Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Pericles]

It is heretical because it's construed against Judaism.

You are talking complete tosh and I'm certain you know it. I've construed Hellenism as precisely what it is and applied that to the OT. If you want to believe in the Genesis creation narrative be my guest but dont try to make out people that don't are not Orthodox, the results of the poll above does not support that.

Personally I would call myself an Intelligent Design proponent, rather than a creationist, and happilly accept that God created the cosmos and yet I still maintain that Genesis should be read in context and not as a scientific account of creation.

Furthermore in case you're laboring under that false impression that I'm some sort of Greek nationalist, forget it...I'm British, born bread and educated. Hellenism and Helleno-Christianity mean to me what they were intended to mean and are not part of some nationalist agenda. It's the nationalistic versions of Hellenism that have been condemned as heresy.

To be anti-Judaic with regards importing elements or attitudes associated with Judaism into Christianity is not Anti-Semitism. It is in fact quite the opposite -respect. I'm not trying to appropriate the sacred-text of another religion, you are and thats cultural imperialism. Christianity is one religion Judaism is quite another, lets keep it that way.

Christ did not create the world in 7 days, he's still creating and it's taken 13.772 billion years to date!

[Romaios]

Personally I would call myself an Intelligent Design proponent, rather than a creationist, and happilly accept that God created the cosmos and yet I still maintain that Genesis should be read in context and not as a scientific account of creation.

Furthermore in case you're laboring under that false impression that I'm some sort of Greek nationalist, forget it...I'm British, born bread and educated. Hellenism and Helleno-Christianity mean to me what they were intended to mean and are not part of some nationalist agenda. It's the nationalistic versions of Hellenism that have been condemned as heresy.

To be anti-Judaic with regards importing elements or attitudes associated with Judaism into Christianity is not Anti-Semitism. It is in fact quite the opposite -respect. I'm not trying to appropriate the sacred-text of another religion, you are and thats cultural imperialism. Christianity is one religion Judaism is quite another, lets keep it that way.

Christ did not create the world in 7 days, he's still creating and it's taken 13.772 billion years to date!

Fwiw, I'm no creationist fundie either and I could define myself as a philhellene as well as a philosemite (being neither Jewish, nor Greek).

As long as you understand that the noble olive tree on which we are grafted through Christ is Judaism (while Hellenism is but a wild tree among others) and that "salvation is from the Jews" (not the Hellenes), you are in accord with St. Paul the Apostle and Orthodoxy. If you turn it around and believe the exact opposite, you cannot call yourself Christian.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Selam

Well, with regards to this post, I don't believe Mr. Carson (with all due respect) understands how the scientific process really works. Darwin theorized Evolution in 1859. Since then, the theory has been, added to, revised, and ultimately refined, and will continue to be until we can fully scientifically understand it as much as is needed to make it appear plausible. It's still a larger jump, with all of the evidence we have(even outside of the fossil record) against a literal genesis, to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old.

Respects,
 Andrew

^Edited it for you.



Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

...

Selam

I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?

Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  

So how much evidence would there have to be for you to accept it?

I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830838317


Selam

[minasoliman]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

No not at all.  The fact that he's a Seventh Day Adventist is bothersome.  These are "Christians" who take the law literally.  They are somewhat Judaizers.  Some SDAs believe in no blood transfusion and some do, but nevertheless, their history is very unstable.  I'm sure he doesn't take many things literally in his church, but regardless, he seems to nevertheless have a lot of faith in it.  I fear that sooner or later, the more educated he becomes, the more atheistic he may turn.  But understandably, he seems to have grown up in a tough neighborhood, and the Church took care of him with love, and I don't blame his faith.

But yes, I do tend to believe being Orthodox will also help him accept scientific advances, and allow him to become more respectable in the community.  And please Gebre, for the upteenth time I explained this, I do not "have faith in evolution."  People who say that are deluded, and people who think that about scientists are equally deluded or know nothing about science at all.  I have as much faith in evolution as I have faith my coffee has caffeine.  It's an irrelevant fact in my life that helps me get through my day in my job, but nevertheless, turning this seeming irrelevance into the glory of God, in whom He alone I have faith.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

No not at all.  The fact that he's a Seventh Day Adventist is bothersome.  These are "Christians" who take the law literally.  They are somewhat Judaizers.  Some SDAs believe in no blood transfusion and some do, but nevertheless, their history is very unstable.  I'm sure he doesn't take many things literally in his church, but regardless, he seems to nevertheless have a lot of faith in it.  I fear that sooner or later, the more educated he becomes, the more atheistic he may turn.  But understandably, he seems to have grown up in a tough neighborhood, and the Church took care of him with love, and I don't blame his faith.

But yes, I do tend to believe being Orthodox will also help him accept scientific advances, and allow him to become more respectable in the community.  And please Gebre, for the upteenth time I explained this, I do not "have faith in evolution."  People who say that are deluded, and people who think that about scientists are equally deluded or know nothing about science at all.  I have as much faith in evolution as I have faith my coffee has caffeine.  It's an irrelevant fact in my life that helps me get through my day in my job, but nevertheless, turning this seeming irrelevance into the glory of God, in whom He alone I have faith.

I didn't say you had faith in evolution. I said that you are passionate about evolutionary philosophy.


Selam

[Shiny]

"evolutionary philosophy" is what exactly?

Mina hasn't said anything that isn't biblical.

[That person]

Selam

Well, with regards to this post, I don't believe Mr. Carson (with all due respect) understands how the scientific process really works. Darwin theorized Evolution in 1859. Since then, the theory has been, added to, revised, and ultimately refined, and will continue to be until we can fully scientifically understand it as much as is needed to make it appear plausible. It's still a larger jump, with all of the evidence we have(even outside of the fossil record) against a literal genesis, to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old.

Respects,
 Andrew

^Edited it for you.



Selam

That's how science works.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

"evolutionary philosophy" is what exactly?

Go back and read the posts on this thread from those who subscribe to the theory of evolution.

Mina hasn't said anything that isn't biblical.

Where did I accuse him of that?



Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Selam

Well, with regards to this post, I don't believe Mr. Carson (with all due respect) understands how the scientific process really works. Darwin theorized Evolution in 1859. Since then, the theory has been, added to, revised, and ultimately refined, and will continue to be until we can fully scientifically understand it as much as is needed to make it appear plausible. It's still a larger jump, with all of the evidence we have(even outside of the fossil record) against a literal genesis, to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old.

Respects,
 Andrew

^Edited it for you.



Selam

That's how science works.

Ummm... no, that's not how science works.



Selam

[Shiny]

"evolutionary philosophy" is what exactly?

Go back and read the posts on this thread from those who subscribe to the theory of evolution.

No Gebre, I asked you what that is.

Where did I accuse him of that?

That wasn't an accusation.

You claim he is "passionate about holding an evolutionary philosophy", so I want to know what that is first.

[minasoliman]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

Two things:
1. I don't have a passion for some "evolutionary philosophy".  I have a passion for science, and this passion is rooted in my Lord, Jesus Christ.
2. Faith in the Orthodox Church parallels doing all things for the glory of God, including helping advance evolutionary science if this is what your job entails.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

Two things:
1. I don't have a passion for some "evolutionary philosophy".  I have a passion for science, and this passion is rooted in my Lord, Jesus Christ.
2. Faith in the Orthodox Church parallels doing all things for the glory of God, including helping advance evolutionary science if this is what your job entails.

True science does not need to be advanced. True science needs to be studied and practiced, and when it is studied and practiced correctly then it leads to scientific and medical advancements. Those who are possessed by a zeal to advance evolutionary philosophy reveal that they confuse philosophy for science.

I can assure you that the Orthdodox Church has not commissioned you to advance evolutionary theory. If you love science, then stick with science and the rest will follow. But so far, you have placed your pet theory above and ahead of pure science, and you want the rest of us to accept your theory as scientific fact. That is why I say that you are passionate about evolutionary philosophy. And that's fine. I admire those who have a passion for their beliefs. But their passion doesn't mean that their beliefs are empircal fact.

But we've been over all this before.


Selam

[orthonorm]

Gebre, what background in science do you have? What did you study and what work are you doing currently within the field of the physical sciences?

[orthonorm]

pure science

What is pure science?

Yes, that was rhetorical. As everyone knows your loaded jargon is nearly without meaning. I just wanted to point that out.

[minasoliman]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

Two things:
1. I don't have a passion for some "evolutionary philosophy".  I have a passion for science, and this passion is rooted in my Lord, Jesus Christ.
2. Faith in the Orthodox Church parallels doing all things for the glory of God, including helping advance evolutionary science if this is what your job entails.

True science does not need to be advanced. True science needs to be studied and practiced, and when it is studied and practiced correctly then it leads to scientific and medical advancements. Those who are possessed by a zeal to advance evolutionary philosophy reveal that they confuse philosophy for science.

I can assure you that the Orthdodox Church has not commissioned you to advance evolutionary theory. If you love science, then stick with science and the rest will follow. But so far, you have placed your pet theory above and ahead of pure science, and you want the rest of us to accept your theory as scientific fact. That is why I say that you are passionate about evolutionary philosophy. And that's fine. I admire those who have a passion for their beliefs. But their passion doesn't mean that their beliefs are empircal fact.

But we've been over all this before.


Selam

Indeed...

we have been through all this before.  But unfortunately, if people can understand that evolutionary theory arises from pure science, then people will realize they have been wasting their time trying to attack something that is has not been successfully disproven.

As for your earlier recommendation of Phillip Johnson, unfortunately, Johnson falls into a heresy, as all Intelligent Design advocates.  They inadvertently allow that God can be tested by the senses of man, thus making His divine nature no different than a creature's nature.  In order to prove Intelligent Design, they have to prove scientifically the Designer, and thus they are forced to believe God can be tested, including the idea that God can be falsifiable, God forbid!

Furthermore, his other heresy is God of the gaps.  This limits God's power.  To say that God is only involved in parts where science cannot explain things of nature is to say that God only is involved in those small areas and not in others.  It's even a heresy that some evolutionary theists fall into as well.

So his book really is a travesty for true Christian understanding of God and His grace in all of creation.

No need to explain his scientific errors, and his flawed strategy in using the court of law.  It was tried before, and it failed in the court of law, particularly Kittzmiller vs. Dover.  Kenneth Miller wrote a refutation of his book, although even Dr. Miller falls into the God of the gaps heresy, but I enjoyed his sound scientific refutation of Johnson.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

Two things:
1. I don't have a passion for some "evolutionary philosophy".  I have a passion for science, and this passion is rooted in my Lord, Jesus Christ.
2. Faith in the Orthodox Church parallels doing all things for the glory of God, including helping advance evolutionary science if this is what your job entails.

True science does not need to be advanced. True science needs to be studied and practiced, and when it is studied and practiced correctly then it leads to scientific and medical advancements. Those who are possessed by a zeal to advance evolutionary philosophy reveal that they confuse philosophy for science.

I can assure you that the Orthdodox Church has not commissioned you to advance evolutionary theory. If you love science, then stick with science and the rest will follow. But so far, you have placed your pet theory above and ahead of pure science, and you want the rest of us to accept your theory as scientific fact. That is why I say that you are passionate about evolutionary philosophy. And that's fine. I admire those who have a passion for their beliefs. But their passion doesn't mean that their beliefs are empircal fact.

But we've been over all this before.


Selam

Indeed...

we have been through all this before.  But unfortunately, if people can understand that evolutionary theory arises from pure science, then people will realize they have been wasting their time trying to attack something that is has not been successfully disproven.

As for your earlier recommendation of Phillip Johnson, unfortunately, Johnson falls into a heresy, as all Intelligent Design advocates.  They inadvertently allow that God can be tested by the senses of man, thus making His divine nature no different than a creature's nature.  In order to prove Intelligent Design, they have to prove scientifically the Designer, and thus they are forced to believe God can be tested, including the idea that God can be falsifiable, God forbid!

Furthermore, his other heresy is God of the gaps.  This limits God's power.  To say that God is only involved in parts where science cannot explain things of nature is to say that God only is involved in those small areas and not in others.  It's even a heresy that some evolutionary theists fall into as well.

So his book really is a travesty for true Christian understanding of God and His grace in all of creation.

No need to explain his scientific errors, and his flawed strategy in using the court of law.  It was tried before, and it failed in the court of law, particularly Kittzmiller vs. Dover.  Kenneth Miller wrote a refutation of his book, although even Dr. Miller falls into the God of the gaps heresy, but I enjoyed his sound scientific refutation of Johnson.

Johnson has not failed at all. Your refusal to acknowledge his logic just proves your philosophical bias. I encourage others to read his book for themselves and form their own judgments. Objective science does not fear evidence that substantiates a theory, nor does it fear evidence or lack thereof that dimishes the plausibility of a theory. But evolutionary philsophers can't stand the prospect that their theory may be wrong. Their emotionalism discloses their lack of scientific objectivity.



Selam

[minasoliman]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

Dear brother, please be careful. Your words seem to equate the acceptance of evolution with Orthodox enlightenment. I hope this is not your intention. Regardless of your personal passion for evolutionary philosophy, I would hope that you would not want to lead Orthodox inquirers to think that faith in evolution parallels faith in the Orthodox Church.



Selam

Two things:
1. I don't have a passion for some "evolutionary philosophy".  I have a passion for science, and this passion is rooted in my Lord, Jesus Christ.
2. Faith in the Orthodox Church parallels doing all things for the glory of God, including helping advance evolutionary science if this is what your job entails.

True science does not need to be advanced. True science needs to be studied and practiced, and when it is studied and practiced correctly then it leads to scientific and medical advancements. Those who are possessed by a zeal to advance evolutionary philosophy reveal that they confuse philosophy for science.

I can assure you that the Orthdodox Church has not commissioned you to advance evolutionary theory. If you love science, then stick with science and the rest will follow. But so far, you have placed your pet theory above and ahead of pure science, and you want the rest of us to accept your theory as scientific fact. That is why I say that you are passionate about evolutionary philosophy. And that's fine. I admire those who have a passion for their beliefs. But their passion doesn't mean that their beliefs are empircal fact.

But we've been over all this before.


Selam

Indeed...

we have been through all this before.  But unfortunately, if people can understand that evolutionary theory arises from pure science, then people will realize they have been wasting their time trying to attack something that is has not been successfully disproven.

As for your earlier recommendation of Phillip Johnson, unfortunately, Johnson falls into a heresy, as all Intelligent Design advocates.  They inadvertently allow that God can be tested by the senses of man, thus making His divine nature no different than a creature's nature.  In order to prove Intelligent Design, they have to prove scientifically the Designer, and thus they are forced to believe God can be tested, including the idea that God can be falsifiable, God forbid!

Furthermore, his other heresy is God of the gaps.  This limits God's power.  To say that God is only involved in parts where science cannot explain things of nature is to say that God only is involved in those small areas and not in others.  It's even a heresy that some evolutionary theists fall into as well.

So his book really is a travesty for true Christian understanding of God and His grace in all of creation.

No need to explain his scientific errors, and his flawed strategy in using the court of law.  It was tried before, and it failed in the court of law, particularly Kittzmiller vs. Dover.  Kenneth Miller wrote a refutation of his book, although even Dr. Miller falls into the God of the gaps heresy, but I enjoyed his sound scientific refutation of Johnson.

Johnson has not failed at all. Your refusal to acknowledge his logic just proves your philosophical bias. I encourage others to read his book for themselves and form their own judgments. Objective science does not fear evidence that substantiates a theory, nor does it fear evidence or lack thereof that dimishes the plausibility of a theory. But evolutionary philsophers can't stand the prospect that their theory may be wrong. Their emotionalism discloses their lack of scientific objectivity.



Selam

It's not a matter of emotionalism.  His book is filled with a flawed dichotomy of science and religion, as well as a flawed approach to science.  It's not a refusal to acknowledge his logic.  His logic is detrimental even in a theological sense.  It truly does cause a dangerous ripple effect to our understanding of God and His nature.  If Intelligent Design is a serious scientific concept, then God is not divine anymore.  Johnson is a failure compared to an Orthodox Christian theological concept of God, not a legalistic concept.

Furthermore, his definition of how science works leads us to conclude that any religious belief in this world should be taught in our science classes.  It fails in practicality.  I too advise people to read him, and read Kenneth Miller's response to him afterwards.

[stavros_388]

Objective science does not fear evidence that substantiates a theory, nor does it fear evidence or lack thereof that dimishes the plausibility of a theory.

Evolution has faced many attempts of falsification, all of which have failed. Evolution has, thus far, at least, very little to fear.

But evolutionary philsophers can't stand the prospect that their theory may be wrong. Their emotionalism discloses their lack of scientific objectivity.

I see your statement as being precisely backwards. It would be much closer to the truth if it read as follows:

Creationists can't stand the prospect that their beliefs may be wrong. Their emotionalism discloses their lack of scientific objectivity.

Creationists' clinging to religious (mythical) beliefs about the creation of man and the world (in a literal sense) predisposes them with such incredibly strong biases that any kind of scientific objectivity is simply impossible for them. Bringing deeply rooted beliefs to science prevents science from doing what it is supposed to do in the first place.

[minasoliman]

I always wonder at physicians like Dr. Carson.  They follow the same scientific presuppositions as evolutionary biology, and that is a methodological materialism.  His excellent work in pediatric surgery, is this not a result of centuries of physiological teaching?  It used to be thought that for instance we breathe in a supernatural spirit, but in fact, we find out now, that this is actually oxygen (and nitrogen and carbon dioxide).  Thus, by his practice, he abandoned centuries of perhaps Church teachings on what our physical breathe entails and uses this in his practice to supply his surgical subjects with enough blood to avoid complications of deoxygenation (and anesthesiologists, who Dr. Carson undoubtedly have to work with, use this concept also to affectively denitrogenate a patient so that they can get enough oxygen).

Nevertheless, we don't know what oxygen looks like.  We simply know oxygen by the results of its actions in our body as well as chemical reactions conducted in research.  It could be argued that "today, the evidence of oxygen is still not there.  When you bring that up the proponents of oxygen-in-the-air theory, they say, 'uh...it can't be seen.' I find that it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation that the air we breathe in has oxygen without any microscopic evidence of the actual atom or molecule itself.  Shrugging and saying, 'Well, it's too small, and we'll probably never see it,' doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response."

And then furthermore, the proof of the authenticity of the Bible is also at jeopardy, since it could be argued that "today, the evidence of the original gospels or epistles are still not there.  When you bring that up to proponents of authoritative authenticity of the Bible, they ay, 'Well...uh...it's lost.' I find that it requires too much faith for me to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul wrote those things without any original manuscript evidence of the actual writings themselves.  Shrugging and saying, 'Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we'll probably never find it,' doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response."

I pray Dr. Carson may be careful in his beliefs considering how hypocritically dangerous it is to his own practice and his own beliefs of the authoritative authenticity of the Scriptures.  Thankfully, the Orthodox Church has never advocated such close-minded and hypocritical approaches.

[minasoliman]

Gebre, I'm confused as to why you like Phillip Johnson anyway.  What you need is not a "Darwin on Trial", you need a "Geology on Trial."  Phillip Johnson is most probably an Old Earth Creationist.  He probably believes that death existed before the Fall of Adam, and that the earth was a few billion years old.  He would probably use the same arguments in his book to prove you're wrong on rejecting the old age of the Earth, but is too scared to do so to avoid losing support from the Protestant fundies.

[Kerdy]

"evolutionary philosophy" is what exactly?

Mina hasn't said anything that isn't biblical.

Nor has anyone on the other end of the table.

[Kerdy]

It really is easy to talk with an evolutionist.  You just have to remember a few things.

1) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is wrong…period.

2) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is either uneducated or simply doesn’t understand how science works, even if they are a scientists.  (and forget the fact how science works changes all the time, at least in today’s scientific world)

3) If you are not an evolutionary scientist, you can never, EVER say anything about evolution.  (even though most of the people who say this are not evolutionary scientists)

4) If you believe in a literal Genesis creation of existence, you are a dope. (Overlook the fact BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of followers of God and Christ have believed this very thing from the very beginning as God instructed us.  You know, like Moses…the guy who actually conversed with God.  That guy.)

5) It’s ok to talk about Adam and Eve, their actions, fears, thoughts, etc., in other threads, but when evolution is mentioned, they weren’t real people.  (ignore the fact you can’t have it both ways)

6) The word “fact” is subjective and able to be used in a variety of ways to fit a variety of arguments; however, no matter how it is being used, the evolutionist’s version always takes precedence, even if it contradicts a previous usage.

7) Arguments for proof of evolution are dismissed because no one disproved it, and should be pushed aside (even though this is how science is supposed to work)

8 ) If a fossil exists, it’s transitional…period.

9) Evolutionary claims have never been wrong, ever.  We just learn more than we knew yesterday.  (special provision for evolution.  the rest of the world calls these "unlearned facts" wrong answers)

10) Finally, when all else fails, when all is said and done, rules #1 and #2 apply to everything.  (Regardless of the knowledge, education, advancement in their fields, etc., if someone disagrees, there are big ol’ dummies.)

If you simply remember you MUST agree, things will go smoothly.  If not, you are a smart as a box of rocks.


BTW – I am still waiting for someone to tell me specifically what species heralded modern man.  Should be an easy answer, but apparently it isn’t.  Had one person provide two possibilities, but only one can actually be the answer.

[That person]

Only 1, 2, and 8 are true. 4 and 5 work if you disregard the parenthetical stuff.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

It really is easy to talk with an evolutionist.  You just have to remember a few things.

1) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is wrong…period.

2) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is either uneducated or simply doesn’t understand how science works, even if they are a scientists.  (and forget the fact how science works changes all the time, at least in today’s scientific world)

3) If you are not an evolutionary scientist, you can never, EVER say anything about evolution.  (even though most of the people who say this are not evolutionary scientists)

4) If you believe in a literal Genesis creation of existence, you are a dope. (Overlook the fact BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of followers of God and Christ have believed this very thing from the very beginning as God instructed us.  You know, like Moses…the guy who actually conversed with God.  That guy.)

5) It’s ok to talk about Adam and Eve, their actions, fears, thoughts, etc., in other threads, but when evolution is mentioned, they weren’t real people.  (ignore the fact you can’t have it both ways)

6) The word “fact” is subjective and able to be used in a variety of ways to fit a variety of arguments; however, no matter how it is being used, the evolutionist’s version always takes precedence, even if it contradicts a previous usage.

7) Arguments for proof of evolution are dismissed because no one disproved it, and should be pushed aside (even though this is how science is supposed to work)

8 ) If a fossil exists, it’s transitional…period.

9) Evolutionary claims have never been wrong, ever.  We just learn more than we knew yesterday.  (special provision for evolution.  the rest of the world calls these "unlearned facts" wrong answers)

10) Finally, when all else fails, when all is said and done, rules #1 and #2 apply to everything.  (Regardless of the knowledge, education, advancement in their fields, etc., if someone disagrees, there are big ol’ dummies.)

If you simply remember you MUST agree, things will go smoothly.  If not, you are a smart as a box of rocks.


BTW – I am still waiting for someone to tell me specifically what species heralded modern man.  Should be an easy answer, but apparently it isn’t.  Had one person provide two possibilities, but only one can actually be the answer.

POTM



Selam

[Kerdy]

Only 1, 2, and 8 are true. 4 and 5 work if you disregard the parenthetical stuff.

Ignore what you want.  That's why it all works.

[pmpn8rGPT]

1) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is wrong…period.

2) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is either uneducated or simply doesn’t understand how science works, even if they are a scientists.  (and forget the fact how science works changes all the time, at least in today’s scientific world)

3) If you are not an evolutionary scientist, you can never, EVER say anything about evolution.  (even though most of the people who say this are not evolutionary scientists)

4) If you believe in a literal Genesis creation of existence, you are a dope. (Overlook the fact BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of followers of God and Christ have believed this very thing from the very beginning as God instructed us.  You know, like Moses…the guy who actually conversed with God.  That guy.)

5) It’s ok to talk about Adam and Eve, their actions, fears, thoughts, etc., in other threads, but when evolution is mentioned, they weren’t real people.  (ignore the fact you can’t have it both ways)

6) The word “fact” is subjective and able to be used in a variety of ways to fit a variety of arguments; however, no matter how it is being used, the evolutionist’s version always takes precedence, even if it contradicts a previous usage.

7) Arguments for proof of evolution are dismissed because no one disproved it, and should be pushed aside (even though this is how science is supposed to work)

8 ) If a fossil exists, it’s transitional…period.

9) Evolutionary claims have never been wrong, ever.  We just learn more than we knew yesterday.  (special provision for evolution.  the rest of the world calls these "unlearned facts" wrong answers)

10) Finally, when all else fails, when all is said and done, rules #1 and #2 apply to everything.  (Regardless of the knowledge, education, advancement in their fields, etc., if someone disagrees, there are big ol’ dummies.)

The sad part is that not only have I heard a revised version of all of these arguments but I have yet to hear someone use a different one.  Classic childish "lalalalalala" on the parts of the evolutionists.  God help us.

[minasoliman]

It really is easy to talk with an evolutionist.  You just have to remember a few things.

1) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is wrong…period.

2) Anyone who disagrees with evolution is either uneducated or simply doesn’t understand how science works, even if they are a scientists.  (and forget the fact how science works changes all the time, at least in today’s scientific world)

3) If you are not an evolutionary scientist, you can never, EVER say anything about evolution.  (even though most of the people who say this are not evolutionary scientists)

4) If you believe in a literal Genesis creation of existence, you are a dope. (Overlook the fact BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of followers of God and Christ have believed this very thing from the very beginning as God instructed us.  You know, like Moses…the guy who actually conversed with God.  That guy.)

5) It’s ok to talk about Adam and Eve, their actions, fears, thoughts, etc., in other threads, but when evolution is mentioned, they weren’t real people.  (ignore the fact you can’t have it both ways)

6) The word “fact” is subjective and able to be used in a variety of ways to fit a variety of arguments; however, no matter how it is being used, the evolutionist’s version always takes precedence, even if it contradicts a previous usage.

7) Arguments for proof of evolution are dismissed because no one disproved it, and should be pushed aside (even though this is how science is supposed to work)

8 ) If a fossil exists, it’s transitional…period.

9) Finally, when all else fails, when all is said and done, rules #1 and #2 apply to everything.  (Regardless of the knowledge, education, advancement in their fields, etc., if someone disagrees, there are big ol’ dummies.)

If you simply remember you MUST agree, things will go smoothly.  If not, you are a smart as a box of rocks.

1) If I ever gave you or Gebre the impression that you are wrong for no reason, then I apologize.  My impression was to show you that the basis of disagreement is a flawed one.  Until now, there is no valid scientific argument against evolution.  Even the quote given by Dr. Carson, I've effectively shown its flawed nature.

2) That seems to be usually the case in my experience.  Nevertheless, I never shy away from the fact that science changes all the time.  Very true!  Any scientist of their right mind would believe so.  Any theory, evolution, gravity, atomic all are theories subject to change so long as people continue to provide a scientific basis.

3) Not at all!  I wish that all people can learn and say something about evolution.  The problem is, it seems that science education seems to be terrible in areas of the world.  Sometimes scientists forget that what they teach is not a religion or a philosophy class, and they may inadvertently destroy religion in the process of their teaching.  I think you proved to me how ignorant I am about your line of work.  We shouldn't shy away from the fact that many of us are indeed ignorant, and I apologize if this was ever used by me as an insulting or offending point, and not as an informative one.

4) Well, how literal will you go?  Do you believe just as Moses believed, that the world was created in 6 24-hour periods?  Or as St. Irenaeus believed, 6 thousand-year periods (with the world ending in the year 6000 since Adam)?  Or as St. Augustine believed, instantaneously?  Are we going to believe that angels copulated with humans to give birth to Nephilim?  Are these really necessary for our faith?  Ya, you're not a heretic, and you're more than welcome to believe in literal accounts and be Orthodox.  But to say that this is important for the Orthodox faith does not sound fair.  But if I gave you the impression that you are a dope, I take that back and I apologize.

5) Well, I'm not one of those people who say that.  I do think it's okay to believe Adam and Eve were in fact real people.  Some people don't want to believe so, and I don't attack their beliefs, but I do kindly mention that Adam and Eve were given a grace no other animal was given, the grace of incorruption and immortality, the Image of God, as St. Athanasius taught.  Thus, I'm quite happy with Adam and Eve being part of a long list of genealogy of Christ.  But I believe what is important is that Christ is the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the idea of being the "son of Adam" affirms at least He is fully human.

6) Perhaps, you have read some scientists' inconsistent use of the word "fact", just as one reads inconsistent use of the word "theory."  I think time and again, people try to say theory explains fact, or more importantly, theory explains what is observed.

7) Like I mentioned in numbers 1 and 2, the scientific community welcomes any research that disproves on a scientific basis anything in particular with evolution.  You are right, science works by trying to disprove something, hence why all these theories should be falsifiable.  The idea of falsifiability means that you can figure out a way to show that this experiment yields different results or is flawed in some way.  Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, most of the time, evolutionary experiments have been unable to be disproven, thus increasing its credibility as a valid theory and eventually an observation of nature, or "fact."  Sometimes some papers pertaining to evolutionary theory have in fact been disproven, but that doesn't nearly put a dent on the whole theory of evolution itself.  Case in point:  it was Smith, a fellow evolutionist, who disproved the Nebraska man being a "man" so to speak, and even the person that found the tooth criticized the artist who drew up the "Nebraska man", as he only claimed the tooth was ape in origin, and nothing further.  It's an excellent proof that disagreements and disproving papers are welcome in the scientific community, and it is never pushed aside, so long as it is done correctly.

8 ) "Transitional" is relative.  I am a transition from my ancestors to my offspring.  It is just a term.  The question is how does this fossil fit into the "evolutionary tree"?  That's usually the studies done.  And if there's DNA, that's even better!  So, I don't understand the criticism here.

9) Well, I'm a dummy in so many things.  I don't claim to know all things.  Nevertheless, I seem to know enough about this subject that it just makes sense to me, and it makes sense in how it is applied in my field of study.  And the more I delve into the study of evolution, especially through genetics, which is something I'm more and more interested in getting into in my field of medicine, the more I am convinced of evolutionary science.  It's truly a remarkable and engineering feat our Lord God created, and I stand in awe at His wonders.

[Jetavan]

"An imam of an east London mosque, Usama Hasan, received a death threat for arguing in support of human evolution two years ago. On Saturday, London played host to a riveting intrafaith dialogue on Islam's stance on the theory of evolution. The east London imam was one of the speakers – but this time there were others who shared his viewpoint.

The event, organised by the Deen Institute, was titled "Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution?" The speakers included an evolutionary biologist, a biological anthropologist, two theologians and a bona fide creationist.
....
The London event also featured a theological debate between Usama Hasan and Shaykh Yasir Qadhi. Hasan is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and is the imam who was threatened two years ago for his support for human evolution. He reiterated his position and argued that there was indeed room in Islamic theology to accommodate human evolution.

Qadhi, on the other hand, accepted all of evolution except where it applies to humans. However, he conceded that the "maximum we can go" from an Islamic theological perspective is to say that God inserted Adam in the natural order. To explain his position, he used the example of dominos. He asserted that Adam was the last domino placed directly by God. From his perspective, believers would see this last domino as a miracle of God, whereas non-believers would see a causal connection from all the other dominos. This way, the miracle of Adam is preserved theologically."

[Pericles]

As long as you understand that the noble olive tree on which we are grafted through Christ is Judaism (while Hellenism is but a wild tree among others) and that "salvation is from the Jews" (not the Hellenes), you are in accord with St. Paul the Apostle and Orthodoxy.

The tree on to which we are grafted is Christ, not Judaism. Christianity was from the outset a Hellenistic religion (Hellenistic = Greek + Foreign (ie Egyptian, Persian, Jewish & etc etc). I affirm that there is a Judaic element incidental to Christianity but thats all, as Christ said to them "Ye are of your father the devil" - John 8:44.

Your misquotation Christ is quite telling; when he said "salvation is out of Judaea" it was in relation to the Samaritians, not Hellenes. He later went on to qualify his statement by adding that there would come a time when people would niether worship at Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim. In short when questioned on his Jewishness by a Samaritan woman, he demurred.

As Justin Martyr taught, God sent the Jews the prophets and he sent the Greeks the Philosophers. Our lineage as gentile (Greek) Christians derives primarily from the latter and only in a secondary and derived sense from the former.

 

[Romaios]

The tree on to which we are grafted is Christ, not Judaism. Christianity was from the outset a Hellenistic religion (Hellenistic = Greek + Foreign (ie Egyptian, Persian, Jewish & etc etc). I affirm that there is a Judaic element incidental to Christianity but thats all

You should dispute that with St. Paul, not me. I think what he says in Romans 11 is clear as daylight and cannot be misconstrued to mean what you would like it to mean. "As regards election they (the Jews) are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable".

"They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. 9:3-4) All that is supposed to be "incidental"?  

as Christ said to them "Ye are of your father the devil" - John 8:44.

Did Our Lord mean all Jews are sons of the devil or just some Jews he was involved in a controversy with at that particular time?

Your misquotation Christ is quite telling; when he said "salvation is out of Judaea" it was in relation to the Samaritians, not Hellenes.

The text says: ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (plural masculine noun) ἐστίν - not ἐκ/ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας. So who's "misquoting Jesus"?

He never said that salvation is from the Hellenes/Hellas. That's for sure.

See also Mark 7:26-27

"Now the woman was Greek (Gentile), born in Syrian Phoenicia, and she kept asking Him to drive the demon out of her daughter. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."  

Who are the "dogs" and who are the "children"?

As Justin Martyr taught, God sent the Jews the prophets and he sent the Greeks the Philosophers.

It's more complicated than you make it sound. He and other Fathers actually thought Plato was plagiarizing Moses (who had the privilege of antiquity over all Greek philosophers).

[Android_Rewster]

Ummm... no, that's not how science works.



Selam

That is DEFINITELY how science works.

 There used to be a theory for the structure of the atom, and it was called "The Plum Pudding Model" and it theorized that an atom was a spherical shape made up of two components, the actual atom(the sphere shape) which was positively charged, and the electrons floating in the middle of the atom(like plum pudding!).

 That was actually what they used to believe before they discovered the neutron.

 When they found out the existence of neutrons, it ruined the model completely. So obviously, since one model of the theory of atoms was incorrect, atoms were permanently dis-proven, right?

 No, because that's not how science works. They threw out the old model, took into account neutrons and eventually protons, found a way it would work, and that's how we got "The Rutherford Model". The atom as we know it today.

 That's how science works. If it can't be proven wrong then it must be right. That's math and reasoning.

Respects,
 Andrew

[Kerdy]

That's how science works. If it can't be proven wrong then it must be right. That's math and reasoning.

That's a rather non-academic way of approaching things.  It also isn't how reasoning or math work.  It may be how science works today, but that is now how it is supposed to work or how it has always worked.

By the way, I am telepath from the planet Algornion.  I have genetically altered myself to be just like you guys so I wouldn’t be found out.  I came here to study your defenses prior to a planetary invasion for what is left of your resources.  You guys don’t stand a chance. But don’t worry, we have a device which will strip your atmosphere in a matter of minutes so your suffering will be short.  I am not sure when the invasion will take place.  King Magmadon has been sick this last week and wants to head it up himself, so we wait. 

Prove me wrong.  You can’t?  Then it must be true.

[minasoliman]

By the way, I am telepath from the planet Algornion.  I have genetically altered myself to be just like you guys so I wouldn’t be found out.  I came here to study your defenses prior to a planetary invasion for what is left of your resources.  You guys don’t stand a chance. But don’t worry, we have a device which will strip your atmosphere in a matter of minutes so your suffering will be short.  I am not sure when the invasion will take place.  King Magmadon has been sick this last week and wants to head it up himself, so we wait. 

Well, entertaining the idea, this raises a lot of falsifiable questions that will lead to experimentation:

Where is Algornion?
How have you genetically altered yourself?  What are your original genes like?
How did you study our defenses?
What resources are you looking for? Do you even need them?
How do we not stand a chance?
What is this device?  How does this device work?  How exactly will it strip our atmosphere?  How does it go so fast?
How will this invasion take place?
Who is Magmadon?  How is he/she King?  What does King mean in Algornion?  Is it in a specific nation in Algornion?
What type of sicknesses do you get?  What happens when you get sick?  How long is a week in Algornion?

If all of these can be answered, and all of these can be testable (and I stress the word CAN, not if it will be answered; CAN means by nature, the answer is possible, but the resources to answer them may not be accommodating at the moment), then this doesn't disprove science.  Perhaps, if this specific telepath won't help us, the conclusions of our research will be, "we are unable, based on the limitations of our research, to get a conclusive answer from these Algornionans."  That neither disproves or proves anything really.  Science takes into account the limitations of technology it might have.

Could you imagine those who lived in Galileo's time, when Galileo decided to shock the world that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun?  Could you imagine that perhaps even Galileo might have ridiculed those (if possibly thought) who thought the Moon was a big chunk of rock and that one day it could be explored, when in fact centuries later, we defied human thinking by actually going there ourselves and finding out, it's not an actual source of light, but a reflection of the sun on our night sky?

This isn't the same thing with evolution.  Most of the questions asked to make evolution falsifiable have actually been answered, unlike your example.  Since the false is NEVER true in most cases, it increases the validity of the theory.  For your example, the false is neither true nor false, since the statistical power to come up with an answer is weak, whereas the statistical power in evolutionary experiments were very strong, and yielded results in such a manner so as to have an extremely low probability of committing Type II errors (and Type I errors too).  And these statistical calculations are taken into account by the scientific community to help understand whether the theory is strong or not.

Perhaps Mr. Telepathic guy, if you wait before you destroy us, and give us the chance, we will find out for ourselves your claims, if it's true, and let us test it.  But if you want to destroy us, I suppose that will also be our last science experiment, the observation of our own destruction as proof of your own claims.  Thus, in the end, it seems, Mr. Telepathic guy (or girl...forgive us if we make a mistake on your gender, if you even have any), science still seems to win in the end, because, you've given us strong reason on the hour of our death to see that in fact a lot of what you're saying cannot be proven false with a strong power to avoid Type I and II errors.

[Kerdy]

By the way, I am telepath from the planet Algornion.  I have genetically altered myself to be just like you guys so I wouldn’t be found out.  I came here to study your defenses prior to a planetary invasion for what is left of your resources.  You guys don’t stand a chance. But don’t worry, we have a device which will strip your atmosphere in a matter of minutes so your suffering will be short.  I am not sure when the invasion will take place.  King Magmadon has been sick this last week and wants to head it up himself, so we wait. 

Well, entertaining the idea, this raises a lot of falsifiable questions that will lead to experimentation:

Where is Algornion?
How have you genetically altered yourself?  What are your original genes like?
How did you study our defenses?
What resources are you looking for? Do you even need them?
How do we not stand a chance?
What is this device?  How does this device work?  How exactly will it strip our atmosphere?  How does it go so fast?
How will this invasion take place?
Who is Magmadon?  How is he/she King?  What does King mean in Algornion?  Is it in a specific nation in Algornion?
What type of sicknesses do you get?  What happens when you get sick?  How long is a week in Algornion?

If all of these can be answered, and all of these can be testable (and I stress the word CAN, not if it will be answered; CAN means by nature, the answer is possible, but the resources to answer them may not be accommodating at the moment), then this doesn't disprove science.  Perhaps, if this specific telepath won't help us, the conclusions of our research will be, "we are unable, based on the limitations of our research, to get a conclusive answer from these Algornionans."  That neither disproves or proves anything really.  Science takes into account the limitations of technology it might have.

Could you imagine those who lived in Galileo's time, when Galileo decided to shock the world that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun?  Could you imagine that perhaps even Galileo might have ridiculed those (if possibly thought) who thought the Moon was a big chunk of rock and that one day it could be explored, when in fact centuries later, we defied human thinking by actually going there ourselves and finding out, it's not an actual source of light, but a reflection of the sun on our night sky?

This isn't the same thing with evolution.  Most of the questions asked to make evolution falsifiable have actually been answered, unlike your example.  Since the false is NEVER true in most cases, it increases the validity of the theory.  For your example, the false is neither true nor false, since the statistical power to come up with an answer is weak, whereas the statistical power in evolutionary experiments were very strong, and yielded results in such a manner so as to have an extremely low probability of committing Type II errors (and Type I errors too).  And these statistical calculations are taken into account by the scientific community to help understand whether the theory is strong or not.

Perhaps Mr. Telepathic guy, if you wait before you destroy us, and give us the chance, we will find out for ourselves your claims, if it's true, and let us test it.  But if you want to destroy us, I suppose that will also be our last science experiment, the observation of our own destruction as proof of your own claims.  Thus, in the end, it seems, Mr. Telepathic guy (or girl...forgive us if we make a mistake on your gender, if you even have any), science still seems to win in the end, because, you've given us strong reason on the hour of our death to see that in fact a lot of what you're saying cannot be proven false with a strong power to avoid Type I and II errors.

If you can't disprove it, it's real.  The proof of lack of proof is on you.  Good luck.

[DavidH]

Selam

Well, with regards to this post, I don't believe Mr. Carson (with all due respect) understands how the scientific process really works. Darwin theorized Evolution in 1859. Since then, the theory has been, added to, revised, and ultimately refined, and will continue to be until we can fully scientifically understand it. It's still a larger jump, with all of the evidence we have(even outside of the fossil record) against a literal genesis, to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old.

Respects,
 Andrew

 With this quote alone we can see that the good Doctor is not an evolutionary creationist. We still don't know whether he is a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist unless he has spoken to that elsewhere.

[minasoliman]

By the way, I am telepath from the planet Algornion.  I have genetically altered myself to be just like you guys so I wouldn’t be found out.  I came here to study your defenses prior to a planetary invasion for what is left of your resources.  You guys don’t stand a chance. But don’t worry, we have a device which will strip your atmosphere in a matter of minutes so your suffering will be short.  I am not sure when the invasion will take place.  King Magmadon has been sick this last week and wants to head it up himself, so we wait. 

Well, entertaining the idea, this raises a lot of falsifiable questions that will lead to experimentation:

Where is Algornion?
How have you genetically altered yourself?  What are your original genes like?
How did you study our defenses?
What resources are you looking for? Do you even need them?
How do we not stand a chance?
What is this device?  How does this device work?  How exactly will it strip our atmosphere?  How does it go so fast?
How will this invasion take place?
Who is Magmadon?  How is he/she King?  What does King mean in Algornion?  Is it in a specific nation in Algornion?
What type of sicknesses do you get?  What happens when you get sick?  How long is a week in Algornion?

If all of these can be answered, and all of these can be testable (and I stress the word CAN, not if it will be answered; CAN means by nature, the answer is possible, but the resources to answer them may not be accommodating at the moment), then this doesn't disprove science.  Perhaps, if this specific telepath won't help us, the conclusions of our research will be, "we are unable, based on the limitations of our research, to get a conclusive answer from these Algornionans."  That neither disproves or proves anything really.  Science takes into account the limitations of technology it might have.

Could you imagine those who lived in Galileo's time, when Galileo decided to shock the world that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun?  Could you imagine that perhaps even Galileo might have ridiculed those (if possibly thought) who thought the Moon was a big chunk of rock and that one day it could be explored, when in fact centuries later, we defied human thinking by actually going there ourselves and finding out, it's not an actual source of light, but a reflection of the sun on our night sky?

This isn't the same thing with evolution.  Most of the questions asked to make evolution falsifiable have actually been answered, unlike your example.  Since the false is NEVER true in most cases, it increases the validity of the theory.  For your example, the false is neither true nor false, since the statistical power to come up with an answer is weak, whereas the statistical power in evolutionary experiments were very strong, and yielded results in such a manner so as to have an extremely low probability of committing Type II errors (and Type I errors too).  And these statistical calculations are taken into account by the scientific community to help understand whether the theory is strong or not.

Perhaps Mr. Telepathic guy, if you wait before you destroy us, and give us the chance, we will find out for ourselves your claims, if it's true, and let us test it.  But if you want to destroy us, I suppose that will also be our last science experiment, the observation of our own destruction as proof of your own claims.  Thus, in the end, it seems, Mr. Telepathic guy (or girl...forgive us if we make a mistake on your gender, if you even have any), science still seems to win in the end, because, you've given us strong reason on the hour of our death to see that in fact a lot of what you're saying cannot be proven false with a strong power to avoid Type I and II errors.

If you can't disprove it, it's real.  The proof of lack of proof is on you.  Good luck.

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

[minasoliman]

Let's try this again:

The things to prove false the theory of evolution has been shown to be not true, giving the theory a strong probability of its truth.

The things that prove false your example has not been shown to be not true, giving your example no real reason to confirm its truth...unless we're provided with the technology and ability to test the possible falsity of it.

We tested the possible falsity of evolution.  We have yet to test the possible falsity of your example.

In other words, there's a difference between we can't disprove it and we're enable to test it to begin with.  To show that we can't disprove it means whatever that can disprove this theory has been proven to be false.

[Kerdy]

By the way, I am telepath from the planet Algornion.  I have genetically altered myself to be just like you guys so I wouldn’t be found out.  I came here to study your defenses prior to a planetary invasion for what is left of your resources.  You guys don’t stand a chance. But don’t worry, we have a device which will strip your atmosphere in a matter of minutes so your suffering will be short.  I am not sure when the invasion will take place.  King Magmadon has been sick this last week and wants to head it up himself, so we wait.  

Well, entertaining the idea, this raises a lot of falsifiable questions that will lead to experimentation:

Where is Algornion?
How have you genetically altered yourself?  What are your original genes like?
How did you study our defenses?
What resources are you looking for? Do you even need them?
How do we not stand a chance?
What is this device?  How does this device work?  How exactly will it strip our atmosphere?  How does it go so fast?
How will this invasion take place?
Who is Magmadon?  How is he/she King?  What does King mean in Algornion?  Is it in a specific nation in Algornion?
What type of sicknesses do you get?  What happens when you get sick?  How long is a week in Algornion?

If all of these can be answered, and all of these can be testable (and I stress the word CAN, not if it will be answered; CAN means by nature, the answer is possible, but the resources to answer them may not be accommodating at the moment), then this doesn't disprove science.  Perhaps, if this specific telepath won't help us, the conclusions of our research will be, "we are unable, based on the limitations of our research, to get a conclusive answer from these Algornionans."  That neither disproves or proves anything really.  Science takes into account the limitations of technology it might have.

Could you imagine those who lived in Galileo's time, when Galileo decided to shock the world that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun?  Could you imagine that perhaps even Galileo might have ridiculed those (if possibly thought) who thought the Moon was a big chunk of rock and that one day it could be explored, when in fact centuries later, we defied human thinking by actually going there ourselves and finding out, it's not an actual source of light, but a reflection of the sun on our night sky?

This isn't the same thing with evolution.  Most of the questions asked to make evolution falsifiable have actually been answered, unlike your example.  Since the false is NEVER true in most cases, it increases the validity of the theory.  For your example, the false is neither true nor false, since the statistical power to come up with an answer is weak, whereas the statistical power in evolutionary experiments were very strong, and yielded results in such a manner so as to have an extremely low probability of committing Type II errors (and Type I errors too).  And these statistical calculations are taken into account by the scientific community to help understand whether the theory is strong or not.

Perhaps Mr. Telepathic guy, if you wait before you destroy us, and give us the chance, we will find out for ourselves your claims, if it's true, and let us test it.  But if you want to destroy us, I suppose that will also be our last science experiment, the observation of our own destruction as proof of your own claims.  Thus, in the end, it seems, Mr. Telepathic guy (or girl...forgive us if we make a mistake on your gender, if you even have any), science still seems to win in the end, because, you've given us strong reason on the hour of our death to see that in fact a lot of what you're saying cannot be proven false with a strong power to avoid Type I and II errors.

If you can't disprove it, it's real.  The proof of lack of proof is on you.  Good luck.

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

Neither.  You must disprove what I have said.  That's how science works, right? It is not much fun when the words, definitions and explanations are turned against those who produce them, is it?  Probably because it doesn't work when applied to anything else.

[chrevbel]

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

Neither.  You must disprove what I have said.  That's how science works, right?

Not exactly.  Any theory is subject to being replaced by one that more consistently explains our observations.  You don't necessarily have to disprove the former, you primarily need to demonstrate that the latter is better.

[Kerdy]

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

Neither.  You must disprove what I have said.  That's how science works, right?

Not exactly.  Any theory is subject to being replaced by one that more consistently explains our observations.  You don't necessarily have to disprove the former, you primarily need to demonstrate that the latter is better.

Stop changing the rules (yeah, right).  I didn't make them up.  I am just falling in line with the ones already provided.  It's a kind of party killer, huh?

[sheenj]

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

Neither.  You must disprove what I have said.  That's how science works, right?

Not exactly.  Any theory is subject to being replaced by one that more consistently explains our observations.  You don't necessarily have to disprove the former, you primarily need to demonstrate that the latter is better.

Stop changing the rules (yeah, right).  I didn't make them up.  I am just falling in line with the ones already provided.  It's a kind of party killer, huh?

No, you seem to have misunderstood the rules and he's trying to clarify them for you.

[Kerdy]

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

Neither.  You must disprove what I have said.  That's how science works, right?

Not exactly.  Any theory is subject to being replaced by one that more consistently explains our observations.  You don't necessarily have to disprove the former, you primarily need to demonstrate that the latter is better.

Stop changing the rules (yeah, right).  I didn't make them up.  I am just falling in line with the ones already provided.  It's a kind of party killer, huh?

No, you seem to have misunderstood the rules and he's trying to clarify them for you.

If you say so, but the rest of this thread says differently.

[minasoliman]

Either I'm really bad at explaining this to you, or you seem to want to interpret science your own way.

Neither.  You must disprove what I have said.  That's how science works, right?

Not exactly.  Any theory is subject to being replaced by one that more consistently explains our observations.  You don't necessarily have to disprove the former, you primarily need to demonstrate that the latter is better.

Stop changing the rules (yeah, right).  I didn't make them up.  I am just falling in line with the ones already provided.  It's a kind of party killer, huh?

No, you seem to have misunderstood the rules and he's trying to clarify them for you.

If you say so, but the rest of this thread says differently.

This is a prime example of the failure of science education in this thread and this country. I blame myself first and foremost, and I hope you Reread the clarification.  There is no changing of rules.  Working with research, you can understand how this works exactly.  You're misunderstanding the terms.