Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.
You are actually making my point. The evolutionists try to posit this faith/fact dichotomy, and therefore pretend to disregard philosophical matters under the guise of being strictly scientific. But evolutionary theory is actually a philosophy that masquerades as strict science.

It is not true that my faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific fact; but it will not capitulate to mere scientific philosophy.

By the way, I believe my analogy is very apropos to this issue. Atheism is a philosophical construct to which science is unqualified to speak, and yet evolutionary theory is predicated upon an atheistic presupposition. So that's why I used the analogy.


Selam

 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam
So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?

What are your spiritual reasons for rejecting the existence of God?

Selam
Christian theology is just a knock off of pagan philosophy, but Christians reject the religion from which their own theology is derived...the entire system is self-contradictory.

Now are you going to end this silliness and actually address the actual issues at hand?
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.
You are actually making my point. The evolutionists try to posit this faith/fact dichotomy, and therefore pretend to disregard philosophical matters under the guise of being strictly scientific. But evolutionary theory is actually a philosophy that masquerades as strict science.

It is not true that my faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific fact; but it will not capitulate to mere scientific philosophy.

By the way, I believe my analogy is very apropos to this issue. Atheism is a philosophical construct to which science is unqualified to speak, and yet evolutionary theory is predicated upon an atheistic presupposition. So that's why I used the analogy.
Philosophy in general (not just theology and philosophy derived from religion) is an artificial construct, generally having no relation whatsoever to the real world. Science is not based on any philosophy, all of which are inherently absurd, it's merely a formalization of repeatable and verifiable observations. These smoke-screens you keep throwing up won't get you anywhere.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.
That's a terrible analogy, and here's why.  Evil is a philosophical construct to which science is totally unqualified to speak.  We can observe the fossil record and attempt to interpret it based on our understanding of natural laws, though.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.
Even for those of us who embrace the Orthodox Christian world view, why must we embrace as true only those scientific explanations that assent to what many believe to be traditional Christian dogma?  This isn't even science, since science enforces the rule that all scientific theories must be falsifiable by new observations.  One cannot use scientific evidence to falsify any claim that a supernatural being created the earth and all life therein and that He did so within a specific time frame laid out in religious dogma.  Essentially, then, what you posit as the kind of science you would embrace cannot be properly called science at all.  So just be honest and tell us that you reject all science and stop trying to construct this phony concept of a "Christian science".  Just admit that your faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific theory and be done with it.  I, however, am not convinced by your arguments that this is truly THE Patristic, Orthodox world view.
You are actually making my point. The evolutionists try to posit this faith/fact dichotomy, and therefore pretend to disregard philosophical matters under the guise of being strictly scientific. But evolutionary theory is actually a philosophy that masquerades as strict science.
No, it's not.  There is such a thing as evolutionary philosophy that many draw from evolutionary theory, but they're not one and the same.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
It is not true that my faith system makes no allowance for contradiction by scientific fact; but it will not capitulate to mere scientific philosophy.
And, as many here have already stated and defended, evolutionary theory is NOT a mere scientific philosophy.  It is an attempt to posit a natural explanation for the speciation of life on earth.  Simply looking for natural causes for natural phenomena is not in itself a denial of the supernatural, as you seem to believe.  It's merely an attempt to understand how nature works.  Why is this wrong, even if we believe nature to be an expression of God's creative love and infinite wisdom?

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
By the way, I believe my analogy is very apropos to this issue. Atheism is a philosophical construct to which science is unqualified to speak, and yet evolutionary theory is predicated upon an atheistic presupposition. So that's why I used the analogy.
What atheistic presupposition?  The scientific maxim that we are to seek for natural reasons for observable phenomena and when we can't, simply say, "We don't know yet of any natural causes that can explain this."?  How is this a denial of the supernatural that atheism requires?  I suppose that even a Christian could say this and still be true to his theistic world view.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?

Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.






ICXC NIKA
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Riddikulus said:
I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.
I agree that it doesn't have to be linked with atheism, for there is Theistic/Creationist evolution as well. But the Theistic evolutionists on the board don't want to be called "creationists".......eventhough they are.


They are just a different kind of creationist.






ICXC NIKA
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jnorm888 said:
Riddikulus said:
I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.
I agree that it doesn't have to be linked with atheism, for there is Theistic/Creationist evolution as well. But the Theistic evolutionists on the board don't want to be called "creationists".......eventhough they are.


They are just a different kind of creationist.






ICXC NIKA
All Orthodox Christians believe God created. However, I doubt that many would accept the title of Creationist considering the connotations surrounding that title. And for the record, one more time.... Evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet, not the origins of life. Endeavours to answer questions regarding the beginning of life belongs to the field of Abiogenesis.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Riddikulus said:
jnorm888 said:
Riddikulus said:
I really don't understand why some people insist on linking evolution with atheism.
I agree that it doesn't have to be linked with atheism, for there is Theistic/Creationist evolution as well. But the Theistic evolutionists on the board don't want to be called "creationists".......eventhough they are.

They are just a different kind of creationist.
ICXC NIKA
All Orthodox Christians believe God created. However, I doubt that many would accept the title of Creationist considering the connotations surrounding that title. And for the record, one more time.... Evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet, not the origins of life. Endeavours to answer questions regarding the beginning of life belongs to the field of Abiogenesis.
Biological Evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet, but the word itself permeates all the sciences. There is cosmological evolution, in where it takes billions of years for planets and stars to form. There is evolution in geology, in where it takes millions of years for rocks to decay.....etc.(Charles Darwin borrowed some ideas of the geology of his day for his theory) There is Evolution in politics, in where the progressives advocate a slow change over decades in order to reach their socialistic dream.....this is in contrast to the idea of "Revolution", in where you get fast change.

So no, I must disagree. The idea of "Evolution" is not just in biology alone.




ICXC NIKA
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jnorm888 said:
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?

Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.






ICXC NIKA
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? ???
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? ???

Yes It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset. Sorry






ICXC  NIKA
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jnorm888 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? ???

Yes, It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset.






ICXC  NIKA
He provoked a controversy with his statements.  If a whole lot of others feel the need to run his position through the fire, then what's wrong with that?  Isn't that what an Internet discussion forum is for?  (What happens when you stir up a real, live hornet's nest?)
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?

Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.

ICXC NIKA
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? ???
I was simply wondering who the "creation haters" were. I thought perhaps I had missed something.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? ???

Yes, It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset.


ICXC  NIKA
He provoked a controversy with his statements.  If a whole lot of others feel the need to run his position through the fire, then what's wrong with that?  Isn't that what an Internet discussion forum is for?  (What happens when you stir up a real, live hornet's nest?)
True, but just know that I'm always gonna have his back.




ICXC NIKA
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jnorm888 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jnorm888 said:
Why is it ok for the creation haters of the board to say whatever they want about creationists, but the few creationists of the board can't do the same to the wannabe atheists and agnostics here?
Gebre Menfes Kidus is one of the nicest and most peaceful people of the boards, yet the creation haters hate him to no end, and they call him all kinds of names! Why is it ok for them to call us names, but we are not allowed to call them names back?

This is a double standard, and I think they should leave Gebre Menfes Kidus alone.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling those who "call Gebre Menfes Kidus names" "creation haters"? ???

Yes, It is hypocritical, but everyone was jumping on him, and I was upset.


ICXC  NIKA
He provoked a controversy with his statements.  If a whole lot of others feel the need to run his position through the fire, then what's wrong with that?  Isn't that what an Internet discussion forum is for?  (What happens when you stir up a real, live hornet's nest?)
True, but just know that I'm always gonna have his back.

ICXC NIKA
That's so cute!  :laugh:
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,212
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
jnorm888 said:
True, but just know that I'm always gonna have his back.
And I'm sure he sleeps very well at night knowing that.
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Riddikulus said:
I was simply wondering who the "creation haters" were. I thought perhaps I had missed something.
What an odd term.  I've been asked if I'm gnostic, new age and wiccan on this forum due to my stance on the natural world, but oh how I hate the cosmos... :laugh:
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
Riddikulus said:
Nebelpfade said:
NorthernPines said:
Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.
I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.
Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.
I just finished The Greatest Show on Earth and it really is a great book. Even though people might be put off by Dawkins just because of who he is, I'd definitely recommend it. Dawkins is a clear, concise, and articulate writer, and goes into great depth of the evidence that is there, while recommending a few other books as well. Frankly after reading Dawkins' new book, I can't imagine how anyone could read it, and come away and NOT accept the fact of evolution. Anyone who does is as Dawkins says, a "history denier". :)

 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.


Not to mention evolution is happening right now. It just so happens that most animals and plants evolve on such large time scales that our human lives are simply too short to see it. And yet, there are some cases where we can see evolution at work, even over the last 100-150 years which 'The Greatest Show on Earth' actually goes into those examples. The Guppy study is a great example cited in the book. And of course microscopic organisms evolve much faster because their lifespans are much shorter.

Hopefully one day all this anti-evolution stuff will pass. I mean at one time people used to say/believe a sun centered solar system was atheistic, now almost no one says that. So maybe in 400 years time, Christians will stop saying evolution is inherently atheistic too. It's just too bad it takes us Christians so long to "catch" up, because at one time some of the greatest scientists ever we in fact Christians.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Iconodule said:
This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
I acknowledge it, all right.  It's that much larger philosophical disagreement that I'm trying to address. ;)
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
NorthernPines said:
Hopefully one day all this anti-evolution stuff will pass. I mean at one time people used to say/believe a sun centered solar system was atheistic, now almost no one says that. So maybe in 400 years time, Christians will stop saying evolution is inherently atheistic too. It's just too bad it takes us Christians so long to "catch" up, because at one time some of the greatest scientists ever we in fact Christians.
Agreed. And you're right about Christian scientists: For example, Darwin himself was an ordained minister.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Iconodule said:
This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake
Every bird and every other creature is an immense world of delight, a wonderful and beautiful thing made all the more so by evolution. How can one fully appreciate the bird without an appreciation for the genetic source code (DNA), the complexity of it's organic neural network, protein syntheses, protein folding, immune systems, cell signaling, etc, etc. That a bird can fly is an interesting curiosity, the how and why are fascinating and enlightening.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,835
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
wilderness
NorthernPines said:
Riddikulus said:
Nebelpfade said:
NorthernPines said:
Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.
I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.
Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.
I just finished The Greatest Show on Earth and it really is a great book. Even though people might be put off by Dawkins just because of who he is, I'd definitely recommend it. Dawkins is a clear, concise, and articulate writer, and goes into great depth of the evidence that is there, while recommending a few other books as well. Frankly after reading Dawkins' new book, I can't imagine how anyone could read it, and come away and NOT accept the fact of evolution. Anyone who does is as Dawkins says, a "history denier". :)
It depends on who's history you believe. ;)
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
History is interpretation.  Read any basic summary of the nature of historiography, and you will see that we are all denying many histories, as we all deny many gods.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,835
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Alveus Lacuna said:
History is interpretation.  Read any basic summary of the nature of historiography, and you will see that we are all denying many histories, as we all deny many gods.
It depends on who's "interpretation" of history you believe then. Now don't get me wrong. I'm very open when it comes to these matters. I'm neither denying evolution nor embracing a fundamentalist view of creation. But what I don't pretend to do is to, is demand to know something that is for the most part unknowable. The spectrum is just to large with ample missing piece in between to embrace fully a fundamentalist view of creation. You see what you accuse the Protestants of doing, you yourselves are doing.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
GiC said:
Iconodule said:
This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake
Every bird and every other creature is an immense world of delight, a wonderful and beautiful thing made all the more so by evolution. How can one fully appreciate the bird without an appreciation for the genetic source code (DNA), the complexity of it's organic neural network, protein syntheses, protein folding, immune systems, cell signaling, etc, etc. That a bird can fly is an interesting curiosity, the how and why are fascinating and enlightening.
I can fully appreciate the beauty of a work of art without conducting a chemical analysis of its material components- in fact, to do the latter would detract from the former. You are still imprisoned by your "vegetable" consciousness.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
NorthernPines said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.


Not to mention evolution is happening right now. It just so happens that most animals and plants evolve on such large time scales that our human lives are simply too short to see it. And yet, there are some cases where we can see evolution at work, even over the last 100-150 years which 'The Greatest Show on Earth' actually goes into those examples. The Guppy study is a great example cited in the book. And of course microscopic organisms evolve much faster because their lifespans are much shorter.

Hopefully one day all this anti-evolution stuff will pass. I mean at one time people used to say/believe a sun centered solar system was atheistic, now almost no one says that. So maybe in 400 years time, Christians will stop saying evolution is inherently atheistic too. It's just too bad it takes us Christians so long to "catch" up, because at one time some of the greatest scientists ever we in fact Christians.
They still are.

Just curious, as I do not have the time at present to waste on Mr. Dawkins: does he explain the evolution of reproduction in bees?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
GiC said:
Iconodule said:
This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake
Every bird and every other creature is an immense world of delight, a wonderful and beautiful thing made all the more so by evolution.
You're assUming again.
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
Demetrios G. said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
History is interpretation.  Read any basic summary of the nature of historiography, and you will see that we are all denying many histories, as we all deny many gods.
It depends on who's "interpretation" of history you believe then.
Interpreting history and denying history are two different things. Dawkins makes a good point that denying evolution is like denying that the Roman Empire ever existed. True, we might interprete the history of Rome differently; what did it mean, when was Rome in a "golden age", did it have a "golden age", when did it fall, did it fall or just evolve etc. But we don't deny Rome ever existed, which (from a scientific POV) Young earth creationists are doing.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm very open when it comes to these matters. I'm neither denying evolution nor embracing a fundamentalist view of creation. But what I don't pretend to do is to, is demand to know something that is for the most part unknowable. The spectrum is just to large with ample missing piece in between to embrace fully a fundamentalist view of creation. You see what you accuse the Protestants of doing, you yourselves are doing.
What missing pieces? Are you refering to "missing links"? Well they actually aren't missing anymore and haven't been missing for a long time. I recommended some good books on the subject, as did others. The evidence really is overwhelming. People of course are free to choose to ignore this evidence, it is certainly their right; but they shouldn't dress it up as either science like the Young earth Creationists, or claim that it is some requirement to ignore the reality of the natural world in order to be a Christian. As has been pointed out, some of the greatest scientists ever we Christians who when discovering that "the bible/Church was wrong" on an issue of the natural world, marveled even MORE at God's glory.

In the end, most people are blissfully unaware of the fact of evolution, and that knowledge really doesn't affect people in their every day lives on a personal level. The problem is if Fundamentalist Creationism ever becomes a matter of public policy it could affect ALL our lives quite drastically, and mostly for the worse. Imagine no antibiotics, polio vaccines, no modern garden vegetables like corn, cabbage, disease resistant tomatoes, or no golden retrievers, bulldogs, breeds of house cats etc. All of these are the result of the reality of evolutionary biology, and to forbid the teaching of these sciences say 80 years ago, would have meant polio would still be rampant. Now project that into the future and imagine what might be prevented from being discovered or developed if for example the most extreme Creationists had their way? Granted the most extreme creationists are a minority, and I doubt anyone here fits into that group, but the reason it's important is the same reason it's important for people to know the earth revolves around the sun and takes a year to do it. (aprox. half of Americans get that wrong in polls every year, and its a true or false question  :eek:)

It might be asked, "why does that matter, I personally don't care"....but it matters because it is humanities inherent curiosity of the natural world that has lead to so many good things, without that curiosity, the world, and Christianity would be very different than it presently is.

BTW I'm hardly a technology freak, or a lover of the "modern world"...I'm much of the mind of Tolkien....I prefer non mechanized farming/gardening, away from industry, where the stars can still can be seen, and where the loudest noise is an owl, or wolves howling at midnight. I'm very much a Hobbit, though I aspire to be an Elf. :)

But the reality of evolution has none the less improved our lives, deny that reality, and we would deny future improvements that benefit us all. Even if it were never to be public policy, it's still not a good thing when people don't and don't care that the earth goes around the sun. I would imagine that that attitude is fairly recent in human civilization, as it seems to be ancient people pondered these questions much more (why do the seasons come and go so regularly, why does the sun always rise in the east etc) the ironic thing is we now know why these things happen, but many people today simply don't care. It's a flip flop of truly philosophical proportions. :)

 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
ialmisry said:
They still are.
Yes I know some of the greatest scientists around are still Christians. I named 3 well known ones in a previous post. But I think at one time there was a larger proportion of Christian scientists than there are today.

Just curious, as I do not have the time at present to waste on Mr. Dawkins: does he explain the evolution of reproduction in bees?
Not that I recall in the Greatest Show on Earth, though he goes into ants quite extensively at one point as well as touching on at least 50 other species. He does talk about the evolutionary relationship between bees and flowers and pollination somewhat extensively. But as others have said, the book is most definitely a primer, though it's the most in depth primer I've personally read on the subject.

BTW, why do you feel like reading Dawkins would be a waste of time? Like him or hate him, he happens to be one of the premiere biologists in the world today. That doesn't mean I agree with his philosophical conclusions but as a biologist he's hard to beat. And this book anyways is quite mildly written, or at least I thought so.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! ;)


Selam
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! ;)


Selam
You just like finding bullies, don't you?  There's no need to look for them under every rock. ;)
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! ;)


Selam
You just like finding bullies, don't you?  There's no need to look for them under every rock. ;)
I'm not looking for bullies under those rocks, just fossils of intermediate species. ;)


Selam
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! ;)


Selam
You just like finding bullies, don't you?  There's no need to look for them under every rock. ;)
I'm not looking for bullies under those rocks, just fossils of intermediate species. ;)


Selam
Well, you seem to find a lot of "bullies" here.
 
Top