OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 01:56:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism  (Read 3007 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: December 20, 2010, 12:58:05 PM »

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.



These views have been generally stable over the last 28 years. Acceptance of the creationist viewpoint has decreased slightly over time, with a concomitant rise in acceptance of a secular evolution perspective. But these shifts have not been large, and the basic structure of beliefs about human beings' origins is generally the same as it was in the early 1980s.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 01:03:13 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2010, 03:39:49 PM »

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

"Theistic evolution" is already a concession to atheism, and a very awkward one, so why not skip it and go all the way?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2010, 03:47:34 PM »

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

"Theistic evolution" is already a concession to atheism, and a very awkward one, so why not skip it and go all the way?

This comment is a very stupid one, probably the stupidest post ever and most useless.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 03:47:57 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2010, 04:05:41 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2010, 04:09:13 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 04:11:27 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2010, 04:16:58 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur? Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2010, 04:39:42 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur? Wink

what?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2010, 04:40:38 PM »

1 in 5 Americans believe the President is a Muslim.

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2010, 05:07:27 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur? Wink

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again. Wink

But with that said, there is a real problem with this graph, it's based on a survey which means there's a certain amount of uncertainty (a margin of error). The omission of error bars is a real problem. I don't know what the sample sizes were, but I do question if a 2% change is even significant.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2010, 05:24:24 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur? Wink

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again. Wink


Minas stated that there needs to be a time line and the graph states approximately the 11 eleventh month. I stated that 1982 has a figure without a time line and that it should have started with 0 to make the graph accurate since there is no time line before 1982.

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2010, 05:27:50 PM »

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted December 10-12, 2010 with a random sample of –1,019— adults, aged 18+, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of – 840—Internet users, one can say, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 05:30:35 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2010, 05:57:51 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur? Wink

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again. Wink


Minas stated that there needs to be a time line and the graph states approximately the 11 eleventh month. I stated that 1982 has a figure without a time line and that it should have started with 0 to make the graph accurate since there is no time line before 1982.

They can't put "0" on a graph of a survey unless they got a response of "0," so they can't put "0" for a time when no data exists because that would imply data indicating "0."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2010, 06:12:49 PM »

4) Who cares?
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2010, 06:28:57 PM »

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet. Roll Eyes

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur? Wink

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again. Wink


Minas stated that there needs to be a time line and the graph states approximately the 11 eleventh month. I stated that 1982 has a figure without a time line and that it should have started with 0 to make the graph accurate since there is no time line before 1982.

They can't put "0" on a graph of a survey unless they got a response of "0," so they can't put "0" for a time when no data exists because that would imply data indicating "0."

I understand your logic father. It's all a matter of perspective I would guess. If there is an 0 in January and a 44 in Dec. than it would indicate that there is a time line associated with the chart. So the 2010 reaches beyond the 2010 projecting to the 11th month. Wouldn't it be natural for the same to occur in 1982?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2010, 06:39:18 PM »

1 in 5 Americans believe the President is a Muslim.

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true.
I'm curious, what percentage of Muslims are convinced that Obama is Muslim.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2010, 06:40:52 PM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2010, 08:56:23 PM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 09:00:30 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2010, 10:29:43 PM »

I'm curious, what percentage of Muslims are convinced that Obama is Muslim.

Having travelled in a few Muslim countries since he was elected, I was surprised to find many think that he is a Jew (and that a whole half of Americans are Jews).
Logged
David 2007
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197



« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2010, 04:46:08 AM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.




That graph is offensive and should be disregarded. Where is Australia??

Pfft. Totally irrelevant if Australia is not on it!  Tongue

(Actually that is quite rude of them to exclude the best Western Country on Earth!)
Logged
David 2007
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197



« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2010, 04:47:43 AM »

Malta has a population of 400,000???

But they exclude Australia???


DUMB!
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2010, 12:43:46 PM »

Malta has a population of 400,000???

But they exclude Australia???


DUMB!
Don't you guys have a whole town named "Darwin"? What more do you wantHuh
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2010, 12:53:09 PM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.



sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2010, 12:53:50 PM »

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

"Theistic evolution" is already a concession to atheism, and a very awkward one, so why not skip it and go all the way?

aaah the succint truth! tastes so yummy.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2010, 01:19:04 PM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.



sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

And the Muslim countries.  They've only shown one, but I bet you a dime a dozen the Islamic countries are right in there as well.  It's interesting you're proud of Orthodox being in association with Muslim and Protestant beliefs.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 01:19:58 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2010, 02:00:18 PM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.



sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

And the Muslim countries.  They've only shown one, but I bet you a dime a dozen the Islamic countries are right in there as well.  It's interesting you're proud of Orthodox being in association with Muslim and Protestant beliefs.

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2010, 03:35:40 PM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education. 

Hardly surprised though.  A sizable percentage of people have lost their grip on reality and believe in astrology, might as well believe in creationism while you are at it...
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2010, 03:44:49 PM »

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?
From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.



sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

And the Muslim countries.  They've only shown one, but I bet you a dime a dozen the Islamic countries are right in there as well.  It's interesting you're proud of Orthodox being in association with Muslim and Protestant beliefs.

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about me, that I partake of some sort of seeds of falsehood.  Keep me in your prayers then.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2010, 04:02:29 PM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

Quote
Hardly surprised though.  A sizable percentage of people have lost their grip on reality and believe in astrology, might as well believe in creationism while you are at it...

No, astrology leads to idolatry.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2010, 04:14:46 PM »

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

Not necessarily. Some astrology has a place in Christianity, for instance, in our calendar. And don't forget- "Those who worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2010, 04:24:58 PM »

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

Not necessarily. Some astrology has a place in Christianity, for instance, in our calendar.
That's astronmy.

Quote
And don't forget- "Those who worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee."
I had that in the back of my mind.  In the front was the determinism of astrology that St. John denounced.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2010, 04:33:44 PM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 04:43:39 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2010, 04:37:18 PM »

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

Not necessarily. Some astrology has a place in Christianity, for instance, in our calendar.
That's astronmy.

Such a distinction, like "chemistry" vs. "alchemy", was meaningless before modernity and the triumph of materialism as the only real science (in the minds of its promoters). Astrology is astronomy.

Quote
I had that in the back of my mind.  In the front was the determinism of astrology that St. John denounced.

Of course, determinism was rejected, but at the same time St. John accepted that celestial bodies can influence events on earth. Like other aspects of pagan thought, astrology had good and bad elements.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2010, 04:39:07 PM »


 Astrology is astronomy.


 Shocked
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2010, 04:57:02 PM »


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2010, 05:08:29 PM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2010, 05:21:09 PM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

No, I said their science is wrong.  Another stupid post.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
mtgdude
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19



« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2010, 06:29:07 PM »

Whats the official ruling of Orthodox Christianity on evolution?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2010, 06:42:30 PM »

Whats the official ruling of Orthodox Christianity on evolution?

"Orthodoxy absolutely affirms that God is the Creator and Author of all things, that He is actively engaged with His creation, and that He desires to restore His creation to full communion with Himself through the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, unlike Darwinism, is not a matter of ideology but, rather, a matter of theology.

Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 06:42:57 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
David 2007
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197



« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2010, 10:42:34 PM »

Whats the official ruling of Orthodox Christianity on evolution?
Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."

I thinks this sets Orthodoxy part and above those Christian denominations that insist on ramming Literal interpretations down our throats.

The above view that I've quoted has always been my belief.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2010, 10:49:55 PM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right? I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2010, 10:53:01 PM »


Which says the two fields are, and I quote, 'completely separate disciplines.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2010, 10:57:11 PM »


Only "in Western 17th century philosophy." Before that, and aside from that, they are "one and the same discipline." I posted the link simply to introduce this history to those who were unaware of it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2010, 11:29:25 PM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right?

What haven't we covered in another thread. Your point?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up,
The same reason you'd like it forgotten.

but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?
Many act as if it never happened.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2010, 11:51:01 PM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

No, I said their science is wrong.  Another stupid post.

right -- you think their "science" is wrong because their interpretation of Genesis is clearly incompatible with evolution. in post 2642 you said:

Quote
I'm going to be very clear with you.  The saints are wrong.  Period!

There was death.  Leaving evolution out of the picture, the evidence clearly shows death existed long before apes even existed.  The fossil records are consistent about this and don't lie.  I don't care if you don't agree with evolution.  But surely you are also rejecting other sciences when doing this.

the Saints dont believe there was death before sin, but because of evolution you do. so i haven't misrepresented what you said. i don't know what the point is of trying to deny what you said then.

and really dude, your bad mood isn't very becoming.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 11:52:21 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2010, 12:20:59 AM »

Has anyone read The Genesis Enigma?  I found it to be fascinating.

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Enigma-First-Scientifically-Accurate/dp/0452296552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292991495&sr=8-1


Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: December 22, 2010, 12:21:13 AM »


Only "in Western 17th century philosophy." Before that, and aside from that, they are "one and the same discipline." I posted the link simply to introduce this history to those who were unaware of it.

I don't know that that is entirely true, it would appear that at least a few Greek scholars understood the difference, such as Plato, Aristarchus of Samos, and Archimedes. But it is true that the vast majority of the population was not nearly as insightful and observant and would confuse divination and science. The reality is that we simply understand the world better than people used to, they were ignorant of even the most mundane of natural processes and because of this ignorance confused divination and science. So while it maybe true that these people could not distinguish between astronomy and astrology, I must ask, who cares what they thought?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #46 on: December 22, 2010, 12:32:01 AM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right?

What haven't we covered in another thread. Your point?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up,
The same reason you'd like it forgotten.

No, I don't think it should be forgotten, I have consistently demanded good science. No moral or political position is important enough to justify bad science. Plus, as I've said on this site before, while I think it's likely a degree of global warming is occurring, I don't think there is sufficiently rigorous scientific evidence that it's man made and we can do anything about it to justify policy changes. And even if it is actually happening, the mere fact that something is true is not enough reason to take it seriously and address it, there needs to be legitimate, verifiable, peer reviewed scientific research to justify it before we should even consider it to be anything more than a research topic.

As I said before, there are many threads on this site where I made that case.

Quote
but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?
Many act as if it never happened.

Some may...somewhere...but who on this site has defended the actions of these 'scientists'?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #47 on: December 22, 2010, 12:38:05 AM »


Only "in Western 17th century philosophy." Before that, and aside from that, they are "one and the same discipline." I posted the link simply to introduce this history to those who were unaware of it.

I don't know that that is entirely true, it would appear that at least a few Greek scholars understood the difference, such as Plato, Aristarchus of Samos, and Archimedes. But it is true that the vast majority of the population was not nearly as insightful and observant and would confuse divination and science. The reality is that we simply understand the world better than people used to, they were ignorant of even the most mundane of natural processes and because of this ignorance confused divination and science. So while it maybe true that these people could not distinguish between astronomy and astrology, I must ask, who cares what they thought?
Who cares what you think?

And, btw, what is the difference between divination/magic and science. Since they are both obsessed with predictability, on a certain level, nothing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #48 on: December 22, 2010, 12:47:05 AM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right?

What haven't we covered in another thread. Your point?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up,
The same reason you'd like it forgotten.

No, I don't think it should be forgotten, I have consistently demanded good science. No moral or political position is important enough to justify bad science. Plus, as I've said on this site before, while I think it's likely a degree of global warming is occurring, I don't think there is sufficiently rigorous scientific evidence that it's man made and we can do anything about it to justify policy changes. And even if it is actually happening, the mere fact that something is true is not enough reason to take it seriously and address it, there needs to be legitimate, verifiable, peer reviewed scientific research to justify it before we should even consider it to be anything more than a research topic.

As I said before, there are many threads on this site where I made that case.
Oh? I found only this one:
I figured some shady things were going on, but never imagined it was this bad.

but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?
Many act as if it never happened.

Some may...somewhere...but who on this site has defended the actions of these 'scientists'?
Given how some pounce on, say, those who doubt evolution, the relative silence on the Climategate crew is deafening.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2010, 12:57:10 AM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right?

What haven't we covered in another thread. Your point?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up,
The same reason you'd like it forgotten.

No, I don't think it should be forgotten, I have consistently demanded good science. No moral or political position is important enough to justify bad science. Plus, as I've said on this site before, while I think it's likely a degree of global warming is occurring, I don't think there is sufficiently rigorous scientific evidence that it's man made and we can do anything about it to justify policy changes. And even if it is actually happening, the mere fact that something is true is not enough reason to take it seriously and address it, there needs to be legitimate, verifiable, peer reviewed scientific research to justify it before we should even consider it to be anything more than a research topic.

As I said before, there are many threads on this site where I made that case.
Oh? I found only this one:
I figured some shady things were going on, but never imagined it was this bad.

but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?
Many act as if it never happened.

Some may...somewhere...but who on this site has defended the actions of these 'scientists'?
Given how some pounce on, say, those who doubt evolution, the relative silence on the Climategate crew is deafening.
Isa, do you really want to discuss the subject of this thread, or would you rather use this as an opportunity to attack someone on the unrelated issue of Climategate? If you would rather do the latter, could you please take it to another thread? You're derailing this one.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2010, 01:13:22 AM »

Isa, do you really want to discuss the subject of this thread, or would you rather use this as an opportunity to attack someone on the unrelated issue of Climategate? If you would rather do the latter, could you please take it to another thread? You're derailing this one.
Au contraire. Just showing that those concerned with scientific education have bigger issues of integrity to address, and that those who reject evoluationary theory do not thereby prove that they "have lost their grip on reality." So the evolutionists can stop their sneering.

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.  

Hardly surprised though.  A sizable percentage of people have lost their grip on reality and believe in astrology, might as well believe in creationism while you are at it...
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:23:33 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2010, 01:14:56 AM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

No, I said their science is wrong.  Another stupid post.

right -- you think their "science" is wrong because their interpretation of Genesis is clearly incompatible with evolution. in post 2642 you said:

Quote
I'm going to be very clear with you.  The saints are wrong.  Period!

There was death.  Leaving evolution out of the picture, the evidence clearly shows death existed long before apes even existed.  The fossil records are consistent about this and don't lie.  I don't care if you don't agree with evolution.  But surely you are also rejecting other sciences when doing this.

the Saints dont believe there was death before sin, but because of evolution you do. so i haven't misrepresented what you said. i don't know what the point is of trying to deny what you said then.

and really dude, your bad mood isn't very becoming.

Well, I qualified that by showing you that many church fathers have disagreed with previous fathers based on wrong science.  It's not uncommon.  I also showed you that the unanimous belief of angels copulating with women was not even rejected until the third century.  I also asked you how does this effect my salvation?  Whether animals died or not before the fall have no salvific value to my soul.  I showed you that a ROCOR bishop expressed belief in this, and so even traditionalists understand what it means for something to have salvific value.  But since you repeat your comments and misrepresent me now, it no longer becomes a new comment to be dealt with for the first time, but it becomes a stupid comment.  It's not a bad mood.  It's common sense, which is what your post lacks.

Not to mention your Basilian liturgy also implied it.  I'm not sure what else I can tell you.  But you still haven't answered my question from before.  How does my belief affect my salvation?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:20:27 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2010, 01:27:15 AM »

4) Who cares?
Those of us concerned with scientific education.


You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right?

What haven't we covered in another thread. Your point?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up,
The same reason you'd like it forgotten.

No, I don't think it should be forgotten, I have consistently demanded good science. No moral or political position is important enough to justify bad science. Plus, as I've said on this site before, while I think it's likely a degree of global warming is occurring, I don't think there is sufficiently rigorous scientific evidence that it's man made and we can do anything about it to justify policy changes. And even if it is actually happening, the mere fact that something is true is not enough reason to take it seriously and address it, there needs to be legitimate, verifiable, peer reviewed scientific research to justify it before we should even consider it to be anything more than a research topic.

As I said before, there are many threads on this site where I made that case.
Oh? I found only this one:
I figured some shady things were going on, but never imagined it was this bad.

but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?
Many act as if it never happened.

Some may...somewhere...but who on this site has defended the actions of these 'scientists'?
Given how some pounce on, say, those who doubt evolution, the relative silence on the Climategate crew is deafening.

And you STILL haven't said which poster you're referring too.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2010, 02:17:08 AM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

No, I said their science is wrong.  Another stupid post.

right -- you think their "science" is wrong because their interpretation of Genesis is clearly incompatible with evolution. in post 2642 you said:

Quote
I'm going to be very clear with you.  The saints are wrong.  Period!

There was death.  Leaving evolution out of the picture, the evidence clearly shows death existed long before apes even existed.  The fossil records are consistent about this and don't lie.  I don't care if you don't agree with evolution.  But surely you are also rejecting other sciences when doing this.

the Saints dont believe there was death before sin, but because of evolution you do. so i haven't misrepresented what you said. i don't know what the point is of trying to deny what you said then.

and really dude, your bad mood isn't very becoming.

Well, I qualified that by showing you that many church fathers have disagreed with previous fathers based on wrong science.  It's not uncommon.  I also showed you that the unanimous belief of angels copulating with women was not even rejected until the third century.  I also asked you how does this effect my salvation?  Whether animals died or not before the fall have no salvific value to my soul.  I showed you that a ROCOR bishop expressed belief in this, and so even traditionalists understand what it means for something to have salvific value.  But since you repeat your comments and misrepresent me now, it no longer becomes a new comment to be dealt with for the first time, but it becomes a stupid comment.  It's not a bad mood.  It's common sense, which is what your post lacks.

Not to mention your Basilian liturgy also implied it.  I'm not sure what else I can tell you.  But you still haven't answered my question from before.  How does my belief affect my salvation?

yes, you brought in the whole bit about angels to show that the overarching teaching can change, and so you're confident that the Church's literal interpretation of Genesis will change. so again, yes, you admitted that the Church interprets Genesis literally - you're just somehow certain that that will change, and i said you can get back to me when that happens. that was the whole reason you brought in the angels -- if the Church didn't have a uniform teaching then your point about the angels would have been completely meaningless to bring in. so no, i didnt misrepresent you. and i dont recall you demonstrating anything about Fathers disagreeing with Fathers based on wrong science ...

you posted something from St. Basil's liturgy about man being cast from the garden which actually mentioned nothing about the state of the world outside the garden before man's sin, so it proved absolutely nothing. my guess is you're assuming that the state of the world after the Fall is the same as its state before the Fall.

and asking "how does my belief affect my salvation?" is quite reductionist, and Protestant. i randomly asked my Protestant mom tonight how many wills she thinks Christ has and she said that wasn't even something she'd ever considered, but i don't think this will keep her from Heaven. for the Protestants such questions are meaningless, but for the Orthodox they are quite important because they point us to the true Christ. so i don't think that you believing that God is the author of death is going to automatically damn you, but it seems rather un-Orthodox to claim that it therefore doesn't matter. just because something might not affect you doesnt mean it doesnt matter. if the idea that God is the author of death were to become accepted in the Church that could have negative effects over time -- if God intends death then Christ must not really be the conqueror of death, etc. would believing in Chiliasm really send me to Hell? i highly doubt it, and yet the Church still found it necessary to combat it.

and for something that you're so sure doesnt affect your salvation and isnt important, you sure spend a lot of time arguing about it, and trying to find ways to prove the Fathers wrong.

you've derided several posts as being stupid. you're pretty clearly in a bad mood over what you perceive to be a lack of common sense. get a grip.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 02:18:52 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2010, 02:23:14 AM »

alright then. I guess that's settled.  Since you know exactly what my mood is, then I ask you to pray for me.  And pray that God may show me the way, to prove that death didn't exist before the Fall.  And pray that God may reveal for us that these fossils are inconsistent in some way, one day.  Pray that God is not a charlatan by these fossil records.  And that God forbid, the death of animals effect the Church sacraments in some way.  One day maybe, we can baptize dogs and cats and hope that their partaking of the Eucharist also gives them the promise of General Resurrection because clearly, it's important that they too have to be alive with us rational creatures.

St. Lassie, pray for us.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 02:26:11 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2010, 02:32:50 AM »

alright then. I guess that's settled.  Since you know exactly what my mood is, then I ask you to pray for me.  And pray that God may show me the way, to prove that death didn't exist before the Fall.  And pray that God may reveal for us that these fossils are inconsistent in some way, one day.  Pray that God is not a charlatan by these fossil records.  And that God forbid, the death of animals effect the Church sacraments in some way.  One day maybe, we can baptize dogs and cats and hope that their partaking of the Eucharist also gives them the promise of General Resurrection because clearly, it's important that they too have to be alive with us rational creatures.

St. Lassie, pray for us.

you seem to be unable to disagree with someone without falling into derision and sarcasm. its a shame. i read that whole EO vs. OO thread about Leo's Tome from a few years back - you were quite cordial there even though ozgeorge persisted in disagreement. wheres that minasoliman?

again, you're being reductionist.

God is not a charlatan because He gave us His holy Church to show us the Truth concerning His creative acts. we're only deceived if we lay aside revelation for enlightenment science. when science and Tradition conflict, why would you question Tradition rather than science?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,157


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2010, 02:45:03 AM »

alright then. I guess that's settled.  Since you know exactly what my mood is, then I ask you to pray for me.  And pray that God may show me the way, to prove that death didn't exist before the Fall.  And pray that God may reveal for us that these fossils are inconsistent in some way, one day.  Pray that God is not a charlatan by these fossil records.  And that God forbid, the death of animals effect the Church sacraments in some way.  One day maybe, we can baptize dogs and cats and hope that their partaking of the Eucharist also gives them the promise of General Resurrection because clearly, it's important that they too have to be alive with us rational creatures.

St. Lassie, pray for us.

you seem to be unable to disagree with someone without falling into derision and sarcasm. its a shame. i read that whole EO vs. OO thread about Leo's Tome from a few years back - you were quite cordial there even though ozgeorge persisted in disagreement. wheres that minasoliman?

again, you're being reductionist.

God is not a charlatan because He gave us His holy Church to show us the Truth concerning His creative acts. we're only deceived if we lay aside revelation for enlightenment science. when science and Tradition conflict, why would you question Tradition rather than science?

That's like saying, "Tradition teaches us that the sky is purple"  But science have shown that the sky is blue due at least by my own sight.

I can be cordial about people not understanding why we OO's believe what we believe because it's a long painful schism.  But when it comes to people who understand nothing about science, and jeopardize people's faith by telling them to reject science, reject what you observe, reject common sense and turn to tradition, then I resort to sarcasm because frankly I see this comments made as nothing more than a result of willful ignorance.

I've heard of many priests give "scientific" explanations for why a woman has to wait 80 days instead of 40 for her baby girl to be baptized in Egypt.  And he tells me a med student about something that I know it's false.  What does this say about us in front of others?  That Orthodox Christians are stupid ignorant people like the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions or Christian Scientists who refuse any form of treatment whatsoever because they believe in the "healing power of prayer"?

And then I also get the derisive comment that people like me concede to atheism, that we're just one step closer to atheism.  And you expect me not to answer back to that false misrepresentation?  Forgive me Heorhij for bringing you into this if you're reading this, but here's a man who was an atheist and downright atheist and biology professor (and is a licensed physician in Ukraine), and became Christian.  Francis Collins MD was an atheist and a physician, an evolutionist, and became Christian.  I don't see that as concession, but as a free individual who studied and learned these things on his own.

Orthodox tradition does not cancel out common sense.

But seriously, if you feel I'm in the wrong, then pray for me.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 03:10:53 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2010, 03:50:21 AM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!
Yes, I know you were talking to Mina. However, I was a participant in the other thread long enough to know how impossible it is to argue with you. It's not that you know your stuff much better than I, because I see no evidence of any superior knowledge. It's just that you cannot possibly concede that you may be wrong about the Fathers and evolution. Arguing with you is therefore an exercise in futility, which explains why I DID walk away from that argument. I could only watch you insist on beating the dead horse long enough.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 03:51:51 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2010, 03:55:45 AM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!
Yes, I know you were talking to Mina. However, I was a participant in the other thread long enough to know how impossible it is to argue with you. It's not that you know your stuff much better than I, because I see no evidence of any superior knowledge. It's just that you cannot possibly concede that you may be wrong about the Fathers and evolution. Arguing with you is therefore an exercise in futility, which explains why I DID walk away from that argument. I could only watch you insist on beating the dead horse long enough.

Take it easy on him...people like him are the most convincing argument our side has. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2010, 10:17:11 AM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!
Yes, I know you were talking to Mina. However, I was a participant in the other thread long enough to know how impossible it is to argue with you. It's not that you know your stuff much better than I, because I see no evidence of any superior knowledge. It's just that you cannot possibly concede that you may be wrong about the Fathers and evolution. Arguing with you is therefore an exercise in futility, which explains why I DID walk away from that argument. I could only watch you insist on beating the dead horse long enough.

Take it easy on him...people like him are the most convincing argument our side has. Wink
The athiest evolutionist side?
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2010, 11:20:59 AM »


Only "in Western 17th century philosophy." Before that, and aside from that, they are "one and the same discipline." I posted the link simply to introduce this history to those who were unaware of it.

I don't know that that is entirely true, it would appear that at least a few Greek scholars understood the difference, such as Plato, Aristarchus of Samos, and Archimedes.

I think you'll find that the way these ancients distinguished the terms has little to do with the way they are distinguished in modern science.

Quote
The reality is that we simply understand the world better than people used to, they were ignorant of even the most mundane of natural processes and because of this ignorance confused divination and science.

They may have been ignorant of many mundane matters, but it terms of the spiritual significance of the creation, they were far better educated than we.

Quote
So while it maybe true that these people could not distinguish between astronomy and astrology, I must ask, who cares what they thought?

You deny the existence of God and flaunt your philosophical ignorance, so who cares what you think? 
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #61 on: December 22, 2010, 11:41:01 AM »


Ok, so Astrology was Astronomy.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2010, 11:49:11 AM »


So I take it that you are an adherent of 17th century Western Philosophy?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #63 on: December 22, 2010, 11:53:01 AM »


On the contrary, 17th century philosophy says that they were the same. Unless I'm missing something?   Huh
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #64 on: December 22, 2010, 12:25:29 PM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!
Yes, I know you were talking to Mina. However, I was a participant in the other thread long enough to know how impossible it is to argue with you. It's not that you know your stuff much better than I, because I see no evidence of any superior knowledge. It's just that you cannot possibly concede that you may be wrong about the Fathers and evolution. Arguing with you is therefore an exercise in futility, which explains why I DID walk away from that argument. I could only watch you insist on beating the dead horse long enough.

Take it easy on him...people like him are the most convincing argument our side has. Wink
The athiest evolutionist side?

Yep.  Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2010, 12:37:38 PM »


Only "in Western 17th century philosophy." Before that, and aside from that, they are "one and the same discipline." I posted the link simply to introduce this history to those who were unaware of it.

I don't know that that is entirely true, it would appear that at least a few Greek scholars understood the difference, such as Plato, Aristarchus of Samos, and Archimedes.

I think you'll find that the way these ancients distinguished the terms has little to do with the way they are distinguished in modern science.

It isn't about terms, it's about a basic understanding of reality.

Quote
Quote
The reality is that we simply understand the world better than people used to, they were ignorant of even the most mundane of natural processes and because of this ignorance confused divination and science.

They may have been ignorant of many mundane matters, but it terms of the spiritual significance of the creation, they were far better educated than we.

Which nothing more than an unsubstantiated personal opinion that can never rise to the significance of an objective, verifiable, and falsifiable science.

Quote
Quote
So while it maybe true that these people could not distinguish between astronomy and astrology, I must ask, who cares what they thought?

You deny the existence of God and flaunt your philosophical ignorance, so who cares what you think? 

No one should care what I think...or what anyone else thinks for that matter. That's the great thing about science, it's not based on personal credibility but on objective and verifiable observation. Judge the world based on the evidence given to us by science and ignore the worthless opinions of others, be they modern or ancient writers.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2010, 12:46:49 PM »

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.
Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument. Roll Eyes

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!
Yes, I know you were talking to Mina. However, I was a participant in the other thread long enough to know how impossible it is to argue with you. It's not that you know your stuff much better than I, because I see no evidence of any superior knowledge. It's just that you cannot possibly concede that you may be wrong about the Fathers and evolution. Arguing with you is therefore an exercise in futility, which explains why I DID walk away from that argument. I could only watch you insist on beating the dead horse long enough.

Take it easy on him...people like him are the most convincing argument our side has. Wink
The athiest evolutionist side?

Yep.  Grin

What GiC and others on here share in common is that we hold that there is an established scientific basis for the origin of man. Where we would disagree, however, is whether God had a hand in this process or not.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2010, 01:35:47 PM »

1 in 5 Americans believe the President is a Muslim.

Or, as my Texas relatives' neighbor says, a MusliN. Smiley

A certain number of Americans also believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife, and that it was OK to invade Iraq. 

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true.

Indeed. And I totally refuse to understand, why would people who have no serious knowledge in the field of biology even bother to "believe" or "not believe" in something that biologists study. By this logic, I might decide to not "believe" in the reality of the internal combustion engine.
Logged

Love never fails.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #68 on: December 22, 2010, 02:33:33 PM »

alright then. I guess that's settled.  Since you know exactly what my mood is, then I ask you to pray for me.  And pray that God may show me the way, to prove that death didn't exist before the Fall.  And pray that God may reveal for us that these fossils are inconsistent in some way, one day.  Pray that God is not a charlatan by these fossil records.  And that God forbid, the death of animals effect the Church sacraments in some way.  One day maybe, we can baptize dogs and cats and hope that their partaking of the Eucharist also gives them the promise of General Resurrection because clearly, it's important that they too have to be alive with us rational creatures.

St. Lassie, pray for us.

you seem to be unable to disagree with someone without falling into derision and sarcasm. its a shame. i read that whole EO vs. OO thread about Leo's Tome from a few years back - you were quite cordial there even though ozgeorge persisted in disagreement. wheres that minasoliman?

again, you're being reductionist.

God is not a charlatan because He gave us His holy Church to show us the Truth concerning His creative acts. we're only deceived if we lay aside revelation for enlightenment science. when science and Tradition conflict, why would you question Tradition rather than science?

That's like saying, "Tradition teaches us that the sky is purple"  But science have shown that the sky is blue due at least by my own sight.

I can be cordial about people not understanding why we OO's believe what we believe because it's a long painful schism.  But when it comes to people who understand nothing about science, and jeopardize people's faith by telling them to reject science, reject what you observe, reject common sense and turn to tradition, then I resort to sarcasm because frankly I see this comments made as nothing more than a result of willful ignorance.

I've heard of many priests give "scientific" explanations for why a woman has to wait 80 days instead of 40 for her baby girl to be baptized in Egypt.  And he tells me a med student about something that I know it's false.  What does this say about us in front of others?  That Orthodox Christians are stupid ignorant people like the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions or Christian Scientists who refuse any form of treatment whatsoever because they believe in the "healing power of prayer"?

And then I also get the derisive comment that people like me concede to atheism, that we're just one step closer to atheism.  And you expect me not to answer back to that false misrepresentation?  Forgive me Heorhij for bringing you into this if you're reading this, but here's a man who was an atheist and downright atheist and biology professor (and is a licensed physician in Ukraine), and became Christian.  Francis Collins MD was an atheist and a physician, an evolutionist, and became Christian.  I don't see that as concession, but as a free individual who studied and learned these things on his own.

Orthodox tradition does not cancel out common sense.

But seriously, if you feel I'm in the wrong, then pray for me.

of course i will pray for you, and please pray for me. please forgive me for provoking you.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.281 seconds with 97 queries.