Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…531532534536537…822

Comments

  • #15992
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    So nobody got burned at the stake for believing in heliocentrism after all? That's nice.
    Good nice to know that there was at least one thing that the mediæval church wouldn't burn you for :)

    In fact, the most famously prescriptive religious book of the Middle Ages, Heinrich Kramer's notoriously violent and unpleasant Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches) actually does refer specifically to heliocentrism:
    Heinrich Kramer wrote:
    For if the error be in some matter which does not concern the faith, as, for example, a belief that the sun is not greater than the earth, or something of that sort, then it is not a dangerous error. But an error against Holy Scripture, against the articles of the faith, or against the decision of the Church, as has been said above, is heresy.
    So it seems that to Kramer at least, total obedience to the men who ran the church was far more of a life and death issue than what you happened to believe about the relative sizes (and presumably positions) of the Earth and the Sun.

    There's a PDF version of the Malleus Maleficarum available here, while there's an excellent online version here:

    http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

    It's worth a read to get a the best glimpse possible into the violent, paranoid and dictatorial ideascape that was Europe five hundred or so years ago.


  • #15993
    hivizman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Well, Bruno was burnt at the stake for a number of his views. Offically, his view on heliocentrism wasn't the reason (or one of the reasons) for his execution; but I'm sure it didn't help. (Yes, this is anecdotal evidence).

    I was also thinking of Giordano Bruno. :)

    According to Arthur Koestler, in his book The Sleepwalkers, the only recognised scientists to be burnt at the stake were Bruno and Michael Servetus (who discovered, or at least rediscovered, the role of the lungs in reoxygenating blood). Servetus was condemned as a heretic by John Calvin (not the Roman Catholic Church) for denying the Trinity and the efficacy of infant baptism, and his heliocentric views apparently didn't come into it.

    So neither Bruno nor Servetus was burned at the stake specifically for believing in heliocentrism, which was probably a much more widely held view by the 16th century than we tend to think (see the Wikipedia article on heliocentrism).

    On the OP's question, it was of course an Irishman, Archbishop James Ussher, who calculated that the creation of the world began in the evening before Sunday 23 October 4004BC, making the world just over 6,000 years old.


  • #15994
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    hivizman wrote: »
    On the OP's question, it was of course an Irishman, Archbishop James Ussher, who calculated that the creation of the world began in the evening before Sunday 23 October 4004BC, making the world just over 6,000 years old.

    I believe that Ussher was but one of may people making such calculations, his just happened to be included in a version of the King James Bible.


  • #15995
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    it is however the scientists who wishes to shut out any opposing views that have no scientific evidence and to have the view with the most scientific evidence as the only one taught in science classes.

    Fixed that for you.


  • #15996
    Minder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭Minder


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Evolution is a theory, it can not be replicated in a science lab and tested, it can only be drawn to by the interpretation of discovered evidence.

    Richard Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an excellent example where evolution can be replicated in a science lab.

    A science lab is is not even required, if your confident that evolution doesn't exist, have a lick of your local hospital floor.


  • Advertisement
  • #15997
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Fixed that for you.
    How come so few creationists support the equivalent of creationism-ID in the courts? Imagine the following:

    Prosecutor: The CCTV has film of you holding a gun, pulling the trigger, then the chap in front of you falls down dead with a bullet in his chest. Ballistics shows that your gun fired the bullet. I put it to you that you killed him!

    Creationist defendant: That's just an atheistic interpretation of the evidence. What actually happened is that an intelligent designer created a bullet going at full speed towards the deceased just after I pulled the trigger of my gun which wasn't loaded. You're being imprisoned by your materialistic worldview. Wasn't me, guv.

    Prosecutor: Funny you should mention imprisonment.


  • #15998
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Fixed that for you.

    no you didn't. Just like an atheist, put words into peoples mouths and misquote.


  • #15999
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    no you didn't. Just like an atheist, put words into peoples mouths and misquote.

    To be fair, I don't think that it's a trait of all atheists, just some. The same could be said of any other group. Still, it's never acceptable to see or hear.


  • #16000
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    To be fair, I don't think that it's a trait of all atheists, just some. The same could be said of any other group. Still, it's never acceptable to see or hear.

    I agree not all.


  • #16001
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    no you didn't. Just like an atheist, put words into peoples mouths and misquote.

    I didn't put any words in your mouth, I altered your post so it would be accurate and made those alterations obvious so that you could learn from your mistakes. But, just like a creationist, you dont bother to refute my points, instead you just make some basless generalised accusations.


  • Advertisement
  • #16002
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    it is however the evolutionist who wishes to shut out any opposing views and to have their view as the only one taught.

    It is surely quite proper to shut out non-scientific views of the origins of species from a science class. If the "evolutionists" attempt to shut out theories which have scientific evidence to support them then I agree, that would be improper.

    Young earth creationists seem not to have scientific evidence. Nor do the Native Americans. Thus their opinions shouldn't be taught in science class.


  • #16003
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I didn't put any words in your mouth, I altered your post so it would be accurate and made those alterations obvious so that you could learn from your mistakes. But, just like a creationist, you dont bother to refute my points, instead you just make some basless generalised accusations.

    No point because it has been done on another thread and would take this one way off topic. Just abiding by the charter.


  • #16004
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Húrin wrote: »
    It is surely quite proper to shut out non-scientific views of the origins of species from a science class. If the "evolutionists" attempt to shut out theories which have scientific evidence to support them then I agree, that would be improper.

    Young earth creationists seem not to have scientific evidence. Nor do the Native Americans. Thus their opinions shouldn't be taught in science class.

    The question I have is where did I ever say that creationism should be taught in science class?????

    Making assumptions and putting words in. :)


  • #16005
    hairyheretic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    The question I have is where did I ever say that creationism should be taught in science class?????

    Making assumptions and putting words in. :)

    That does seem to be where creationists do want it to be taught though.


  • #16006
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    where did I ever say that creationism should be taught in science class?????
    I believe you said it at some point during the (closed) creationism thread. If memory serves, you also mentioned that in general, you felt that kids should be taught that the creation myths prevalent in their culture were true (ie, eskimo kids would be taught that eskimo creation myths were true, and so on).

    Don't ask me to find that post, but you did say that somewhere.


  • #16007
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    Of course, ID, creationism, Native American origins myths and other non-scientific ideas are taught in schools in comparative religion classes, amongst others. There's no agenda to keep these ideas out of schools; only out of science class. The question is, why are religious people (well, let's be fair: Native Americans don't care about this issue) so desperate to get their non-scientific origin stories out of religion class and into science class? Why? Seriously.


  • #16008
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    That's odd - the door here seemed to be sticking yesterday, but today it's wide open. Just as well, as there's a sudden flurry of creationism interest in the forum. ;)


  • #16009
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Neo-Darwinian Evolution can be show to be true.

    I never thought Id get to call anyone a Neo-Darwinist again.

    Yawn - Wicknight you are a Neo-Darwinist:pac:


  • #16010
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    DublinWriter wrote: »

    when the rabbit is produced from the hat.

    Whats this current facination atheists have with rabbits -in A+A today there was talk of a Superbunny.


  • #16011
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    the Creationist will haul out such metaphysical nonscence as the ultimate proof of 'force majure'.
    darjeeling wrote: »
    That's odd - the door here seemed to be sticking yesterday, but today it's wide open. Just as well, as there's a sudden flurry of creationism interest in the forum. ;)

    Obviously - An Act of God:D


  • Advertisement
  • #16012
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    /\
    Ouch..

    anyways getting back to thread - I had a dispute on here with PDN about my take on this. I thought that the universe being 14 billion years old it kind of brought into question why God waited so long to make something which would ultimately (according to religious belief) be called the 'main part of his creation'. PDN suggested that a supreme being doesn't have to explain himslef but that just seems too similiar to the 'God works in mysterious ways' answer.

    Personally, as an athiest:) (I relaised my bias) I think this becomes a serious problem to reconcile religious belief with. I think this becasue the way the scriptures are written they seem to suggest, amoung other things, a history starting within a relative generation - unless you some translate 'days' as a methahor for 'eons'!

    I find it odd that God would let such primitive (relatively speaking of course) and misinformed people record scripture that would go on to inspire the faith of modern generations who would be given contradictory evidence by science.


  • #16013
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    hairyheretic wrote: »
    That does seem to be where creationists do want it to be taught though.

    You are making an assumption HH.

    Don't do that.
    robindch wrote:
    I believe you said it at some point during the (closed) creationism thread. If memory serves, you also mentioned that in general, you felt that kids should be taught that the creation myths prevalent in their culture were true (ie, eskimo kids would be taught that eskimo creation myths were true, and so on).

    Don't ask me to find that post, but you did say that somewhere. .

    I still believe that kids should be taught different ideas on origins.

    But I did not say on this thread that it should be taught in science class as science. Yet some posters wish to make that particular claim.

    It is a falsehood which makes assumptions and puts words into my mouth that were never there.


  • #16014
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    2Scoops wrote: »
    Of course, ID, creationism, Native American origins myths and other non-scientific ideas are taught in schools in comparative religion classes, amongst others. There's no agenda to keep these ideas out of schools; only out of science class. The question is, why are religious people (well, let's be fair: Native Americans don't care about this issue) so desperate to get their non-scientific origin stories out of religion class and into science class? Why? Seriously.

    But they aren't taught in schools.

    Evolution as an idea is the only one that is taught.


  • #16015
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    But they aren't taught in schools.

    I'm sure they're taught in some form or another. I think taught is the wrong word, too. Children are informed of various creation myths in school (I can't generalise that; I can just speak from my own experience), I know I certainly was told about genesis when I was in primary school. I think that teaching it would be wrong though; I just have some sort of an aversion to mixing the word teaching with any unfounded idea. But, that's just a matter of semantics, really.
    Evolution as an idea is the only one that is taught.

    Evolution isn't an idea in the same respect as creation myths are, though.

    With all due respect, that's because it's the only one with an empirical foundation. Creation myths aren't backed up by large amounts of tangible evidence, whereas evolution is. If something is to be taught as being true, it should at least have evidence to verify the assumption that it's true. Creation myths don't meet this criteria.

    Children should certainly be informed of creation myths, but teaching a creation myth as truth is certainly wrong.


  • #16016
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    I'm sure they're taught in some form or another. I think taught is the wrong word, too. Children are informed of various creation myths in school (I can't generalise that; I can just speak from my own experience), I know I certainly was told about genesis when I was in primary school..
    It is only available in our seperate school system which is RC, it is not available in out public system.
    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    I think that teaching it would be wrong though; I just have some sort of an aversion to mixing the word teaching with any unfounded idea. But, that's just a matter of semantics, really.

    True enough.


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Evolution isn't an idea in the same respect as creation myths are, though.

    With all due respect, that's because it's the only one with an empirical foundation. Creation myths aren't backed up by large amounts of tangible evidence, whereas evolution is. If something is to be taught as being true, it should at least have evidence to verify the assumption that it's true. Creation myths don't meet this criteria.

    Children should certainly be informed of creation myths, but teaching a creation myth as truth is certainly wrong.

    And teaching wrong science is wrong as well.
    Science once said that tainted meat turned into maggots.
    Science also taught that the human egg was a gelitinous blob, we now know it contains some pretty nifty info.
    Science is always changing based on new information and new discoveries. Yet evolution is taught as something that is a fact and non-negotiable. Which in itself is un-scientific.


  • #16017
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Here's a neatarticle on spontaneous generation and how it was then proven that spontaneous generation couldn't hppen.
    We had a scientific theory that was tested and debated for close to 200 years. It was then put to rest.

    http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php

    Then the theory of evolution came about that actually needs spontaneous generation (living from non-living) to happen somewhere along the time-line.

    So which science to believe?
    The theory in 1668, the theory in 1859 or the one in 2009?


  • #16018
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    And teaching wrong science is wrong as well.
    Science once said that tainted meat turned into maggots.
    Science also taught that the human egg was a gelitinous blob, we now know it contains some pretty nifty info.
    Science is always changing based on new information and new discoveries.

    But the difference is that science (to personify it) is trying to teach what is right, it's trying to teach what is true. Teaching a creation myth is just teaching something which is set in stone, something that can never be changed; it's implanting in a young mind a dogmatic belief which has to be held as true - held above all else, on an unquestionable plateau - and isn't open to scrutiny.

    Of course the current scientific view mightn't be correct, but science doesn't say that those views are correct, that's the difference; it's inherent in the scientific method that science is willing and open to alter theories - I can think of countless examples of this.

    You're right that science is always changing, and that's the beauty of it in comparison to a religious dogmatic belief.
    Yet evolution is taught as something that is a fact and non-negotiable. Which in itself is un-scientific.

    Well, it certainly shouldn't be thought as fact. The majority of the problems with evolution are very complex, requiring a detailed knowledge of the field, therefore they are certainly far too complex to be dealt with in a classroom. I've often read that creationists want the flaws with evolution to be taught alongside the theory itself, unfortunately this - in many cases - isn't possible; the flaws are just too complex to be dealt with adequately in a primary level - or even secondary level - classroom. It should certainly be taught that there are flaws with it (as there are flaws with every single theory), but teaching the flaws is out of the question.


  • #16019
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    I believe you said it at some point during the (closed) creationism thread. If memory serves, you also mentioned that in general, you felt that kids should be taught that the creation myths prevalent in their culture were true (ie, eskimo kids would be taught that eskimo creation myths were true, and so on).

    Don't ask me to find that post, but you did say that somewhere.

    You have a good memory - a quick google threw this one up


    BrianCalgary wrote:
    where did I ever say that creationism should be taught in science class?????
    BrianCalgary wrote:
    What is the objection to teaching Creationism in class? I have yet to hear a good reason for not teaching it

    from
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50580495&postcount=321


  • #16020
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Then the theory of evolution came about that actually needs spontaneous generation (living from non-living) to happen somewhere along the time-line.

    Evolution doesn't concern itself with the creation of the first instance of life. That's to do with abiogenesis. This is another huge misconception among people who don't fully understand the theory of evolution. The simple fact is that the theory of evolution has never tried - nor will never try - to explain where life came from. Just because we currently don't understand where the first spark of life came from doesn't mean that evolution isn't valid; they're completely unconcerned with each other.


  • Advertisement
  • #16021
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    But they aren't taught in schools.

    Evolution as an idea is the only one that is taught.

    I learned about creationism, ID, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and a number of minor cults in school, in religion class. I didn't learn about creation OR evolution in science class! :pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement