• You don't trust the judicial system? You think that he was imprisoned for using his right to free speech? You don't think he was imprisoned for tax fraud, as the courts find him? I just cannot imagine the American courts can get away with that on a high profile person unless there was collaborative evidence.
  • He is hated and fought by too many people and many organizations that I am sure of.
  • [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    Conspiracy theorists of the world UNITE!  ::)
  • You're right, it is a conspiracy against the Lord and man He created in his own image.

    Scientists want to create hybrid embryos
    Please read and think about the reasons why are people "at ease" with the idea.

    PS: Thank you for using "theorists" and not terrorists :-X
  • [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=5759.msg81029#msg81029 date=1200445183]
    [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    I think that evolution is a new religion by itself.
    When did scientific theories become religion?
    It becomes a religion when people believe it without facts or evidence!!! Evolution now isn't a theory any more because people don't give any other chances to prove creation. It's considered a fact now.

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    + Have you noticed that most catholics now believe in evolution thus turning the story of adam and eve into a symbolic myth!

    How can you speak for 'most' Catholics?  Do you know 'most' Catholics?  Are you aware of what 'most' Catholics believe?  You seem to be forgetting that Alexandrian Church (of which you and I are a part) was very big on allegory, and an allegorical interpretation of the Bible.  Master Origin was a huge proponent of this school of thought and he did take Genesis to be symbolic as did a few other Church Fathers.
    Have alook at this quote from wikipedia. It tells you how Catholics came to accept the theory. And by the way we believe in Adam and Eve. Ask any copt. I know that some people over history from our church accepted their story as a myth but can we believe them?

    The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of human origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2]

    [quote author=Kirmich link=topic=5759.msg81011#msg81011 date=1200414483]
    + However orthodoxes reject this

    Again, the Orthodox Church is silent on the issue of Evolution.  Just because your sunday school teacher or your priest may be against the idea does not mean that the Church is against it.

    It is well known that our church strongly disagrees with evolution. Ask anybody. Our church is silent about it (as in it doesn't attack evolutionists around the world) but the church gives it's opinion strongly. I think i once found a book written by one of our famous priests explaining why we don't believe in it. If i can find the link the i'll add it.

    The reason our church doesn't accept evolution isn't because it may affect our beliefs (in fact it wont at all because god can do anything in anyway) but because the lack of evidence. I have studied (to a limited and very humble level) this theory and it just about disagrees with every other theory in scince like the law of conservation of energy or matter and the second law of thermodynamics.

  • thank you, all of you, who enriched this thread, our minds & our way of thinking.

    i would like to say that: one either believe in evolution or not.
    you do not say: i believe in evolution;
    - as long as it does not contradict with my faith. :-\
    - as we were taught, that was in the text books, right, it's science.
    - it holds water.
    - till my church says no. :-X
    - blablabla, etc., etc., etc. >:(

    well,here is the thing: ::)
    it was first born in the sick mind of Charles Darwin, so why don't we ask him what he thinks?
    good idea! but unfortunately he's dead. :'(
    still he recorded his ideas of his sick so called evolution theory,
    in the book he named "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" or "the  Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S.,Author of "The Descent of Man," etc., etc.which you can find here
    or here
    or here (audio )
    i am sure that by reading his own book; will do explain his own idea about his theory, evolution , & puts a clear definit frame around the bogus talking. ???

    nevertheless, here is more material from those who support it.

    now, we shall arrive at those who employ their minds by critical thinking, reasoning, scientific way of thinking, well let's see:
    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3572603/Intelligent_Design_-_A_War_on_Science_(Xvid_50_mins) ;)
    but still; faith is above science, yet does not contradict with it.
    & so we shall continue in the light of god's word
    & that was massive aio collection, yet here is some separate ones

    finally, here is what might be called a respond from evolutionists:

    after all, i hope this tutorial help to develpe an overall comprehensive idea about where the truth is!
    and cover all areas, from the early begining of the theory by Darwin, his supprters, the debate & the resolution.

    if you please do not get mad of me or something, i would like to give quite a commentary ( in short ) about dr. Kent Hovind imprisonement out of [glow=red,2,300]tax[/glow] fruad or violation what so ever....
    first of all, from his videos that you watched, if any;
    he was against that the [glow=red,2,300]taxes[/glow] of his & all american people are used in the production of many text books that contain lies & teach them.
    & that was the spark, go figure $

    the next maybe off topic, but i ( myself alone ) find it somehow related;

    it is not the first time such behavior been done,
    not to only him but many others;
    especially for the suppression of natural cures spc. those related to cancer, check this

    well, afterall, little politics won't kill you. ;D

    i hope that we might give reply on the content of what we read from books, listen from audio files, watch (see & hear ) from videos.
    & have one particular point of argument. 8)

    sorry, i made this long to read, hope it doesn't make you tired.
    forgive me please, & pray for me.
    gbu all, amen. :-*
  • [quote author=taymourlang link=topic=5759.msg80977#msg80977 date=1200251568]
    in short

    ServantOfJesus : you dont know what you are talking about

    I don't recall speaking in this thread at all actually, but regardless very Christian of you  :D

    In either case, I agree with Cephas.
  • well,well,well...
    seems we have a winner -----> ServantOfJesus
    you have just won yourself shame of lying that you might be elected for nobel.

    in page 2 you have posted your reply after my first posted reply and before clay with 2 post replies then me again.

    1-not because any registered user in this forum can quote, modify or
    remove his own posted reply, does not mean that it was not once been posted.
    yet only can quote from others.

    2-and not because we are in page 3 that you might think no one will notice, you are wrong.

    3-or do i need to start a poll to take votes of those who caught you red handed.

    maybe now you will remember writing not speaking in this thread, & recall that with shame.

    and yes very christian of me to expose your lies to everyone,
    and be the light that scatter your dark lies.
    repent, & remember no liars shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

    and yet, why you started a separate thread on January 05, 2008, 10:25:29 AM when there is already this thread started by mgirgis88 on September 17, 2007, 03:02:37 PM ...
    i am not implying that it was show off, but tell us why you started a whole new separet thread where the former still can be seen.

    not just that, when i replied in your thread, the very first thing i demanded is to share with us the answer you found, yet no answer.

    because you claimed to have known the church's view & that it's already been listed,and that:
    " Whether he chose evolution as a means to create man or not is not our concern "
    if it is not our concern why bother starting a thread claiming to want to know.you liar..
    " So perhaps evolution is correct. Shouldn't bother us either way.. "
    please everybody check his thread too.
    I again for the second time rewrite :
    " ServantOfJesus : you dont know what you are talking about "
    maybe this time you will remove your replies from your own thread.
    or if you can, you will remove the whole thread.

    perhaps, you are jealous because this thread got 3 pages so far unlike your thread, maybe that is why you wrote in this thread

    for your information big liar, i only [glow=red,2,300]copy[/glow] and [glow=red,2,300]paste[/glow] the names of the posters, never write them with keyboard.

    at last i didnot quote from you, that you may have a bigger chance of removing it & for the so called alzeheimer to work on you.

    sorry that this reply was a dedication to the big liar.

    in the next post, i will defend kent hovind from being kjb only.
    he is right & he is not fanatic.
    i prove what i say from his own mouth and will give you evidence.

    gbu, all those who do not lie.
  • ???

    I find no sufficient reason to lie, Taymourlang. I did not find my post, so I thought I never posted. I thought wrong. Forgive me. What's the big deal?

    And I started a thread wanting to understand Evolution because prior to stating that it was not our concern, I did not know at all that it was not our concern. I only learned that later on, and so defended what I learned. I find no error in that. If you do, then well.. sorry, it's life. You can agree with your fanatic, bro. No one's stopping you. I only said that I agree that it would make sense for the Church to be indifferent to Evolution as a means of creation.

    And yes, I am most certainly jealous of this thread and how delightfully long it is since I sit on my computer all day counting posts and sweating over how exciting the numbers get. What a wretched idiot I am  ::)

    You really did not have to go through all that trouble to call me a liar  ;)

    Anyway, it doesn't matter. Liar, not liar. God bless you buddy. Pray for me.
  • Guys, please reconcile before Communion.
  • I'm sure that taymourlang didn't mean to upset anybody here but evolution is a serious topic. It often upsets us or makes us angry. We need to be watchful that we don't get fooled into believing evolution as this can start to weaken our faith bit-by-bit. It seems to not affect our beliefs at first but then we start getting into and we can result into probems.
    + I've got a question. What hapened to Kent Hovind? Why is he in jail! Is it because of evolutionists descriminating creationists as he was arguing with evolutionists?
  • I'm afraid I helped flaming the subject too, I must apologize to everyone.

    It is also important at this point for me to say I share most but not all K Hovind's scientific views. Plus I do not share most of his religious convictions and let us not forget his faith is the Baptist church's. I watched many of his lectures on videos and I do like his pure heart and appreciate his lengthy big efforts to explain both scientifically and simply; but when he speaks about the other churches I am sometimes very annoyed (exclude here the JHW, Mormons, Masonic, blabla-Science-blablas and New Age etc).

    I am very unhappy when I think he is surely having a real hard time behind bars. If it ever were his choice to be there (I doubt that very much) then he had miscalculated the problem and deliberately gave his difficult opponents the chance to silence him. God help him, his wife and his family. As a consolation his warning message reached everywhere though and with a lot of noise.

    I did not refuse the theory of evolution when I read or watched Hovind but years earlier because the "theory" is really not based on the scientific method and I saw too many people were very negatively affected this included me.

    To examine that the theory is way off the scientific method and cannot be proven and that it is only speculations assumed by circular reasoning, please watch (in the correct order 15 parts each about 10 minutes) the Hovind's debate titled "Three on One At Embry Riddle" him vs three university professors and listen carefully how the concluding prof is embarrassed.
    2 or 3 videos here (bottom)
    videos in the first half of the page

    Dangers of Evolution video is in most parts very useful (see links by taymourlang above)

    On the issue of religious aspects in the theory or caused by it:
    The so-called New Age Movement

    Rule of thumb I use now: theories that conflict with the Bible can be studied but with high caution.

  • hi again...

    clay: you are right again.

    ServantOfJesus: if it makes any difference, i'm sorry mate. :-[
    may be the forum was compromised (hacked) & your account was exploited (victimised)...after all, it happens. :-\
    & i couldn't help but defending myself.
    sorry again, i was so harsh on you.


    Kirmich: yes, that is to answer your question.
    but still why tax fraud?not anything else?
    here is why; in the video
    Kent Hovind - 100 Reasons Evolution is So Stupid! (2001-04-06)[01h49m47s].avi
    found in:
    which is (1:49:47) in (13:00-13:20) you find the answer.
    & yet in detail, here is the legal stuff
    please all of you ///sign the petition%

    not to forget, i promised to defend him from being kjb only.
    he is right,here is why!
    in this video
    Kent Hovind - Creation Science Evangelism - CSE 101 - Class 01.avi
    which is (1:27:30) in (50:09-50:55) & (1:10:12-1:11:00) you find out why.
    yet, if you watch (54:36-55:44) you realize his belief in the original scripts.
    and if you didn't know, he was saved & started to study the bible & all that kind of stuff, he recommend to give space for the newly born in christ in (1:11:00-1:13:04)

    John_S2000: i myself follow the same as your underlined words.
    but come on, give him space for god sake.
    if saint augustine was newly born in christ, he would grow gradually.
    except that he had st. ambrosious to teach him faith.
    & if dr. k. hovind was near our coptic church, he would be greately influenced.the right way from the begining.

    about other churches, he is right too.


    i hope evreyone else, that is all of you:converse on a particular subject of the theory with references of what that point is.
    like i did above, & if i referenced from books, i would give page numbers.


    lastly, here is another addition to the collection.
    audio file, small to download, rich to listen to  :D

    gbu all... :-*
  • tl, like I said I understood he has a pure heart, what i meant here

    but when he speaks about the other churches I am sometimes very annoyed

    is churches other than the Baptists, which included ours in one video: the Church of Alexandria, and Origen; when I say churches I mean real churches, not JHWs or those to exclude (above)

  • [quote author=taymourlang link=topic=5759.msg81470#msg81470 date=1201355989]

    ServantOfJesus: if it makes any difference, i'm sorry mate. :-[
    may be the forum was compromised (hacked) & your account was exploited (victimised)...after all, it happens. :-\
    & i couldn't help but defending myself.
    sorry again, i was so harsh on you.

    No worries  ;D
  • im very lazy to read all the posts....but i thought i would just throw out some intresting information to prove why evolution is wrong:

    1st law of thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed...so if energy cant be created or destroyed, how then did evolution occur? The most highly trained scientist of the world have tried to make energy but have failed misreably...how can energy to make a cell evolve more and more and more just come to life. how can the world come out of nowhere it all needed energy...something gave that energy...the being has to be all powerful and infinite and his name is GOD...

    Also, just for intresting facts:
    The probability of evolution is less than that of a tornado flying through a junk yard and creating a fully functional 747....meaning its more likely for an airplane to be created this way than for evolution to occur......the probability of evolution occuring breaks the Law Of Probability...People need to remember that Darwin himself stated that this whole deal is a THEORY...
    God Bless
  • People have to realize that what Darwin said on the matter is of no corollary. We are talking about Neodarwanism. Much has changed since Darwin- he did not understand genetics, inheritance and mutations could not be understood until Mendel, his contemporary. If you want to reject something, reject what Evolution is now.
  • Somebody is using my name. I have never posted anything
    neither about evolution (which I do not beleive and which I
    completely deny) or about any other subject. What shall I do
    to stop this? Please Mr. Moderator tell me.
                    Meleka Habib Youssef

  • melhabysf,

    I do not see any posts with your name on this topic or any other...

    Anyway, if you wish to discuss this further, email us : [email protected]
    As for the rest of you, please stick to the discussion of the topic - you are free to RESPECTFULLY disagree with each others points of view or opinions - but you are not free to "label" people or to use childish tactics like name calling -- ie: lier, etc..

  • At the height of his professional career, Pierre-Paul Grassé was considered by many to be France's greatest living zoologist. In fact, Dobzhansky wrote of him: Now one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic (1975, 29:376).

    In 1977, Grassé wrote in "The Evolution of Living Organisms":
    Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs. Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved (pp. 8,202, emp. added).

    The quoted is extracted from this VERY serious article I read:
    15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense
    (please do not miss to read Argument #14)

    By the way, about conspiracies.. they are stated everywhere. Please check this one!
    Just a bit out of topic.

  • thanks for the link the first one is good
  • just a point jesuschristlover, the first law of thermodynamics states that the internal energy of a gas is dependant only on it's state:

    dU = Q+W
    increase in internal energy of gas = heat transferred to gas + work done on gas

    you are thinking of the principle of conservation of energy.

    (sorry about that - it was quite random)
  • that is a direct application of the law of conservation of energy (and matter; following Einstein's Relativity theory).

    "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
  • The Coptic Church believes in micro evolution and NOT macro evolution. As for dating fossils and all that...it is just plain inaccurate. It is making a standard from something you created. For example taking a book and saying that this is 12 inches and measuring everything based on this book. 

    God Bless
  • lol clay, ever the scientist  ::)
  • i was reading a former post, it was pretty long. it said evolution niether says there is no God or there is a God. i disagree. if it states that humans came from  a different source other than God. then it is already false. after reading the first line of the post i was negligent to read the rest.
  • [quote author=Moomoo link=topic=5759.msg77511#msg77511 date=1190789009]
    I think what you guys are condemning is the Philosophical Belief in Existentialism, which the Church definitely condemns, but the Church remains quite silent around Scientific issues and I believe it should remain that way. Evolution neither states that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world. Even if we humans really did evolve from monkeys and so forth it does not discredit God of His creativity. I will quote St. Augustine who said:
    "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

    Likewise, St. Augustine also said elsewhere:
    "With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

    It is the literal reading of the Scriptures and the rejection of the Allegorical can mislead us from the true purpose of our reading. The great philosophical teacher Origen was a great proponent of this allegorical reading of Genesis, and almost every book of the Bible saying:
    "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."

    He similarly, says in another passage that the days of Creation are a prime example of this: "And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."

    St. Augustine saying this also:
    "But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

    The Early Church Father S. Iranaeus shows us how to reap the spiritual benefits of reading the Scriptural passages allegorically saying:
    "Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he did eat. For God said, 'In that day on which ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death.' The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death."

    For this reason, myself a believer in Evolution, yes even in humans, see that it makes sense, if were to use the theory itself to explain what it was that God did to create the world, that God created the world in such a way that he helped man evolve from the lower species to the higher species he is presently in, as to "form" a vehicle suitable for the type of rationality given us (that is when we were "breathed on through His nostrils), and made in His image and likeness. I attribute this theory to C.S. Lewis.

    Hope this helped.

    this is the one i was talking about.

    look at how it says

    Even if we humans really did evolve from monkeys and so forth it does not discredit God of His creativity.

    yes it does. what kind of lame excuse is it to say it does not discredit God? it does it discredites the bible itself which Is the Word of God. did anyone actually read this post?
  • LOL yes I did, in fact I read most replies. The problem is since the Truth is in the Lord's words and since He created all things that science is still discovering, then science is expected not to be in conflict with Scripture but to prove beyond doubt His existence to the stubborn, and should indeed lead them to glorify Him. What we see is the arrogance of the atheists (and who's behind) seeking to exploit a forced bad science to stain the Christian faith (specifically, plus any notion of religion) and cast doubts in the minds of believers (this acting seriously worse on the young) - because evolution is in fact bad science it's not science anymore, it's not based on the scientific method, it has even been scientifically disproved - and it definitely conflicts with Truth. You cannot have both without exercising serious bias that's my opinion, and many others among whom are scientists.

    They even question "intelligent design". How come? Are the first randomly formed proteins so intelligent to live, gather, interact and produce the first complex DNA program sequence that will replicate them and then "evolute"? I understand now their target: they want to do without God, they want to "eliminate" God thinking they can be gods instead, they are blindly following satan's insanity.

    By the way about some of my replies in this thread: it makes me really sad and it fills me with heavy guilt when I find sisters/brethren would take it personal. It's not meant to hurt anyone it's not even my opinion alone it's many people's too - so I apologize again to all who were shocked by my replies okay I may have replied inappropriately at times - I love you all whatever your opinions are.

  • I loved your contribution John :)
  • Thank you so much clay. That's very kind of you.
    I also love all your contribution in the forum.

Sign In or Register to comment.