“Stop following me! We’re not related!”

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Many of us atheists have done the exact same thing and gotten absolutely no answer. Many former Christians, desperate to retain their faith and terrified of the implications of what they had found, did the same, and also got no answer. In fact, many Christians on this site would claim that our attempts to do so amount to "testing" god, and that that is blasphemous.

Your arguments throughout this thread are nothing more than a rehashing of incredibly poor creationist PRATTs. Do some basic research and you'll find that you fundamentally misunderstand what "theory" means in science, that concretion is not the same thing as fossilization, that the accuracy of one part of a text does not guarantee the accuracy of another part, and that simple DNA testing can confirm our relation to apes much as it can confirm your relation to your father.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

 

[Gene2memE]

I know many former atheists like me who met the God

And all the atheists I know personally were former theists.

Neither point of which has the least bearing on the fact that the Theory of Evolution is the best current explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, being observable, falsifiable, testable and repeatable, with excellent explanatory and predictive power.

Special creation - Christian or otherwise - has none of these properties.

 

[Gene2memE]

In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

You might want to tell Dr Craig Venter this, as he and his team have been producing bacterial with completly synthetic DNA for better than a decade.

 

[TerranceL]

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law.

You mean like the theory of gravity?

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

You mean like the theory of gravity?

Gravity is Law.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Abel, I am perfectly happy with you being here and raising these issues. However, and I don't know if you are aware of this or not, I caught hell from another member of your group yesterday, telling me to shut up , that you are part of a group that is exclusively for Eastern Orthodox people and issues unique to the Eastern orthodox Church. I am a theologian, I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, I respect it, but of course I am not Eastern Orthodox. I have absolutely no problem dealing with persons from any and all churches. For the record, as I said to that other member yesterday, I simply started responding to your posts because they suddenly showed up in my mailbox. I was informed that the moderator would be contacted by someone from your group and that these emails would stop. But here you are ,back again. OK by me. But I'm afraid if I say anything at all to you, I'm going to catch royal hell from someone. Is there any way you could look into this issue on your end of it?

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Look, Abel, I am perfectly happy with you being here and raising these issues. However, and I don't know if you are aware of this or not, I caught hell from another member of your group yesterday, telling me to shut up , that you are part of a group that is exclusively for Eastern Orthodox people and issues unique to the Eastern orthodox Church. I am a theologian, I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, I respect it, but of course I am not Eastern Orthodox. I have absolutely no problem dealing with persons from any and all churches. For the record, as I said to that other member yesterday, I simply started responding to your posts because they suddenly showed up in my mailbox. I was informed that the moderator would be contacted by someone from your group and that these emails would stop. But here you are ,back again. OK by me. But I'm afraid if I say anything at all to you, I'm going to catch royal hell from someone. Is there any way you could look into this issue on your end of it?

Hi my dear friend!! Really, I didn't sent you any message to your mailbox!!

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Abel, be that as it may, here you are again, which, as I said, is certainly fine by me. As long as I have you on the line, I will share with you what I know abut Eastern Orthodoxy. When I said I am familiar with your church, I want to qualify that and say I did my dissertation in pneumatology (Holy Spirit). So I was interested in some of the early history of your church, specifically the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as found in, for example, the Cappadocians , as well as what they had to say on the Trinity. Moving o n to today and evolution. I can't say as I am an expert on the church's current writings on evolution. The last time I looked, however, what I saw is simply that some theologians and authorities rejected evolution totally, whereas others accepted it. I gather that your church, as happened in the West, never really had any set policy of dealing with conflicts between religion and science, so that what you get depends largely on the particular theologian or authority you are currently examining.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Cadet said: ↑
Many of us atheists have done the exact same thing and gotten absolutely no answer. Many former Christians, desperate to retain their faith and terrified of the implications of what they had found, did the same, and also got no answer. In fact, many Christians on this site would claim that our attempts to do so amount to "testing" god, and that that is blasphemous.

Your arguments throughout this thread are nothing more than a rehashing of incredibly poor creationist PRATTs. Do some basic research and you'll find that you fundamentally misunderstand what "theory" means in science, that concretion is not the same thing as fossilization, that the accuracy of one part of a text does not guarantee the accuracy of another part, and that simple DNA testing can confirm our relation to apes much as it can confirm your relation to your father.

I know many former atheists like me who met the God:

Klaus Kenneth, Germany

FRANK SCHAEFFER, USA: THE ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD

etc.

That is all well and good.
But how many of those converted atheists will turn out to be just "pew warmer" Christians and then after awhile return, either, back to atheism or even to another religion/church denomination"

What if those conveting still believe in the theory of Evolution and refuse to budge from it? Will they be ex-communicated?

I mean, look at the great Schism of 1054 when the RCC and EOC split, just over the type of bread used for communion and they are still split to this day!

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/great-schism-and-effect-on-christianity-and-theology.6790703/

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart.

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal.

There were major theological differences between Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians, on topics such as the use of images, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the role (and identity) of the Pope.............................

====================================================================================================

Greek Patriarch John: "Well gee Joe, I am still not convinced I evolved from an ape. Let's talk about it over dinner"

..............................................

..........................

.




.


.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, since your back with us,Abel, here is my response to some of your point. Have you ever looked at the long-term Russian experiment to turn foxes into dogs? You should. They have achieved some very telling results. The foxes have been taking on key dog traits, such as tameness. Also, except for experiments on bacteria, which showed they definitely can be made to evolve in the lab, most evolutionary process take loads of time and then would be impossible to observe in the lab. Is anyone today going to be alive long enough to see how the Russian experiment will turn out? It is true that science does entail speculation, as we have only a very limited window into the past and distant cosmos. Most scientists will readily admit we are dealing with probabilities of validity, not absolute certainty. Problem is, that is the same in the anti-evolutionary creation-science camp as well, only they are not honest enough, like the real scientists, to admit this is the case. While the discredit the Big Bang because nobody was around to directly observe it, they conveniently forget to mention that no one was around to directly observe God crating in six days either.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by excommunicated, Littlelamb? Excommunicated from what particular church? I am PCUSA, and no, we do not excommunicate persons for believing in evolution. I know some very conservative, right-wing denominations might try something like that. I can offhand easily think of several such local churches. However, that would not happen in the more liberal Christian churches.

 

[The Cadet]

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science

Because that is not how theories and laws work.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

A scientific theory often contains laws, but a law will never become a theory. The theory of gravity contains the law of universal gravitation, but gravity did not go from being a law to a theory.

You do not understand even the most basic terminology of science. This should be a red flag - you don't even get the terminology, but you want to challenge a well-established scientific theory?

Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit.

Please provide evidence of such a DNA limit.

DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

That is all well and good.
But how many of those converted atheists will turn out to be just "pew warmer" Christians and then after awhile return, either, back to atheism or even to another religion/church denomination"

What if those conveting still believe in the theory of Evolution and refuse to budge from it? Will they be ex-communicated?

I mean, look at the great Schism of 1054 when the RCC and EOC split, just over the type of bread used for communion and they are still split to this day!

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/great-schism-and-effect-on-christianity-and-theology.6790703/

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart.

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal.

There were major theological differences between Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians, on topics such as the use of images, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the role (and identity) of the Pope.............................

====================================================================================================

Greek Patriarch John: "Well gee Joe, I am still not convinced I evolved from an ape. Let's talk about it over dinner"

..............................................

..........................

.




.


.

If someone conveting still believe in the theory of Evolution he will not be ex-communicated but he has one more sin because evolution is against to the Bible. The Bible says that God created man on the 6th day.

Anyone seeker that looking for the truth must search and pray to find her. If he is an atheist or agnostic has to say: "God if you exist tell me where is the Truth".

There are 30.000 Christian churches. But only one is the Church founded by Christ on 33 AD.

I searched and I found the One Church in the Eastern Orthodox Church as the ancient Church.

If you are a seeker, and if you want, you can see here too:

Q&A - Heart Questions & Answers
Eastern Orthodox Church
Roman Catholics met Orthodoxy
Journey to Orthodoxy, USA
Roman Catholics
Other Christians
Other Monotheists
Non-Theists
Polytheists
Mass Conversions

I respect all the atheists, all the seekers, all the Christians. But here is what I found in my searching for the Truth. If you want you can see what I found.

With respect, Abel.

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

And all the atheists I know personally were former theists.

Neither point of which has the least bearing on the fact that the Theory of Evolution is the best current explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, being observable, falsifiable, testable and repeatable, with excellent explanatory and predictive power.

Special creation - Christian or otherwise - has none of these properties.

All the atheists you know personally were former theists.
But they never knew Orthodoxy: Journey to Orthodoxy, USA
With respect, Abel.

 

[The Cadet]

There are 30.000 Christian churches.

Hey, here's a great idea. Why don't you Christians figure out among yourselves which version of your religion is the true one, then present that unified idea as the "one true religion"?

An interesting thing about the scientific method is that it converges. That is, when evidence is sparse, numerous independent hypotheses may explain the available evidence. But the more evidence arises, the more the science converges on one singular model that explains what is present, and how it happened. In a murder trial, the more evidence arises, the clearer the picture becomes and the more the list of suspects is narrowed down. The goal is to reach one uncontested model of events which is coherent with all the available evidence and contradicted by none.

Religion doesn't do that. Has there ever been a case where a major branch of Christianity said, "You know what? We were wrong about this interpretation of scripture and doctrine. We're going to fold back into you guys."? Has that ever happened? It certainly doesn't happen anywhere nearly as often as the reverse, where a Christian group has split off because they thought God wanted X and other members of their group thought God wanted Y. Why is that? If religion can get to the truth, why is it divergent instead of convergent?

 

[Hoghead1]

I believe it is very prejudicial, Abel, to insist there is just one church, just one way to be a Christian and it just happens to be your church. Christianity is a rich tapestry of choices. You are coming our of a right-wing very conservative perspective. I admit that may work for some, but it certainly did not even begin to meet my spiritual and intellectual needs. Not all Christians can be our should be on the right. That's why I moved way over to the left, to an extremely liberal approach. I did that because I like to question, explore, and that is just about impossible on the right wing. One God , many paths.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, Cadet. The answer is that Christianity has never been a monolithic religion, just one way. It has always been a rich tapestry of diverse beliefs, some of which do conflict with one another. The reason is that there needs to be different strokes for different folks. There are three basic models of authority in Christianity. There is church-type Christianity, where the church is the ultimate authority, your conscience. There is sect-type Christianity, where the Bible is said to be the ultimate authority. The third type is mystical Christianity, in which personal experience is taken to be the highest authority. The reason for at three is that no one particular one can work for everybody. For example, some people are happiest in a church-type Christianity. They aren't emotionally or intellectually equipped to address major issues relying just on the Bible and their own conscience, and feel the need of a professional priesthood to do that for them. Mystical-type Christianity appeals deeply to artists and poets. But the emphasis here on deep inner experience, deep explorations of one's subconscious to encounter God, can be a bit much for many people. While those of a mystical bent seek out transcendental experiences, others find this a bit frightening, especially because the mystical literature describes some pretty rough experiences you may be in for. Others really don't like being bossed around by the church deciding everything for them and so seek out a sect-type Christianity. One God, many paths.

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Hey, here's a great idea. Why don't you Christians figure out among yourselves which version of your religion is the true one, then present that unified idea as the "one true religion"?

An interesting thing about the scientific method is that it converges. That is, when evidence is sparse, numerous independent hypotheses may explain the available evidence. But the more evidence arises, the more the science converges on one singular model that explains what is present, and how it happened. In a murder trial, the more evidence arises, the clearer the picture becomes and the more the list of suspects is narrowed down. The goal is to reach one uncontested model of events which is coherent with all the available evidence and contradicted by none.

Religion doesn't do that. Has there ever been a case where a major branch of Christianity said, "You know what? We were wrong about this interpretation of scripture and doctrine. We're going to fold back into you guys."? Has that ever happened? It certainly doesn't happen anywhere nearly as often as the reverse, where a Christian group has split off because they thought God wanted X and other members of their group thought God wanted Y. Why is that? If religion can get to the truth, why is it divergent instead of convergent?

Only ONE of the 30.000 Christian churches is the First Church that Christ founded.

Jesus Christ said: "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

THE CHURCH NEVER APOSTATIZED – EXPLORER OF THE TRUTH

If you want to ask more, you are welcome to:

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.145/
The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox

With respect, Abel

 

[The Cadet]

It has always been a rich tapestry of diverse beliefs, some of which do conflict with one another. The reason is that there needs to be different strokes for different folks.

Right, and that's a problem. Either these issues don't matter (in which case it should be pretty straightforward to come together for one interpretation of Christianity), or they do, in which case there's a significant problem. These are often very non-trivial problems. Just to take one classic example: salvation by faith or salvation by works. Being right on this issue is incredibly important, and yet there is great disagreement within Christianity about whether works are necessary, and some disagreement as to whether even faith is necessary! This is kind of a big deal. If this religion is the truth, why can't its followers work out and agree on what that truth is? It may be one god, many paths, but how many of those paths are dead ends? If we ask the pentecostals what happens to the universalists, I'm not sure the universalists would approve of the answer.

Only ONE of the 30.000 Christian churches is the First Church that Christ founded.

@Hoghead1 @Armoured @Not_By_Chance @ViaCrucis Do you agree that eastern orthodox is the "one true church", and are you a part of it? If not, could you please explain to Abel here why not?

That's the great part about this - as an atheist, I don't have to spend a whole lot of time debunking your claims, because there are countless people of other doctrines willing and able to do exactly that.

 

[Armoured]

Right, and that's a problem. Either these issues don't matter (in which case it should be pretty straightforward to come together for one interpretation of Christianity), or they do, in which case there's a significant problem. These are often very non-trivial problems. Just to take one classic example: salvation by faith or salvation by works. Being right on this issue is incredibly important, and yet there is great disagreement within Christianity about whether works are necessary, and some disagreement as to whether even faith is necessary! This is kind of a big deal. If this religion is the truth, why can't its followers work out and agree on what that truth is? It may be one god, many paths, but how many of those paths are dead ends? If we ask the pentecostals what happens to the universalists, I'm not sure the universalists would approve of the answer.



@Hoghead1 @Armoured @Not_By_Chance @ViaCrucis Do you agree that eastern orthodox is the "one true church", and are you a part of it? If not, could you please explain to Abel here why not?

That's the great part about this - as an atheist, I don't have to spend a whole lot of time debunking your claims, because there are countless people of other doctrines willing and able to do exactly that.

"On this rock I build my church", said Jesus to the first Catholic Pope. End of discussion.