10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh yes, another mark of a true carrobie. take things out of context and use them to suit your needs.
i don't have scriptural evidence of evolution
thankyou Zapansy, i hope you did not cough up any blood while formulating this rather sad admission.
secondly i am proffering nothing in respect of an assertion that i have not made. Both the church of England and the Catholic church as Noobster has pointed out, accept the teaching of evolution and ...[text shortened]... r doing so. As 'christians', what is there basis for doing so? i would really like to know.
of course, in your case maybe it's just that your didn't read anything else other than that statement. (incomplete)
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou are a catholic Zapansy, why does you're church contend that evolution and scripture are compatible.
oh yes, another mark of a true carrobie. take things out of context and use them to suit your needs.
of course, in your case maybe it's just that your didn't read anything else other than that statement. (incomplete)
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh, it is not our fault that you tire yourself. maybe if you would post less and read other posts more, you would get a lot less dosage of "caustic diatribe, pseudo intellectualism, pseudo science, and non substantiated assertions"
yes my tolerance for sarcasm, caustic diatribe, pseudo intellectualism, pseudo science, and non substantiated assertions is wearing quite thin, i have to admit.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI thought you took ID and creationism as science? Was I wrong in this? Then forgive me. ID and creationism has nothing to do science.
God is not science, i do not believe that God is science, where has this idea come from? I did not state it.
my position is simply this, that through an examination of the natural world, we can try to deduce certain qualities of the one who made these things, or put these processes in place. Is that so difficult to understand?
Lastly your a ...[text shortened]... d find that it is compatible with scripture, has it? which is the main point of Noobsters post.
"my position is simply this, that through an examination of the natural world, we can try to deduce certain qualities of the one who made these things, or put these processes in place. Is that so difficult to understand?"
Then why are you so keen on the creation? Why deny the science behind evolution? Observations says clealy that evolution is a power in action.
Noobster? I don't know any Noobster. Who is he? Ah, you mean User 196163, okay. What did he say?
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziok, moving swiftly on to something of relevance, you are a Catholic are you not Zapansy? shall we ask you therefore why you're Church contends that evolution and Christianity are compatible. (i left out scripture for we have ascertained that this cannot be substantiated)
oh, it is not our fault that you tire yourself. maybe if you would post less and read other posts more, you would get a lot less dosage of "caustic diatribe, pseudo intellectualism, pseudo science, and non substantiated assertions"
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei am orthodox and yes, christianity and evolution are compatible because they are not incompatible.
ok, moving swiftly on to something of relevance, you are a Catholic are you not Zapansy? shall we ask you therefore why you're Church contends that evolution and Christianity are compatible. (i left out scripture for we have ascertained that this cannot be substantiated)
the same way that painting and quantum physics are compatible.
two theories that have nothing in common can be compatible. because they adress different areas of expertise.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasintelligent design, irreducible complexity and creationism (not all of it) etc are also based on an observation of the natural world. We have already determined that the method itself is scientific, however you contested the conclusions, that is fine.
I thought you took ID and creationism as science? Was I wrong in this? Then forgive me. ID and creationism has nothing to do science.
"my position is simply this, that through an examination of the natural world, we can try to deduce certain qualities of the one who made these things, or put these processes in place. Is that so difficult to understand ...[text shortened]... I don't know any Noobster. Who is he? Ah, you mean User 196163, okay. What did he say?
The main difference i think is that creationists are looking for proof of God, to us, we do not need proof of God, for we have determined that he exists from an examination of scripture. What we are interested in is trying to determine qualities inherent in the natural world, for this is a reflection of the creator.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziok i see, this is the position, very good, now if we may, simply to relieve your boredom, press you a little further, how is it thought that there is a correlation between the divine and evolution? for we have already determined that scripturally the two are mutually exclusive.
i am orthodox and yes, christianity and evolution are compatible because they are not incompatible.
the same way that painting and quantum physics are compatible.
two theories that have nothing in common can be compatible. because they adress different areas of expertise.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, science is based of observations from nature. But from that to say that every interpretation is the correct one is false. If someone who sees the yellowish lunar disk interprete this as that the moon is made of ahrd cheese is completely wrong. It's not simply sufficient to observe and interprete to call it science. That's the mistake you make to attribute observations of nature to something false and unscientific as ID. (We skip creationsm, that's not scientific at all, right?)
intelligent design, irreducible complexity and creationism (not all of it) etc are also based on an observation of the natural world. We have already determined that the method itself is scientific, however you contested the conclusions, that is fine.
The main difference i think is that creationists are looking for proof of God, to us, we do not ...[text shortened]... g to determine qualities inherent in the natural world, for this is a reflection of the creator.
Okay, you call it intelligent design. I don't see the intelligence behind. Who has this intelligence? That's my question. Avoid this question and I will remind you as many times needed.
Who has this intelligence in your intelligent design?
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh, i should be used to this manner of debating.
ok i see, this is the position, very good, now if we may, simply to relieve your boredom, press you a little further, how is it thought that there is a correlation between the divine and evolution? for we have already determined that scripturally the two are mutually exclusive.
" we have already determined that scripturally the two are mutually exclusive."
no we haven't sparky. pay attention. we have determined that christianity and evolution are not connected. mutually exclusive would entail something in one contradicting the other.
so we have two theories that we hold to be correct. nothing in one contradicts the other. by saying that the christian god set in motion evolution we are making a logical claim. a claim that connects one true thing with the other. sure it might be wrong. maybe evolution is a byproduct of god saying "let stuff exist". but still there is no fact that says one theory (evolution or christianity) has to be wrong for the other to be right.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasintelligent design is based on the probability, please remember that Fabian, the probability that complex life forms could not have arisen by chance. They seem to be too organised, to complex, too fully functioning, so that without intelligence it would have been highly improbable that they should exist and function. This forms it basis. thus the intelligence behind these incredible biological systems is thought to be God.
Yes, science is based of observations from nature. But from that to say that every interpretation is the correct one is false. If someone who sees the yellowish lunar disk interprete this as that the moon is made of ahrd cheese is completely wrong. It's not simply sufficient to observe and interprete to call it science. That's the mistake you make to attr ...[text shortened]... l remind you as many times needed.
Who has this intelligence in your intelligent design?