OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 08:00:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: What would best describe your beliefs about how the universe and man came to be?
Young Earth Creationism (e.g., earth is less than 10,000 years old) - 16 (13.2%)
Other Creationism (e.g., the "days" in Genesis could each signify very long periods) - 22 (18.2%)
Theistic Intelligent Design (e.g., we were created by a God, and I *know* which God) - 17 (14%)
Deistic Intelligent Design (e.g., the universe was created by God, though I'm not sure which version of God most accurately describes Him) - 1 (0.8%)
Vanilla Intelligent Design (e.g., there was some type of designer, though I don't know if it was a supernatural entity) - 1 (0.8%)
Neo-Darwinian Gradualistic Evolution - 10 (8.3%)
Other Evolutionary Theories - 0 (0%)
None of These - 2 (1.7%)
A Mixture of These - 10 (8.3%)
Theistic Evolution - 32 (26.4%)
Not Sure - 10 (8.3%)
Total Voters: 121

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!  (Read 22240 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #180 on: May 01, 2006, 07:34:25 AM »

Of course Earth is the centre of the universe and solar system, then again the sun is too, as it mars, as is the next galaxy over, etc., etc....It's called the Theory of Relativity, there is no 'absolute centre,' every point is just as central as every other.

No.  I am talking about Geocentrism.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #181 on: May 01, 2006, 07:36:12 AM »

IF MAN EVOLVED FROM THE APES, WHY ARE THERE STILL APES?

JoeS

Mitigated Evolution:  If, that is IF Man came from the apes, it is at this transition point that God made Himself known and bestowed an immortal soul capable of receiving grace.

Whilst I don't agree with the premise of the first statement, the second is important to those that believe in God. When did God confer a soul upon a creature. Or, perhaps the soul evolved too?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #182 on: May 01, 2006, 10:06:57 AM »

Dear Montalban,

What lead me to think you believe in "pre-fall non-deathism" is your reply #138.  When I said:

Quote
One of the things I disagree completely with the Holy Fathers is that death entered into Earth to all creation after man's fall.

You reply:

Quote
Ah, pride.

And then when I said:

Quote
But we have fossil evidence of a whole age of animals who died 56 million years ago.  Already, science itself, CLEAR scientific observation, an observation that is as clear as the nose of your face, disproved many of the Fathers' scientific beliefs (unless you have proof that exponential decay tests are faulty).  And like you said, we cannot live a lie.  Thus, if something the Fathers said in science is wrong, and if we believe that science does indeed change, then the Fathers' science is no more infallible than present science, and thus I live what is truthful than a lie.

You replied:

Quote
Ah, here I finally understand. You believe the compelling evidence from science as opposed to the compelling evidence from the Church Fathers. You belive a form of understanding that is continually in flux, over the never-changing truth of the Church.

Thus, if you have good reason that you did not believe in what I accused you of, then how is it that you replied to me with such quotes?  Did not Fr. Seraphim Rose believe in the same, and irrefutably gives quotes from the Fathers?  Are you not a big fan of Fr. Seraphim?  Or do you just like to agree with "some" things that Fr. Seraphim believed?

You also continued to make the comment that if all the Fathers had a concensus in believing in geocentricism, you would believe them over science.  Thus, you find yourself automatically agreeing with anything the Fathers say over experimentation and testing.  How then are you not uneducated of science, apart from the books you read, (which I highly doubt really taught you anything about science)?

And your continual refusal to answer a simple question about your likes shows perhaps how much you understand the state of your own education of things scientific.

Let us put it another way.  If you are to have a debate with an atheist, how will you prove a theistic evolutionist (who doesn't necessarily have to be Christian) that evolution is wrong?  Are you going to give him Bible and Holy Fathers (which he may not believe) or are you going to use his own language (science) to disprove what he believes?

God bless you.

Mina
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #183 on: May 01, 2006, 06:54:18 PM »

And this is the stance minasoliman also takes, I appreciate that you can and do believe in God in ADDITION to evolutionary science. However as far as evoultion is concerned - as it is taught - the 'why' is answsered by the 'how' because there is no 'why' beyond the material. This is the point I was trying to make. As far as evolution is concerned, there is no place for God - God has been excluded from all that there is that it has already explained in evolutionary terms.

For the record, I don't believe in evolutionary science as it is taught today.  My fundamental belief is that God created all living things, and I don't take seriously any scientific theory that denies this, which explains my disdain for today's materialistic Darwinian evolutionary theory.  However, I don't know enough of anything to presume to know exactly HOW God created Man.  Did He just speak, and POOF! Man came to be, as one could conclude from a strictly literal interpretation of the first of the Genesis myths?  Did He guide the evolution of Man as some theistic evolutionists believe?  I don't know, and I don't know that it's possible for me to proclaim in any dogmatic way what the Fathers have to say about the specifics of how God created Man.  All I can say is that I believe God created Man from the dust of the earth, whatever this means.

I do have a great respect for the role science can fulfill in a life based on Orthodox Faith, though.  I understand that many of the great scientists of past centuries (i.e., Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc.) were also God-fearing men who saw the heavens and the earth as God's creation.  These men saw science as a means to observing and understanding the creation God made and as a means to knowing God through the laws of His creation, in keeping with what St. Paul stated in his Epistle to the Romans: "Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." (Romans 1:20)  Sadly, much of what passes for science today has been divorced from the reverence for God and His creation that marks the work of the great scientists of the past and has become quite materialistic.

This naturally brings up the question: Must science oppose Christian Faith, and must Christian Faith oppose science?  I don't think so.  Seeing how the two were united in the past, I'm sure we can bring them back together.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2006, 06:58:02 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #184 on: May 01, 2006, 07:04:07 PM »

I have to change my last post, since it's poorly worded:

Quote
Let us put it another way.  If you are to have a debate with an atheist, how will you prove a theistic evolutionist (who doesn't necessarily have to be Christian) that evolution is wrong?  Are you going to give him Bible and Holy Fathers (which he may not believe) or are you going to use his own language (science) to disprove what he believes?

to

Quote
Let us put it another way.  If you are to have a debate with an theistic evolutionist (let's say maybe non-Christian), how will you prove him/her that evolution is wrong?  Are you going to give him Bible and Holy Fathers (which he may not believe) or are you going to use his own language (science) to disprove what he believes?

God bless.
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.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #185 on: May 01, 2006, 07:10:33 PM »

IF MAN EVOLVED FROM THE APES, WHY ARE THERE STILL APES?

(Give credit where credit is due dept.)  In an earlier thread, M777 replied to this query with one of his own, and I agree with the thrust of the point:  IF AMERICANS CAME FROM EUROPE, WHY ARE THERE STILL EUROPEANS?


Of course, in the same thread GIC correctly said that it wasn't actually apes that people came from, but rather a common ancestor.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2006, 01:50:06 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #186 on: May 01, 2006, 07:15:55 PM »

For the record, I don't believe in evolutionary science as it is taught today.  My fundamental belief is that God created all living things, and I don't take seriously any scientific theory that denies this,

The theory doesn't deny it at all.  Some scientists mascarading as (childish) philosophers and theologians and some incompetent/apostate theologians mascarading as competent/faithful ones are the ones doing the denying.

Quote
This naturally brings up the question: Must science oppose Christian Faith, and must Christian Faith oppose science?  

No.  Not at all.  That is what I wrote about in a previous post, among other things.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2006, 07:19:06 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #187 on: May 01, 2006, 10:50:52 PM »

Dear Montalban,

What lead me to think you believe in "pre-fall non-deathism" is your reply #138.  When I said:

You reply:

And then when I said:

You replied:

Thus, if you have good reason that you did not believe in what I accused you of, then how is it that you replied to me with such quotes?  Did not Fr. Seraphim Rose believe in the same, and irrefutably gives quotes from the Fathers?  Are you not a big fan of Fr. Seraphim?  Or do you just like to agree with "some" things that Fr. Seraphim believed?

I’ve already responded to this… (post #165)
But here I think you assume that the earth is very old, and that Adam came about much later, and as we have 'evidence' that fossils date millions of years this must have happened before Adam came about therefore animals died before the fall - your assumption here being that the earth is old. I have made no comment (I don't believe I have) on the age of the earth.

The next closest I can see in respects to this issue was in post #126 where I quoted Church Fathers with regards a literal Adam. Your retort to this was a 'just-so' that I simply musn't have read your site properly (I should have (in retrospect) have spotted the development of your argument then and there).

You also continued to make the comment that if all the Fathers had a concensus in believing in geocentricism, you would believe them over science.  Thus, you find yourself automatically agreeing with anything the Fathers say over experimentation and testing.  How then are you not uneducated of science, apart from the books you read, (which I highly doubt really taught you anything about science)?
I thought you were going to lay off making assumptions about me personally.
And your continual refusal to answer a simple question about your likes shows perhaps how much you understand the state of your own education of things scientific.
Seems not
[
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #188 on: May 01, 2006, 10:52:11 PM »

(Give credit where credit is due dept.)  In an earlier thread, M777 replied to this query with one of his own, and I agree with the thrust of the point:  IF AMERICANS CAME FROM EUROPE, WHY ARE THERE STILL EUROPEANS?
Be good if you dealt with the "Adam from Apes" question
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #189 on: May 01, 2006, 11:10:44 PM »

The theory doesn't deny it at all.

Let’s look how it does…

God created man.

Man arose through wholly naturalistic means.

No difference? Hmmmmm?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #190 on: May 01, 2006, 11:12:33 PM »

I want to know who the other two people who chose Neo-Darwinian Gradualistic Evolution are?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #191 on: May 02, 2006, 01:43:21 AM »


Let’s look how it does…

God created man.

Man arose through wholly naturalistic means.

No difference? Hmmmmm?

Sorry.  I'm not going to repeat verbatim a post where I already related how there is really no contradiction.  (Science on its own is a completely neutral tool, not a philosophy about life.)  Not to mention one of my posts on one of the 17.005 other threads on this board about the evolution question, which seems to cause everyone so much angst.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #192 on: May 02, 2006, 01:53:24 AM »

My reply to you was in response to post 165 if you haven't noticed.  You claim you have no say, and yet I show you that you do by calling me prideful and believing clear fossil evidence over the Father's erroneous sciences.  Thus this proves your inconsistency.

As for post 126, I find nothing in it that is relevant to your views on pre-fall death or even evolution.  None of what the Fathers you quote from that website said anything that contradicts both.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: May 02, 2006, 01:54:36 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #193 on: May 02, 2006, 01:55:54 AM »

Sorry.  I'm not going to repeat verbatim a post where I already related how there is really no contradiction.  (Science on its own is a completely neutral tool, not a philosophy about life.)  Not to mention one of my posts on one of the 17.005 other threads on this board about the evolution question, which seems to cause everyone so much angst.  

I can only imagine how jibberish this sounds to non-scientific people.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #194 on: May 02, 2006, 02:31:56 AM »

The theory doesn't deny it at all.
Let’s look how it does…

God created man.

Man arose through wholly naturalistic means.

No difference? Hmmmmm?

Pravoslavbob,

What exactly do you mean by "the theory":  Darwinian evolution, evolutionary theory in general, theistic evolution?  I think that you could help this debate by clarifying your use of words here.

(modification to post)
Okay, I found it.
On the other  side of the ledger........It is so obvious that evolution happened and is continuuing to happen.  The exact way in which it happened is not clear.  But this is all.  The evidence is simply far too strong to deny.  (Evidence from reputable sources, I mean.)  

I have no problem with saying that God is creating through evolution, even though it looks "random" to our puny human minds.  (However, I don't subscribe to pseudo-scientific theories of ID, either.)  
(end of modification)


Montalban,

Do you know exactly to what in Pravoslavbob's most recent quote you referred?  Do you know what he means by "the theory?"  You probably shouldn't judge his response so flippantly until you know for certain what he's talking about.  You yourself have stated earlier in this thread that you could allow for an evolutionary theory to include God as an active creative agent and that your objection is to evolutionary theory as it is taught today.  How do you know for certain that Pravoslavbob is referring to the naturalistic evolutionary theory that you detest?  Doesn't the quote I snipped from one of his posts earlier in this thread appear to imply the exact opposite, that he supports an evolutionary theory that you could actually, in theory, support?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2006, 02:46:09 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #195 on: May 02, 2006, 02:48:16 AM »

IF MAN EVOLVED FROM THE APES, WHY ARE THERE STILL APES?

If Americans descended from the English, why are there still English people?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #196 on: May 02, 2006, 03:37:57 AM »

If Americans descended from the English, why are there still English people?
Years ago, in an episode of Cheers, Woody couldn't believe that Americans won the War of Independence. "Oh, yeah!" he said "Then how come we all speak English?"
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #197 on: May 02, 2006, 03:42:05 AM »

Sorry.  I'm not going to repeat verbatim a post where I already related how there is really no contradiction.  (Science on its own is a completely neutral tool, not a philosophy about life.)  Not to mention one of my posts on one of the 17.005 other threads on this board about the evolution question, which seems to cause everyone so much angst.  

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. (the old, "Oh, I've answered this somewhere else"). Science makes no room for God. In the house of science there's no room for God. God is excluded from science. IF you want to believe in God in addition to science you're free to add other rooms, put in a spa and a bar-fridge if you want, but leave God out of the 'science' room.

The process of man's evolution as described by science is pretty much complete if not in 'details'. There is no science journal I'm aware of that says "Oh, we don't know this part of how evolution works, we'll assume God did it". For even if they don't know an answer, they're committed to naturalism. You're more then welcome to cite a peer-review journal to the contrary. I'll be glad to accept it. Even when there's divers mutually exclusive theories (a thing that I find a real problem for evolution) they don't say "Oh, God must have used one of them"

Also, although I've asked minasoliman et al a number of times to discuss where God fits into the ascent of man, no one's been game to show this; preferring to just say that I must not be versed in science. The ascent of man as described in evolution accounts for all aspects of man's ascent by purely naturalistic means.

Show me God's hand in the ascent of man, if you believe there's no contradiction. I'd be more than happy to see how you accommodate the two.

IF you want to add an additional belief such as 'Godly purpose' onto it, that is fine and dandy, as evolutionary scientists doesn't count that, and they thus 'allow' for it.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2006, 05:32:48 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #198 on: May 02, 2006, 03:52:18 AM »


Montalban,
Do you know exactly to what in Pravoslavbob's most recent quote you referred?
In a sense it doesn't matter. I addressed 'evolution' all along as the theory of evolution as it is taught, which is wholly naturalistic. I also noted that if anyone wants to believe in God above and beyond that, then good on them
Do you know what he means by "the theory?"  You probably shouldn't judge his response so flippantly until you know for certain what he's talking about.  You yourself have stated earlier in this thread that you could allow for an evolutionary theory to include God as an active creative agent and that your objection is to evolutionary theory as it is taught today.  How do you know for certain that Pravoslavbob is referring to the naturalistic evolutionary theory that you detest?  Doesn't the quote I snipped from one of his posts earlier in this thread appear to imply the exact opposite, that he supports an evolutionary theory that you could actually, in theory, support?
The theory I might support has already been dismissed as non-science, it's ID-Theory.

The theory of evolution says that the process of speciation happened solely through naturalistic means.

ID-theory believes that the genocentric nature of neo-Darwinism can't account for jumps in species (outside of 'kind'). It does this because, for instance folds in RNA aren't governed by the genes (sort of like the way paper isn't determined by the writing upon it).


The mechanistic process in Darwin's idea is disputed by other theories of evolution. Lawrence Henderson wrote “Fitness of the Environment”

You can see a very large tract on it at http://www.members.iinet.net/~sejones/pe06envr.html . The earth seems so suited for life, it can't have been by chance that life came about by chance. The inference is that there's an intelligence/blueprint behind it. This does not mean that the Christian God is proved by it, or God in any definition. BUT it is a form of evolutionary theory that tackles the problems of the holes in Darwin's mechanistic models.

Michael Denton agrees with when he states that the gene-centric theory of neo-Darwinism - is insufficient to explain all aspects of biology. He states “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the '80s and '90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life's order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype... From being 'isolated directors' of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in “The Century of the Gene”

Michael John Denton ”An Anti-Darwin Intellectual Journey”, in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, p172.

He gives examples of the folds in RNA which happen consistently, and independently of genetic coding... but these rules governing the folds... “These laws of protein form are strictly equivalent to the rules that govern the way atoms are combined into molecules or subatomic particles are combined into atoms to generate the periodic table of elements...

The folds present stunning evidence, perhaps the first clear evidence discovered in biology, that highly complex organic forms can be generated by natural law. With the folds, the impossible has become possible - the basic building blocks of nature are specified in abstract laws of form and are not simply a mechanical program in the genes. They are lawful, emergent, self-organising forms and not contingent 'cleverly contrived machines'. Here is a set of forms that arise directly out of the basic properties of matter, confirming the inference I had previously drawn from reading Henderson, that life might be encoded in the basic properties of matter.”

Ibid, pp173-74
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #199 on: May 02, 2006, 06:10:00 PM »

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. (the old, "Oh, I've answered this somewhere else"). Science makes no room for God. In the house of science there's no room for God. God is excluded from science. IF you want to believe in God in addition to science you're free to add other rooms, put in a spa and a bar-fridge if you want, but leave God out of the 'science' room.
AISI, what you say is true of science as most scientists define the discipline today.  But science hasn't always defined itself in this way, neither do all scientists today define science in purely naturalistic terms.  Of course, such scientists are usually drummed out as quacks by the rest of the scientific community, but I don't see why science should be so antagonistic to supernatural explanations of such historic phenomena as the origins of human life.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #200 on: May 02, 2006, 10:05:51 PM »

AISI, what you say is true of science as most scientists define the discipline today.  But science hasn't always defined itself in this way, neither do all scientists today define science in purely naturalistic terms.  Of course, such scientists are usually drummed out as quacks by the rest of the scientific community, but I don't see why science should be so antagonistic to supernatural explanations of such historic phenomena as the origins of human life.
I agree totally with this. There can be considered many views of science,* and it's false to assume that there's only one scientific method.

And the same within disciplines in science, such as evolution.

Marxists find evidence for the cooperative nature of ape-men. Others may say that they were the opposite; singular individuals dominating a group, etc. All of them find their theories on the ‘evidence’.

Even within the western orientated, male dominated domain of evolutionary science that kids are taught is science, we find mutually exclusive theories that are based on the ‘evidence’.

Presently, for instance, there is the theory that man arose in Africa (the “Out of Africa” model) which is directly laid against the Multi-regional model (aka diregional model) which suggests a lower form of man spread out first, and then evolved into the environments into which they found themselves — giving rise to ‘racial’ differences.

This is not to say that there is no truth in any of these theories.

*
e.g. German Nationalist Science, or Nazi Science. Many people reject it not on its scientific merits/demerits but upon philosophical grounds. I have, of course no problem with rejecting it’s findings because of philosophical grounds, but I do so without rejecting those findings as scientific.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #201 on: May 02, 2006, 10:46:56 PM »

Dogmatism is dogmatism, Matthew, whether you're talking about polygamy or creationism. And dogmatism is not a good thing. (And no, I'm not affirming that dogmatically  Grin)
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #202 on: May 03, 2006, 10:32:58 AM »

Million-dollar question:

Would one consider their faith in Christianity and their belief in evolution a heresy?

God bless.

Mina
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #203 on: May 04, 2006, 01:03:16 AM »

Million-dollar question:

Would one consider their faith in Christianity and their belief in evolution a heresy?

God bless.

Mina
Okay, I'm dense. Undecided I find your question a bit difficult to decipher.  Could you please rephrase it in a way that I can understand?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2006, 01:04:20 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #204 on: May 04, 2006, 01:43:36 AM »

Accepting evolution as a science.  

Is it wrong as an Orthodox Christian or not?  Is it heretical?  So long as you believe God created man through evolution, and that you are a faithful Orthodox Christian, would one consider accepting evolution as a wrong move?

God bless.

Mina
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #205 on: May 04, 2006, 02:45:50 AM »

Accepting evolution as a science.  

Is it wrong as an Orthodox Christian or not?  Is it heretical?  So long as you believe God created man through evolution, and that you are a faithful Orthodox Christian, would one consider accepting evolution as a wrong move?

God bless.

Mina
Thank you, Mina, for clarifying your question.  I understand now what you're asking.

My quick answer to your question is 'No.'

The Orthodox cannot but believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on the earth.  As long as an evolutionary theory does not deny this fundamental truth, I see no problem believing that the theory may indeed be a valid attempt to explain how God created life.  My only opposition is to those naturalistic theories of evolution that deny the creative work of God.

Now if a later Ecumenical Synod were to declare all theories of evolution to be heretical, I would submit to this decision as a matter of submission to Church authority.  However, I don't see this happening this side of the Second Coming.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #206 on: May 04, 2006, 04:20:08 AM »

Thank you, Mina, for clarifying your question.  I understand now what you're asking.

My quick answer to your question is 'No.'

The Orthodox cannot but believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life on the earth.  As long as an evolutionary theory does not deny this fundamental truth, I see no problem believing that the theory may indeed be a valid attempt to explain how God created life.  My only opposition is to those naturalistic theories of evolution that deny the creative work of God.

Now if a later Ecumenical Synod were to declare all theories of evolution to be heretical, I would submit to this decision as a matter of submission to Church authority.  However, I don't see this happening this side of the Second Coming.
I accept fully what you say.

It is unfortunate that atheists have taken over the reigns of evolution. They deem only naturalistic interpretations to be valid (as far as science is concerned) and then 'allow' Christians to believe in God. They also cite the 'many Christians who believe in evolution'.

What of these? I can but speculate that these Christians either believe in other forms of evolution, OR believe the lie that naturalism is not at odds with a Creative God OR that their form of Christianity allows God to work through the naturalism of neo-Darwinism.

But as for those on this forum, they will not say where did God create Adam? From a ape-man? (even special creation would be against neo-Darwinism)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #207 on: May 04, 2006, 09:58:43 AM »

Quote
My only opposition is to those naturalistic theories of evolution that deny the creative work of God.

I do too.  I support the "naturalistic" theories that do not disprove God's existence nor deny His creative work.

God bless.

Mina
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.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #208 on: May 04, 2006, 10:58:49 PM »

I do too.  I support the "naturalistic" theories that do not disprove God's existence nor deny His creative work.
So you've gone aginst neo-Darwinism?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #209 on: May 04, 2006, 11:50:06 PM »

Provided one believes that God set it into motion, even if one does not believe that he micro-managed evolution, he is still Creator, he is still the ultimate source of All things, the necessities of Cosmology and Divine Ontology are maintained. And provided man is in the Image and Likeness of God, even if he evolved that way and became that through naturalistic means which were initially set in motion by God, the necessities of Anthropology are fulfilled, which dont require a direct and immediate action of God, but only that the ultimate result of God's actions, even if it took billions of years, is a Creature in the Image and Likeness of God...though not a perfect creature, for Perfection can only be found in God.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #210 on: May 05, 2006, 03:35:02 AM »

Provided one believes that God set it into motion, even if one does not believe that he micro-managed evolution, he is still Creator, he is still the ultimate source of All things, the necessities of Cosmology and Divine Ontology are maintained.
I agree that this would still make God a 'creator', if He established the rules by which the universe unfolded, He could even be deemed to have 'planned' it.
And provided man is in the Image and Likeness of God, even if he evolved that way and became that through naturalistic means which were initially set in motion by God, the necessities of Anthropology are fulfilled, which don't require a direct and immediate action of God, but only that the ultimate result of God's actions, even if it took billions of years, is a Creature in the Image and Likeness of God...though not a perfect creature, for Perfection can only be found in God.
There's the first problem however, did God specially create man as man? Did He take some pre-existing ape-like species and confer it with a soul, thus transforming it into man?

Darwinism rules out special creation by already describing the rise of man from pre-existing critters.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #211 on: May 05, 2006, 03:42:01 AM »

Quote
There's the first problem however, did God specially create man as man? Did He take some pre-existing ape-like species and confer it with a soul, thus transforming it into man?

Darwinism rules out special creation by already describing the rise of man from pre-existing critters.

One cannot deny that God created man very similar to apes even if one denies man was evolved from apes.  Darwinism doesn't rule out any special creation.  The Image of God in man we can with honesty say no ape ever possessed, and that's what makes us different from the closest ape.

God bless.

Mina
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.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #212 on: May 05, 2006, 03:50:17 AM »

One cannot deny that God created man very similar to apes even if one denies man was evolved from apes.
If one accepts that we are similar to apes, that would be a reasonable position.
Darwinism doesn't rule out any special creation.
It does if you believe that 'special creation' involves God creating man from no previous creature. Neo-Darwinism says that we come from a previous creature.
The Image of God in man we can with honesty say no ape ever possessed, and that's what makes us different from the closest ape.
The Image of God is liken to apes? In light of your first statement doesn't it run true the following...?

God made man similar to apes. God made man in His image. God's image is similar to apes.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #213 on: May 05, 2006, 03:52:46 AM »

So at least we're now moving to people answering my question re: Adam.

Did God confer a soul on an ape-like being to make it 'man'? I wonder is it because people think that apes were evolving into something akin to the Image of God.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Sleepyhead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 27



« Reply #214 on: May 05, 2006, 06:34:52 AM »

I would probably fall into the "theistic evolutionist"-bracket. I can't explain the 'hows', and I do not always feel that it is necessary. Science wouldn't exist without God (since He created us), but I do not see why one would have to see evolutionary theory as excluding God. I know scientists who are devout Christians, and I know those who are atheists. Proving or excluding God is not their job; some have decided that they do not believe, and they may base that on their scientific knowledge. Science in itself doesn't do that - these people have chosen to go outside its realms and make a philosophical decision. Some of you might think that I am taking the easy way out - I can't do anything about that. I just don't understand why all this is such a huge issue. Smiley
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #215 on: May 05, 2006, 07:57:21 AM »

I would probably fall into the "theistic evolutionist"-bracket. I can't explain the 'hows', and I do not always feel that it is necessary. Science wouldn't exist without God (since He created us), but I do not see why one would have to see evolutionary theory as excluding God. I know scientists who are devout Christians, and I know those who are atheists. Proving or excluding God is not their job; some have decided that they do not believe, and they may base that on their scientific knowledge. Science in itself doesn't do that - these people have chosen to go outside its realms and make a philosophical decision. Some of you might think that I am taking the easy way out - I can't do anything about that. I just don't understand why all this is such a huge issue.

As I've said before I accept that people want to, and can believe in both evolution and God (some forms of evolution believe that naturalistic explanations fail to show how speciation can occur). However (also, as I've stated), the neo-Darwinism that is seen as the normative explanation for evolution is wholly naturalistic. There is no room for God 'within' it.

I'll go look for one of my books by Phillip E. Johnson because he explains his understanding of the real 'motives' of science educators better than I.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #216 on: May 05, 2006, 08:26:02 AM »

Quote
It does if you believe that 'special creation' involves God creating man from no previous creature. Neo-Darwinism says that we come from a previous creature.

Special creation simply shows where we differ from animals.  The difference is animal, not even the closest ape have the Image of God.  The Image of God is directly created.  Therefore, the evolution of man's fleshly nature does not disprove man as a "special creation."  Remember, man was "formed from the dust," and if taken literally, that's even lower than ape.

Quote
The Image of God is liken to apes? In light of your first statement doesn't it run true the following...?

God made man similar to apes. God made man in His image. God's image is similar to apes.

Well, let's look at the dual nature of Christ using your way of thinking:  

"Christ is consubstantial with the Father.  Christ is consubstantial with man.  Man is consubstantial with the Father."

You can therefore see where I stand at the absurdity of that type of thought.  I do not believe apes have God's image.  We can say that we are consubstantial with animals, but we are also consubstantial with angels, and the Image of God was a special creation that did not evolve from animals.  When Appollinarius came up with that damning heresy, the polemics from the Fathers was that the logical outcome of Christ's salvation was for animals, and not for humans.

God bless.

Mina
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.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #217 on: May 05, 2006, 09:33:42 AM »

Special creation simply shows where we differ from animals.
How were we 'specially created'? From a pre-existing animal (God modifying it to make it man), or from nothing?
The difference is animal, not even the closest ape have the Image of God.  The Image of God is directly created.  Therefore, the evolution of man's fleshly nature does not disprove man as a "special creation."  Remember, man was "formed from the dust," and if taken literally, that's even lower than ape.

Well, let's look at the dual nature of Christ using your way of thinking:  

"Christ is consubstantial with the Father.  Christ is consubstantial with man.  Man is consubstantial with the Father."
Not quite because the nature of the Son is not to confuse the two natures of Man and God. You simply say that Apes are similar to men. Men are made in God's Image, and you don't show 'how'. You need to state the relationship of Man to God through this special creation - how was man specially created.
Not that I've not asked this before a dozen times already.

The only thing left for me is to guess at what you might believe, so I'll do that, just for the fun of it. You've stated you believe in Darwinism. Darwinism accounts for man's coming into being through naturalistic processes, and from ape-like beings. This would mean that God took a creature and endowed it with His image to make that already existing creature 'man'.

You can therefore see where I stand at the absurdity of that type of thought.  I do not believe apes have God's image.  We can say that we are consubstantial with animals, but we are also consubstantial with angels, and the Image of God was a special creation that did not evolve from animals.  When Appollinarius came up with that damning heresy, the polemics from the Fathers was that the logical outcome of Christ's salvation was for animals, and not for humans.

Thank you for merely repeating that you believe that we are specially created, again, and again. If you want to answer in what way, then please do. If you don't have an idea, that's okay, because I will accept that too.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #218 on: December 23, 2006, 04:32:14 PM »

So the final results (as of this writing) were:

Young Earth Creationism - 7 votes (17.5%)

Other Creationism/ID - 23 votes (57.5%)

Naturalistic Evolution - 4 votes (10.0%)

None/Not Sure/Other - 6 votes (15.0%)


Fwiw, from Michael Shermer's Book How We Believe:

Quote
In March of 2001 the Gallup News Service reported the results of a survey that found 45 percent of Americans agree with the statement "GOd created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," while 37 percent preferred a blended belief that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process," and a paltry 12 percent accepted the standard scientific theory that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process."

In a forced choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). Only 33 percent of Americans think that the theory of evolution is "well supported by evidence," while slightly more (39 percent) believe that it is not well supported, and that it is "just one of many theories." One reason for these disturbing results can be seen in the additional finding that only 34 percent of Americans consider themselves to be "very informed" about evolution. Clearly the 66 percent who do not consider themselves well informed have not withheld their judgment on the theory's veracity. (pp. 249-250)
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #219 on: December 23, 2006, 07:11:07 PM »

I change my vote to theistic evolution. Bullocks to the Christian right!
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #220 on: December 24, 2006, 09:23:18 AM »

So the final results (as of this writing) were:

Young Earth Creationism - 7 votes (17.5%)

Other Creationism/ID - 23 votes (57.5%)

Naturalistic Evolution - 4 votes (10.0%)

None/Not Sure/Other - 6 votes (15.0%)

Only 4 of us voted for Naturalistic Evolution in the end? I thought there were more educated people than that here at OC.net.

Quote
Fwiw, from Michael Shermer's Book How We Believe:

Which effectively tells us how miserably our science education in this country is failing. And parochial schools that refuse to teach the most current scienfitic theories are not helping; looks like we need better curriculums and more control over them...something clearly isn't working.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #221 on: December 24, 2006, 09:12:52 PM »

Only 4 of us voted for Naturalistic Evolution in the end? I thought there were more educated people than that here at OC.net.

Are you an atheist? Only half of the scientific community actually believes in naturalistic evolution. Not even Darwin believed in pure naturalism.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #222 on: December 24, 2006, 10:05:55 PM »

Darwin did what Copernicus had done three centuries earlier: he followed naturalistic explanations as far as he could, and then if he felt he had to go a step further filled in the knowledge gap with God. They were unfortunate concessions, but then I wouldn't have wanted the label "atheist" on me in those times either. In the 125+ years since Darwin was writing science has claimed a lot of the gaps that God used to be put in.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #223 on: December 24, 2006, 10:16:06 PM »

Darwin's theory was not intended to be atheistic:

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #224 on: December 24, 2006, 10:26:48 PM »

Quote
Darwin's theory was not intended to be atheistic

No, I wouldn't imagine that it would be, since he was an agnostic. But your argument is a red herring, not to mention an appeal to authority (2 fallacies). So what if Darwin didn't consider it atheistic? It was his personal opinion that there might, possibly be a God; this has nothing to do with the actual theory (or theories) he proposed and attempted to defend.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2006, 10:28:48 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   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 0.266 seconds with 75 queries.