• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Creation Museum Family Visit

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
In my experience as a father, businessman, Marine Officer, inspirational speaker, and Orthodox Christian, tough love never has to be ridiculing.  Some people obviously think it should and use ridicule, but I have to question the motives and intentions of anyone who resorts to ridicule. And I have no problem with tough love.  I have a problem with people openly ridiculing others and talking about how they enjoy it.

Heorhij said:
To some extent, I agree. Yet, on the other hand, sometimes love should be tough.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Heorhij said:
But denying evolution is not a "belief," it's just wrong... :)
Why is denying "MACRO" evolution wrong? Most creationists believe in what is called "MICRO" evolution.

Some old earth creationists believe in macro-evolution and "all" theistic evolutionists believe in macro-evolution.


But I don't understand why a rejection of "macro" evolution = wrong.




JNORM888
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Before someone jumps down your throat, you might want to search on GIC and Heorj's names and look at their history of posts. You'll find plenty to address this question and will probably save us all from the fur flying.


jnorm888 said:
Why is denying "MACRO" evolution wrong? Most creationists believe in what is called "MICRO" evolution.

Some old earth creationists believe in macro-evolution and "all" theistic evolutionists believe in macro-evolution.


But I don't understand why a rejection of "macro" evolution = wrong.




JNORM888
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Oh and I might add, in general, Heorhij has some very thoughtful and clear posts on the evolutionist position.  Ignore him when he gets his temper worked up and just appreciate his honesty. It's well worth the time to search and read, even if you don't agree with him. I have no firm beliefs when it comes to this topic, but I learned some things from Heorhij.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jnorm888 said:
Why is denying "MACRO" evolution wrong? Most creationists believe in what is called "MICRO" evolution.

Some old earth creationists believe in macro-evolution and "all" theistic evolutionists believe in macro-evolution.


But I don't understand why a rejection of "macro" evolution = wrong.




JNORM888
Because neither "mactoevolution" nor "microevolution" actually exist. They are terms used with didactic purposes (purely for teaching).
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
livefreeordie said:
Man, bringing up creation and watching heads spin is more fun than smashing pennies on a train track! 

***
Something tells me I could write a 1000 word post on late byzantine iconography and if one sentence mentioned creationism feathers would fly and we'd rehash a conversation that's been had on this list a hundred times.  :D

***
I post about a trip my family takes and because creation is involved people start licking their chops.

***
But within minutes of this post, I posted a story about a modern day miracle worker and my personal experience with a spiritual daughter of his.  And it gets one reply, from a moderator.

That alone speaks volumes.
What was that you said about ridicule not being Orthodox, nor loving and demeaning to the postion of the one doing the ridiculing?
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
If this came across as ridicule I apologize.  But that interpretation of my post seems like a stretch, more like an attempt to say "gotcha!".

I'll restate my post.

"These discussions are fun to me.

I do believe that almost any time creation gets brought up a heated debate occurs that rehashes almost all previous threads.

I did post about a family trip and people did appear to be licking their proverbial chops.

I was just stating the obvious about the response to this post and my other."

Unfortunately, the nature of internet debates is that they can often end up being a game of Gotcha.

Riddikulus said:
What was that you said about ridicule not being Orthodox, nor loving and demeaning to the postion of the one doing the ridiculing?
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
livefreeordie said:
If this came across as ridicule I apologize.  But that interpretation of my post seems like a stretch, more like an attempt to say "gotcha!".
Apology accepted; and there was no stretch involved. Your sarcasm is self-evident and amounts to the very ridicule that you claim to so disdain.

 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Well, I suppose if someone has thin enough skin any sarcasm could be seen as ridicule.  I don't mind a tough argument, as I said, and I don't mind a little rib poking.  But when people start getting mean and unambiguously ridiculing, then I think the line has been crossed and all you have to do is a search on the creation vs. evolution debate to see the line has been crossed a lot.  Which is unfortunate, because most discussions on the board do a great job of being spirited, yet respectfull.  Which is fun! ;)  Of course, as I'm sure someone would point out, who am I to say where that line is drawn.  Which is why I'm sure this discussion will come up again, and again, and again.
 

Riddikulus said:
Apology accepted; and there was no stretch involved. Your sarcasm is self-evident and amounts to the very ridicule that you claim to so disdain.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
livefreeordie said:
Well, I suppose if someone has thin enough skin any sarcasm could be seen as ridicule. 
sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you? Just for the record, your sarcasm doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, your hypocrisy is another thing altogether. 

 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Hate to split hairs with you Riddikulus, but my "sarcasm" was intended to be humorous, not cutting, contemptuous or ridiculing.  If it wasn't humorous to you, I apologize.  And for that matter, if an element of sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning, I'm not even sure I was being sarcastic.  What I said is exactly what I meant.  No irony, just some colorful language. And I wasn't pointing out any single person, just commenting in general on how crazy the board gets when discussing creation.

FYI, My dictionary says Sarcasm is "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."  And it defines irony as "the expression of one's meaning by language that usually defines the opposite."

If I'm guilty of anything it's the misuse of the word sarcasm.  Or just not being funny.

I should have said, "if someone has thin enough skin any humor can be seen as ridicule."

Riddikulus said:
sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you? Just for the record, your sarcasm doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, your hypocrisy is another thing altogether. 
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
I said Jesus, not Paul.  GIC, are you getting all bible quoting on me!   :eek:
I've observed that religious folks tend to give that book a lot of weight, so I throw a quote out there from time to time to make them happy ;D
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
jnorm888 said:
Why is denying "MACRO" evolution wrong? Most creationists believe in what is called "MICRO" evolution.

Some old earth creationists believe in macro-evolution and "all" theistic evolutionists believe in macro-evolution.


But I don't understand why a rejection of "macro" evolution = wrong.
As much as I'd like to teach you Biology 101 on this thread, it's probably not practical; and George would be far better qualified to do so than I. If you have at least a basic grasp of biology, mathematics, and computer science I can refer you to some recent journal publications in the field of genomics from Nature that should help explain why a rejection of evolution is just plain wrong.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
Oh and I might add, in general, Heorhij has some very thoughtful and clear posts on the evolutionist position.  Ignore him when he gets his temper worked up and just appreciate his honesty. It's well worth the time to search and read, even if you don't agree with him. I have no firm beliefs when it comes to this topic, but I learned some things from Heorhij.
Nice, throw out an ad hominem even before somone makes their argument...it appears that I'm not the only person here who's been readin Goebbels.

I personally get frusterated when I have to put up with the nonsensical arguments creationists use to defend their position; I could only imagine how frusterated George must get, considering he's devoted a significant portion of his life to the study of biology and can plainly see how obvious the whole issue is.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
;D

greekischristian said:
I've observed that religious folks tend to give that book a lot of weight, so I throw a quote out there from time to time to make them happy ;D
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
ad hominem?  I RECOMMENDED the guy read George as George is very genuine and very honest and very knowledgable on the subject.  More so than anyone I've seen comment on the board.  George himself in posts has said he has let his temper get the best of him, and since I told the guy to read George's past posts I put that in. Maybe I shouldn't have added any qualifiers.  Don't get alarmist on me.

greekischristian said:
Nice, throw out an ad hominem even before somone makes their argument...it appears that I'm not the only person here who's been readin Goebbels.

I personally get frusterated when I have to put up with the nonsensical arguments creationists use to defend their position; I could only imagine how frusterated George must get, considering he's devoted a significant portion of his life to the study of biology and can plainly see how obvious the whole issue is.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
ad hominem?  I RECOMMENDED the guy read George as George is very genuine and very honest and very knowledgable on the subject.  More so than anyone I've seen comment on the board.  George himself in posts has said he has let his temper get the best of him, and since I told the guy to read George's past posts I put that in. Maybe I shouldn't have added any qualifiers.  Don't get alarmist on me.
I'm not getting alarmist, I'm just point out that I'm not the only one who makes use of the principles of rhetoric and propaganda you claim to reject. ;)
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Where did I say I reject the principles of rhetoric and propaganda?  I only rejected a particular thing used in rhetoric and proganda, ridicule, and more specifically, when we use it on this board in addressing each other.  I enjoy a little ribbing and spirited debate as much as the next guy!  But we all, and I am including myself here, just need to be mindful of not crossing the line.  Especially when discussing the hot topics like creation vs. evolution.

greekischristian said:
I'm not getting alarmist, I'm just point out that I'm not the only one who makes use of the principles of rhetoric and propaganda you claim to reject. ;)
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
Where did I say I reject the principles of rhetoric and propaganda?  I only rejected a particular thing used in rhetoric and proganda, ridicule, and more specifically, when we use it on this board in addressing each other.  I enjoy a little ribbing and spirited debate as much as the next guy!  But we all, and I am including myself here, just need to be mindful of not crossing the line.  Especially when discussing the hot topics like creation vs. evolution.
Except that the topic isn't any 'hotter' than heliocentricism vs. geocentricism...it really fits into the same category. ;)
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
You need your own show.  You'd put Bill Maher to shame.  People would either love you or hate you and lots of them would watch! ;)

greekischristian said:
Except that the topic isn't any 'hotter' than heliocentricism vs. geocentricism...it really fits into the same category. ;)
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Victoria, Australia
greekischristian said:
Except that the topic isn't any 'hotter' than heliocentricism vs. geocentricism...it really fits into the same category. ;)
It's still hot for some people GIC http://www.fes.be/index.html
 

EofK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Springfield, MO
Hey, all, could we please bring this thread back from attacking each other?  Otherwise, I'm going to move it to the Religious section of the Free For All board.  Thanks.

--EofK
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Heorhij said:
Because neither "mactoevolution" nor "microevolution" actually exist. They are terms used with didactic purposes (purely for teaching).

True, but I don't see why everyone must believe in Macro evolution (in regards to animal life) when it's a speculation.

Small mutations over millions of years is something we can't directly observe. It is a kind of "faith" to think we will evolve into a new species 1 million years from now based on the micro evolution that happens today.

If anything micro-evolution in animal life would seem to support devolution. Or some type of degeneration. There are alot of factors involve that were never tought to me as a kid that would make evolution "relative"/"subjective".

What maybe a good "mutation" for one might be a bad "mutation" to someone else.


Lets say a mutation happened that will bloack the HIV virus from infacting someone. Well that mutation might be good for the A.I.D.S. virus but it might be bad for the common cold or something else that most people are either immune to or don't have a problem with.





But I will take the advice of another person on this board and not talk about this issue on this thread.




JNORM888
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
jnorm888 said:
True, but I don't see why everyone must believe in Macro evolution (in regards to animal life) when it's a speculation.
(This must be punishment for the sins of my youth...<sigh>)

It's not speculation, it's hard science which is well supported by various experiments.

Small mutations over millions of years is something we can't directly observe. It is a kind of "faith" to think we will evolve into a new species 1 million years from now based on the micro evolution that happens today.
No faith is required, a comparative study of the genomes of various related species will even show you the exact alleles that changed, the significance of these alleles, and can even point us in the direction of the nature of each change. Welcome to the age of genomics...or do you think we're sequencing genomes because we lost a bet?

If anything micro-evolution in animal life would seem to support devolution. Or some type of degeneration. There are alot of factors involve that were never tought to me as a kid that would make evolution "relative"/"subjective".

What maybe a good "mutation" for one might be a bad "mutation" to someone else.
There's some truth to that, homo sapiens have a lot of genetic investment in intelligence and, as a result, other skills are lacking...put a human toe to toe with a lion, absent the technology we've been able to develop using our intelligence, and we're at quite a disadvantage.

Lets say a mutation happened that will bloack the HIV virus from infacting someone. Well that mutation might be good for the A.I.D.S. virus but it might be bad for the common cold or something else that most people are either immune to or don't have a problem with.
That's where natural selection comes in, if, in the wash, the mutation is beneficial those who have it will have an advantage (however slight) over those who do not and over a long enough time will come to dominate the population. If, however, the mutation is not beneficial (as is the case with most mutations) the population with that mutation will die out and it will not be continued. To paraphrase Dr. Eric Lander (Director of the Broad Institute at MIT), our genomes (and the genomes of every species) contain the research notes of hundreds of millions of years of 'research' by evolution and natural selection, but evolution, contrary to modern scientific practice, throws out the notes related to unsuccessful experiments.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Was reading through an evolution tutorial on the University of Berkeley web site.  And read the following,

"The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

A single germ line mutation can have a range of effects:

No change occurs in phenotype
Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

Small change occurs in phenotype
A single mutation caused this cat's ears to curl backwards slightly.

Big change occurs in phenotype
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.

There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it."


Now here is where I get confused.  Why couldn't a pig develop wings and other body changes that might enable it fly?  That doesn't seem any less unlikely or absurd given enough time than the idea that a big bang evolved into a human being.  To a layman this seems to undermine the idea that evolution through random mutations could develop complex animals that do all sorts of things, fly, walk, run, etc. from what amounts to a pool of water.

This is where I go, sure I see the evolution explained above happening all over, but I sure don't get how we go from saying mutations can cause a beetle to change the color of its wings to saying a plant, beginning and continuing with random mutation, became a man. With that logic, the very same beetle might very well develop a brain, vocal chords and speech in a few billion years.  And then we wouldn't need Pixar! ;)  While that sounds silly.  Does it sound any more silly that a pool of water or plant developing into a human being? 

To quote Berkeley, "neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings".  Since science can't/won't acknowledge God, I might say, "wishful thinking looks at a mutation changing the color of a beetle's wing and extrapolates from that evidence that Man "evolved" from a soup of matter." That is of course simplifying the issue, but you get the point.

I bring up Beetle's by the way because that is a common example evolutionists bring up as evidence we can see of evolution, i.e. through mutations the color of a beetle's wings changed and gave the new beetle's an environmental advantage.

Not being a scientist, I sincerely would like an explanation of the above. thanks!
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I don't personally know enough about the pig genome vs. bird genomes, but I could take a guess at a few possible reasons why this wouldn't happen. It is possible that sections of the genome in birds that have the alleles necessary for wings would serve another purpose in a pig, thus making any such mutation lethal for the pig. We certainly know that a development like this would require a substantial change in the genome and that such a change could not happen instantly. I imagine that it's theoretically possible that if the pig is allowed to continue its course of evolution a variety of changes could occur over millions (probably hundreds of millions) of years that allowed some descendant of the pig to fly, but this would require such a change in genome that the new species and the modern pig would certainly be unable to naturally reproduce thus meaning that it's no longer a pig.

I think the main point being made, albeit somewhat poorly, is that genetic mutations do not cause species altering changes in one or two generations, this happens through millions of years of genetic drift.

Oh, and the laws of physics come into play as well -- not even evolution can get around those -- the aerodynamics of a flying pig don't work very well...if some future decendent of the pig were to fly changes beyond wings would be required (more aerodynamic shape (being too akward gives you a disadvantage when it comes to natural selection), MUCH less weight relative to body size, possibly hollow bones, feathers helpful though not absolutely necessary).

In the end I think it's important to note that it's the genome, not the phenotypes, that mutates and evolves. Though it's the effect of the genome on the phenotypes that determines whether or not the mutation survives.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
They said that "a lot" of mutations could not cause it either.  And while I agree that along with wings some other aerodynamic properties would need to be evolved, a pool of water or cloud of dust needs a lot more changes than this to become flesh and walk.  So neither is necessarilly more hard to imagine than the other.

The implication from the article was that "a lot" means "a lot" i.e. thousands or millions or whatever.

They also didn't qualify their instruction by talking about genomes vs. phenotypes, so whatever you mean by that you might want to bring up with Berkeley.  You and they are the scientists, not me. I'll keep reading though.

greekischristian said:
I don't personally know enough about the pig genome vs. bird genomes, but I could take a guess at a few possible reasons why this wouldn't happen. It is possible that sections of the genome in birds that have the alleles necessary for wings would serve another purpose in a pig, thus making any such mutation lethal for the pig. We certainly know that a development like this would require a substantial change in the genome and that such a change could not happen instantly. I imagine that it's theoretically possible that if the pig is allowed to continue its course of evolution a variety of changes could occur over millions (probably hundreds of millions) of years that allowed some descendant of the pig to fly, but this would require such a change in genome that the new species and the modern pig would certainly be unable to naturally reproduce thus meaning that it's no longer a pig.

I think the main point being made, albeit somewhat poorly, is that genetic mutations do not cause species altering changes in one or two generations, this happens through millions of years of genetic drift.

Oh, and the laws of physics come into play as well -- not even evolution can get around those -- the aerodynamics of a flying pig don't work very well...if some future decendent of the pig were to fly changes beyond wings would be required (more aerodynamic shape (being too akward gives you a disadvantage when it comes to natural selection), MUCH less weight relative to body size, possibly hollow bones, feathers helpful though not absolutely necessary).

In the end I think it's important to note that it's the genome, not the phenotypes, that mutates and evolves. Though it's the effect of the genome on the phenotypes that determines whether or not the mutation survives.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Hey moderators.  I'm new to the workings of this board.  How do I copy all this over to the new thread you created?  Or can you do it more easily on your end? thanks!
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I'll just make it a habit to post anything over there.  Thanks for consolidating everything.

ytterbiumanalyst said:
Well, it's not a new thread, just an old one we put a sticky on. But I can merge the two if you would like.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
They said that "a lot" of mutations could not cause it either.  And while I agree that along with wings some other aerodynamic properties would need to be evolved, a pool of water or cloud of dust needs a lot more changes than this to become flesh and walk.  So neither is necessarilly more hard to imagine than the other.

The implication from the article was that "a lot" means "a lot" i.e. thousands or millions or whatever.

They also didn't qualify their instruction by talking about genomes vs. phenotypes, so whatever you mean by that you might want to bring up with Berkeley.  You and they are the scientists, not me. I'll keep reading though.
It's just a general introduction to evolution for the layman; don't take it as though it were an academic journal. The information is good, in general, but given enough mutations anything could theoretically fly (provided the laws of physics allowed), or any number of other things could do...but in this case I think the main point is that if this many mutations would take place it would be a different species.
 

aserb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
66
Location
Valley Forge, PA
livefreeordie said:
How's this for a number that will instantly invoke abject horror from many members of this board and immense appreciation from some other members.  And a little head scratching by the rest. The creation museum has only been open 9 months and it already has had 350,000 visitors.

I would like to have the hot dog concession out front!  :laugh:
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
GIC, I'm heartbroken, I expected a better answer from you! ;)

But you are right, this a very superficial examination, although I'm sure they wrote it all to be correct.  I'll keep reading and bring up questions when appropriate.  Thanks.


greekischristian said:
It's just a general introduction to evolution for the layman; don't take it as though it were an academic journal. The information is good, in general, but given enough mutations anything could theoretically fly (provided the laws of physics allowed), or any number of other things could do...but in this case I think the main point is that if this many mutations would take place it would be a different species.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
You wouldn't make it past the security dogs and police.  They've had so many bomb and other threats and militant protestors they had to hire 24hr security.

aserb said:
I would like to have the hot dog concession out front!  :laugh:
 

aserb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
66
Location
Valley Forge, PA
livefreeordie said:
You wouldn't make it past the security dogs and police.  They've had so many bomb and other threats and militant protestors they had to hire 24hr security.
OK, I am not an evangelical and I am not much of creationist advocate. But I do believe in freedom of speech. Now I know some evangelicals can be downright annoying, but bomb threats and protests  ???  I believe you but I thing that that is way wrong.
 

NihilNominis

Newbie
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hate to be the guy that says this after a heated debate, but:

Neither view is a necessary tenet of Orthodoxy - therefore, let us not be divided amongst ourselves needlessly.  Let each believe as suits his faith; if someone needs 6-day creationism to be true that he might believe, tho it might not be, let him believe - it is better for him to believe in the fullness of truth than to depart it because of an insubstantial debate.

If one is able to believe both scientific and religious truth, let him do so - but let him not offend a brother and admonish him for his disbelief in the scientific truth as if he were admonishing a heretic, lest he drive him into heterodoxy, which would be a graver thing indeed than that which he tried to correct.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
To deny scientific truth is infinitely worse than heresy...we really don't need people like that in the Church.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
greekischristian said:
To deny scientific truth is infinitely worse than heresy...we really don't need people like that in the Church.
Of course, you belong to the Church of GIC, so you won't have to worry about kicking anybody out. Although I can only imagine the debates you might have with yourself in your diocese of one.

;) ;)

 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
Of course, you belong to the Church of GIC, so you won't have to worry about kicking anybody out. Although I can only imagine the debates you might have with yourself in your diocese of one.

;) ;)
Eh, I'm technically still Orthodox...but the fact that we don't generally drive these people from the Church in public humiliation is probably one of the better reasons why I generally don't bother with the formalities of the religion.
 
Top