Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[chrevbel]

Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe? 

I have a better question. 

And I have an even better question.  Why can't you answer the original one?  It's a remarakably simple question.  Do you think this eclipse occurred as stated or not?

[Kerdy]

Your answer is "You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation". Do you believe this are fair questions?

Why can't you just answer the question?  It's quite simple.  Do you believe that a solar eclipse occurred in that particular place on that particular date or not?  Yes or no?  How much simpler a question could I possibly ask?

Why can't you just prove evolution?  It should be easy.  Why aren't we talking retrovirus anymore?  I want to talk about those and how silly the entire argument is.

[Kerdy]

Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe? 

I have a better question. 

And I have an even better question.  Why can't you answer the original one?  It's a remarakably simple question.  Do you think this eclipse occurred as stated or not?

Nothing, as I expected.  Let me know when it happens.  Until then, evolution is science fiction at best.  B movie material in my opinion.

[ativan]

Stop claiming to KNOW and be honest.  Take a best guess and admit as much.

But this is exactly what science does.  Even the man you love to demonize, Darwin, quantified some potential observations that would render his theory invalid.  Can you do the same for creationism?  Are there any potential observations that would cause you to change your mind about your conclusions?

What? Which part of darwinism is quantifiable?

You also insist on things being scientific which is totally wrong. Since you are supposed to be an Orthodox then at least you should believe there's God and he created matter. If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer? Of course not. If God created matter in your understanding then it requires no more science. Same with life. Can it potentially be created by God as it was described in the Bible? Of course it can. So if this was the case and if this is true what type of scientific answer you expect? The problem with science today is exactly it's scientism. It's not science you talk about but scientism. This scientism has materialistic methodology at its very base and wants to use this methodology everywhere which is false. And again we don't say our faith belongs to a rank of materialistic-science-provable things. It's you who claim so. Then do so.

Remember question: if God did create every single species as it is how can we prove it?

[ativan]

Your answer is "You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation". Do you believe this are fair questions?

Why can't you just answer the question?  It's quite simple.  Do you believe that a solar eclipse occurred in that particular place on that particular date or not?  Yes or no?  How much simpler a question could I possibly ask?

I answered it pretty well. Since you did not understand the answer I'll rephrase: I will believe it if the theory can make predictions when and where such eclipses will happen again and in experiments you will show me that. Now it's your turn: do you believe that if you did not predicted future events (meaning directly observing it) I can dismiss your theory including statement that eclipse happened some time in the past?

This is quite simple question also.

[chrevbel]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

[chrevbel]

Since you are supposed to be an Orthodox...

Oh, and reference this -- it's a not-even-thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Done.

God bless.

[Kerdy]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

Except evolution hasn't been proven to describe the means.  It's just one possibity, no matter how unlikely.

[Kerdy]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

[chrevbel]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

Except evolution hasn't been proven to describe the means.  It's just one possibity, no matter how unlikely.

And I agreed earlier that it's worth exploring other hypotheses, and you dismissed it as shifting?

I am convinced that the earth was formed somewhere around four billion years ago and that life arose sometime in the first billion years of its existence.  From that primordial life, all life forms currently on the planet evolved.  I believe that this view is consistent with all known observations.  In a nutshell, that is my version of the hypothesis.
 
In a nutshell, what is your version of your hypothesis?

[Achronos]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

Except evolution hasn't been proven to describe the means.  It's just one possibity, no matter how unlikely.

But it's the best explanation with the evidence that we have.

[Kerdy]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

Except evolution hasn't been proven to describe the means.  It's just one possibity, no matter how unlikely.

And I agreed earlier that it's worth exploring other hypotheses, and you dismissed it as shifting?

It is shifting.  You are the one attempting to prove something here.  Not me.  I'm all about being convinced.  It just hasn't happened yet.  If you want me to believe a square peg fits perfectly into a round hole, you have to show me.

[Kerdy]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

Except evolution hasn't been proven to describe the means.  It's just one possibity, no matter how unlikely.

But it's the best explanation with the evidence that we have.

That depends on your point of view, but I take no issue with what you just stated.  In fact, I respect the way it's worded and wouldn't  argue against it, even though I do not agree.

[chrevbel]

I agreed earlier that it's worth exploring other hypotheses, and you dismissed it as shifting?

You are the one attempting to prove something here.  Not me.

Since I'm on record something like a half-dozen times as claiming that science doesn't prove anything, it's difficult for me to fathom how you can think I'm trying to prove something.  What I'm trying to do, and what science tries to do, is to discern which of competing hypotheses or theories best fits the data.  I've provided mine.  Can you please provide a basic version of the hypothesis that you think should replace the evolutionary theory that you are convinced is incorrect?

[Kerdy]

I agreed earlier that it's worth exploring other hypotheses, and you dismissed it as shifting?

You are the one attempting to prove something here.  Not me.

Since I'm on record something like a half-dozen times as claiming that science doesn't prove anything, it's difficult for me to fathom how you can think I'm trying to prove something.  What I'm trying to do, and what science tries to do, is to discern which of competing hypotheses or theories best fits the data.  I've provided mine.  Can you please provide a basic version of the hypothesis that you think should replace the evolutionary theory that you are convinced is incorrect?

You have attempted to prove something, that evolution exists in reality and not only on paper.  Look at the posts you have provided.  I said this once before, pick a side of the argument and stop riding the fence.  You can't play both sides unless you say in your opinion evolution is a plausible hypothesis.

[ativan]

If I asked "how did the matter came to be into existence?" would you try to give me a "scientific" answer?  Of course not.

Of course so.  That's what science attempts to do -- answer the how.  Theology answers the why.  Evolution describes the means.  Genesis provides the meaning.

Science want to answer question how God created something out of nothing when main scientific tenant is nothing is created out of something. Good look.

Since you are supposed to be an Orthodox...

Oh, and reference this -- it's a not-even-thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Done.

God bless.

Hope all that is not out of pride. God bless you too.

[chrevbel]

You have attempted to prove something, that evolution exists in reality and not only on paper.  Look at the posts you have provided.  I said this once before, pick a side of the argument and stop riding the fence.  You can't play both sides unless you say in your opinion evolution is a plausible hypothesis.

What?  I'm not sure what two sides you think I am playing.  I've pretty clearly referred to evolution as a hypothesis -- "In a nutshell, that is my version of the hypothesis.".  And I've acknowledged a willingness to consider alternive hypotheses -- "Can you please provide a basic version of the hypothesis that you think should replace the evolutionary theory that you are convinced is incorrect?"

And I've pretty clearly stated that I consider evolution (or more precisely, natural selection) to be no more permanent than any any other hypothesis or theory in science.  It is susceptible to being revised or rejected if found to be inconsistent with our observations.  I can provide potential observations that would falsify the theory, among them being the discovery that mammals have existed the entire time that life has existed, for example.

And I have provided a succinct version of my hypothesis that we can examine and discuss -- "I am convinced that the earth was formed somewhere around four billion years ago and that life arose sometime in the first billion years of its existence.  From that primordial life, all life forms currently on the planet evolved."

Will you do the same?  Will you provide your alternative hypothesis?  Will you provide potential falsifying observations?  Will you enter a discussion in which we take what we observe and consider which hypothesis better fits the data?

[Kerdy]

You have attempted to prove something, that evolution exists in reality and not only on paper.  Look at the posts you have provided.  I said this once before, pick a side of the argument and stop riding the fence.  You can't play both sides unless you say in your opinion evolution is a plausible hypothesis.

What?  I'm not sure what two sides you think I am playing.  I've pretty clearly referred to evolution as a hypothesis -- "In a nutshell, that is my version of the hypothesis.".  And I've acknowledged a willingness to consider alternive hypotheses -- "Can you please provide a basic version of the hypothesis that you think should replace the evolutionary theory that you are convinced is incorrect?"

And I've pretty clearly stated that I consider evolution (or more precisely, natural selection) to be no more permanent than any any other hypothesis or theory in science.  It is susceptible to being revised or rejected if found to be inconsistent with our observations.  I can provide potential observations that would falsify the theory, among them being the discovery that mammals have existed the entire time that life has existed, for example.

And I have provided a succinct version of my hypothesis that we can examine and discuss -- "I am convinced that the earth was formed somewhere around four billion years ago and that life arose sometime in the first billion years of its existence.  From that primordial life, all life forms currently on the planet evolved."

Will you do the same?  Will you provide your alternative hypothesis?  Will you provide potential falsifying observations?  Will you enter a discussion in which we take what we observe and consider which hypothesis better fits the data?

If that is your view, I'm ok with that.  If I misunderstood your intention, I offer my apologies.  An unproven hypothesis which you personally believe to be true.  

Me? I take God at His word.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

[DavidH]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Very well stated.

Evolutionary theory is like a game of connect the dots: Once all the small dots of evidence are connected to the long lines of speculation and philosophy the distinction between the two gets so blurred that few people remember the distinction because they are mesmerized by the resulting pattern.

[NicholasMyra]

Me? I take God at His word.

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

[minasoliman]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.

I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up.  I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.

[stavros_388]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Call us "useful idiots" if you will. Call it science or philosophy, as you wish. The constantly growing and overwhelming evidence supports evolution and demolishes YEC.

And just whose agenda is it, then, Gebre? Satan's? Well played, Satan. Very well played.  

[Achronos]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Yep. If all humans are just nothing but dust, composed of cells, etc. then eugenics is completely justifiable. Materialism can be dangerous. That's why the image of God is so crucial in our understanding of human beings.

[stavros_388]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Yep. If all humans are just nothing but dust, composed of cells, etc. then eugenics is completely justifiable. Materialism can be dangerous. That's why the image of God is so crucial in our understanding of human beings.

True, but is our being in the image of God reliant on us having been instantaneously created? I don't believe that it is.

[Jetavan]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Yep. If all humans are just nothing but dust, composed of cells, etc. then eugenics is completely justifiable.

Perhaps, but if I realize that this bit of dust that I call "me" is not ultimately different from that bit of dust that I call "you", if I realize that we are all dust, and that we all feel pain and suffering, then I can also conclude that just like I don't want the "me"-dust to suffer, I don't want the "you"-dust to suffer either -- since, ultimately, where can I draw the line between the "dusts"?

I don't think "materialism" itself is the problem. I think the problem is lack of empathy/sympathy and emotional inter-relatedness.

[Kerdy]

Me? I take God at His word.

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

[Kerdy]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.

I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up.  I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.

We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis.  It's called disagreement, not ignorance.

I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them.  Instead, questions were asked of me.  It doesn't work that way.  Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.

[minasoliman]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.

I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up.  I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.

We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis.  It's called disagreement, not ignorance.

I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them.  Instead, questions were asked of me.  It doesn't work that way.  Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.

They were already answered for you.  You simply just made up your mind.

Humility dictates that you even agree to disagree, but you take things further and imply "expertise" by debating and knowing how science works.  Let's be honest.  Is anyone here debating against evolution in a respectable science occupation with research that involves principles of evolution?

Chrevbel is trying to show you how science works by a Socratic method.  But you avoid it because of your pre-conceived notions of how science works.  And are you a scientist?

The best way to explain science is to compare it to detective work on crimes.  Obviously you can't see a direct observation, but you observe the results of whatever happened and work backwards to solve it.  The problem is you are asking Chrevbel to prove evolution by going back in time and observing it, whereas Chrevbel is telling you we are forward in time, and are trying to figure what happened in the past.  That's the what he's trying to explain to you, but you're too stubborn to see it and blame scientists for being "philosophically oriented" and lead Gebre to believe theistic evolutionists are the "atheist's idiots".

Humor Chrevbel.  Answer his question so that he can better explain science to you as he practices it rather than as you understand it, because clearly the "multiple" biology classes you took seem to either not have done a good job explaining science to you or you just rejected everything the teacher said but passed based on what the teacher is looking for.  Either way, this whole discussion is useless with you if you're not going to be stubborn-minded to understand how people like me, Chrevbel, and Celticsfan understand science.

[Kerdy]

Lets see.  Does evolution comply with scientific theory?  Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no.  Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only.  This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.


Selam

Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.

I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up.  I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.

We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis.  It's called disagreement, not ignorance.

I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them.  Instead, questions were asked of me.  It doesn't work that way.  Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.

They were already answered for you.  You simply just made up your mind.

Humility dictates that you even agree to disagree, but you take things further and imply "expertise" by debating and knowing how science works.  Let's be honest.  Is anyone here debating against evolution in a respectable science occupation with research that involves principles of evolution?

Chrevbel is trying to show you how science works by a Socratic method.  But you avoid it because of your pre-conceived notions of how science works.  And are you a scientist?

The best way to explain science is to compare it to detective work on crimes.  Obviously you can't see a direct observation, but you observe the results of whatever happened and work backwards to solve it.  The problem is you are asking Chrevbel to prove evolution by going back in time and observing it, whereas Chrevbel is telling you we are forward in time, and are trying to figure what happened in the past.  That's the what he's trying to explain to you, but you're too stubborn to see it and blame scientists for being "philosophically oriented" and lead Gebre to believe theistic evolutionists are the "atheist's idiots".

Humor Chrevbel.  Answer his question so that he can better explain science to you as he practices it rather than as you understand it, because clearly the "multiple" biology classes you took seem to either not have done a good job explaining science to you or you just rejected everything the teacher said but passed based on what the teacher is looking for.  Either way, this whole discussion is useless with you if you're not going to be stubborn-minded to understand how people like me, , Chrevbel and Celticsfan understand science.

They were answered, but incorrectly.  If you say 2 plus 2 equals 47, you have to show me.  It isn't my fault he math doesn't add up.  You talk about preconceived ideas as if you are immune.  Evolution is a preconceived idea in every aspect.  Like I told you before, I once accepted evolution, until I realized it didn't make sense.  I have used evolutionists words in my debate, not mine, which is where you fail.  You don't understand, apparently, evolutionists failures and there are a lot of them.  

His questions were irrelevant and not the topic of discussion.  It's a distraction ploy used by several groups when they can't support what they say.  The way you understand science is warped from the way it should be understood and even Chrevbel has admitted it's simply a hypothesis which can't be factually supported.  But you folks are free to be upset with me.  I'm not the problem, it's your take on science and all of those biologists who say you are wrong.  Not to mention those who support evolution who say thing contrary to what you may say or things you declare are never said.  Evolution is a crap shoot.  It proved itself to me to be bogus and continues with every scrap people grab hold to in an effort to prove its real.  I'm looking forward to the next partial 3cm piece of bone and 54 feet away a tooth is found so we can create an entirely new ancestor to man, only later to find out it too is false.

I'm still waiting for my first question to be answered.  Of anything asked, it should be the easiest.

And your detective example was accurate, but a mistake to use with me.  I'll give you one guess what I do for a living.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

The evolutionists reveal that their theory is ideological rather than empirical by their emotional reaction to anyone who dares to point out holes in their theory. Empirical science is completely detached from raw emotion and subjective opinion, but the evolutionists become passionately inflamed when anyone asks for them for empiral proof. And when they can't provide such proof, they always say it's because the rest of us aren't scientists. That's like me saying they have no right to comment on anything they read unless they're an author.


Selam

[NicholasMyra]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

[Kerdy]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

[NicholasMyra]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

You brought up taking God at his word in the context of creation.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

It's important to the discussion because as long as the evolutionists can keep the conversation steeped in philosophy then they can distract us from the fact that they have no empirical evidence to support their theory. Anytime I have ever challenged an evolutionist to prove their theory, one of the first things they do is bring up religion.


Selam

[Kerdy]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

You brought up taking God at his word in the context of creation.

Ah, I see now.  Distraction tactic to shift the focus.  I thought that is what it was but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt just in case I was incorrect.  I have been fairly forward lately and thought it best if I relaxed this time.

[NicholasMyra]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

You brought up taking God at his word in the context of creation.

Ah, I see now.  Distraction tactic to shift the focus.  I thought that is what it was but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt just in case I was incorrect.  I have been fairly forward lately and thought it best if I relaxed this time.

I was trying to find out whether or not you took God at his word some of the time, but not all of the time (what many EO creationists seem to do), which would either damage or enhance your ethos re: the discussion regarding evolution and deviating from God's word currently at hand. Sorry for assuming you were in that camp prematurely.

If it's a distraction tactic, okay. So are you refusing to discuss how you envision the Garden of Eden and the world outside of it?

[Kerdy]

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

You brought up taking God at his word in the context of creation.

Ah, I see now.  Distraction tactic to shift the focus.  I thought that is what it was but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt just in case I was incorrect.  I have been fairly forward lately and thought it best if I relaxed this time.

I was trying to find out whether or not you took God at his word some of the time, but not all of the time (what many EO creationists seem to do), which would either damage or enhance your ethos re: the discussion regarding evolution and deviating from God's word currently at hand.

If it's a distraction tactic, okay. So are you refusing to discuss how you envision the Garden of Eden and the world outside of it?

In this thread, I am.

[NicholasMyra]

In this thread, I am.

Lames. So then you won't be mentioning God's word and taking again, right?

[Kerdy]

In this thread, I am.

Lames. So then you won't be mentioning God's word and taking again, right?

Distraction tactic.  If your desire is to chase your own tail, by all means do so.  Just don't involve me.  Stick to the topic.  Many thanks!

[NicholasMyra]

In this thread, I am.

Lames. So then you won't be mentioning God's word and taking again, right?

If your desire is to chase your own tail, by all means do so.  Just don't envolve me.  Stick to the topic.  Many thanks!

As long as you do the same, sure.

So when you said you "take God at his word", which words were you talking about re: evolution and creation?

[NicholasMyra]

Distraction tactic.

Pocket sand!

[Kerdy]

In this thread, I am.

Lames. So then you won't be mentioning God's word and taking again, right?

If your desire is to chase your own tail, by all means do so.  Just don't envolve me.  Stick to the topic.  Many thanks!

As long as you do the same, sure.

So when you said you "take God at his word", which words were you talking about re: evolution and creation?

I take it this means you are another person incapable of defending the evolution hypothesis.  Shift the focus away and remove the problem, right?  Saw this too many times when I was addicted to politics.  Rarely works on me and only when I'm not paying much attention.  Gotta do better. 

So, what do you have which will convince me I'm wrong and you are right about evolution?  Don't waste time trying to derail.

[Kerdy]

Distraction tactic.

Pocket sand!

In case you missed it, because you can't support you hypothesis in no way means I have to do anything about supporting my beliefs. 

[NicholasMyra]

I take it this means you are another person incapable of defending the evolution hypothesis.  

What the...

Gotta do better.  

So, what do you have which will convince me I'm wrong and you are right

What the ****? Where is this coming from?

 I have a feeling you are one of those people who become like an .exe file when "debating". I'm not talking to the multi-faceted person Kerdy right now, I am instead talking to kerdyevolutiondebate.exe.

That's a damn shame.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy