Evolution

[Mister Agenda]

Of course not, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved when people take the position of "we studied the sciences that shows us there is no God because theres no evidence" The question of Gods existance is a philosophical/theological question, studying biology gives no authority to speak on philosophical issues.

You sure are concerned about authority. The question of an abstract God's existence may be a philosophical/theological question, but one that actually affects reality enters the realm of that which can be detected if it is actually there. When God is given as the explanation for something which turns out to have a natural cause, that particular version of God has been disproved to the extent that anything can be disproved. If your God has no effect on reality it is immune to disproof by science. Enjoy.

Well anyone with an ounce of intelligence perhaps would pause for thought and think about that? Would such an intelligent guy really devote his time to nonsense? Doesn't something not fit in that equation? Either 1.He isn't really intelligent or 2.Perhaps it shouldn't so quickly be dismissed as nonsense, doing so would be rather unintelligent I would have thought

Quickly assuming something isn't nonsense because the person making the claims is intelligent isn't very intelligent. The list of geniuses with quaint beliefs mutually exclusive to the odd beliefs of other geniuses would make a very lengthy one. Newton believed in alchemy, Edison tried to invent a device to talk with the dead, Tesla was a fan of eugenics, and so forth. MENSA is filled with people who cannot agree. Sometimes it seems that the main use to which high intelligence is put is to defend positions one holds for other reasons than intelligence.

---

I love that type of thinking, what your effectively proposing in order that you don't have to acually think about it, is that all intelligent people who believe in God are delusional, does that really sound like a good argument to you? seriously?

No. That an argument must stand or fall on its own, regardless of the intelligence or authority of the originator, does sound like a good policy to hold, given the human fallibility to which even geniuses are not immune.

---

It's not really an issue within the Orthodox Church, there isn't really an "official" line like the Catholic Church its a matter of personal choice, I personally don't have any probnlem with evolution if it is true, although I happen to think it isn't..but I'm certainly not a creationist. I think the theory requires much closer scrutiny and in time will be shown to be false as its understood at this moment.

'False as it's understood at this moment' in the sense that 'in the future, the mechanisms of evolution will be better understood and some of the details will have to be adjusted' or in the sense that 'Huh, it turns out that evolution doesn't explain the diversity of species after all'?

---

Because God says how he created us, already human, he spoke us into existence. If he created swamp muck and we crawled out of such, he might have told us that, but that's not what He did. When you believe in God, you take the whole bible as truth, not your own cross bred interpretation of some hybrid creation/evolution.

Actually, according to Genesis, God raised Adam from the dust. Is that so different from raising him from microorganisms?

---

There are a lot of fallacies in Catholicism, I don't agree w a lot of things they do. I can't speak for their stance on this. And evolutionists theories will always have missing links and flawed carbon dating etc so I wouldn't call that much of anything let alone evidence.

I can't find anything in the theory to suggest any expectation that all links will be present and accounted for. Carbon dating is one of the most reliable dating methods, it can be cross-referenced to things we know the age of within a year; but like all dating methods it must be applied correctly. For instance, the sample must have once been living, uncontaminated, and not over a certain age (not over 65,000 years).

---

So, you would maintain that the question of the existance of God is a biological/scientific issue? The reason for how or why that question arises is quite irrelevant to the nature of the question.

The existence of a God that affects things that can be studied by science is certainly a scientific issue. If someone maintains that the light and heat given off by the sun is due to the will of Helios, and we discover that the sun is perfectly capable of generating light and heat without supernatural intervention, then that particular theological claim has been resolved: the sun doesn't run on Helios power.