What Say Ye, Creationists & Fundamentalists?

[Givemeareason]

This is another major reason to avoid Catholics as much as one could possibly can.

You would choose to avoid the first and originating church after so many offshoots with differing beliefs?? That to me would indicate quite the opposite and that I should first be looking at the first church.

 

[Job8]

But you are saying the Creationist view is unscientific in its origins?

Not at all. You won't find that in my post. There is nothing "unscientific" about Creationism, since God Himself in the Author of all sciences, and He is also the Creator.

Everything else you have brought up is irrelevant and beside the point. And if you want to question the authority of Jesus -- who is God -- then you are free to do so. The Vatican is doing exactly that by supporting Evolutionism.

 

[JustHisKid]

The Vatican rejects creationism

The Catholic Church champions the cause of Charles Darwin.

By Lakshmi Chaudhry / AlterNet

I know we progressives aren't too fond of the Catholic Church, but let's give credit where it's due. The Vatican today struck a blow for reason by soundly rejecting creationism:

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. [LINKthanks to Jeff Renshaw]

Yet more evidence that the Christian Right in this country is not 'conservative' -- as in traditional -- in any sense of the word, but the representative of a fringe extremist view of religion.

this HTML class. Value is http://www.alternet.

The pope rejecting God's truth is not a new development.

 

[Givemeareason]

Not at all. You won't find that in my post. There is nothing "unscientific" about Creationism, since God Himself in the Author of all sciences, and He is also the Creator.

Everything else you have brought up is irrelevant and beside the point. And if you want to question the authority of Jesus -- who is God -- then you are free to do so. The Vatican is doing exactly that by supporting Evolutionism.

How can you possibly say that Creationism is scientific when you just acknowledged it is based on a belief?? If I wanted to prove pagan religion to you all I would need do is use science to support it and then I could claim it would be considered science?? Evolutionism is a strawman religion of sorts that was created by creationists so they could elevate creationism to the same level. Baloney!! Evolution is science. Astrophysics is science. Creationism is crap!

 

[Givemeareason]

The pope rejecting God's truth is not a new development.

Popes were advocating God before even your ancestors were born.

 

[Givemeareason]

Wow what's with the anticatholicism hapnin up in here?

Go figure??

 

[crjmurray]

Go figure??

You sometimes see it here and there on this website, but in this thread we're about two steps away from seeing little torch and pitchfork emoticons. Scary.

 

[Smidlee]

If we accepted and agree with everything Vatican said then we would be accused of being brainwashed.

 

[Givemeareason]

You sometimes see it here and there on this website, but in this thread we're about two steps away from seeing little torch and pitchfork emoticons. Scary.

Considering this is a science forum you would think they would know the difference between science and just trying to use it to support an un-scientific claim.

 

[Smidlee]

Considering this is a science forum you would think they would know the difference between science and just trying to use it to support an un-scientific claim.

I don't agree with what some call science either. Since scientist have been wrong so many times in the past I don't accept the word of the scientist as the Word of God.

 

[crjmurray]

I don't agree with what some call science either. Since scientist have been wrong so many times in the past I don't accept the word of the scientist as the Word of God.

No one has asked you to do that.

 

[Givemeareason]

I don't agree with what some call science either. Since scientist have been wrong so many times in the past I don't accept the word of the scientist as the Word of God.

Science is not about the word of God. You are however able to use science, question science, and sometimes science is wrong. It is self correcting in that sense since new understandings are constantly being found. It can even be questioned by creationists but the creationists generally seem to think that every time an update occurs it goes to prove science was wrong. Duh????

 

[Smidlee]

Science is not about the word of God. You are however able to use science, question science, and sometimes science is wrong. It is self correcting in that sense since new understandings are constantly being found. It can even be questioned by creationists but the creationists generally seem to think that every time an update occurs it goes to prove science was wrong. Duh????

Not all science are on the same level as Jones noted:

A lot has changed in the last 35 years or so, especially in the electronics industry. Let’s compare the changes in evolutionary theory with the changes in electrical engineering theory over that period.

I still have my electronic circuit design textbooks that I used in college in the late 1960’s. If I had to teach the same electronic circuit design course today that I did back then, I could do it. Granted, I would have to add some supplemental material about integrated circuits. I would get the time for those added lectures by rushing through the chapters on vacuum tubes. But the information on vacuum tubes isn’t wrong--it is just less relevant today than it was back then.

In fact, nothing in any of my engineering textbooks is wrong. What was true 30 years ago is still true today. Ohm's law is still true. All the stability criteria for linear systems is still true today. New engineering textbooks don’t contradict old ones. New engineering textbooks just contain more information about new technology.

That’s because engineering textbooks contain information determined using the scientific method. The relationship between the current flow in the base of a transistor and current flow in the collector of a transmitter was studied and verified using countless experiments that gave consistent results. The results of those experiments were formulated into expressions of fundamental truths. The characteristics of current flow in a transistor weren’t simply the philosophical opinions of a world-renowned teacher.

Imagine an evolutionist trying to teach a course in evolution using textbooks from the 60s. He would have to tell the students, “Tear out pages 15 through 27 of your textbook because they are all wrong.” “Cross out the third sentence on the second paragraph of page 32.” By the time he was done with the course, there would not be much left of the textbook.

That’s because many of the “facts” found in the evolutionary textbooks of yesteryear aren’t true any more. Since truth doesn’t change, that means those things weren’t true back then, either. Forty years from now evolutionists will tell us that the things in today’s evolutionary textbooks aren’t true either.

Unlike engineering textbooks, the evolutionary textbooks don’t contain information determined by the scientific method. They contain opinions and inferences of scientists. Those inferences and opinions are greatly affected by the scientists’ prejudices and desires.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v4i4f.htm

 

[Givemeareason]

Not all science are on the same level as Jones noted:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v4i4f.htm

First off I was an engineer back in those days myself. And I would say that he is an engineer making a very stupid comparison. Engineering is an application of science and is not science. Science is constantly changing and updating and even found to be wrong. Creationists have little purpose in pointing to that fact because their alternative is trying to prove that an ancient religious text is scientific today instead. And since they can't prove that all they do is try to punch holes in science which is perfectly acceptable but without realizing they are doing nothing to enhance their own views. All they manage to do is fool their fellow fundamentalists.

 

[juvenissun]

You would choose to avoid the first and originating church after so many offshoots with differing beliefs?? That to me would indicate quite the opposite and that I should first be looking at the first church.

There are seven churches described in the Book of Revelation. People commonly think Catholic is one of them. Not a promising church.

 

[Givemeareason]

There are seven churches described in the Book of Revelation. People commonly think Catholic is one of them. Not a promising church.

And what people think thst?

 

[Smidlee]

First off I was an engineer back in those days myself. And I would say that he is an engineer making a very stupid comparison. Engineering is an application of science and is not science.

What stupid about engineer back up his scientific claim with evidence? Engineers claim they could send man to the moon then turn around and prove it.

Science is constantly changing and updating and even found to be wrong. .

Science that's based on human opinion is constantly changing.

Creationists have little purpose in pointing to that fact because their alternative is trying to prove that an ancient religious text is scientific today instead. And since they can't prove that all they do is try to punch holes in science which is perfectly acceptable but without realizing they are doing nothing to enhance their own views. All they manage to do is fool their fellow fundamentalists.

The Bible doesn't deal with man's science which is constantly changing but with the heart of the scientist where all science come from which is the same thousands years ago as it is day. Man loves to worship his own creations including his theories instead of God.

 

[Job8]

Creationism is crap!

Then what could be your attitude towards the Ten Commandments, and especially the fourth commandment and what it has to say about creation?
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Givemeareason]

What stupid about engineer back up his scientific claim with evidence? Engineers claim they could send man to the moon then turn around and prove it. Science that's based on human opinion is constantly changing.
The Bible doesn't deal with man's science which is constantly changing but with the heart of the scientist where all science come from which is the same thousands years ago as it is day. Man loves to worship his own creations including his theories instead of God.

I don't know why you are still talking about engineers. Engineers do interract with science but I don't see what you are driving at. Of course science forms opinions. One of them is the idea that people trying to use the bible as a science text are stupid. And most people agree. And from my view its misuse in that manner is an insult to Christianity and makes it appear they are right. And I really dislike feeling that way because you are harming me by your foolish actions because I am struggling with becoming Christian myself. You obviously have no understanding of the bible or science.

 

[Givemeareason]

Then what could be your attitude towards the Ten Commandments, and especially the fourth commandment and what it has to say about creation?
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The old testament needs to be viewed in its proper perspective in considering who, when and where it was intended.