OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 09:50:45 AM *
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  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 54 (15.6%)
No - 134 (38.7%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.7%)
Total Voters: 346

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 348569 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1935 on: February 10, 2010, 05:15:43 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.

Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1936 on: February 10, 2010, 06:33:29 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.

Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1937 on: February 10, 2010, 06:36:33 PM »

Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.
Time will tell.

Quote
I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions.
In other words, no one has given you the answers you want to hear.

Quote
But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.
Hmm. Who are the people like me?

Quote
But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.
As I thought. So much for not using personal attacks.

Quote
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Same tired rhetoric. Same either/or fallacy. No new ideas at all.

Quote
Selam
You keep using that word, yet your behaviour shows you have no interest in peace at all.

So you think that peace means agreeing with you?


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1938 on: February 10, 2010, 06:40:55 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1939 on: February 10, 2010, 06:41:50 PM »

Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  angel

And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam

Allow me:

In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.

I don't see Fr Seraphim as an idiot, but as someone who hadn't been able to shake himself free of fundamentalist thinking; on this subject in particular.

And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.


Selam

 laugh  laugh  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.

Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1940 on: February 10, 2010, 06:45:18 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1941 on: February 10, 2010, 06:49:52 PM »

laugh  laugh  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel!

Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had extreme materialist, atheistic, and secular leanings (Marxism). Thank God that his Church has set me free from that.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1942 on: February 10, 2010, 06:52:25 PM »

Evolution does not have to be 'atheistic'.  Evolution only describes a known mechanism within nature.  A theist can look at it and say "Look, God implemented the universal constants of physics that govern our Universe (cosmology), which allowed for the formation of simple life (abiogenesis) and for it to evolve into the life we see now through evolution by natural selection.  His base constants were such a great foundation that we have the beauty of the natural world we have now.  He wasn't incompetent and did not create a broken system which he constantly has to fiddle with and violate his own laws to get the end result He had hoped for."  Evolution can be accepted by theists and atheists alike since it is solely a mechanism, it is neutral when it comes to faith in a deity.  Remember, one can be a theist without being a Christian.

Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?
I have yet to see a valid counter-example.
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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1943 on: February 10, 2010, 06:52:50 PM »

Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  angel

And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam

Allow me:

In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Quote
"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."

Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.

I don't see Fr Seraphim as an idiot, but as someone who hadn't been able to shake himself free of fundamentalist thinking; on this subject in particular.

And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.


Selam

 laugh  laugh  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.

Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?

Selam

Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject that evolution affirms any incompatibility between science and religion; that we are naive, evolutionary fundamentalists and now this latest doozy - that we are placing complete faith in the theory Evolution.  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1944 on: February 10, 2010, 06:53:22 PM »

laugh  laugh  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel!

Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had extreme materialist, atheistic, and secular leanings (Marxism). Thank God that his Church has set me free from that.

Indeed.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1945 on: February 10, 2010, 07:01:59 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1946 on: February 10, 2010, 07:21:42 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1947 on: February 10, 2010, 08:39:07 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

 Roll Eyes
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1948 on: February 11, 2010, 01:33:56 AM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,156


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1949 on: February 11, 2010, 02:42:29 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam

And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
The validity of a scientific theory often lies more in whether it has not yet been disproven than in whether it has yet been proven.  So I put before you this challenge, Gebre.  Prove evolutionary theory false from the basis of science and science alone.  I'd be willing to bet you can't.

To the objective mind, the lack of any fossil evidence that demonstrates intermediary species runs contrary to evolutionary theory.

But I have been over this all before, and will not get sucked into another scientific debate. The OP specifically asked whether or not evolution is compatible with Orthodoxy. Since this is a philosophical question, then let's stick to the philsophical issues. And the quotes I posted by Father Rose did exactly that, and the evolutionists have yet to address his philosophical points.

For example, at what specific point did man fall and become subject to death? At what point did man become fully human, and thereby the "image of God?"


Selam
For the purposes of this discussion, you need to ignore the OP and follow the thread title, instead.  This thread is now a conglomerate of many pre-existing threads all discussing the same theme of creationism vs. evolutionary theory.  Every thread that got merged into this has its own OP, and every thread that will get merged into this thread in the future will have its own OP.  It is therefore useless to expect anyone to stay on topic if that means speaking solely to the first post of this thread.  The topic is now the ongoing debate of creationism vs. evolutionary theory, and any post that addresses either side of the subject is welcome.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1950 on: February 11, 2010, 06:10:11 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?

The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1951 on: February 11, 2010, 06:13:59 PM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam

And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
The validity of a scientific theory often lies more in whether it has not yet been disproven than in whether it has yet been proven.  So I put before you this challenge, Gebre.  Prove evolutionary theory false from the basis of science and science alone.  I'd be willing to bet you can't.

To the objective mind, the lack of any fossil evidence that demonstrates intermediary species runs contrary to evolutionary theory.

But I have been over this all before, and will not get sucked into another scientific debate. The OP specifically asked whether or not evolution is compatible with Orthodoxy. Since this is a philosophical question, then let's stick to the philsophical issues. And the quotes I posted by Father Rose did exactly that, and the evolutionists have yet to address his philosophical points.

For example, at what specific point did man fall and become subject to death? At what point did man become fully human, and thereby the "image of God?"


Selam
For the purposes of this discussion, you need to ignore the OP and follow the thread title, instead.  This thread is now a conglomerate of many pre-existing threads all discussing the same theme of creationism vs. evolutionary theory.  Every thread that got merged into this has its own OP, and every thread that will get merged into this thread in the future will have its own OP.  It is therefore useless to expect anyone to stay on topic if that means speaking solely to the first post of this thread.  The topic is now the ongoing debate of creationism vs. evolutionary theory, and any post that addresses either side of the subject is welcome.

It seems a bit contradictory to say that either side of the subject is welcome, but that I need to ignore the OP. My main concern is to specifically address the OP, and to give reasons why I bvelieve that Orthodoxy and evolution are incompatible.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1952 on: February 11, 2010, 06:22:19 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?

The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam

So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?
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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1953 on: February 11, 2010, 06:25:31 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?

The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam

So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?


What are your spiritual reasons for rejecting the existence of God?

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,156


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1954 on: February 11, 2010, 07:00:19 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?

The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam

So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1955 on: February 11, 2010, 07:11:12 PM »

So I took my granddaughter shopping last evening. When we arrived back to the car there’s a pamphlet under one of the windscreen wipers.

It boldly claims…

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS STATES: ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED
Therefore the Universe didn’t create itself.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Says that everything goes from randomness to complexity.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Says the opposite is the case.

CARBON 14 DATING UNRELIABLE!!
A living snail was tested and the reading showed that it has been dead for 3000years!

MOON-WALKERS DON’T SINK INTO HUNDREDS OF FEET OF MOON DUST!
Surprisingling, they found about ½ inch on the moon, showing that we have a very young moon of about 6000 years old!

APE-MEN FRAUDS!!
Pithecanthropus erectus was found to be a gibbon. Pitdown man (built up on a jaw bone of a modern ape and a human skull) and Peking man similarly were found to be frauds. Nebraska man was based on a single tooth imagined to belong to a human skull. It was later proven to belong to a pig.

FOSSIL RECORD EMBARRASSES SCIENCE! THERE IS NONE!
Darwin said that the fossil record would bear him out, yet more than 100 years after his death no one can find any “half fossils”. Where are the alligators with wings or the ducks with feet.

THE LAWS OF HEREDITY weren’t discovered at the time the theory of evolution was proposed in the mid1800s. These laws show that characteristics are passed from parents to offspring according to precise mathematical ratios unlike the random processes of evolution.

TWO STARVING SHIPWRECKED SAILORS were washed up on an island. After trudging  in the hot sun for several hours, one saw a car half-hidden in the jungle. Excitedly, he yelled “Eureka! Someone lives on the island.” To which the other replied; “Nah! Don’t be stupid, the car just evolved by itself!”

Recommended web sits: www.av1611.org
And: www.drdino.com

Now apart from the obvious nonsense in this pamphlet, I was surprised to see that this supposed means of introducing Christ to the lost only had a brief mention of the Saviour on the back page with a couple of bible verses and some confused gobbledygook about *truth*. Included was an additional page claiming that there being no errors in the King James bible and instructions on how to avoid going to hell by praying the Salvation prayer they supplied. All in all, the message of the Gospel, seemingly nothing more than an addendum, was obscured by two obsessions; evolution and the rightness of the King James. And obviously, the pamphlet distributors had never visited Answers in Genesis where they would have received advice not to use arguments (I use the term euphemistically) that aren't honest, intellectually sound, logical, and the result of scientific research.

Now I agree that not much can be done to "spread the word" in a pamphlet like this; so if one is going to the trouble and expense of doing this sort of thing why not simply spread the word about Christ, (and I commend anyone for doing that) instead of obsessing over personal hobby horses?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1956 on: February 11, 2010, 07:18:15 PM »

I feel sorry for the trees that were cut down, processed and then had that garbage printed upon them.  They deserved better.
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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1957 on: February 11, 2010, 07:19:19 PM »

I feel sorry for the trees that were cut down, processed and then had that garbage printed upon them.  They deserved better.

I agree!  Angry  Sad
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,519


« Reply #1958 on: February 11, 2010, 07:22:48 PM »

Quote
TWO STARVING SHIPWRECKED SAILORS were washed up on an island. After trudging  in the hot sun for several hours, one saw a car half-hidden in the jungle. Excitedly, he yelled “Eureka! Someone lives on the island.” To which the other replied; “Nah! Don’t be stupid, the car just evolved by itself!”

And creationists like this* wonder why some people disdain them (and to be fair, I feel the same way about people who say things like "every religion was just created to control people"... this isn't a religious vs. non-religious thing, it's a get-the-facts-right thing). Ok, disdain is too strong a word, maybe more like they are frustrating.


*Note that I am not talking about every creationist
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 07:23:35 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1959 on: February 11, 2010, 08:37:19 PM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?

The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam

So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.

You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.

You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.

As for the theistic evolution position, I have discussed the naivete and untenable nature of this position earlier on this thread. And I do not say "naive" in a pejoritive sense, only as a matter of fact. (The theoretical possiblity of theistic evolution is certainly valid, but its reality is nullified in the light of hard science and philsophical principles.)

Too many Orthodox Christians are afraid of appearing "unenlightened" or "foolish" if they do not jump on the evolution bandwagon. They have been intimidated by those who try to monopolize the issue by saying that we have no right to comment on evolution unless we are scientists ourselves. So they capitulate to the bullying and try to preserve their Orthodoxy by adopting the false compromise of "theistic evolution." Too many Christians are either too ignorant or too afraid to affirm their own spiritual worldview as the most valid point of reference for all things from morality to science. So when Gic or others try to force their own naturalistic presuppositions upon me, I will not bow down to it. No one can ever really understand the creation if they do not first know the Creator. The onus is not upon us to disprove evolution; true science is already doing that each and every day.

Not to mention, my Church teaches that the earth is only about 7 or 8 thousand years old, so that pretty much precludes the possibility of evolution at the outset. So I have a choice: do I ignore the teachings of my Faith in order to fit in with the crowd and safeguard myself from ridicule, or do I accept the teachings of my Faith and stand firm in the face of worldly opposition?

As blessed Augustine said, "I believe, therefore I know."

All that is to say that I believe we have to recognize that there are two diametrically opposed worldviews at play in the evolution debate. And as Orthodox Christians we cannot allow those with naturalistic presuppositions to declare that their starting point is the only valid and objective foundation from which to discern these vital matters.  


Selam
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 08:39:28 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,156


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1960 on: February 11, 2010, 08:58:03 PM »

IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.

You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 09:25:06 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,495


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1961 on: February 12, 2010, 01:52:29 AM »

IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.

You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.

You are actually making my point. The evolutionists try to posit this faith/fact dichotomy, and therefore pretend to disregard philosophical matters under the guise of being strictly scientific. But evolutionary theory is actually a philosophy that masquerades as strict science.

It is not true that my faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific fact; but it will not capitulate to mere scientific philosophy.

By the way, I believe my analogy is very apropos to this issue. Atheism is a philosophical construct to which science is unqualified to speak, and yet evolutionary theory is predicated upon an atheistic presupposition. So that's why I used the analogy.


Selam

 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 01:53:17 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1962 on: February 12, 2010, 02:07:23 AM »

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam

Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  Wink

I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam

No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.

Uhh, whose outraged? Huh I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam

You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".


So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam

You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?

The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam

So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?


What are your spiritual reasons for rejecting the existence of God?

Selam

Christian theology is just a knock off of pagan philosophy, but Christians reject the religion from which their own theology is derived...the entire system is self-contradictory.

Now are you going to end this silliness and actually address the actual issues at hand?
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 #1963 on: February 12, 2010, 02:27:24 AM »

IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.

You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.

You are actually making my point. The evolutionists try to posit this faith/fact dichotomy, and therefore pretend to disregard philosophical matters under the guise of being strictly scientific. But evolutionary theory is actually a philosophy that masquerades as strict science.

It is not true that my faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific fact; but it will not capitulate to mere scientific philosophy.

By the way, I believe my analogy is very apropos to this issue. Atheism is a philosophical construct to which science is unqualified to speak, and yet evolutionary theory is predicated upon an atheistic presupposition. So that's why I used the analogy.

Philosophy in general (not just theology and philosophy derived from religion) is an artificial construct, generally having no relation whatsoever to the real world. Science is not based on any philosophy, all of which are inherently absurd, it's merely a formalization of repeatable and verifiable observations. These smoke-screens you keep throwing up won't get you anywhere.
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
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1964 on: February 12, 2010, 02:53:21 AM »

This thread has inspired me to focus more of my time on bioinformatics.  :p

Evolutionary biology and neo-Darwinian evolution isn't a strict science.  Ha!
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,156


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1965 on: February 12, 2010, 03:05:16 AM »

IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.

You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.

You are actually making my point. The evolutionists try to posit this faith/fact dichotomy, and therefore pretend to disregard philosophical matters under the guise of being strictly scientific. But evolutionary theory is actually a philosophy that masquerades as strict science.
No, it's not.  There is such a thing as evolutionary philosophy that many draw from evolutionary theory, but they're not one and the same.

It is not true that my faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific fact; but it will not capitulate to mere scientific philosophy.
And, as many here have already stated and defended, evolutionary theory is NOT a mere scientific philosophy.  It is an attempt to posit a natural explanation for the speciation of life on earth.  Simply looking for natural causes for natural phenomena is not in itself a denial of the supernatural, as you seem to believe.  It's merely an attempt to understand how nature works.  Why is this wrong, even if we believe nature to be an expression of God's creative love and infinite wisdom?

By the way, I believe my analogy is very apropos to this issue. Atheism is a philosophical construct to which science is unqualified to speak, and yet evolutionary theory is predicated upon an atheistic presupposition. So that's why I used the analogy.
What atheistic presupposition?  The scientific maxim that we are to seek for natural reasons for observable phenomena and when we can't, simply say, "We don't know yet of any natural causes that can explain this."?  How is this a denial of the supernatural that atheism requires?  I suppose that even a Christian could say this and still be true to his theistic world view.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 03:24:25 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1966 on: February 12, 2010, 03:53:31 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?

Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 04:01:14 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1967 on: February 12, 2010, 04:05:39 AM »

I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1968 on: February 12, 2010, 04:12:30 AM »

I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.

I agree that it doesn't have to be linked with atheism, for there is Theistic/Creationist evolution as well. But the Theistic evolutionists on the board don't want to be called "creationists".......eventhough they are.


They are just a different kind of creationist.






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 04:15:45 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1969 on: February 12, 2010, 04:22:28 AM »

I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.

I agree that it doesn't have to be linked with atheism, for there is Theistic/Creationist evolution as well. But the Theistic evolutionists on the board don't want to be called "creationists".......eventhough they are.


They are just a different kind of creationist.






ICXC NIKA

All Orthodox Christians believe God created. However, I doubt that many would accept the title of Creationist considering the connotations surrounding that title. And for the record, one more time.... Evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet, not the origins of life. Endeavours to answer questions regarding the beginning of life belongs to the field of Abiogenesis.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1970 on: February 12, 2010, 04:46:58 AM »

I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.

I agree that it doesn't have to be linked with atheism, for there is Theistic/Creationist evolution as well. But the Theistic evolutionists on the board don't want to be called "creationists".......eventhough they are.

They are just a different kind of creationist.
ICXC NIKA

All Orthodox Christians believe God created. However, I doubt that many would accept the title of Creationist considering the connotations surrounding that title. And for the record, one more time.... Evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet, not the origins of life. Endeavours to answer questions regarding the beginning of life belongs to the field of Abiogenesis.

Biological Evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet, but the word itself permeates all the sciences. There is cosmological evolution, in where it takes billions of years for planets and stars to form. There is evolution in geology, in where it takes millions of years for rocks to decay.....etc.(Charles Darwin borrowed some ideas of the geology of his day for his theory) There is Evolution in politics, in where the progressives advocate a slow change over decades in order to reach their socialistic dream.....this is in contrast to the idea of "Revolution", in where you get fast change.

So no, I must disagree. The idea of "Evolution" is not just in biology alone.




ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 04:48:10 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,156


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1971 on: February 12, 2010, 05:05:27 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?

Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.






ICXC NIKA
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? Huh
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1972 on: February 12, 2010, 05:12:06 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? Huh


Yes It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset. Sorry






ICXC  NIKA
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 05:13:41 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,156


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1973 on: February 12, 2010, 05:15:50 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? Huh


Yes, It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset.






ICXC  NIKA
He provoked a controversy with his statements.  If a whole lot of others feel the need to run his position through the fire, then what's wrong with that?  Isn't that what an Internet discussion forum is for?  (What happens when you stir up a real, live hornet's nest?)
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 05:17:14 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1974 on: February 12, 2010, 05:17:21 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?

Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.

ICXC NIKA
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? Huh

I was simply wondering who the "creation haters" were. I thought perhaps I had missed something.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1975 on: February 12, 2010, 05:19:14 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? Huh


Yes, It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset.


ICXC  NIKA
He provoked a controversy with his statements.  If a whole lot of others feel the need to run his position through the fire, then what's wrong with that?  Isn't that what an Internet discussion forum is for?  (What happens when you stir up a real, live hornet's nest?)

True, but just know that I'm always gonna have his back.




ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1976 on: February 12, 2010, 05:21:09 AM »

Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? Huh


Yes, It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset.


ICXC  NIKA
He provoked a controversy with his statements.  If a whole lot of others feel the need to run his position through the fire, then what's wrong with that?  Isn't that what an Internet discussion forum is for?  (What happens when you stir up a real, live hornet's nest?)

True, but just know that I'm always gonna have his back.

ICXC NIKA

That's so cute!  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,519


« Reply #1977 on: February 12, 2010, 08:33:50 AM »

True, but just know that I'm always gonna have his back.

And I'm sure he sleeps very well at night knowing that.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 08:34:05 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1978 on: February 12, 2010, 10:44:01 AM »

I was simply wondering who the "creation haters" were. I thought perhaps I had missed something.

What an odd term.  I've been asked if I'm gnostic, new age and wiccan on this forum due to my stance on the natural world, but oh how I hate the cosmos... laugh
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
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,381



« Reply #1979 on: February 12, 2010, 11:12:33 AM »

Observable? Who was their to observe it? 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.
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   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 0.277 seconds with 74 queries.