/ a creationist's website view of the universe

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
mark s - on 22 Aug 2012
i some how found myself on this site after googling the solar system.
its full of eye rolling material,lots of questions with no answers to how old the planets/sun actually are.just lots of saying the evolutionists are wrong.
he says there is no evidence to support the asteroid hit that finished the dinosaurs.but says they died on the ark from starvation.guess what?,he doesnt provide any evidence (surprisingly) any way,see for yourselves


http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers




stp - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s:

Oh dear!

The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ with over 7,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based. Keep refuting the skeptics.

7000!! They're very keen (obsessed).

At the other end of the spectrum there are now Christians in Holland who have even abandoned the idea of God. They think that the idea of a deity is just taking things too far.
ben b - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s: Oh lawks...
"The big bang teaches that the sun and many other stars formed before the earth, while Genesis teaches that they were made on the fourth day after the earth, and only about 6,000 years ago rather than 10–20 billion years ago. The big bang also entails millions of years of death, disease, and pain before Adam’s sin, which contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, which is thus unacceptable to biblical Christians." Which was nice.
b
Parrys_apprentice - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to ben b:


I think for most people on this forum, even many christians, going to that website to check out how annoying, amusing, ridiculous it is would be like stabbing your eye to see how much it hurts.

no-one needs to click on the link, we all know a small number of people have minority views and like to make websites to make them seemingly more widespread and credible. Don't give them the legitamacy that web hits suggests if you know you won't like it.
dazq - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s:
Well that provided a giggle over lunchimte. Some of the explanantions of starlight time travel are really quite funny.

I especially like the way any perceived issue with current understanding of physics and cosmology is touted as evidence of 'creation', even if it doesn't support the creationsist theory in any way ...
TheDrunkenBakers - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Parrys_apprentice:
> (In reply to ben b)
>
>
> I think for most people on this forum, even many christians, going to that website to check out how annoying, amusing, ridiculous it is would be like stabbing your eye to see how much it hurts.
>
> no-one needs to click on the link, we all know a small number of people have minority views and like to make websites to make them seemingly more widespread and credible. Don't give them the legitamacy that web hits suggests if you know you won't like it.

Agree.

I can guess what i would find at the link from the OP. Just cant be arsed reading any more nonsense today.

Gordon Stainforth - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think the whole thing is best left well alone for that reason. It's a got about as much interest as the Flat Earth Society. Let's talk about more sensible/amusing/rational things on UKC. ... OK, well that's probably asking a bit much :)
Offwidth - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I beg to differ. People need to read this shit as it has a huge influence in the US in politics and schools and a growing influence in the UK. There is no such threat from flat earthers.
EeeByGum - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Offwidth: But how can you ever win an argument against people who write this crap when the conversation goes:

Creationist: God created the world 4000 years ago.
Me: But what about carbon dating, fossils and other scientific evidence that disproves your theory?
Creationist: God put the fossils there.

You can take a camel to water, but you can't make it drink.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

> Creationist: God created the world 4000 years ago.

You utter heretic! It's 4000 *BC*, that's *6* thousand years ago!

(the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC if you really want to know).
Postmanpat on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>
> [...]
>
> You utter heretic! It's 4000 *BC*, that's *6* thousand years ago!
>
> (the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC if you really want to know).

I blame your scientist mates listed here. This is the really worrying bit

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

owlart - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC if you really want to know).

There's never anything decent on TV on a Saturday night, so he had to do something to entertain himself :-) We've all been there!
ajsteele - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Surely he would have had to start on either the Sunday or the Monday depending on which day you believe the sabbath to be?
John Rushby - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

According the Answers in Genesis the TV for that night was:

6.00 Last of the Summer Wine - Compo the untidy foetus decides to run amok in the womb in an old bathtub. Much hilarity ensues

7:00 Life on Earth with David Attenborough - this week we look at how nature abhors a vacumm

8:00 Location Location Location - Presenter and Inventor God takes us to a an obscure body in the SK system, referred to it as the planet Earth. See how peaceful it looks

9:00 Top of the Pops comprising the entire Top 40 which is comprised of 4 minutes 33

10:00 Film - Carry on Creationism: The angel Dave and his pals take a holiday to the planet earth, only Dave looses his talking snake, queue much hilarity and jokes about how to handle a python

11:30 Gardeners question time - this week apple trees

12:00 closedown and Jobfinder on Teletex
a lakeland climber on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> I blame your scientist mates listed here. This is the really worrying bit
>
> http://creation.com/creation-scientists

Well that page starts out with a cracker: "Many historians (of many different religious persuasions—including atheistic) have shown that modern science started to flourish only in largely Christian Europe" I wonder what the Islamic world, India and China were doing before then?

ALC
Coel Hellier - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:

Of course what they really mean is that Europe had been Christian for a millenium without any flourishing of science, and that modern science really only began to flourish when Europe began to stop being Christian, a period known as "The Enlightenment".
John Rushby - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:

and conveniently omit the Greeks as well who arguably created the beginning of mathematics.
Dave Kerr - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s:

I do love the notion that a lot of these websites have that if you identify one area of doubt or debate in science the whole edifice comes crashing down and there is nothing left but to embrace creationism.

I also wonder if lots of them are wind ups conforming to Poe's Law.
Postmanpat on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
> Of course what they really mean is that Europe had been Christian for a millenium without any flourishing of science, and that modern science really only began to flourish when Europe began to stop being Christian, a period known as "The Enlightenment".

The enlightment nd the scientific mode of thought it engendered were deeply rooted in Christianity.
stp - on 23 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

creation-scientists = oxymoron (or perhaps just moron?)
Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The enlightment nd the scientific mode of thought it engendered were deeply rooted in Christianity.

They were deeply rooted in Christians (because almost everyone was a Christian at the time of the "roots"), but I don't see that they were rooted in Christianity.
JimboWizbo - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s:

http://www.ldolphin.org/cisflood.html

"It is almost certain that Noah did not construct a standard wooden ship of the kind we are familiar. According to nautical engineers the longest wooden vessel ever built was 360 feet in length and was not seaworthy. Because of the wave action of the sea only wooden ships shorter than this will be seaworthy. Therefore, we must conclude that Noah used some other method of construction to overcome this problem."

*Wipes hands* Next question!
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> They were deeply rooted in Christians (because almost everyone was a Christian at the time of the "roots"), but I don't see that they were rooted in Christianity.

No, it was much more than that. The Christian God, unlike ancient Gods, was rational and consistent; "perfect". It followed that the universe was rational and consistent. Humans were God's supreme creation and therefore could hope to understand the universe through rational observation and analysis.

This philosophy was probably unique to Christianity and hence modern science was born.

MG - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
The Christian God, unlike ancient Gods, was rational and consistent; "perfect".
>
> This philosophy was probably unique to Christianity and hence modern science was born.

Weren't the Greeks pretty keen on science and rationality too despite their fallible Gods? I don't think Christianity encourage much questioning - quite the opposite.

(Although as Gods go Greek ones are pretty cool. Oracles too).
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> The Christian God, unlike ancient Gods, was rational and consistent; "perfect".
> [...]
>
> Weren't the Greeks pretty keen on science and rationality too despite their fallible Gods? I don't think Christianity encourage much questioning - quite the opposite.
>
Yes, they developed maths and philosophy and Islam inherited that. But they never really embraced the concept of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. Zeno's belief that there were no natural laws, just personalised universes, was commonly accepted.



lincoln.3 on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s: Is there any hard evidance that an asteriod hit the planet did happen????
ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

I think the original Christian church, now Roman catholic, is pretty open to science. Infact I think I read somewhere that the vatican has an observatory, trained astronomers and other science types but I have not even bothered googling to check if I am right so I could be very wrong.

In my mind its more the recent Christian offshoots like creationists etc that are the ones who don't welcome science but not the older churches, yet again I could be wrong.
ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to lincoln.3:

Yeah theres craters all over the earth where this has happened, the dinosaur one was what is now the Yucatan penninsula which is widely accepted as being a huge crater.
MG - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:

> In my mind its more the recent Christian offshoots like creationists etc that are the ones who don't welcome science but not the older churches, yet again I could be wrong.

I agree today that is the case (although Catholicism I think today grudgingly accepts rather than welcomes science.) I was meaning prior to the Enlightenment.
mark s - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to JimboWizbo: a. The Number of animals. Only air-breathing animals needed to be included on the Ark. Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today. We might double this to allow for extinct species. This would gives us 36,000 species times 2, or 72,000 animals. Adding for the clean animals, we might say there were as many as 75,000 animals. Earlier we said there was room enough in the Ark for 125,000 sheep, but most animals are smaller than a common house cat. There appears to be plenty of space for the preservation of the animal life. However, some creationists believe there may have been far fewer animals if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two!

b. The Care of the animals. Noah was instructed to include food for the animals (Gen. 6:21). How Noah and his small family could have cared for this large menagerie is unknown, not to mention the sanitation problem! What we must remember is that this event, i.e., the Flood, had supernatural elements. For instance, the animals came to the Ark against their natural instincts (Gen. 6:20). It is therefore reasonable to assume, as some creationists do, that the animals' metabolism may have been slowed down during their confinement, even to the point where some of the animals may have gone into a state of hibernation.

im sure those numbers for differant species is well under estimated.

as for feeding.....why try and come up with a scientific answer.oh we will just gloss over that bit..haha.
im sure the normal christains must hate the fact there are people saying things like this.it cant do their cause any good when there is such a range of opinions
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, it was much more than that. The Christian God, unlike ancient Gods, was rational and consistent;
> "perfect". It followed that the universe was rational and consistent. Humans were God's supreme
> creation and therefore could hope to understand the universe through rational observation and analysis.

Yes, they argued that. But you have to distinguish between the rationalisations that people come up with, and the actual true motivations of their actions. The idea of pursuing rational observation and analysis had a much more basic justification -- it works. That would have been apparent to them, and that's why they pursued it.

And *then* they matched it with their theology "... so of course this is exactly what we expect given ...". There is a long history of Christian philosophers and theologians coming up with post-hoc rationalisations of why what scientists have found is exactly what "we expected" them to find all along and why it is *exactly* in line with a Christian god.

Now, if it had turned out that rational observation and analysis didn't actually get anywhere, then the philosophers would have been saying: "... why, that is of course exactly what we expect given a Christian God ...".

> This philosophy was probably unique to Christianity and hence modern science was born.

But the Ancient Greeks had the same idea, that the universe was rational and ordered. Indeed the Greeks had that idea much more purely, they considered that because the universe was rational and ordered, rational thought would lead them to understand it. Modern science had a very different emphasis, namely, we *can't* understand this just by thinking, actually we have to do lots of experiments and find out empirically what the universe is like, letting empirical reality, rather than rational thought, guide us.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Zeno's belief that there were no natural laws, just personalised universes, was commonly accepted.

Really? Wasn't Platonic Essentialism a fairly dominant strand of their thought, and highly influential into the middle ages, before being deposed by modern science?
Wonko The Sane - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to lincoln.3: Yes.
A big, f*ck off hole in the ground in the Mexican gulf and a ring of caves at the circumference of the hit as would be expected by that kind of hit.

Wonko The Sane - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
> Yes, they developed maths and philosophy and Islam inherited that. But they never really embraced the concept of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. Zeno's belief that there were no natural laws, just personalised universes, was commonly accepted.

A trifle simplistic!!
One set of knowledge pretty much builds on another.

I really love this scene from Tom Stoppard's Arcadia:

•"We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language. Ancient cures for diseases will reveal themselves once more. Mathematical discoveries glimpsed and lost to view will have their time again. You do not suppose, my lady, that if all of Archimedes had been hiding in the great library of Alexandria, we would be at a loss for a corkscrew?"
- Tom Stoppard, Arcadia
Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:

> Infact I think I read somewhere that the vatican has an observatory, trained astronomers and other science types

Yes they do. The idea is along the lines that "we made a fool of ourselves over Galileo, so let's get some pet scientists to guide us, to avoid similar mistakes".

So, yes, they do sort of accept science, but in a fairly grudging way, in that they still give primacy to theology, and "interpret" the science to fit their theology, rather than just going with the science.

For example, Catholic dogma still believes in a real, two actual people, Adam and Eve (and hence Original Sin and hence the need for Jesus to redeem it). They can "interpret" this as, perhaps, two people out of a wider population whom God first put souls into and whom God formed a relationship with, and thus sort of make the theology consistent with the science, but this is the sort of compromise they're forced into, and the ideas don't really stand up to anything except very superficial examination.
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> Really? Wasn't Platonic Essentialism a fairly dominant strand of their thought, and highly influential into the middle ages, before being deposed by modern science?

Yes, but Plato himself, along with Socrates, thought for example that astronomical observation was pointless (sacrilege!!). To quote Proffesor Rodney Stark, "in the end, all they achieved were non empirical, even anti empirical,speculative philosophies, anti-theoretical collections of facts and isolated crafts and technologies-they never broke through to real science"

That may be a bit harsh. I don't know. Later Western thought was after all an outgrowth of classical thought but the real point is that Christian philosophy acted as an enabler to the development of science.

MG - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: From Wiki regarding knowledge of a spherical world:

Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10).
ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I went to a catholic school and was taught RE by priests and they never said that the Adam and Eve story was anything more than a fable. Infact we were taught that the Old Testament is basically just stories whereas the New testament is the true word of God.
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) From Wiki regarding knowledge of a spherical world:
>
> Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)
>
He also thought that stars moved in circles because "they liked to move that way" (or whatever that is in ancient Greek)

See my previous post. It is obviously overegging the case to say that the Greeks didn't contribute to learning or have any concept that we would recognise as "science". They did and they articulated it but never seemed to embrace it in the way the Christian West did.
Wonko The Sane - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> I went to a catholic school and was taught RE by priests and they never said that the Adam and Eve story was anything more than a fable. Infact we were taught that the Old Testament is basically just stories whereas the New testament is the true word of God.

Could I ask what evidence they offered for either statement?

Or did they just decide that the old testament was a bit too outlandish and therefore obviously nothing more than fables?

I only ask because there are quite a few parts of the new testament which strike me the same way.
Gordon Stainforth - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

You seem to be missing out all of classical thought after Plato. None of what Prof Stark says is applicable to Aristotle at all. In many ways his approach was very modern (the fact some of this scientific theories were defective ... in 420 BC! ... is irrelevant): he had something very close to a belief in laws of nature and believed fervently in empirical study, spending years in the field as a basis for his biological work. He also took a huge amount of interest in astrology, and meteorology, and even discusses geology at one point. His physics (meaning 'Nature') came before his Metaphysics (indeed the word simply meant for him [the work] 'After physics'), because that was the way he worked. But logic came first (the works forming his 'Organon') and are traditionally regarded as his earliest works.
lincoln.3 on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s: You cant pick and choose. Its either all of God or nothing of God. If that was the case why would it still be included in the book itself??
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> You seem to be missing out all of classical thought after Plato.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge but had worked out that Aristotle was a poor example and acknowlege that the Greeks did articulate what we would recognise as a scientific process. But it did seem to run out of steam?
Not sure it changes the argument about Christianity though.
Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:

> I went to a catholic school and was taught RE by priests and they never said that the Adam and
> Eve story was anything more than a fable.

Here's Pope Pius XII from 1950 "Humani Generis".

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generi...

In 1996 Pope JPII addressed the same issue. "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". He was less explicit, but he stated that he was in agreement with the above. At no point did he dissent from it, or state that dissent was allowed. His wording implied much the same:

"Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ... With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

He also talks about "The moment of transition to the spiritual ...". This, again, is in line with the idea of God making an "ontological leap" by putting souls into two people (Adam and Eve) in a pre-existing "human-like" population.

Also, see things such as: "Catholic Answers" http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

"Adam and Eve: Real People: It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. "

Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> the real point is that Christian philosophy acted as an enabler to the development of science.

Well did it? Or is it just that the early developers of science were mostly Christians and so *claimed* that it did?
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> Well did it? Or is it just that the early developers of science were mostly Christians and so *claimed* that it did?

Yes, and I have outlined very briefly how. Christianity was much more than a fable about ancient Jews and whether one should commit adultery or covet thy neighbour's house.

It was a revolutionary understanding of mans' relationship with his God and with the universe which acted as a catalyst to explore that universe.

ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

It was a while ago now so I can't remember the exact lessons but they basically taught us that the old testament was fables but didn't offer any evidence as such for exactly why the things didn't happen in that way. With the new testament they just had faith that it was the word of god in the case of the gospels and the rest were stories of the biblical Jesus, it was Religious Education so most of it was theological and not really evidence based.

So yeah as you say to me it seemed that the Church had realised the OT was too outlandish and also in many cases completely opposite to the teachings of the new testament so it was put down as fables. The NT was what they believed could be taken at face value.

Although as Coel has put some quotes from different popes seemingly backing the Adam and Eve story I'm now left wondering if my own scepticism led me to interpret what they were saying completely differently than how they meant it or if I just had a renegade priest teaching me RE.
ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Actually looking at the first quote again there Coel, did a Pope really say that? I ask because he seems to say that "...with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actaully committed by an individual Adam..." I always thought it was Eve who committed the original sin and not Adam?

Maybe I really should have paid more attention in RE!
Wonko The Sane - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> It was a while ago now so I can't remember the exact lessons but they basically taught us that the old testament was fables but didn't offer any evidence as such for exactly why the things didn't happen in that way. With the new testament they just had faith that it was the word of god in the case of the gospels and the rest were stories of the biblical Jesus, it was Religious Education so most of it was theological and not really evidence based.
>
> So yeah as you say to me it seemed that the Church had realised the OT was too outlandish and also in many cases completely opposite to the teachings of the new testament so it was put down as fables. The NT was what they believed could be taken at face value.
>
> Although as Coel has put some quotes from different popes seemingly backing the Adam and Eve story I'm now left wondering if my own scepticism led me to interpret what they were saying completely differently than how they meant it or if I just had a renegade priest teaching me RE.

My point really, AJ is that if they can dismiss the old testament because it was written when outlandish things were more beleivable, is it not the case now that to us, looking at the new testament that an awful lot of THAT is outlandish? Does the same principle not apply?
Sir Chasm - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: In citing Aristotle's study of astrology are you trying to demonstrate that his approach was modern?
Baron Weasel - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s: If people want to believe in imaginary friends and fantasy worlds then let them be...

Bulls Crack - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Baron Weasel:
> (In reply to mark s) If people want to believe in imaginary friends and fantasy worlds then let them be...

A fair point but one can't help feeling that people stopped doing this then the human race might have moved on a bit.
ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Yeah of course the same thing could apply there, but I think the catholic view on it is the NT isn't outlandish if you believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God whereas even with that belief the OT is still unbelievable throughout most of it. The stories contained in the OT to a catholic are just allegorical stories.

To be honest its probably why after teaching that way in their schools a lot of people now a days don't really believe in the NT either and atheism is more prevalent.
Gordon Stainforth - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, it is his approach to studying nature, particularly the living world, was modern. Although he was interested in astronomy/cosmology, it plays a very small part in his work. As G.E.R.Lloyd said, 'Aristotle makes it plain that on astronomical matters he speaks more or less as a layman.... He was far from dogmatic about the details of his astronomy. Indeed he makes it clear that the account of the problem [mostly to do with maths and the 'spheres'] is to be treated as a provisional one.'
Coel Hellier - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It was a revolutionary understanding of mans' relationship with his God and with the universe
> which acted as a catalyst to explore that universe.

I still don't accept that there was anything much different, deriving from Christianity, in this regard. There was plenty of exploring the universe going on in ancient Babylonian, Greek, Persian & Chinese civilisations. And from the time when Europe became predominantly Christians there was then a hiatus with little advance in science for about a thousand years -- which suggests that Christianity wasn't some great and unique catalyst.
Wonko The Sane - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Yeah of course the same thing could apply there, but I think the catholic view on it is the NT isn't outlandish if you believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God whereas even with that belief the OT is still unbelievable throughout most of it. The stories contained in the OT to a catholic are just allegorical stories.
>
> To be honest its probably why after teaching that way in their schools a lot of people now a days don't really believe in the NT either and atheism is more prevalent.

Well my reason isn't that at all. I went to a church school and even as a young boy, none of made the slightest sense to me.
Gordon Stainforth - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) In citing Aristotle's study of astrology are you trying to demonstrate that his approach was modern?

PS. I now see that in my earlier posting I made an appalling typo in saying 'astrology' when I meant 'astronomy'. Aristotle had no interest whatever in the former, and referred to any talk of conventional Greek 'gods' in derisory terms.
Sir Chasm - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I see, you should have put astronomy rather than astrology. Probably just a Freudian slit.
ajsteele - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Thats pretty much what I said, because of people not understanding how any of it could be true they are now atheist, faith is being consigned to history albeit slowly.
mark s - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Bulls Crack:
> (In reply to Baron Weasel)
> [...]
>
> A fair point but one can't help feeling that people stopped doing this then the human race might have moved on a bit.

makes you wonder if science wasnt so restricted by religion in the days of old,that we might have stations on mars.
subalpine - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s:
> stations on mars.

thank religion for the moral conscience of scientists..
dissonance - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And from the time when Europe became predominantly Christians there was then a hiatus with little advance in science for about a thousand years -- which suggests that Christianity wasn't some great and unique catalyst.

As far as i am aware it isn't consistent across predominately Christian countries either eg even in Europe different attitudes applied.
Postmanpat on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
And from the time when Europe became predominantly Christians there was then a hiatus with little advance in science for about a thousand years -- which suggests that Christianity wasn't some great and unique catalyst.

You are confusing correlation with causation. The end of pax Romana and nearly a millenium of that stability to be replaced by the struggle for power between dynasties and tribes and eventually emerging nation states was much more important in retarding the development of science-and art for that matter.

Christianity built on the Greek and Hebrew philosophies that preceded it but one of it's main breakthroughs was its focus on the individual, his relationship with God, responsibility in front of God and his obligation to develop himself. In a sense the structure of the Church in the the middle ages got between man and God and the reformation was partly about reestablishing that direct relationship. The Church may have retarded science but the philosophy underlying its faith drove science forward.

The synthesis of the concept of individual freedom and obligation to improve with the understanding that the universe, albeit designed by God, was rational and intelligible was a leap forward that fuelled attitudes and behaviours that turbocharged the scientific endeavour.

It's a cynical cop out to argue "they would say that wouldn't they". Renaissance and post renaissance scientists didn't generally spend their time rationalising their work on the basis of their Christian faith. But their very interest,behavior, their mode of thought and expression, was deeply embedded in the all pervasive Christian philosophy into which they were born.

craigloon - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

I would argue that it wasn't Christianity (or any other religious philosophy for that matter) that drove science forward, but the tension between trying to make sense of repeated observation and experimentation and trying to make it fit Christian dogma. That tension eventually increased to the point that the link between religion and science snapped.

stp - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to ajsteele:

> Although as Coel has put some quotes from different popes seemingly backing the Adam and Eve story I'm now left wondering if my own scepticism led me to interpret what they were saying completely differently than how they meant it or if I just had a renegade priest teaching me RE.


Not necessarily. I don't think they all believe the same thing or are all as open about what the believe. I think quite a few members of the clergy these days don't even believe in God anymore though few will admit it. The documentary 'Religulous' has got one ol' priest in the Vatican admitting there was no God and laughing about it.
Paul Troon - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to craigloon:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I would argue that it wasn't Christianity (or any other religious philosophy for that matter) that drove science forward,.

Michael Faraday
Paul Troon - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mark s:
This kind of post is the usual Knocks at the Christians let alone thinkers if you are told something by the media be he scientist or presenter you will believe what about examining some of experiments test some of the scientist. QuoteThe gravity of Jupiter affects every planet to one degree or another. It is strong enough to tear asteroids apart and capture 64 moons at least. Some scientist think that Jupiter destroyed many celestial objects in the ancient past as well as prevented other planets from forming. How’s that for a powerful neighbor? Yes I do belive in The body resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sin yes, ido belive creation in 6 days
Paul
Darren Jackson - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Paul Troon:

Do you believe all that guff about Noah too?
Turdus torquatus on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Paul Troon:

That's pretty compelling stuff. Thanks Paul.

Do you think that Jupiter could damage Uranus?
Rob Exile Ward on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Paul Troon: Any chance your god could provide a translation of your post?
TryfAndy on 27 Aug 2012
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't believe dinosaurs existed (which were one of the coolest things ever) isn't worth listening to.
gd303uk - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to TryfAndy: Dinosaur fossils are put on earth by god to test our faith, you heathen.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to TryfAndy:
> As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't believe dinosaurs existed (which were one of the coolest things ever) isn't worth listening to.

what if they believe dinosaurs were around at the same time as modern humans and, up until Eve swiped an apple, were all vegetarians. Those t-rex teeth being handy for nuts.
TryfAndy on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to gd303uk:
> (In reply to TryfAndy) Dinosaur fossils are put on earth by god to test our faith, you heathen.

And people who believe that were put here to test the security of mental health institutions.
Coel Hellier - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to TryfAndy:

> As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't believe dinosaurs existed (which were one of the
> coolest things ever) isn't worth listening to.

But, but, they *do* believe in dinosaurs! It's is all here: "There Go The Dinosaurs", one of the most infamous Chick Tracts of all. I defy any of you to read this without bursting into giggles:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp
TryfAndy on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Is that meant to be serious?!

This is a good'un http://www.drunkcow.com/files/picture/76427965.jpg
Coel Hellier - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to TryfAndy:

> Is that meant to be serious?!

Err, yes! Absolutely, straight up, literally serious!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.