Demigawd

Multiple 's are a sure sign of a diseased mind. Mad, if you have something other than Christian evangelism to add to this thread, please do so. Otherwise, you're wasting your and our time.

Zadok001

First of all, Albert Cipriani, WTF?

Madman said:

"compare the influence Christianity has today, compared to when Christ walked the earth. it has only gotten bigger."

To which you replied:

"Dear Mad 45,
God bless you.

I, too, am sorry that it seems Christianity is going extinct."

Huh?

Now, Madman:

This post isn't about whether or not Christ is Lord. This thread focuses on the question of historical analogy to the modern question of evolution and Young Earth Creationism. It's not a red herring since it isn't targetted at the question you seem to think it is. Nothing in Scigirl's OP says "Christ is not Lord," and no argument within her post presents that position. She is simply giving historical analogies to the modern Evolution/Creation debate (which is, btw, THIS FORUM!).

If there's any red herring here, it's you - You're distracting from Scigirl's post by saying she hasn't proved something totally unrelated to her argument!

Duvenoy

Ah, I see, I think.

Mad, I hate to be a grammer nazi (no I don't! I love it!) but I wish you'd use paragraphs and capitalize the first letter of sentences. My eyes are old and the specs the VA gave me ain't all that great.

Ya see, bro, if your writings are tedious to read, you might never get your point across. I do hope that you don't write like this for your professors.

Now then, if you have solid evidences for creation and a young earth, please do present them.

doov

scombrid

We’ll if we were in general religious discussions we might be discussing the divinity of christ but we’re in the evolution creation forum so the divinity of christ is irrelevant here . Many here view the church's opposition to the scientific theory of evolution as just another case of flat-earthism. In this context the historical examples of christianity’s opposition of any science disputing biblical literalism is fair game and has nothing to do with the “sinful nature of man”. The issue is not whether scientist are any more pure than clergy but who has historically been correct regarding certain matters such as what causes disease and where the earth is located with respect to heavenly bodies.

scombrid

No. Scientists can be just as skuzzy as Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson. Your strawman is on fire.

The scientific explanation of the diversity of life is evolution. That is what should be taught in science class. Creationism is where it belongs, in the theology department. A theory is never considered proven fact. A theory is the most plausible explanation for a body of observed phenomena. Until something better comes along to disprove a theory, that theory is taught as fact. You want intellectual diversity? Why not actually take a course on evolution so that you understand it? In the meantime you can enroll in theological electives until your brain falls out. Even at the science and engineering college where I did my undergrad bit, there were plenty of theology classes available.

Creationism cannot be accepted by science as presented. To do so it needs to claw its way through the ranks like every other hypothesis before it could ever be considered theory. Currently the science supporting creationism is all bad science. We have creationists telling us that our aging methods are wrong but usually it’s just their understanding of aging methods that are wrong. We look at the rate of sea floor spreading to estimate the age of the ocean and they try to tell us that the seafloor spread extremely fast and has since slowed. This assertion is made with no corroborating evidence. The they tell us that half a wing is useless but we have flying squirrels that get by just peachy with half a wing. They tell us that half an eye is useless but there are single celled buggers out there with nothing but a photosensitive pigment that serves to tell it where it is in the water column.

callina

Unfortunate is right.


We also learn that many Christians don't actually read the Bible. My admittedly anecdotal experience in talking to Catholics is that they are not likely to read the Bible. Does the Catholic Church actively discourage Bible study to avoid dealing with these pesky changes in the Church's stand on such scientific principles? Or are the Catholics that I know just particularly lame?

Coragyps

A three-pointer for Scombrid! Go, Fish!

KC

I've always liked the Dalai Lama's take on this... as related by Carl Sagan:

KC

Craig

Even though most Christians would deny this, their religion has changed much like the Dalai Lama said Buddhism would. Christianity from 500 years ago was quite different than it is today, due largely to changes that the church has had to make as science uncovers facts about the world that were once denied.

I'm thinking of stuff like demon possesion (mental illness), a geo-centric earth, etc. The rare exception would be the YEC folks of course, but even they have changed a bit in the last millenium.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Craig,
500 years ago, at the time of the Protestant rebellion, the Catholic Church had infallibly expressed about 1000 things. Today, largely in response to countervailing the heresies that continue to be generated by the Protestant dynamo, the Catholic Church has expressed another 1000 things.

None of these expressions of the faith contradict one another. None of these expressions of the faith are concerned with matters of science. And if you think the Church no longer believes in demon possession, rent “The Exorcist.”

You are only right to assert that the Christian religions have changed (both in their moral codes and dogmas). As late as 1930, they were united with their mother Church of Catholicism in their belief that contraception was a sin. Today, the Catholic Church stands alone in that stance. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic