fitz said:
Well, as a born again christian myself, I can testify to the fact that I haven't created several threads a day stating that the Earth is only 6000 years old and/or condeming science.
I didn't mean you in the specific. There is someone I do have in mind (albeit on another board), so I won't go into details. It wouldn't be fair to anyone to do so. But suffice it to say, I have seen this
The question of creationism vs evolution vs ID is not a question to be debated in this thread/forum. Personally, I believe in Creation in 7 days - I don't expect you to and I won't argue that the evolutionist point of view is wrong. I don't believe creationism and/or ID should be taught in schools. I do believe that evolution has some merit but that it also has some places where it falls short to explain the orgin of life.
As long as evidence continues to exist, about the dinosaurs having existed 10s of millions of years ago, and many geologic formations taking even longer to form (as for instance Mt. Everest is still rising in height a few centemeters per year), I wouldn't find a literal interpretation to be most believable. Mind you however, that it's more the "this is the truth, you should all believe it, or else... You ignorant fools, how can you say...the Bible clearly says..." like that I can take issue with. But no, this isn't the thread for this, (the hard talk section is). So I just left a thought in passing. In the past however, Johnny himself hasn't been in support of this sort of man handling, or forcing of the beliefs, so... It isn't really an issue here, and no, at least at present I don't see Johnny comming accross this way...
Big Bang and creationism still come down to a central question to which creationism addresses with unprovable faith and evolution hasn't really hasn't answered: How did matter come to exist at all. Big bang still requires a super dense core of material to which to seed the known universe.
Of possible interest, but could steer this further off topic, is that there's an alternative scientific explanation other then Big Bang. Plasma cosmology, which in large part was the product of various plasma physicists themselves, who on micro scale were able to expermiment with witness for instance the spiral shape of a spiral galaxy, using plasma itself, is another line of scientific thought altogether. Big band and cosmologists vs. plasma cosmology and plasma physicists would need it's own thread however... Plasma cosmology doesn't see a starting point, from which creation occured, and also presents some interesting propositions of it's own. Plasma physics is argued (in there case) as having answers it can provide, because much of the known matter in the universe is plasma.
Science certainly has a place in this world - heck some of the more famous scientists in history have been devout christians: Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, George Washington Carver..
You can also add Roger Bacon to the list. Though his work was lost, and his fellow Fransiscan monks locked him in a tower till shortly before his death, he had ideas very similar in fact, to that of Francis Bacon several centuries latter. Remarkable yet, is Roger Bacon's own works, weren't published until about 150 years
after Francis Bacon (credited with the formulation of inductive reason and the scientific method) had published his own... I've heard it argued, that he also wrote of the world being "round" before the time of Columbus as well; albeit we also now know that the Greeks postulated this as well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
Roger Bacon (c. 1214 – 1294), also known as Doctor Mirabilis (Latin: "astounding teacher"), was one of the most famous Franciscan friars of his time. He was an English philosopher who placed considerable emphasis on empiricism, and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method; though later studies have emphasized his reliance on occult and alchemical traditions.
...His "Opus Majus" contains treatments of mathematics and optics, alchemy and the manufacture of gunpowder, the positions and sizes of the celestial bodies, and anticipates later inventions such as microscopes, telescopes, spectacles, flying machines and steam ships.
Some of his ideas, would be considered decidedly unscientific today (for instance his study of astrology), but other aspects. Heck some of the stuff talked about, we since invented... There were people from other religions also (Kabalists for instance), who also made their contributions.
Anyhow, sorry Johnny for the bit of a thread hijack here. Not where I intended this should follow. Anyhow, back on topic I s'pose...