Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[JohnR7]

do you have any references to read about this proposition?

Perhaps 200 BC is the date given by science. But I think that it goes back a long way before that.

The idea of Copernicus was not really new! A sun-centered Solar System had been proposed as early as about 200 B.C. by Aristarchus of Samos (Samos is an island off the coast of what is now Turkey).http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html

 

[JohnR7]

What he said.

What he said what? You call yourself a Christian but you do not call yourself a Creationist? A Creationist is someone that believes that God Created the Natural world that Science loves to study so much. The only way you could NOT be a Creationist would be to not believe God Created the Natural World.

It seems like a shame that in a attempt to NOT be associated with Creation Science there are people who want to reject calling themselves a Creationist.

 

[kopilo]

What he said what? You call yourself a Christian but you do not call yourself a Creationist? A Creationist is someone that believes that God Created the Natural world that Science loves to study so much. The only way you could NOT be a Creationist would be to not believe God Created the Natural World.

It seems like a shame that in a attempt to NOT be associated with Creation Science there are people who want to reject calling themselves a Creationist.

How can you judge based on what you specificially believe. I am hardly the only Christian that is not a literalist about the creation of earth. I believe God created the universe and everything in it, but to say that evolution and creationism are polar opposites is somewhat to me unbelieveable. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory as insinuated earlier and I'll thank you very much to not associate all christians with those who believe evolution could have never occured.

There is also a difference between creation science and creationism. I've already stated what I believe, which is the foundations of creationism but I do not believe in everything that is covered by the umbrella of creation science.

 

[JohnR7]

The Bible is quite soundly refuted by science, John. Unless you live on a flat planet, at the center of the universe, with stars, sun and a moon residing within your planet's atmosphere, where plants never freeze no matter how cold it gets, the Bible is quite thoroughly refuted.

I know that you are a reasonably intelligent person. The Bible does not say that the planet is flat. The Bible does not say that the earth is the center of the universe. And so on. INFIDELS try to claim the Bible says these things. They try to propitiate these urban myths to slander and discredit christianity. But all they are doing is knocking down their own strawman arguement.

Now, as a intelligent person I think that you can do better than this. I think you can set a higher standard of truth and creditability for yourself. But that is up to you if you want to deny the truth and lower yourself to using urban myths to defend your beliefs. Just do not try to put on a pretense that science is in any way associated with this sort of thing. This sort of slander would not even qualify as acceptable political science as far as I am concerned.

Everyone gets to set their own standard. But I sure would not want to be associated with a standard that is based on urban myths.

 

[AV1611VET]

One thing you have to realize is that science is a study of the natural world. All of science is a study of the world that God created. There has to be something said for the idea that God could have created all that He created, and Science puts as much effort and energy into the study of His Creation. Yet they can not seem to find any "scientific" evidence for a Creator?

Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.

 

[Valkhorn]

Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.

The fundamental motto of a creationist.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.

Excellent. The more pervasive this idea is among religious fundamentalists, the quicker the plague of religious fundamentalism will rot away.

 

[JohnR7]

This is because science doesn't deal in proofs.

I really don't know what your talking about. According to the dictionary proof is:"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

It deals in evidence. And the evidence indicates quite strongly that many of the claims in the Bible are simply without credibility.

There are things in the Bible that we accept on faith. But there are also a lot of things that stand up to the standards of science. The Bible written 3500 years ago is considered to be more accurate than the anglo saxton chronicals that they began writting 1,000 years ago.

When it comes to history, you will never find a book that is more accurate then the Bible.

 

[JohnR7]

Excellent. The more pervasive this idea is among religious fundamentalists, the quicker the plague of religious fundamentalism will rot away.

What would your alternative be to fundamentalism? Modernism? Liberalism? New Ageism? In a pure sense of the word, if you abandon the fundamentals of a religion or a belief what do you have? In science if you eliminated the fundamentals that make up science what would you have? If you were to abandon the fundalmental laws of the universe what would you have?

Does Science have some sort of a desire to destroy Religion? Is that what this is all about? The apologetics forum is the next door on your left.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

What would your alternative be to fundamentalism?

All religions have moderate, less virolent strains. Christianity has Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, and others. One does not have to shine Jerry Fallwell's shoes to be a Christian.

Does Science have some sort of a desire to destroy Religion? Is that what this is all about? The apologetics forum is the next door on your left.

Science, no. Me, yes. I would love to see all religious funamentalism destroyed, be it Christian, Muslim, or whatever. It is the single most dangerous meme infecting our species at the moment.

 

[JohnR7]

Christianity has Methodists

So if there is no fundalmentalist Methodists, what does that mean President Bush is?

 

[Jase]

What he said what? You call yourself a Christian but you do not call yourself a Creationist? A Creationist is someone that believes that God Created the Natural world that Science loves to study so much. The only way you could NOT be a Creationist would be to not believe God Created the Natural World.

It seems like a shame that in a attempt to NOT be associated with Creation Science there are people who want to reject calling themselves a Creationist.

John, there is a difference between believing in Creation, and being a creationist. A creationist is typically one who holds to the YEC or OEC view. In other words, they hold that the Genesis creation story is almost entirely literal.

A Theistic Evolutionist believes in Creation, but thinks that God used evolution to produce the diversity of life we see today.

There is a difference. Kent Hovind is a Creationist, and none of us want to be associated with him.

 

[Jase]

Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.

Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that if the Bible disagrees with science, the Bible is being misinterpreted?

 

[Jase]

What would your alternative be to fundamentalism? Modernism? Liberalism? New Ageism? In a pure sense of the word, if you abandon the fundamentals of a religion or a belief what do you have? In science if you eliminated the fundamentals that make up science what would you have? If you were to abandon the fundalmental laws of the universe what would you have?

Does Science have some sort of a desire to destroy Religion? Is that what this is all about? The apologetics forum is the next door on your left.

An alternative is Theistic Evolutionist, which is what most Christians are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.

and what exactly is "Scripture"?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So if there is no fundalmentalist Methodists, what does that mean President Bush is?

A NeoConservative.

These days, that seems to be a religion unto itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that if the Bible disagrees with science, the Bible is being misinterpreted?

I don't know.

 

[Jase]

I don't know.

Well, someone here can correct me if i'm wrong, but if he did say that, is he wrong as well? He is a Saint afterall and one of Christianity's most devout followers.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that if the Bible disagrees with science, the Bible is being misinterpreted?

[Augustine] put the matter bluntly: "It is often the case that a non-Christian happens to know something with absolute certainty and through experimental evidence about the earth, sky, and other elements of this world, about the motion, rotation, and even about the size and distances of stars, about certain defects [eclipses] of the sun and moon, about the cycles of years and epochs, about the nature of animals, fruits, stones, and the like. It is, therefore, very deplorable and harmful, and to be avoided at any cost that he should hear a Christian to give, so to speak, a 'Christian account' of these topics in such a way that he could hardly hold his laughter on seeing, as the saying goes, the error rise sky-high." Such a performance, Augustine remarked, would undercut the credibility of the Christian message by creating in the minds of infidels the impression that the Bible was wrong on points "which can be verified experimentally, or to be established by unquestionable proofs."[102]

[102] Sancti Aureli Augustini De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, edited by J. Zycha, in ]Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. XXVIII, Sec. III, Pars 1 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894), pp. 28-29 (Book 1, chap. 19).

cut from: http://unityoftruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/catholic-church-and-science.html

which is a short discussion of the quote.

 

[kangitanka]

Ive called JohnR7 out not ONCE, not TWICE, but THREE seperate times, all on the same subject

He cant or wont answer, despite the fact that Ive paid him the courtesy of replying to every post he has directed at me

Hence, he is wasting my time, possibly on purpose

In my last post to him I said-
" So, point by point rebuttal
Or an admission that you were wrong

Either way

Of course, you could take the cowards way out and not answer at all (and what an embarassment that would be to the martyrs who DIED for their faith, yes?) "

No answer on his part is forthcoming, due to the fact that he cant (or wont) reply with an actual rebutal.

Im not going to waste my time with him anymore



I truly dont see how you guys do it. Ive only been a member a short time, and Im already fed up with his garbage, his empty assertions, his completely unfounded "bible=science" statements and his outright LACK of any empirical evidence whatsoever (and inability to actually "debate" on topic)
I really dont see any reason to waste my time with him anymore. I guess you CF veterans must be MUCH more patient than I am.