Ok, I believe that science is a great and wonderful tool for everyone. I believe that the Earth is, in fact, several billion years old. I believe in evolution and extinction and all that other fun stuff. I believe that there is probably life on other planets and that unless something is terribly wrong with our collective heads, astronomy and geology and botany and paleontology and all of the other areas of science must be right.

What's my point? Well, I'm a Catholic and my point is that science and religions can coexist quite easily if people are reasonable and open to looking at the proven facts and not believing what some woman says about channeling aliens or what some crazy people say about true science.


Ok, I just wanted to get that off my chest since it's been bugging me for quite some time. I also love this bulletin board, even though I don't post much and wanted to say something that I felt strongly about.

You may go back to your life now

Since you recognise your religion is wrong about several facts that they deny this is not proof enough that perhaps the entire belief is fundamentally flawed?

Actually, the Vatican accepts the Big Bang theory and the age of the Universe. Also, direct creationism versus creation through evolution is a personal choice.

<edit>

Science is also wrong about several facts but we can't say that it is fundamentally flawed.

</edit>

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I did not say anything about my religion being wrong about anything. I said that people should not believe somebody who says that she channels aliens or people who make claims against true science.

The Church does not say that evolution cannot happen or that the Earth is a measly 6,000 years old or that God has to be very obvious when He does something. Yes, the Church has made numerous mistakes in the past (good example: the Inquisition), but that doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything. Besides, it's only the extremists and the weirdoes that believe that the sun orbits the Earth or any other crazy notion.

I want to reiterate that fact that I did not say that the Church that I belong to was wrong about "several facts".

You have your beliefs and I have mine, and I don't judge you or anybody else. In my opinion I'm right, in your opinion I'm probably not. I'm cool with that.

My last post was a reply to the second one, just in case you didn't know.

__________________
h00!

I gathered. :wink:

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I know this has probably been done to death in creationist vs. evolutionist debates but I just can't get over how Something/Everything came out of Nothing through the big bang. I just hit that walla every time, not to mention other things too numerous to talk about in one post. Yes, anyways, the Big Bang. . .

__________________
"I don't think I'm alone when I say that I would like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system."
Jack Handy

I did some calculating.

In the book of Genesis, there is a list of the decendants from Noah to Abram (Abraham). It also gives the ages of each man when their son (who is in the line) was born and then how old each was when they died.

There are nine generations listed between Noah and Abram.

Noah lived 350 yrs. after the flood (total 950 yrs).
Shem (with Noah on the ark) became the father of Arphaxad at age 100 (2 yrs. after the flood) and lived 400 more yrs.
Arphaxad became the father of Shelah at age 35 and lived 368 more yrs.
Shelah became the father of Eber at age 30 and lived 363 more yrs.
Eber became the father of Peleg at age 34 and lived 396 more yrs.
Peleg became the father of Reu at age 30 and lived 179 more yrs.
Reu became the father of Serug at age 32 and lived 175 more yrs.
Serug became the father of Nahor at age 30 and lived 170 more yrs.
Nahor became the father of Terah at age 29 and lived 90 more yrs.
Terah became the father of Abram at age 70 and lived 135 more yrs.

Doing some calculating, I found that with this record, there were 292 years from the time of the flood to the birth of Abram.

So, according to the literal Biblical record, the flood wipes out all civilization, and only Noah, his three sons, and their wives survive. In 292 years, the Tower of Babel is built (or started to be) and God confuses the languages of everyone, which scatters and divides everyone; Egypt becomes a nation (because Abram and his wife and men went to Egypt to eescape a famine); the land where Abram originated from was an established nation with cities; and the land Abram went to had established cities. Likewise, all the forefathers of Abram, including Noah would have still been alive.

All right; this does not add up.

Now, mind you, in tracing Biblical geneologies, it has been noted that some records will skip generations. (Such as one ancestral list missing maybe two names that a different ist included.) Even in the New Testament, the Messiah is considered to be "the son of [King] David," even though there are many generations since King David.

So, what is my point? YEC's base their time frame on the geneological records indicated in the Old Testament. But what I have found here is that it makes absolutely no sense as it is written. It only makes sense (not counting those that want to say the Biblical record is all myth) that there are many, many missing generations from the time of Noah to the time of Abram. It may likewise be inferred that there are many missing generations in later geneologies.

This would make the age of the Earth indecipherable from the Biblical account (for those of us who believe the Bible, mind you).

Hmm. . . should I post this on a Christian forum? I wonder what the response I'll get. Should I try it?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Been done.

Doesn't make any difference. And why should it?

Well I never thought about that Nebularain. I kind of always just took it for fact that it somehow had to add up to that right amount of time. I also wonder if I would be a YEC. It seems like everything everyone in this forum has said about them makes those people sound really, uh, out of it with some theories. I would consider myself a creationist, but does that automatically make me a YEC? As a side note, to clarify I take the seven days of creation as literal days but am not solid on exactly how old the actual planet is, materials and such.

__________________
"I don't think I'm alone when I say that I would like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system."
Jack Handy

xbck1,
that was a point i made, as science and religion didnt have a difference in the past, as did astrology and astronomy. Research Sumer, bablyon, ancient egypt, maya, the incas, etc, they all report a global "genesis" type theory. They all have similarities. In the past multi-century....religion and science have made a major "altlantic ridge..i mean rift...jk" split between the two....now its become a double headed serpent....what cant be proved is "gods work" and what is proved is heresy... its your choice between the two...or step back and look at similarities. It's a choice. I do not believe in creationism, as stated in my first post, but I do believe in something more then science, I would call it a common bond between us, all of us.
Again, its your choice in how you see the path.

Depends a lot on what parts you take literally and which ones you accept as figurative/poetic.
There is an overview of the various creationist beliefs at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

It's been done to death in Big Bang debates here.
It simply isn't true that the Big Bang implies "creation" out of nothing. Do a search for "Bing Bang" topics on this forum, if you're interested.
Here's one.

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

That's certainly a good start. Better yet, go to the source, one of them anyway: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

If anything, talkorigins presents a much more charitable and plausible version of YECism than AIG does.

__________________
"You're only young once, but you can always be immature." -- Dave Barry

I personally believe God created all things, but Genesis was written by an ancient people with a completely different culture and understanding. They did not relay stories and events the way we do, and there was a lot more allegory and symbolism attached to almost everything, it seems. It is hard for us to comprehend this because we do not think in these terms. So, I do not read Genesis as a scientific account of creation (science as we know it was not even around back then!). I no longer believe the Earth is young (as in 6,000-10,000 years old) by any means. To be a YEC, it means you believe in the "young Earth creation." So, you are not YEC, by that definition.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

In my eyes belief in something truely is being able to look at the facts and your belief and choosing belief when your mind tells you to pick the facts. To make a long story short, by following your heart. Also, it may be hard by science and religon can coexist.

__________________
Fate, chance, destiny, fortune.....There all ways of claiming your success without claiming your failures.

Well, this got more of a response than I thought it would.

__________________
h00!

The problem with this is that YECs fail to recognize / admit that the Hebrew Bible (especially the Pentateuch) was / is based on the earlier Sumerian - Akkadian - Babylonian tales. The Bible is merely a condensed and abbreviated version of earlier events. When one realizes this and reads the earlier myths, the astronomical lifespans can make more sense.

I'm also a person who is very comfortable with the role my faith and science play in my life. As I said on another thread, science gets my car started in the morning, faith helps me get through the rest of the day.

Consider this idea (put to me by a Catholic priest) Genesis is in fact correct, but in a very stylised way. Consider the level of knowldged and understanding people orginally had when the the early parts of the bible were put together.

Perhaps equate it to trying to explain relativity to a four year old - imagine how scrambled the message is going to become. This four year old has to write it down, then everyone has to figure out what he meant for next couple of thousand years.

I'll offer an example: Adam and Eve, what if the bible is taling about the first true humans to come up with the thought of their being a God, and he created everything, rather than the first true biological humans.

The other issue I have with the portayal of God as set down by the bible is how boring he must be. How easy is it to click your fingers six times, and everything is in place, running as expected.

I like the idea of taking something about the size of a baseball, convincing it to become the size of the universe we see today. I like the idea of being able to turn hydrogen into self aware humaninity without magic or intervention, to me that is how an all seeing all powerful God would do things. God must love a challenge, or he wouldn't pesist in wasting time with us.

Anyway that my two cents worth

Glen

I want to know whats right about any of it. How many of the thousand of scriptures has actualy been verified? Thousands of pages of bunk and they crasp at straws trying to prove one thing to make them selfs right.

So what astronomy of the bible has ever been proven right out of the rest of nonesense?

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

Science doesnt rely on one source of infomation and when proven wrong even partly the entire theory is discarded.
Ill repeat since you recognise part of the bible is flat out wrong isnt this proof enough the whole source of your belief is?


also note i fail to find mention of the big bang within genisis etc.

"When proven wrong even partly the entire theory is discarded. "
Since when? It's always been my understaning that if only part of a theory is wrong, you keep the parts that are correct and rebuild the theory around them.

__________________
That's funny...

I agree a 100%, so what part of the catholic dogma did they discard?

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

Given the Old Testament wasn't written by the Catholic, or any other Christian Church - I guess you just displayed your ignorance on the Church you seem so keen to slam.

Using your argument we should throwing evolutionary theory out the door, remember Darwin actually got it pretty wrong - it is only later refinement that got us closer to the truth.

But I guess Religions are not allowed to refine their message, or adapt themselves to the changing world.

People like yourself take great pleasure in slamming fundamentalists for their narrow world view. I'd suggest that you're no better, just a different starting point.

I dont appreciate having my faith challenged because of what was written in a moldy old book during a time when the pyramids were still under warranty.

Many people in this world go about following their faith without fuss or bother to those who don't share their opinion. They should be respected for their opinion as much as those who dont share the same belief system.

Gee maybe there is a lesson there......

Hello Ether?
Prior to bing bang was the recycling universe theory.
creation being made up of four elements.

Shiites the list goes on and on (flat earth).

Hmm, good question. Well I guess we could start with the archaelogy and history behind the texts. Correct me If I am wrong but I believe Jericho has been uncovered, and if I am not mistaken was identified to be one of the many times it was built before being destroyed by the trumpets and what not, using. . .carbon dating. What about Paul and his travels throughout the mediterannean. I believe cyprus is still sitting there. Along with Athens, Corinth, and those old Babylonian cities(now in modern iraq and Iran). Ok, that was a quick summary. Moving on to some SIMPLE biblical prophecies. In Daniel, Kind Nebuchanezzar has a dream about a large idol/statue. It predicted the end of the Babylonians giving way to Persia, Persia giving way to Greece, and Greece giving way to Rome, ALL BEFORE IT HAPPENED. Now how could something like that happen. The texts of Daniel have been around before Rome was in power yet it had already predicted the fall of that empire. Well I could go on for quite awhile. But my point is, before you are so quick to judge that "book" full of errors. Maybe do a little research on it first.

BTW, sorry for the overwhelming use of sarcasm. I tend to get a little defensive when my "religion" gets slammed by very intellegent scientests and men who I have lots of respect for, but when I try to point out my side, I am called, "narrow minded." Well that's my piece.

__________________
"I don't think I'm alone when I say that I would like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system."
Jack Handy

Faith is a belief without logical proof, that of which is totaly agiast what I thought this board was about.

But if I am wrong I want the B.A. to say so and I will be on my way and you can discuss astronomy all you want with out any evidence or backing.

Until then I will always point out the bible or any other of the bunk religions has no place in science because it has no proof.

If you have proof lie it down, if not do not bring up it.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

Oops, well to save a LITTLE face I suppose i should mention that I just now noticed the last part about astronomy and the bible. ops: My bad, well I still stick with what I said. Well about astronomy, ok. . .*slinks off because astronomy is not a strong point of his*

__________________
"I don't think I'm alone when I say that I would like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system."
Jack Handy

I wouldn't say that this board is totaly against faith at all. This is a science board, so naturally, it is mostly about science. Faith is usually not discussed here because it (normally) has no scientific proof needed. Faith and science can go hand in hand or else, wouldn't every scientist be an athiest (or at least agnostic)?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

I think we should all feel a little differently if we fully understood the historical truth behind Faith And Reason.