 1:12 1:21 1:24 1:25 6:20 7:14 Leviticus 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:19 11:22 11:29 19:19 uses kilayim, not leminah Deuteronomy 14:13 14:14 14:15 14:18
I think the argument would be much stronger, if Lev 19:19 used leminah, lemino, leminehu. If anyone knows enough Hebrew, perhaps they can find where else kilayim is used.
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC), "Kid Cool" > > <kccsubATcomcast....@giganews.com> wrote:
> > >Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes from > > >the bible could be used to support evolution?
<snip>
Bad news everyone. I don't think we use Leviticus 19:19 as an arguement that God recognizes "macro evolution" (kinds evolving). I went onto www.biblegateway.com to search out the use of the word "kind." in the Torah, or 5 books of Moses. I then went to http://www.bible.ort.org to review the actual Hebrew. Since that is the original language, it is the primary source. None of the translation issues and mistranslations that permiate the KJV.
I found the following verses used a word lemino, leminah, leminehu which are all variations on the same word. I found it translated as kind and family. In Lev 19:19, I found the word kilayim, which is translated as "species." The verses in question are: Genesis 1:11 1:12 1:21 1:24 1:25 6:20 7:14 Leviticus 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:19 11:22 11:29 19:19 uses kilayim, not leminah Deuteronomy 14:13 14:14 14:15 14:18
I think the argument would be much stronger, if Lev 19:19 used leminah, lemino, leminehu. If anyone knows enough Hebrew, perhaps they can find where else kilayim is used.
