Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps 200 BC is the date given by science. But I think that it goes back a long way before that.rmwilliamsll said:do you have any references to read about this proposition?
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
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.kopilo said:What he said.
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.JohnR7 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.
Beastt said: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.
Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.JohnR7 said: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.
AV1611VET said:Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.
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."Beastt said:This is because science doesn't deal in proofs.
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.It deals in evidence. And the evidence indicates quite strongly that many of the claims in the Bible are simply without credibility.
GoSeminoles! said:Excellent. The more pervasive this idea is among religious fundamentalists, the quicker the plague of religious fundamentalism will rot away.
JohnR7 said:What would your alternative be to fundamentalism?
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.
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.JohnR7 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.
Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that if the Bible disagrees with science, the Bible is being misinterpreted?AV1611VET said:Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.
An alternative is Theistic Evolutionist, which is what most Christians are.JohnR7 said: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.
AV1611VET said:Science has its place in the universe, and is welcome here; but when it starts to contradict Scripture, it's overstayed its welcome.
JohnR7 said:So if there is no fundalmentalist Methodists, what does that mean President Bush is?
I don't know.Jase said:Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that if the Bible disagrees with science, the Bible is being misinterpreted?
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.AV1611VET said:I don't know.
cut from: http://unityoftruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/catholic-church-and-science.html[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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?