[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
But apparently confession will absolve one of this.[/quote]
Only if genuine.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
Much of the article struck me as being a great stretch, particularly his ‘watchmaker’ argument.
That said, while evolution doesn’t explain everything, it explains a whole lot more than ‘oh, God did it. A while back. Here’s a story filled with fanciful and highly unrealistic things happening that explains it’ which is the evangelical Christian perspective.[/quote]
^ hardly the evangelical Christian perspective. Apparently you are another one of those individuals who lacks a basic understanding of scientific history and how Christians have pioneered (and continue to lead in) many of the fields of study relied upon by evolutionists today. Accepting that God created the universe is not an end-all-be-all for Christians and especially for Christians scientists.
We have pioneered in so many scientific fields because we seek a grater understanding of the universe, the process of creation, the awesomeness of the handiwork of God. As I stated above, evolution is merely a theory of process, not of origins. Creation/intelligent design does assign an origin and then opens the mind to all of the potential of process.
It is realy tiresome to hear the same lame old lines about “Christians say God created it and stop thinking” - here’s a few quotes for your edification:
A bunch of Christian (adjective) scientists (profession), most of whom were not evangelical in their faith.[/quote]
If Evangelical Christianity did not present extreme conflict to evolutionary theory, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. The study of celestial bodies and the higher echolons of math reside in a realm totally outside the Christian bible. Your explanation of the motivations of Christian men of science seems reasonable. But it stops at the study of evolution, because of the direct conflict with the dictates of text.
I mean, I may have the wrong adjective, but I’m pretty certain Push qualifies as an evangelical Christian and he takes Genesis literally. As in, ‘Dinosaur-bones-are-there-to-test-your-faith’ literally (Push, I apologize if I’m misrepresenting your opinion, this is just what I remember from previous discussions). The emphasis on the supremacy of scripture leads to a literal interpretation thereof which leads to the fanatical rejection of data that does not tie hand-in-glove with that perspective.
So, while I agree with you that Christianity does not expressly forbid deeper thinking, on this issue specifically, it makes it somewhat… awkward.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
‘Dinosaur-bones-are-there-to-test-your-faith’ literally (Push, I apologize if I’m misrepresenting your opinion, this is just what I remember from previous discussions)…[/quote]
You have the memory of an ADD 10 year old who’s high on meth.[/quote]
So… Dinosaur bones don’t exist? Or does Gensis err on the age of the earth? Or something else? Please, correct me. It’ll save me the time of digging through the last evolution vs creationism discussion thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.[/quote]
And in doing so the Catholic Church takes a great big huge dump on Scripture.
True Christianity - which states death came into this world through the sin of man - cannot be reconciled with evolution because evolution calls for millions of years of death up to and including the evolution of man.
Theistic evolutionists like Pat and Sloth CANNOT make this dichotomy come together with any remote sense of logic and theological merit. When they try to do so they fall flat on their faces. I’ve been through this on other threads.
[center]You can’t have evolution without death.
You can’t have Christianity without man’s sin causing death.[/center]
Catholics and other theistic evolutionists have to put the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible for that matter through a burger grinder in order to concoct a theology that makes their “compromise” work. It’s that simple.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
‘Dinosaur-bones-are-there-to-test-your-faith’ literally (Push, I apologize if I’m misrepresenting your opinion, this is just what I remember from previous discussions)…[/quote]
You have the memory of an ADD 10 year old who’s high on meth.[/quote]
So… Dinosaur bones don’t exist? Or does Gensis err on the age of the earth? Or something else? Please, correct me. It’ll save me the time of digging through the last evolution vs creationism discussion thread.[/quote]
Oh yeah, it’s all about saving you time, huh buddy?[/quote]
I have a short attention span. It’s due to my meth addiction.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.[/quote]
And in doing so the Catholic Church takes a great big huge dump on Scripture.
True Christianity - which states death came into this world through the sin of man - cannot be reconciled with evolution because evolution calls for millions of years of death up to and including the evolution of man.
Theistic evolutionists like Pat and Sloth CANNOT make this dichotomy come together with any remote sense of logic and theological merit. When they try to do so they fall flat on their faces. I’ve been through this on other threads.
[center]You can’t have evolution without death.
You can’t have Christianity without man’s sin causing death.[/center]
Catholics and other theistic evolutionists have to put the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible for that matter through a burger grinder in order to concoct a theology that makes their “compromise” work. It’s that simple.[/quote]
That is horseshit Push. First, there is no theistic evolutionist. Second, there is no dichotomy. So when you say the we cannot reconcile the scripture vs. evolution dichotomy come together, you are right because it does not exist. There is no problem with Genesis and the logical truths which science infers as highly probable. So fucking what if creation took longer than six actual days? So what if he heavens were created 11 billion years before Earth. How does that devalue the magnitude of God’s creation?
Nobody takes the entire Bible as a literal word for word document at some point or another. Many atheists/ agnostics are quick to point out all kinds of calculation mistakes and contradictions. They are right those problems exist.
Have yo eaten the literal flesh of Christ and drank his blood? If you have not than you do not have life with in you; correct? If you are going to say the bible is literal in everything, you cannot pick and choose what you are going to take as literal. It is, or it is not a literal account of everything in it.
I have a lot of respect for my evangelical bro’s and sisters, but I won’t tolerate being told my faith is somehow inferior or wrong. Like it or not, we are the church that Jesus established by his own authority by Peter in literal scripture. We have had our misadventures through history, but we are legit and we matter. We make up most of the Christian world and contrary to popular belief, we are growing, slowly, but growing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fallen wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
‘Dinosaur-bones-are-there-to-test-your-faith’ literally (Push, I apologize if I’m misrepresenting your opinion, this is just what I remember from previous discussions)…[/quote]
You have the memory of an ADD 10 year old who’s high on meth.[/quote]
So… Dinosaur bones don’t exist? Or does Gensis err on the age of the earth? Or something else? Please, correct me. It’ll save me the time of digging through the last evolution vs creationism discussion thread.[/quote]
Oh yeah, it’s all about saving you time, huh buddy?[/quote]
I have a short attention span. It’s due to my meth addiction.[/quote]
When you get out of rehab go to icr.org or answersingenesis.org.
Dear ol’ Uncle Pushy aint gettin too far sucked in here again. I’ve put in my time on this subject. I have overtraining syndrome so I’m now in a deloading week.
I might sit on the sidelines and snipe like many folks do though.[/quote]
Here’s a quote from the AnsweresInGenesis.org about the age of dinosaurs
[quote]The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs â??ruled the Earthâ?? for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionistsâ?? story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.
The Bible, Godâ??s very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bibleâ??Genesisâ??teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everythingâ??the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.
Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
1.God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
2.We are told God created the first man and womanâ??Adam and Eveâ??on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their childrenâ??s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years. [/quote]
It seems to me the position of Evangelical Christianity is at odds with Carbon-dating, if not also the practice of measuring the age of items based upon the make-up of the rock surrounding it (geologic positioning, I beleive). These are apparently not tests of faith. My quoting of Bill Hicks misconstrued the true nature of the argument. I apologize.
[quote]Otep wrote:
It seems to me the position of Evangelical Christianity is at odds with Carbon-dating, if not also the practice of measuring the age of items based upon the make-up of the rock surrounding it (geologic positioning, I beleive). These are apparently not tests of faith. My quoting of Bill Hicks misconstrued the true nature of the argument. I apologize.
[/quote]
It’s at odds with reality. No matter what method of dating you use, the appearance of age cop out will fall into place here.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Doctrine of Papal Infallibility has only been enacted twice. Hardly anything to get fussy over. And the things they have used it for are foundation things, nothing to do with contraception. [/quote]
I thought Papal Infallibility applied to all of the encyclicals and such. I know that something like 98% of Catholics ignore the contraception ban even though it’s classified as a mortal sin, i.e., you’re going to hell. But apparently confession will absolve one of this.[/quote]
No, Papal Infallibility is with issues of Faith and Morality. But more importantly it is like if your Paw says, “If you don’t follow this rule, you cannot live here.” If the Pope used it for everything, it would get a little annoying and second, the threat would get a little tiring.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I know that something like 98% of Catholics ignore the contraception ban… [/quote]
How?
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I know that something like 98% of Catholics ignore the contraception ban… [/quote]
How?
[/quote]
I don’t remember the exact percent or the source from which I read it but I think it’s something like over 90%.
This source puts on estimate at around 96%.