« Last post by minasoliman on Today at 01:07:54 AM »
If you can't have an ecumenical council without the West, why is he called "Ecumenical" Patriarch?
After I had been going for about a month straight to liturgies, she tagged along. Her background is Evangelical Protestant. She was mostly confused and I'm pretty sure she cried on the way home, but that might have been the second time. As in, crying because she was so upset that I was being drawn into it. About seven years later she and our three kids were baptized into the church. She's still not very into it, but she's really trying. It's just not a natural fit for her at all.
Maybe this should be a different thread, but for whom is the Church a "natural fit?" If Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics, atheists, Buddhists, Muslims are all naturally opposed to Orthodoxy, I suppose it is a wonder that anyone converts at all. Orthodoxy requires struggle and tests; it is not mere lip service, it is not something you are just born into and--poof!--everything makes sense. THe fact that your wife is trying and struggling and agreed to be baptized along with your three kids indicates that she's maybe more disposed to it than what you give her credit for. (sorry if that came out wrong; I'm not really sure how else to phrase it).
It is beyond me how our supposedly internet savvy phenotypes do not notice the source for the article.
Start from this.
A second observation on this matter is a clarification on the nature of the Holy and Great Council to convene. In selecting the name of this Council, the 1st Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference deliberately avoided labeling it as an Ecumenical Council precisely because Western Christians are not invited to participate as members, which was always the case in the early Church whenever Ecumenical Councils were held. The authority of this Council therefore only extends within the boundaries of the Orthodox Church, without this meaning that the Council cannot decide on matters concerning Orthodox relations with the rest of the Christian world.
- Fr. John Behr (no regular series, just longer talks recorded live--there's more on youtube)
- Fr. John McGuckin (no regular series, just a few longer talks; there are a few short & practical ones of his on OCN)
- Dr. Jeannie Constantinou (her series Search the Scriptures is excellent)
- Fr. Thomas Hopko, though I only listen(ed) to maybe 1 out of every 8, when the topic interested me
- Dr. Peter Bouteneff - I think his book on Genesis is great, but I was less into the podcasts (and also the book of the same name); still on the list of people from there I like
No one else comes to mind though... I just listen to a random one here or there sometimes.
Since this came from a Catholic source, I'm just going to pretend that they made it up.That's a fair point, actually.
I do not have the time to enter in to this discussion fully. To start out by answering one of your questions without using the term Darwinism. If you limit the mechanism of evolution to random point mutations, you will not get the diversity of life forms we currently see within the time frame allotted . If mice were placed on earth initially, which aren't that different, from human beings, we would probably not see species that go beyond rodents in the time frame allotted.You will not need much time. The more concrete and short you explanations and answers are the better it is. If you think certain topics can't be explained briefly you can always direct me to appropriate links to a more detailed explanations.
However, if you allow the full panoply of mutations and abilities that we see in bacteria and archaea then it will work and match the mechanism of evolution that we see in genomic DNA sequences: deletions and insertion mutations during DNA replication (in addition to point mutations), mutations caused by recombination (both homologous and non-homologous) that create hybrids genes or place genes within a different regulatory system, genetic exchange with other prokaryotes via sex, genetic exchange by the inherent ability to take up foreign DNA that are floating around in solution (transformation), etc. In general, you need gene duplication, but everything else helps.
I think I wrote a long time ago that if I were God, I would start life on earth with a bacteria and and archaea, but I would kick start the system with a transducing bacteriophage (I am impatient, even though a bacteriophage would be generated sooner or later).
I don't see much difference in principle between Darwinism or neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary synthesis. Call it any name you want. I don't care much. I will give you the liberty of naming it as you like. Before we have the name you like let's call it theory X.
Now let's go back to my question # 1: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it? I don't want to expect an answer in general terms which makes no explanation. I'll give you very good example how scientific theory works in this regard and how and what does it predict. Let's take for example Newton's theory of gravity. Before Newton Kepler and other scientist made some observation how planets move. Newton proposed that this movement was dependent on some force he called gravity which is dirrectly proportional to moving bodies and inversely proportional to the square of distance between two celestial bodies. After this he went ahead and proved 2 things: A) If his theory was true then we would observe that celestial bodies moving around another body will have elliptic orbit; B) If celestial bodies move in elliptic orbit around another body then they must obey Newton's law of gravity. Thus, his theory of gravity formulated in a mathematical model is "how" of his theory. Now, after this based on his theory he could predict position of planets (or any moving bodies) and say "object O will be at this and that point at this and that time". He set experiments and he found his predictions to be right. This is "what" part of his theory.
That's how we expect from scientists to explain how and what theory X predicts. Can you do that? if you can't then theory X is just empty words. It's fine to say that we have certain repertoires of mutations that would generate diversity of life. This is one of the necessary conditions but not sufficient one. I'm going to bring here (what I'm going to call "factory remodeling analogy or FRA") an analogy. We have a factory F1 that specializes in the productions of certain lines of product P1. We have an engineering task to remodel factory into factory F2 so that we can start producing new lines of products P2. We have certain set of materials, tools and workers that are absolutely necessary to remodel the factory. But it ain't going to happen by itself. We need to design our factory in details. Plus workers can't just do any work they want. They have to do certain type of work that is necessary to achieve the result. Now, if somebody asks the team of designers and engineers how would you expect to they would go from F1 to F2 to produce P2 designers and engineers can explain us everything in detail and we can actually see if there theory of "converting F1 to F2" is right or wrong. This is exactly what i expect from you. Don't just tell me that by only naming the tools and materials or even processes (that are actually observed in the cell) it is possible to convert genome G1 into Genome G2. G1 and G2 has much more complex organization than any factory out there. And as the team of engineers and designers can't reach the purpose of converting F1 into F2 without clear and detailed plan so is it impossible for repertoires of genetic mutations to convert G1 into G2 without clear and detailed plan. I'm not a stupid man. Show me how we can get from G1 to G2 in details.
And i will appreciate if you also explain me what you mean under "non-random mutations". I'd like to see what distinction you make between random and non-random mutations.
Again: considering what i've just said: what does darwinism predict and how does it do it?