OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:12:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creation Museum Family Visit  (Read 17842 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2008, 07:07:38 PM »

Man, bringing up creation and watching heads spin is more fun than smashing pennies on a train track! 

***
Something tells me I could write a 1000 word post on late byzantine iconography and if one sentence mentioned creationism feathers would fly and we'd rehash a conversation that's been had on this list a hundred times.  Cheesy

***
I post about a trip my family takes and because creation is involved people start licking their chops.

***
But within minutes of this post, I posted a story about a modern day miracle worker and my personal experience with a spiritual daughter of his.  And it gets one reply, from a moderator.

That alone speaks volumes.

What was that you said about ridicule not being Orthodox, nor loving and demeaning to the postion of the one doing the ridiculing?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 07:10:36 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #46 on: February 05, 2008, 07:27:27 PM »

If this came across as ridicule I apologize.  But that interpretation of my post seems like a stretch, more like an attempt to say "gotcha!".

I'll restate my post.

"These discussions are fun to me.

I do believe that almost any time creation gets brought up a heated debate occurs that rehashes almost all previous threads.

I did post about a family trip and people did appear to be licking their proverbial chops.

I was just stating the obvious about the response to this post and my other."

Unfortunately, the nature of internet debates is that they can often end up being a game of Gotcha.

What was that you said about ridicule not being Orthodox, nor loving and demeaning to the postion of the one doing the ridiculing?

Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #47 on: February 05, 2008, 07:42:43 PM »

If this came across as ridicule I apologize.  But that interpretation of my post seems like a stretch, more like an attempt to say "gotcha!".

Apology accepted; and there was no stretch involved. Your sarcasm is self-evident and amounts to the very ridicule that you claim to so disdain.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2008, 08:16:09 PM »

Well, I suppose if someone has thin enough skin any sarcasm could be seen as ridicule.  I don't mind a tough argument, as I said, and I don't mind a little rib poking.  But when people start getting mean and unambiguously ridiculing, then I think the line has been crossed and all you have to do is a search on the creation vs. evolution debate to see the line has been crossed a lot.  Which is unfortunate, because most discussions on the board do a great job of being spirited, yet respectfull.  Which is fun! Wink  Of course, as I'm sure someone would point out, who am I to say where that line is drawn.  Which is why I'm sure this discussion will come up again, and again, and again.
 

Apology accepted; and there was no stretch involved. Your sarcasm is self-evident and amounts to the very ridicule that you claim to so disdain.


Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2008, 08:33:36 PM »

Well, I suppose if someone has thin enough skin any sarcasm could be seen as ridicule. 

sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you? Just for the record, your sarcasm doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, your hypocrisy is another thing altogether. 

« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 08:34:04 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2008, 09:16:28 PM »

Hate to split hairs with you Riddikulus, but my "sarcasm" was intended to be humorous, not cutting, contemptuous or ridiculing.  If it wasn't humorous to you, I apologize.  And for that matter, if an element of sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning, I'm not even sure I was being sarcastic.  What I said is exactly what I meant.  No irony, just some colorful language. And I wasn't pointing out any single person, just commenting in general on how crazy the board gets when discussing creation.

FYI, My dictionary says Sarcasm is "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."  And it defines irony as "the expression of one's meaning by language that usually defines the opposite."

If I'm guilty of anything it's the misuse of the word sarcasm.  Or just not being funny.

I should have said, "if someone has thin enough skin any humor can be seen as ridicule."

sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you? Just for the record, your sarcasm doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, your hypocrisy is another thing altogether. 


Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2008, 09:32:36 PM »

I said Jesus, not Paul.  GIC, are you getting all bible quoting on me!   Shocked

I've observed that religious folks tend to give that book a lot of weight, so I throw a quote out there from time to time to make them happy Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2008, 09:35:30 PM »

Why is denying "MACRO" evolution wrong? Most creationists believe in what is called "MICRO" evolution.

Some old earth creationists believe in macro-evolution and "all" theistic evolutionists believe in macro-evolution.


But I don't understand why a rejection of "macro" evolution = wrong.

As much as I'd like to teach you Biology 101 on this thread, it's probably not practical; and George would be far better qualified to do so than I. If you have at least a basic grasp of biology, mathematics, and computer science I can refer you to some recent journal publications in the field of genomics from Nature that should help explain why a rejection of evolution is just plain wrong.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2008, 09:39:22 PM »

Oh and I might add, in general, Heorhij has some very thoughtful and clear posts on the evolutionist position.  Ignore him when he gets his temper worked up and just appreciate his honesty. It's well worth the time to search and read, even if you don't agree with him. I have no firm beliefs when it comes to this topic, but I learned some things from Heorhij.

Nice, throw out an ad hominem even before somone makes their argument...it appears that I'm not the only person here who's been readin Goebbels.

I personally get frusterated when I have to put up with the nonsensical arguments creationists use to defend their position; I could only imagine how frusterated George must get, considering he's devoted a significant portion of his life to the study of biology and can plainly see how obvious the whole issue is.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2008, 09:44:12 PM »

 Grin

I've observed that religious folks tend to give that book a lot of weight, so I throw a quote out there from time to time to make them happy Grin
Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2008, 09:47:43 PM »

ad hominem?  I RECOMMENDED the guy read George as George is very genuine and very honest and very knowledgable on the subject.  More so than anyone I've seen comment on the board.  George himself in posts has said he has let his temper get the best of him, and since I told the guy to read George's past posts I put that in. Maybe I shouldn't have added any qualifiers.  Don't get alarmist on me.

Nice, throw out an ad hominem even before somone makes their argument...it appears that I'm not the only person here who's been readin Goebbels.

I personally get frusterated when I have to put up with the nonsensical arguments creationists use to defend their position; I could only imagine how frusterated George must get, considering he's devoted a significant portion of his life to the study of biology and can plainly see how obvious the whole issue is.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 09:48:17 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: February 05, 2008, 09:55:42 PM »

ad hominem?  I RECOMMENDED the guy read George as George is very genuine and very honest and very knowledgable on the subject.  More so than anyone I've seen comment on the board.  George himself in posts has said he has let his temper get the best of him, and since I told the guy to read George's past posts I put that in. Maybe I shouldn't have added any qualifiers.  Don't get alarmist on me.

I'm not getting alarmist, I'm just point out that I'm not the only one who makes use of the principles of rhetoric and propaganda you claim to reject. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2008, 10:00:53 PM »

Where did I say I reject the principles of rhetoric and propaganda?  I only rejected a particular thing used in rhetoric and proganda, ridicule, and more specifically, when we use it on this board in addressing each other.  I enjoy a little ribbing and spirited debate as much as the next guy!  But we all, and I am including myself here, just need to be mindful of not crossing the line.  Especially when discussing the hot topics like creation vs. evolution.

I'm not getting alarmist, I'm just point out that I'm not the only one who makes use of the principles of rhetoric and propaganda you claim to reject. Wink
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 10:05:55 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: February 05, 2008, 10:12:28 PM »

Where did I say I reject the principles of rhetoric and propaganda?  I only rejected a particular thing used in rhetoric and proganda, ridicule, and more specifically, when we use it on this board in addressing each other.  I enjoy a little ribbing and spirited debate as much as the next guy!  But we all, and I am including myself here, just need to be mindful of not crossing the line.  Especially when discussing the hot topics like creation vs. evolution.

Except that the topic isn't any 'hotter' than heliocentricism vs. geocentricism...it really fits into the same category. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #59 on: February 05, 2008, 10:16:55 PM »

You need your own show.  You'd put Bill Maher to shame.  People would either love you or hate you and lots of them would watch! Wink

Except that the topic isn't any 'hotter' than heliocentricism vs. geocentricism...it really fits into the same category. Wink
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 10:17:32 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2008, 10:29:42 PM »

Except that the topic isn't any 'hotter' than heliocentricism vs. geocentricism...it really fits into the same category. Wink

It's still hot for some people GIC http://www.fes.be/index.html
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #61 on: February 06, 2008, 10:08:34 AM »

Hey, all, could we please bring this thread back from attacking each other?  Otherwise, I'm going to move it to the Religious section of the Free For All board.  Thanks.

--EofK
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2008, 12:21:26 AM »

Because neither "mactoevolution" nor "microevolution" actually exist. They are terms used with didactic purposes (purely for teaching).


True, but I don't see why everyone must believe in Macro evolution (in regards to animal life) when it's a speculation.

Small mutations over millions of years is something we can't directly observe. It is a kind of "faith" to think we will evolve into a new species 1 million years from now based on the micro evolution that happens today.

If anything micro-evolution in animal life would seem to support devolution. Or some type of degeneration. There are alot of factors involve that were never tought to me as a kid that would make evolution "relative"/"subjective".

What maybe a good "mutation" for one might be a bad "mutation" to someone else.


Lets say a mutation happened that will bloack the HIV virus from infacting someone. Well that mutation might be good for the A.I.D.S. virus but it might be bad for the common cold or something else that most people are either immune to or don't have a problem with.





But I will take the advice of another person on this board and not talk about this issue on this thread.




JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #63 on: February 07, 2008, 12:41:50 AM »

True, but I don't see why everyone must believe in Macro evolution (in regards to animal life) when it's a speculation.

(This must be punishment for the sins of my youth...<sigh>)

It's not speculation, it's hard science which is well supported by various experiments.

Quote
Small mutations over millions of years is something we can't directly observe. It is a kind of "faith" to think we will evolve into a new species 1 million years from now based on the micro evolution that happens today.

No faith is required, a comparative study of the genomes of various related species will even show you the exact alleles that changed, the significance of these alleles, and can even point us in the direction of the nature of each change. Welcome to the age of genomics...or do you think we're sequencing genomes because we lost a bet?

Quote
If anything micro-evolution in animal life would seem to support devolution. Or some type of degeneration. There are alot of factors involve that were never tought to me as a kid that would make evolution "relative"/"subjective".

What maybe a good "mutation" for one might be a bad "mutation" to someone else.

There's some truth to that, homo sapiens have a lot of genetic investment in intelligence and, as a result, other skills are lacking...put a human toe to toe with a lion, absent the technology we've been able to develop using our intelligence, and we're at quite a disadvantage.

Quote
Lets say a mutation happened that will bloack the HIV virus from infacting someone. Well that mutation might be good for the A.I.D.S. virus but it might be bad for the common cold or something else that most people are either immune to or don't have a problem with.

That's where natural selection comes in, if, in the wash, the mutation is beneficial those who have it will have an advantage (however slight) over those who do not and over a long enough time will come to dominate the population. If, however, the mutation is not beneficial (as is the case with most mutations) the population with that mutation will die out and it will not be continued. To paraphrase Dr. Eric Lander (Director of the Broad Institute at MIT), our genomes (and the genomes of every species) contain the research notes of hundreds of millions of years of 'research' by evolution and natural selection, but evolution, contrary to modern scientific practice, throws out the notes related to unsuccessful experiments.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #64 on: February 07, 2008, 01:58:21 AM »

Was reading through an evolution tutorial on the University of Berkeley web site.  And read the following,

"The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

A single germ line mutation can have a range of effects:

No change occurs in phenotype
Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

Small change occurs in phenotype
A single mutation caused this cat's ears to curl backwards slightly.

Big change occurs in phenotype
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.

There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it."


Now here is where I get confused.  Why couldn't a pig develop wings and other body changes that might enable it fly?  That doesn't seem any less unlikely or absurd given enough time than the idea that a big bang evolved into a human being.  To a layman this seems to undermine the idea that evolution through random mutations could develop complex animals that do all sorts of things, fly, walk, run, etc. from what amounts to a pool of water.

This is where I go, sure I see the evolution explained above happening all over, but I sure don't get how we go from saying mutations can cause a beetle to change the color of its wings to saying a plant, beginning and continuing with random mutation, became a man. With that logic, the very same beetle might very well develop a brain, vocal chords and speech in a few billion years.  And then we wouldn't need Pixar! Wink  While that sounds silly.  Does it sound any more silly that a pool of water or plant developing into a human being? 

To quote Berkeley, "neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings".  Since science can't/won't acknowledge God, I might say, "wishful thinking looks at a mutation changing the color of a beetle's wing and extrapolates from that evidence that Man "evolved" from a soup of matter." That is of course simplifying the issue, but you get the point.

I bring up Beetle's by the way because that is a common example evolutionists bring up as evidence we can see of evolution, i.e. through mutations the color of a beetle's wings changed and gave the new beetle's an environmental advantage.

Not being a scientist, I sincerely would like an explanation of the above. thanks!
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 02:05:32 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: February 07, 2008, 02:30:01 AM »

I don't personally know enough about the pig genome vs. bird genomes, but I could take a guess at a few possible reasons why this wouldn't happen. It is possible that sections of the genome in birds that have the alleles necessary for wings would serve another purpose in a pig, thus making any such mutation lethal for the pig. We certainly know that a development like this would require a substantial change in the genome and that such a change could not happen instantly. I imagine that it's theoretically possible that if the pig is allowed to continue its course of evolution a variety of changes could occur over millions (probably hundreds of millions) of years that allowed some descendant of the pig to fly, but this would require such a change in genome that the new species and the modern pig would certainly be unable to naturally reproduce thus meaning that it's no longer a pig.

I think the main point being made, albeit somewhat poorly, is that genetic mutations do not cause species altering changes in one or two generations, this happens through millions of years of genetic drift.

Oh, and the laws of physics come into play as well -- not even evolution can get around those -- the aerodynamics of a flying pig don't work very well...if some future decendent of the pig were to fly changes beyond wings would be required (more aerodynamic shape (being too akward gives you a disadvantage when it comes to natural selection), MUCH less weight relative to body size, possibly hollow bones, feathers helpful though not absolutely necessary).

In the end I think it's important to note that it's the genome, not the phenotypes, that mutates and evolves. Though it's the effect of the genome on the phenotypes that determines whether or not the mutation survives.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 02:31:37 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #66 on: February 07, 2008, 11:43:53 AM »

They said that "a lot" of mutations could not cause it either.  And while I agree that along with wings some other aerodynamic properties would need to be evolved, a pool of water or cloud of dust needs a lot more changes than this to become flesh and walk.  So neither is necessarilly more hard to imagine than the other.

The implication from the article was that "a lot" means "a lot" i.e. thousands or millions or whatever.

They also didn't qualify their instruction by talking about genomes vs. phenotypes, so whatever you mean by that you might want to bring up with Berkeley.  You and they are the scientists, not me. I'll keep reading though.

I don't personally know enough about the pig genome vs. bird genomes, but I could take a guess at a few possible reasons why this wouldn't happen. It is possible that sections of the genome in birds that have the alleles necessary for wings would serve another purpose in a pig, thus making any such mutation lethal for the pig. We certainly know that a development like this would require a substantial change in the genome and that such a change could not happen instantly. I imagine that it's theoretically possible that if the pig is allowed to continue its course of evolution a variety of changes could occur over millions (probably hundreds of millions) of years that allowed some descendant of the pig to fly, but this would require such a change in genome that the new species and the modern pig would certainly be unable to naturally reproduce thus meaning that it's no longer a pig.

I think the main point being made, albeit somewhat poorly, is that genetic mutations do not cause species altering changes in one or two generations, this happens through millions of years of genetic drift.

Oh, and the laws of physics come into play as well -- not even evolution can get around those -- the aerodynamics of a flying pig don't work very well...if some future decendent of the pig were to fly changes beyond wings would be required (more aerodynamic shape (being too akward gives you a disadvantage when it comes to natural selection), MUCH less weight relative to body size, possibly hollow bones, feathers helpful though not absolutely necessary).

In the end I think it's important to note that it's the genome, not the phenotypes, that mutates and evolves. Though it's the effect of the genome on the phenotypes that determines whether or not the mutation survives.
Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #67 on: February 07, 2008, 11:45:17 AM »

Hey moderators.  I'm new to the workings of this board.  How do I copy all this over to the new thread you created?  Or can you do it more easily on your end? thanks!
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 11:45:31 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #68 on: February 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM »

Well, it's not a new thread, just an old one we put a sticky on. But I can merge the two if you would like.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #69 on: February 07, 2008, 02:28:23 PM »

I'll just make it a habit to post anything over there.  Thanks for consolidating everything.

Well, it's not a new thread, just an old one we put a sticky on. But I can merge the two if you would like.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #70 on: February 07, 2008, 04:15:11 PM »

They said that "a lot" of mutations could not cause it either.  And while I agree that along with wings some other aerodynamic properties would need to be evolved, a pool of water or cloud of dust needs a lot more changes than this to become flesh and walk.  So neither is necessarilly more hard to imagine than the other.

The implication from the article was that "a lot" means "a lot" i.e. thousands or millions or whatever.

They also didn't qualify their instruction by talking about genomes vs. phenotypes, so whatever you mean by that you might want to bring up with Berkeley.  You and they are the scientists, not me. I'll keep reading though.

It's just a general introduction to evolution for the layman; don't take it as though it were an academic journal. The information is good, in general, but given enough mutations anything could theoretically fly (provided the laws of physics allowed), or any number of other things could do...but in this case I think the main point is that if this many mutations would take place it would be a different species.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #71 on: February 07, 2008, 04:19:08 PM »

How's this for a number that will instantly invoke abject horror from many members of this board and immense appreciation from some other members.  And a little head scratching by the rest. The creation museum has only been open 9 months and it already has had 350,000 visitors.


I would like to have the hot dog concession out front!  laugh
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #72 on: February 07, 2008, 04:20:51 PM »

GIC, I'm heartbroken, I expected a better answer from you! Wink

But you are right, this a very superficial examination, although I'm sure they wrote it all to be correct.  I'll keep reading and bring up questions when appropriate.  Thanks.


It's just a general introduction to evolution for the layman; don't take it as though it were an academic journal. The information is good, in general, but given enough mutations anything could theoretically fly (provided the laws of physics allowed), or any number of other things could do...but in this case I think the main point is that if this many mutations would take place it would be a different species.
Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #73 on: February 07, 2008, 04:22:29 PM »

You wouldn't make it past the security dogs and police.  They've had so many bomb and other threats and militant protestors they had to hire 24hr security.


I would like to have the hot dog concession out front!  laugh
Logged
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #74 on: February 07, 2008, 05:08:17 PM »

You wouldn't make it past the security dogs and police.  They've had so many bomb and other threats and militant protestors they had to hire 24hr security.


OK, I am not an evangelical and I am not much of creationist advocate. But I do believe in freedom of speech. Now I know some evangelicals can be downright annoying, but bomb threats and protests  Huh  I believe you but I thing that that is way wrong.
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2008, 09:44:38 PM »

I hate to be the guy that says this after a heated debate, but:

Neither view is a necessary tenet of Orthodoxy - therefore, let us not be divided amongst ourselves needlessly.  Let each believe as suits his faith; if someone needs 6-day creationism to be true that he might believe, tho it might not be, let him believe - it is better for him to believe in the fullness of truth than to depart it because of an insubstantial debate.

If one is able to believe both scientific and religious truth, let him do so - but let him not offend a brother and admonish him for his disbelief in the scientific truth as if he were admonishing a heretic, lest he drive him into heterodoxy, which would be a graver thing indeed than that which he tried to correct.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #76 on: April 04, 2008, 12:07:03 AM »

To deny scientific truth is infinitely worse than heresy...we really don't need people like that in the Church.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2008, 12:38:51 AM »

To deny scientific truth is infinitely worse than heresy...we really don't need people like that in the Church.

Of course, you belong to the Church of GIC, so you won't have to worry about kicking anybody out. Although I can only imagine the debates you might have with yourself in your diocese of one.

 Wink Wink

« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 12:44:03 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2008, 12:46:23 AM »

Of course, you belong to the Church of GIC, so you won't have to worry about kicking anybody out. Although I can only imagine the debates you might have with yourself in your diocese of one.

Wink Wink

Eh, I'm technically still Orthodox...but the fact that we don't generally drive these people from the Church in public humiliation is probably one of the better reasons why I generally don't bother with the formalities of the religion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2008, 06:31:51 AM »

GiC do you know any other Orthodox (or any other christians) who hold views similar to yours?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2008, 10:18:33 AM »

GiC do you know any other Orthodox (or any other christians) who hold views similar to yours?

I've actually met quite a few, depending on what views you're refering to, especially being strongly pro-choice,  highly valuing scientific knowledge, supporting embryonic stem-cell research, having a dislike of piety and fundamentalism, etc...including influential members of some communities.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2008, 10:51:03 AM »

I've actually met quite a few, depending on what views you're refering to, especially being strongly pro-choice,  highly valuing scientific knowledge, supporting embryonic stem-cell research, having a dislike of piety and fundamentalism, etc...including influential members of some communities.

Why do you class yourself as Orthodox? Are you "cradle" or convert?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2008, 05:15:23 PM »

Quote
To deny scientific truth is infinitely worse than heresy...we really don't need people like that in the Church.

I'd rather be wrong in this life than the next.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2008, 10:11:56 PM »

I'd rather be wrong in this life than the next.

Why would anyone deny the evidence of science for fear of "being wrong" in the next life? Is God the master trickster? Are we to live in fear that God places evidence in the physical world that will trick His creatures, creatures that he endowed with the intelligence to read such evidence and come to certain conclusions? Then, when they arrive at the Pearly Gates, he cries "Gotchya!" If God were such a fraudster, who would want to spend eternity with Him?

BTW, Welcome to the forum, NihilNominis!  Grin

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2008, 10:22:50 PM »

Why do you class yourself as Orthodox? Are you "cradle" or convert?

I'm a convert...but still, I think I continue to classify myself as Orthodox because I have some degree of cultural connection to the Greek Orthodox Church; if I can, I might even try to make it to liturgy for Pascha.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 10:24:23 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2008, 10:26:12 PM »

If the administrators could change this thread with "Lets Ask Brother GIC" that would be great  Grin

What is your convert story? Were you Christian before or even a theist (or Deist)? Did you have a mentor that helped you with your unique set of beliefs?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2008, 10:31:14 PM »

If the administrators could change this thread with "Lets Ask Brother GIC" that would be great  Grin

What is your convert story? Were you Christian before or even a theist (or Deist)? Did you have a mentor that helped you with your unique set of beliefs?

I'll PM you so we don't bring this thread too far off topic.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 10:32:08 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2008, 11:37:00 PM »

Quote
Why would anyone deny the evidence of science for fear of "being wrong" in the next life? Is God the master trickster? Are we to live in fear that God places evidence in the physical world that will trick His creatures, creatures that he endowed with the intelligence to read such evidence and come to certain conclusions? Then, when they arrive at the Pearly Gates, he cries "Gotchya!" If God were such a fraudster, who would want to spend eternity with Him?

Ah, perhaps you misunderstood.  My comment was a reply to GIC's assertion that:

"To deny scientific truth is infinitely worse than heresy...we really don't need people like that in the Church."

In context, presuming both science and Orthodoxy are true, my comment was merely to say that heresy is infinitely worse than denying scientific truth, for it has eternal consequences.

Remember what St. Anthony of the Desert wrote about intelligence: it has nothing to do with the knowledge of this world, but rather the acquisition of holiness through right-mindedness.  (you can find it in the Philokalia, forget where)

Quote
BTW, Welcome to the forum, NihilNominis! 


Thank you.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 11:38:01 PM by NihilNominis » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2008, 11:24:04 AM »

John taught that if you cannot love your neighbour, whom you can see, you cannot love God, whom you cannot see. Those who claim to love God and use this as an excuse to hate their neighbour do not truly love God.

By the same logic, if you can't believe in observable truths of the very world in which you live, how can you believe in that which you cannot see? Those who claim to believe in God and use this as an excuse to deny that which they can observe in the world cannot be said to truly believe.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2008, 02:20:28 PM »

Quote
John taught that if you cannot love your neighbour, whom you can see, you cannot love God, whom you cannot see. Those who claim to love God and use this as an excuse to hate their neighbour do not truly love God.

This sounds reasonable, but only God knows the heart.

Quote
By the same logic, if you can't believe in observable truths of the very world in which you live, how can you believe in that which you cannot see? Those who claim to believe in God and use this as an excuse to deny that which they can observe in the world cannot be said to truly believe.

This sounds reasonable, but only God knows the spirit.

Please don't presume to judge the faith of others.  If it apparently exists, do not cast it down in favour of a lesser thing, for it is worth more than all  the riches of all the kings, powers and principalites throughout the world.
Logged
Tags: creation evolution 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 71 queries.