OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 03:38:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 324684 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4590 on: September 28, 2012, 06:46:24 PM »

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?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4591 on: September 28, 2012, 06:47:44 PM »

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.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4592 on: September 28, 2012, 06:49:00 PM »

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.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4593 on: September 28, 2012, 06:51:30 PM »

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?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4594 on: September 28, 2012, 06:57:26 PM »

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.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4595 on: September 28, 2012, 06:59:20 PM »

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.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4596 on: September 28, 2012, 07:03:23 PM »

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.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4597 on: September 28, 2012, 07:04:08 PM »

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.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4598 on: September 28, 2012, 07:10:02 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 07:11:20 PM by Kerdy » Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4599 on: September 28, 2012, 07:11:16 PM »

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?
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4600 on: September 28, 2012, 07:11:51 PM »

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.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4601 on: September 28, 2012, 07:15:19 PM »

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.

Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4602 on: September 28, 2012, 07:17:45 PM »

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.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4603 on: September 28, 2012, 07:24:53 PM »

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?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4604 on: September 28, 2012, 09:23:51 PM »

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.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4605 on: September 28, 2012, 11:58:51 PM »

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.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4606 on: September 29, 2012, 01:26:51 AM »

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?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4607 on: September 29, 2012, 01:35:11 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 01:36:42 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4608 on: September 29, 2012, 02:04:22 AM »

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
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 02:05:13 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #4609 on: September 29, 2012, 12:30:17 PM »

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.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4610 on: September 29, 2012, 12:42:33 PM »

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"?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 12:43:12 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,099


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


WWW
« Reply #4611 on: September 29, 2012, 12:43:34 PM »

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.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,217



« Reply #4612 on: September 29, 2012, 12:44:21 PM »

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.  Tongue
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4613 on: September 29, 2012, 12:47:36 PM »

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.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,217



« Reply #4614 on: September 29, 2012, 12:54:53 PM »

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.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,440


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4615 on: September 29, 2012, 02:19:53 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 02:20:32 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4616 on: September 29, 2012, 08:56:16 PM »

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?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4617 on: September 29, 2012, 08:59:56 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 09:03:06 PM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,099


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


WWW
« Reply #4618 on: September 29, 2012, 09:19:18 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 09:20:46 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4619 on: September 29, 2012, 11:01:33 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 11:05:58 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4620 on: September 30, 2012, 01:32:34 AM »

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
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4621 on: September 30, 2012, 01:45:22 AM »

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?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4622 on: September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM »

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?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4623 on: September 30, 2012, 03:42:31 AM »

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.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4624 on: September 30, 2012, 03:48:57 AM »

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
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4625 on: September 30, 2012, 03:52:20 AM »

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.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4626 on: September 30, 2012, 03:57:52 AM »

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?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:02:12 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4627 on: September 30, 2012, 04:00:45 AM »

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.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4628 on: September 30, 2012, 04:02:31 AM »


In this thread, I am.
Lames. So then you won't be mentioning God's word and taking again, right?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:02:53 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4629 on: September 30, 2012, 04:05:13 AM »


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!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:09:36 AM by Kerdy » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4630 on: September 30, 2012, 04:09:09 AM »


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?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:09:28 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4631 on: September 30, 2012, 04:09:57 AM »

Distraction tactic.
Pocket sand!
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4632 on: September 30, 2012, 04:13:21 AM »


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.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4633 on: September 30, 2012, 04:14:58 AM »

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. 
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,853


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4634 on: September 30, 2012, 04:16:30 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:18:52 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
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 »   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 0.192 seconds with 76 queries.