OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 11:28:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New movie “Expelled” challenges Darwinian theory  (Read 47456 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
_Seraphim_
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Diocese of Western America (under His Grace Bishop Maxim)
Posts: 657


May Orthodoxy become our orthopraxis


WWW
« on: March 19, 2008, 02:24:32 PM »

You will want to see this one in the theater.  The movie should be coming up in the next few months as part of the conversation in our parishes and schools, so you might as well get a sneak peak now so you can nod knowingly when it bursts onto the scene:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
Logged

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
-St. Athanasius (†444)

Pray for Orthodox Unity

"Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2008, 08:08:54 PM »

Looks very interesting. Good for Ben Stein.


By the way, the link didn't work for me so I found a video on YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE


I'll definitely see it.
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2008, 10:04:15 PM »

I realize that any comments made on a movie before one sees it isn't very smart.  But two things make me believe (hope?) that this movie is great are these; 1. I respect Ben Stein as a person who's always seemed to be very intelligent, mild mannered, and well reasoned. 2. We could finally have a movie about Intelligent Design that is itself well reasoned, challenging to the 'scientific' community, and NOT put out by fundementalists.  I could end up with egg on my face (which is why I usually have handi-wipes at the ready), but I'm thinking that I won't. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,423


« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2008, 10:51:08 PM »

Looks very interesting. Good for Ben Stein.


By the way, the link didn't work for me so I found a video on YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE


I'll definitely see it.


Go Ben Stein!  Did you notice the "Bueller" reference at the end?  Grin
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2008, 11:17:37 PM »

"Intelligent design" as the "theory" now stands is a joke.  If Stein brings something new to light in this film regarding this, then all power to him.  However, IMHO, to equate biological Darwinism with Nazi-style eugenics as Stein does here is outrageous.  But then again, as I have stated again and again here, with my points seemingly falling on deaf ears, IMHO it's outrageous to juxtapose the theory of evolution with religious belief as people seem to do, especially (but not exclusively) in the United States.  So I will be sure not to see this movie, unless I hear from reputable sources that it really makes one think about how life has developed on earth, and doesn't just throw out the same tired and untenable "intelligent design" arguments. 

The biological sciences are not the only academic discipline where a kind of obtuse refusal to look at things in any other way than the view that is currently held as the orthodox opinion.  In fact, this happens in varying degrees in all disciplines at various times, as far as I can tell.  So the kind of conspiracy theory that Stein appears to be putting forth here regarding evolution seems to me to be farfetched.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 11:45:57 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2008, 11:58:17 PM »

"However, IMHO, to equate biological Darwinism with Nazi-style eugenics as Stein does here is outrageous.  .

Perhaps you watched something different.  He remarked that the scientists who have published articles supporting some form of "intelligent design" have suggested that darwinism is dangerous.  There was no equivocation to the Nazis.  The reference to the Nazis was to contrast that with a free society where people can believe and speak as they wish and that the treatment of such scientists who challenge the status quo of Darwinian Natural selection as the primary governing evolutionary principle is akin to Nazism.

However, one should note that the Nazis appealed to Darwin's theories to justify their believe in a master race over others.  But that was not referred to in this trailer.

I, for one, do not have an opinion one way or the other as to the origin of man or the universe.  I am not qualified to make such determinations and I will let those in the scientific community debate and research it to their hearts' content.

But, I am all for freedom of speech and self-determination.  Persecution, one way or the other, is reprehensible and must be called out for what it is. I am intrigued and I will probably see this movie.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2008, 12:11:01 AM »

Perhaps you watched something different. 

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.

Quote
However, one should note that the Nazis appealed to Darwin's theories to justify their believe in a master race over others.  But that was not referred to in this trailer.

At the time when Stein was referring to how Darwinism might even be dangerous, an image of a death camp and its gas ovens were momentarily flashed on the screen.   


Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2008, 12:15:09 AM »

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.

At the time when Stein was referring to how Darwinism might even be dangerous, an image of a death camp and its gas ovens were momentarily flashed on the screen.   

I noticed it, too. But I suppose we must all have heard how Darwinism is the source of all evils; from genocide to homosexuality, to not brushing ones teeth correctly.  Grin

I don't mean to give offence, but this is a film I shall be delighted to miss.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:15:31 AM 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)
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2008, 12:15:53 AM »

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.
Brother, I am pleading with you here; please forgive him.  You two are Orthodox brothers, yes?  In the name of the Trinity, and for the sake of our salvation, please forgive him.

In Christ,

Gabriel
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2008, 12:27:58 AM »

Brother, I am pleading with you here; please forgive him.  You two are Orthodox brothers, yes?  In the name of the Trinity, and for the sake of our salvation, please forgive him.

In Christ,

Gabriel

No biggie, there is nothing to forgive.  I just don't see why it was necessary to use this kind of language.  I don't wish to be inflammatory here.  Forgive me if I come across this way.  I am very tired of debates about evolution.  I frankly don't understand the polarised nature of the debate; I find it baffling.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:32:00 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2008, 12:57:39 AM »

Supposedly when Ben Stein is interviewing Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins puts forward "space aliens" as a possible creator.  Anything but "God"!

It seems to me from the trailer and what I've read that this is less an apologetic for Intelligent Design, and more a critique of Darwinism and how academia limits debate on the subject.  I could be totally wrong though, the marketing of the movie is not the movie.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 01:01:27 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2008, 10:37:57 AM »

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.

I hardly would call it a snide remark. But since you seem to think it is, I apologize.

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2008, 11:41:48 AM »

more a critique of Darwinism and how academia limits debate on the subject.

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 

Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2008, 11:59:27 AM »

You will want to see this one in the theater.  The movie should be coming up in the next few months as part of the conversation in our parishes and schools, so you might as well get a sneak peak now so you can nod knowingly when it bursts onto the scene:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf



Yeah, I really wanna see this one.


however, only people with an open mind will want to see this film. Those who are closed minded will hate it and will try to tell people not to go see it.






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/
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2008, 12:51:14 PM »

You might be right, but it appears that most, if not all, of his interviews are with scientists in the field at Major Universities.  I'm pretty sure the majority of the people he admitted to the debate are in the field.  And he put people like Richard Dawkins in the film with their basically unedited responses. I don't think Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds are in the film. Although since none of us have seen it we are all speculating.

Looking at people's reaction though, Ben Stein seems to have hit a nerve which means he must be hitting close to some truth.

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 


« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:53:25 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
_Seraphim_
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Diocese of Western America (under His Grace Bishop Maxim)
Posts: 657


May Orthodoxy become our orthopraxis


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2008, 02:51:34 PM »

Go Ben Stein!  Did you notice the "Bueller" reference at the end?  Grin

 Grin
Logged

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
-St. Athanasius (†444)

Pray for Orthodox Unity

"Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2008, 04:31:46 PM »

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 



That's about the best summary of the "evolutionist-creationist" "debates" I've ever read! Smiley

As far as the Russian language and literature are concerned... I thought, maybe a good analogy will be, "I can debate a Russian lit professor because I've had a few White Russians before dinner!"  laugh laugh laugh
Logged

Love never fails.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2008, 07:15:13 PM »

As far as the Russian language and literature are concerned... I thought, maybe a good analogy will be, "I can debate a Russian lit professor because I've had a few White Russians before dinner!"  laugh laugh laugh

I like the sounds of that.  Anything that can be made into a drinking game works for me...
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2008, 07:27:45 PM »

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 

^^LOL - A most humourous and apt illustration of the evolution/creationist debate!!
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)
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2008, 07:30:37 PM »

I would like to see this movie but it appears that there are no plans for screening it in Canada.

Who wants to take a video camera into the theatre and make me a copy?  Just kidding . . . or am I?   Grin
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2008, 07:34:40 PM »

I would like to see this movie but it appears that there are no plans for screening it in Canada.

Who wants to take a video camera into the theatre and make me a copy?  Just kidding . . . or am I?   Grin

Sorry, I'm one of the close-minded people, who already hate this film and will be telling everyone to stay away.  Tongue
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)
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2008, 08:07:10 PM »

Sorry, I'm one of the close-minded people, who already hate this film and will be telling everyone to stay away.  Tongue
Fair enough.  I would prefer to get the facts first but I completely understand your opinion; it is for a similar reason that I have never seen and never plan on seeing The DaVinci Code.

Please feel free to cover your eyes when you see any of my future posts regarding this movie  Grin
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2008, 08:16:40 PM »

Fair enough.  I would prefer to get the facts first but I completely understand your opinion; it is for a similar reason that I have never seen and never plan on seeing The DaVinci Code.

Please feel free to cover your eyes when you see any of my future posts regarding this movie  Grin

^^ LOL - Love it!!
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 08:17:26 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)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2008, 08:43:50 PM »

Pravoslavbob - You might find this interesting....

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Holocaust, Stalinism, and the Second World War, and that only Intelligent Design and the intervention of God can adequately explain the existence of life.




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)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2008, 09:15:29 PM »

 
September 27, 2007
Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin
By CORNELIA DEAN

Correction Appended

A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”

The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.

Mr. Stein appears in the film’s trailer, backed by the rock anthem “Bad to the Bone,” declaring that he wants to unmask “people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God.”

If he had known the film’s premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” he said.

Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.

“I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”

The growing furor over the movie, visible in blogs, on Web sites and in conversations among scientists, is the latest episode in the long-running conflict between science and advocates of intelligent design, who assert that the theory of evolution has obvious scientific flaws and that students should learn that intelligent design, a creationist idea, is an alternative approach.

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science.”

Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times, conducts the film’s on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about,” he said in a telephone interview.

Walt Ruloff, a producer and partner in Premise Media, also denied that there was any deception. Mr. Ruloff said in a telephone interview that Rampant Films was a Premise subsidiary, and that the movie’s title was changed on the advice of marketing experts, something he said was routine in filmmaking. He said the film would open in February and would not be available for previews until January.

Judging from material posted online and interviews with people who appear in the film, it cites several people as victims of persecution, including Richard Sternberg, a biologist and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist denied tenure at Iowa State University this year.

Dr. Sternberg was at the center of a controversy over a paper published in 2004 in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed publication he edited at the time. The paper contended that an intelligent agent was a better explanation than evolution for the so-called Cambrian explosion, a great diversification of life forms that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.

The paper’s appearance in a peer-reviewed journal was a coup for intelligent design advocates, but the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which publishes the journal, almost immediately repudiated it, saying it had appeared without adequate review.

Dr. Gonzalez is an astrophysicist and co-author of “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery” (Regnery, 2004). The book asserts that earth’s ability to support complex life is a result of supernatural intervention.

Dr. Gonzalez’s supporters say his views cost him tenure at Iowa State. University officials said their decision was based, among other things, on his record of scientific publications while he was at the university.

Mr. Stein, a prolific author who has acted in movies like “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and appeared on television programs including “Win Ben Stein’s Money” on Comedy Central, said in a telephone interview that he accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.”

On a blog on the “Expelled” Web site, one writer praised Mr. Stein as “a public-intellectual-freedom-fighter” who was taking on “a tough topic with a bit of humor.” Others rejected the film’s arguments as “stupid,” “fallacious” or “moronic,” or described intelligent design as the equivalent of suggesting that the markets moved “at the whim of a monetary fairy.”

Mr. Ruloff, a Canadian who lives in British Columbia, said he turned to filmmaking after selling his software company in the 1990s. He said he decided to make “Expelled,” his first project, after he became interested in genomics and biotechnology but discovered “there are certain questions you are just not allowed to ask and certain approaches you are just not allowed to take.”

He said he knew researchers, whom he would not name, who had studied cellular mechanisms and made findings “riddled with metaphysical implications” and suggestive of an intelligent designer. But they are afraid to report them, he said.

Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

Dr. Collins was not asked to participate in the film.

Another scientist who was, P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, said the film’s producers had misrepresented its purpose, but said he would have agreed to an interview anyway. But, he said in a posting on The Panda’s Thumb Web site, he would have made a “more aggressive” attack on the claims of the movie.

Dr. Scott, whose organization advocates for the teaching of evolution and against what it calls the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, said the filmmakers were exploiting Americans’ sense of fairness as a way to sell their religious views. She said she feared the film would depict “the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong.”

Correction: September 29, 2007


A picture caption with the continuation of a front-page article on Thursday about the coming documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” misidentified the scientist shown. He is Peter Atkins, a chemistry professor at Oxford University — not Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford. (Both men were interviewed for the film.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
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)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2008, 10:08:09 PM »

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?
 

How smug.  I'll deal with that below.

Quote
Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate
Like religion.  I've heard plenty of atheists opine what the Church should do.

Quote
(well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 

because we of course know that every scientist believes in global warming, and all the evidence supports it.

I just had a conversation about this at work (teachers in high school), my colleague expresses surprise that I was cured of evolution at the University of Chicago.  During the course sequence on evolutionary biology.  The "evidence" didn't add up.

Yes, much to your diappointment (and I'm guessing Greeki) there are PLENTY who have read, and more than studied, the works of evolutionists, and know more than enough about the subject matter to be admitted to the debate.

btw, a study on the application of the scientific method done in the 80s would suggest that Brother Jed would do better than Dawkins at it: as Niels Bohr said, opposition to his theories would occur when the old scientists died.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2008, 01:08:25 AM »

Why is it Ben Stein who is leading the movie?  Ben Stein is not a reputable scientist.  That's not his forte.  He claims to interview reputable biologists, but if the point of this movie is to convince reputable scientists, they wouldn't use Ben Stein.  If the point of this movie is to spread ideas among "laymen" using a famous stereotypically "smart" celebrity, then they have done their job.  And just by doing this, the movie becomes suspect on whether its purpose would be a sincere one or not.  At this moment, I feel, like many others here, that the intentions are not sincere, and that the added philosophical baggage (i.e. Holocaust and horrors) only makes it worse among the scientific community.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 01:09:09 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2008, 01:30:19 PM »

I just had a conversation about this at work (teachers in high school)

That terrifies me.  You teach children?!?!? 

If they are letting flat earthists teach children in the US, it is no wonder that US children are about the dumbest in the industrialised world. 
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2008, 04:38:10 PM »

Pravoslavbob - You might find this interesting....

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Holocaust, Stalinism, and the Second World War, and that only Intelligent Design and the intervention of God can adequately explain the existence of life.



It's true. It's called social Darwinism. It was the fad of the age in the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds. Hitler was heavily influenced by it. The Robber Barrians of America were heavily influenced by it. Carnegie Mellon University (a school near Pittsburgh) was at one time involved in it.

The founder of Planned parenthood was heavily influenced by it...........ect.

I maybe wrong, but I think Woodrow Wilson(a U.S. president in the early 19 hundreds) could have been heavily influenced by it as well.

I may be wrong again...because it's been awhile since I looked into it, but I think the "eugenics movment" came from that as well.


When teaching Darwinism in school they never tought us what social Darwinism and Darwinism in general has done to the "Australian Aboriginese". Many of them were hunted and killed and put on display as missing links.

I may be wrong about this next one, because I haven't looked at it in a while, but I think the same was true for the African pygmy. They too were hunted down and put on display as missing links......but don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.



What was said wasn't far from the truth.

You won't learn that in school. You won't learn that when they are forcing neo-Darwinism down your mouth. I had to learn this elsewhere. We were brainwashed in school, and we were only allowed to hear one side of the story.

There is a history to all this and it ain't all peaches and cream. If you have a child then you need to teach your children what they are not getting in school. They will be brainwashed in highschool and college....so teach them the other side of the story.



I'm not against evolution per say.....well I'm against Macro-evolution......but I think both sides should be tought.....both the good and the bad.

Both for & against.







JNORM888


« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 05:02:35 PM by 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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2008, 04:40:19 PM »

All the trailors.



http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php
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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2008, 05:07:33 PM »

That terrifies me.  You teach children?!?!? 

If they are letting flat earthists teach children in the US, it is no wonder that US children are about the dumbest in the industrialised world. 


It's wrong to assume that everyone in the past believed in a flat earth. When Saint Augustine made his defense for "a flat earth" he was arguing against christians who believed the opposite.


If everyone believed in a flat earth then Christopher Columbus wouldn't of risked trying to reach china by way of the Atlantic Ocean. I maybe wrong about what I am about to say because It's been years since I looked at it, but I believe Columbus believed the earth wasn't flat because of what he found in scripture.



Also most of the advances in science in the last 500 years came from both Roman Catholic and Protestant christians.......who believed in both a creator and science.

many of whom were clergymen.



And the idea about American kids being the dumbest in the world has nothing to do with "christian teachers". It has everything to do with the "white flight" in urban areas in the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

And the lack of tax "School Revenue" in certain urban areas. It has a racial and political overtone that goes back to the history of this country. And in Pittsburgh the closing of steel mills and other manufacturing jobs will have an effect on the school district. Without work people can't pay the higher taxes needed for good books and teachers......add to that the full control of the teachers union, and a 9 month school year and you have the problem you have today.

Most home schoolers and private christian schools do well and have high test scores.





So I disagree with your diatribe.










JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 05:27:02 PM by 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/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2008, 08:05:45 PM »


If everyone believed in a flat earth then Christopher Columbus wouldn't of risked trying to reach china by way of the Atlantic Ocean. I maybe wrong about what I am about to say because It's been years since I looked at it, but I ]believe Columbus believed the earth wasn't flat because of what he found in scripture.

Erastothenes perhaps? The objections of the Church to financing Columbus in his endevour to reach the Indies from a western sea route weren't anything to do with people believing in a flat earth. At the time, the circumference of the earth was believed to be more than it acutally is and sailing off into the sunset was considered a death sentence. I remember reading that Columbus presented a much smaller circumference that is actual to convince their Majesties of Spain. I don't recall all the details, but I do recall being flabbergasted when my elder granddaughter came home from her Christian school and told me that her teacher informed her that the Church refused to finance Columbus because Catholics at the time believed in a flat earth.  Roll Eyes

Quote
Also most of the advances in science in the last 500 years came from both Roman Catholic and Protestant christians.......who believed in both a creator and science.

I should imagine that most Christians still do believe in both a Creator and science; though obviously not for the same benefits. And Creation ex nihilo falls under the heading of abiogenesis not evolution. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. I think all would agree that abiogenesis is a fact; there once was no life on earth and that now there is; regardless of how one imagines it all happened. Creation, for instance, is a theory of abiogenesis. And surely, those who exclude the evidence of science are thin on the ground, even though they seem to make so much noise in the US that one might be convinced they are stronger in number that is actual.

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)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2008, 08:27:23 PM »


It's true. It's called social Darwinism. It was the fad of the age in the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds. Hitler was heavily influenced by it. The Robber Barrians of America were heavily influenced by it. Carnegie Mellon University (a school near Pittsburgh) was at one time involved in it.

The founder of Planned parenthood was heavily influenced by it...........ect.

I maybe wrong, but I think Woodrow Wilson(a U.S. president in the early 19 hundreds) could have been heavily influenced by it as well.

I may be wrong again...because it's been awhile since I looked into it, but I think the "eugenics movment" came from that as well.

When teaching Darwinism in school they never tought us what social Darwinism and Darwinism in general has done to the "Australian Aboriginese". Many of them were hunted and killed and put on display as missing links.

I may be wrong about this next one, because I haven't looked at it in a while, but I think the same was true for the African pygmy. They too were hunted down and put on display as missing links......but don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.

What was said wasn't far from the truth.

You won't learn that in school. You won't learn that when they are forcing neo-Darwinism down your mouth. I had to learn this elsewhere. We were brainwashed in school, and we were only allowed to hear one side of the story.

There is a history to all this and it ain't all peaches and cream. If you have a child then you need to teach your children what they are not getting in school. They will be brainwashed in highschool and college....so teach them the other side of the story.

The simple fact is that evolution does not have moral consequences. But mankind does have a wonderful way of finding the answers it desires to promote its particular prejudice. Long before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye, social injustices existed. I guess we could accept that Darwinism or the theory of evolution is the cause of all the social ills you have mentioned, but I think we would be naive in doing so. Rather these things are the result of the twisted interpretation of the theory that has been used by some. In the same way, the bible has been used to promote slavery, the subjugation of women, child-abuse, freakish mind control and so many other social ills that we probably would be wise to burn every copy. However, mankind's misuse of the bible hardly makes the bible at fault.

Quote
I'm not against evolution per say.....well I'm against Macro-evolution

The claim that macro-evolution is distinct from micro-evolution is erroneous.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html.


Quote
......but I think both sides should be tought.....both the good and the bad.

Both sides of what?









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)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2008, 09:29:23 PM »

Quote
And Creation ex nihilo falls under the heading of abiogenesis not evolution. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.

The idea of "evolution" or slow change goes beyond bio life. After the Frence Revolutionary War the idea of slow change over a long period of time became in vogue.


The idea of slow change is the standard idea in alot of different sciences. It's in Cosmology, Geology....ect. Infact, Charles Darwin got his idea of "evolution" from a geology book that he read while on his way to those Islands. He also borrowed a few ideas from his grandfather. Infact, you can find his grandfathers book online.


but in regards to Cosmology:

 slow change of billions of years for Planets and stars to form. It's not uncommon to hear people talk about the "evolution of the universe".



The idea of slow change permeates almost everything. I personally vouch for "Catastrophism". Well ....what I call Theistic Catastrophism. Because God's providencial hand touches everything.





evolution = slow change

revolution = fast change



Quote
Creation, for instance, is a theory of abiogenesis. And surely, those who exclude the evidence of science are thin on the ground, even though they seem to make so much noise in the US that one might be convinced they are stronger in number that is actual.


I disagree. Creation is a theory of the Universe being (ex-nihilo). Creationists disagree among themselves about "abiogenesis".

The problem is not "excluding evidence". This is what uninformed Atheists and Agnostics think. The truth is, modern Creationists interprete the evidence differently. And this is what it comes down to. "Interpreting" the evidence. Creationists can make the same claim that Atheistic and Agnostic scientists pick and choose what evidence they want to show the public.

Most creationists work side by side with Atheistic and Agnostic scientists. The only difference is the Creationists must shut up about their faith or else they will be "prosylatized" or fired from their jobs.


And the reason why it makes so much noise in the US is because we know God isn't dead. And we also know alot of the flaws and history of Darwinism that much of the rest of the World is ignorant of.



Quote
The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.


I disagree. the Darwinian theory of evolution may be talking about "life". But the idea of "evolution" predates Darwin's theory. It first started in Geology. Darwin picked it up and applied it to life. And then it was used for Cosmology.


Quote
The claim that macro-evolution is distinct from micro-evolution is erroneous.

Only to those that reject Creationism and uncritically embrace Darwinism & NeoDarwinism. What is erroneous is to believe that ground crawling Lizards became Feathered birds.

It takes faith to believe in Macro-Evolution. No one ever observed it. We can't observe it....it's nothing more than Darwinism Dogmaticism.

Talk Origins is corny.

Quote
Both sides of what?

The critical and uncritical side of Darwinism. As of right now noone is able to be critical of Darwinism without the threat of loosing their jobs.

Quote
The simple fact is that evolution does not have moral consequences.

Oh yes it does. Read up on "Social Darwinism". It was already tried.


Quote
But mankind does have a wonderful way of finding the answers it desires to promote its particular prejudice.


 Anciestral sin. We all were born with a tendency to please the cravings of the flesh.


Quote
Long before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye, social injustices existed.

True, social Darwinism magnified it. Whatever "restraint" we had was lifted when that social theory was formed. The masses embraced it and much of the evil of the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds was the result.



 
Quote
I guess we could accept that Darwinism or the theory of evolution is the cause of all the social ills you have mentioned, but I think we would be naive in doing so.

It's not Naive.

What Ben Stein was talking about was "Social Darwinism". It's a theory supported by Darwin's friend and propagandist Herbert Spencer. It was real popular first in Germany then in Briton and the US. It eventualy made it's way in countries all over the World.

All beliefs have "implications". To say that Darwinism has no moral implications is naive. Atheists tell me this all the time, but they don't know what evil is....nor do they know what good is....so they don't know what "MORALITY" is.

Darwinism has Moral implications.


Quote
Rather these things are the result of the twisted interpretation of the theory that has been used by some. In the same way, the bible has been used to promote slavery, the subjugation of women, child-abuse, freakish mind control and so many other social ills that we probably would be wise to burn every copy. However, mankind's misuse of the bible hardly makes the bible at fault.



What you call twisting is nothing more than the logical conclusion of the belief system itself. Darwinists misuse the evidence just like mankind misuse the Bible.

Lets look at the Bible as the evidence and mankinds misues of it as the interpretation.

Those who are uncritical of Darwinism and NeoDarwinism are misinterpreting the evidence.


All Ben is trying to do is show the World what many of us knew for decades. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the NeoDarwiists are acting like POPES. And they are putting those who question Darwinism on heresy trials.


By the way. Most of us who question Darwinism don't reject all of it. But we are critical of it.......as we should be.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:20:24 PM by 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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2008, 09:45:11 PM »

Quote
Dr. Scott, whose organization advocates for the teaching of evolution and against what it calls the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, said the filmmakers were exploiting Americans’ sense of fairness as a way to sell their religious views. She said she feared the film would depict “the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong.”

Good! I hope they cry. They need to be exposed because they are unfair.....and now the whole World will see it.








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/
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2008, 09:54:12 PM »

Pravoslavbob - You might find this interesting....

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Holocaust, Stalinism, and the Second World War, and that only Intelligent Design and the intervention of God can adequately explain the existence of life.

Thanks for that.  More evidence to support my boycott of the flim.  Wink


The simple fact is that evolution does not have moral consequences. But mankind does have a wonderful way of finding the answers it desires to promote its particular prejudice. Long before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye, social injustices existed. I guess we could accept that Darwinism or the theory of evolution is the cause of all the social ills you have mentioned, but I think we would be naive in doing so. Rather these things are the result of the twisted interpretation of the theory that has been used by some. In the same way, the bible has been used to promote slavery, the subjugation of women, child-abuse, freakish mind control and so many other social ills that we probably would be wise to burn every copy. However, mankind's misuse of the bible hardly makes the bible at fault.


Well said.  Social Darwinism has very little to do with Darwinism.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:00:37 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2008, 10:05:06 PM »

Why is it Ben Stein who is leading the movie?  Ben Stein is not a reputable scientist.  That's not his forte.  He claims to interview reputable biologists, but if the point of this movie is to convince reputable scientists, they wouldn't use Ben Stein.  If the point of this movie is to spread ideas among "laymen" using a famous stereotypically "smart" celebrity, then they have done their job.  And just by doing this, the movie becomes suspect on whether its purpose would be a sincere one or not.  At this moment, I feel, like many others here, that the intentions are not sincere, and that the added philosophical baggage (i.e. Holocaust and horrors) only makes it worse among the scientific community.

So are you saying Hilter wasn't a fan of Social Darwinism?

Are you saying his racial ideas weren't influenced by Social Darwinism?







JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:05:42 PM by 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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2008, 10:08:47 PM »

Thanks for that.  More evidence to support my boycott of the flim.  Wink



Well said.  Social Darwinism has very little to do with Darwinism.




According to who? To those that believed it in the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds?

Or to those who lived in the last 40 years?


What matters is the belief of the people of the time. And Darwin never denied Social Darwinism. There is a connection.


But to assume that's all the movie is about would be a misnomer. One should wait until the movie comes out first........before making that judgement.




Is Survival of the fittest part of "Darwinism"? Yes or No



Are human beings part of Nature? Yes or No



Why can't humans use what they have to survive over other humans?





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:17:52 PM by 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/
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2008, 11:31:59 PM »

So are you saying Hilter wasn't a fan of Social Darwinism?

Are you saying his racial ideas weren't influenced by Social Darwinism?


JNORM888

Actually Darwinism can both influence Ghandi and Hitler.  It's all about competition of moral traits, not about immorality.  So, we can rightly also say Darwinism is responsible for human altruism, human societal organization, government systems like democratic republics, etc.  These particular traits of human behavior have been more successful than traits of tyranny.  So yes, it's about survival of the fittest, and it seems that certain moral behaviors are the "fittest".

So, to say Darwinism exclusively leads to one thing just shows that Ben Stein really doesn't know what in the world he's talking about, either that or there's really an agenda, or both.

God bless.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 11:36:08 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2008, 04:12:51 PM »

It takes faith to believe in Macro-Evolution. No one ever observed it. We can't observe it....it's nothing more than Darwinism Dogmaticism.

Talk Origins is corny.

This is hardly a compelling argument in response to the contents of the link I posted. Time and time again our own resident biologist has explained that there is no real distinction between micro and macro evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.


There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

Further Reading:
Wilkins, John, 1997. Macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 04:25:45 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)
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2008, 05:47:57 PM »


Well said.  Social Darwinism has very little to do with Darwinism.


I really don't care about ANY "isms." I know facts that say, "life evolves" (e.g., frequencies of alleles and genotypes in populations do change -> evolution, as defined; biogeographical boundaries between independently evolving populations are real -> speciation; mating preferences within vs. between any two of the independently evolving and biogeographically isolated populations are real -> speciation, "genera-ation," "taxonomic tree" etc.). So, life evolves. That's what we know. What philosophy this or that dimwit constructs based on this - I care not and it's not gonna change my understanding that there are facts supporting the idea that life evolves. So, LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. (...)  Grin
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 05:51:27 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2008, 08:09:10 PM »

^^LOL - I hear you, brother!
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)
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2008, 09:04:39 PM »

Thank you, George, but I'm afraid your voice will not fall on receptive ears, especially in the religious community. People would rather listen to people with money than people with ideas.

As far as the movie trailer itself, I found Ben Stein's use of Holocaust images to be both tedious and insulting. Comparing your pet peeve to the Holocaust is tired rhetoric and hardly adds to the debate. Moreover, comparing the current debate between scientists who conduct actual research and ignorami who do not even understand the theory they so abhor to genocide insults the memory of every Holocaust victim. It reduces them to the victim of a philosophy rather than of the atrocities of a man who chose to hate. One can only hope Ben Stein's movie falls under the same "persecution" that happened to Mel Gibson. They both need an emergency egodectomy.
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
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2008, 09:18:42 PM »

All of this talk of the ideology of the Holocaust as if it happened as a single unified event is entirely ahistorical and merely a regurgitation of Allied propaganda (having a few scapegoats made creating post-war Europe far simpler, and nobody really likes to admit their own guilt in these matters anyway).  Regardless of the ideology of the Nazi elite, the crimes of the Third Reich and its puppet states took the cooperation and active participation of large percentages of the involved populations.  Rather than this being some violent atheistic rage, Catholicism was deeply intertwined in the Croatian nationalism that produced Jasenovac.  Christianity's historical role in whipping up anti-semetic frenzies was certainly a sine qua non to the crimes that were committed in many cases (an interesting example is the Kielce Pogrom which was committed AFTER  the conclusion of the war).  Many people acted for many different reasons in one of the most complex events in human history - a simplistic scapegoating of darwinism for this is ludicrous and entirely inaccurate.  If a "documentary" is going to make that large of a factual error, why is it worth paying attention to anything else it claims?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2008, 11:05:10 PM »

That terrifies me.  You teach children?!?!? 

If they are letting flat earthists teach children in the US, it is no wonder that US children are about the dumbest in the industrialised world. 

Yes, they should be taught by pinheads instead.

I think it has been mentioned several times that I teach High School.  You just noticing?

I think it also came up that you don't have children.

The problem with US children is the brat progeny of Dr. Spock, whose repentance of it has been mentioned on another thread.  In conection with the gun scare at my school Friday (yes, the greatest threat is that flat earth morality.  Got to get it out of their heads!).

I went undergrad and grad to the U of C, you know, the place with all the Nobel Prizes?  Whatever you can do, we can do meta. Where'd you get your sheep skin?

One of my best friends from my undergrad years was a paleotology student, and I recall him bringing up some survey of high school science teachers, showing some number (40%?) didn't believe in evolution.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2008, 11:14:56 PM »

Thank you, George, but I'm afraid your voice will not fall on receptive ears, especially in the religious community. People would rather listen to people with money than people with ideas.

Assertion.  Care to explain and back it up?

Quote
As far as the movie trailer itself, I found Ben Stein's use of Holocaust images to be both tedious and insulting. Comparing your pet peeve to the Holocaust is tired rhetoric and hardly adds to the debate. Moreover, comparing the current debate between scientists who conduct actual research and ignorami who do not even understand the theory they so abhor to genocide insults the memory of every Holocaust victim. It reduces them to the victim of a philosophy rather than of the atrocities of a man who chose to hate. One can only hope Ben Stein's movie falls under the same "persecution" that happened to Mel Gibson.
You mean that Ben makes millions?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2008, 11:28:35 PM »

I'm going to really put the cat amongst the pigeons and state that what I have seen on the net concerning the underhanded practices of the people who are connected to this production is appalling. Whatever the merits are of a cause, they aren't served by deceit.

Richard Dawkins claims to have been duped with regard to the nature of the documentary. PZ Myers, who was also featured in the doco claims the same and he was actually expelled - ironic, isn't it? - from the theatre where the film was shown. If anyone is interested, the details are at http://blog.dave.org.uk/2008/03/expelled-no-intelligence-allow.html where there is a link to a discussion between Dawkins and Myers after the showing of the film. Dawkins has his own blog page already up and running. Titled "Lying for Jesus" it's at http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins.

As a Christian, I believe it's part of our walk to be ridiculed for our belief in a Risen Lord, and hey nonny nonny, we take it on the chin. However, Christians ridiculed as paranoid liars is a growing trend within the scientific and atheist communities.

Shouldn't we be putting aside any reservations we might have concerning the theory of evolution and joining in the outcry that fellow theists have stooped to dishonourable measures. As it is, we have egg on our faces, and can do nothing but cringe that, not only are our beliefs ridiculed again, we are being denounced as unethical liars, all because of the outrageous behaviour of a few noise makers.

Please forgive me if I cause offence, but truth is more important to me than any attempt to put atheists in their place; especially an attempt that is on such shakey ground. And I hate to see the "other side" get the upper hand because we, as Christians, dropped the ball. Whatever anti-evolutionists believe, the end does not justify the means.
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)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2008, 11:31:18 PM »

Nice... this movie was produced in more or less the same manner as Borat.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2008, 11:38:31 PM »

Nice... this movie was produced in more or less the same manner as Borat.

Funny, that's what I thought too.  What a shame.  This is the ridicule I think St. Augustine worried about as well:

Quote
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2008, 11:50:10 PM »

Funny, that's what I thought too.  What a shame.  This is the ridicule I think St. Augustine worried about as well:

I believe you are correct. I have no idea what the film Borat is, though. Huh Smiley
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)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #50 on: March 30, 2008, 11:51:11 PM »

I have no idea what the film Borat is, though. Huh Smiley

Consider yourself lucky. 
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2008, 12:21:48 AM »

Consider yourself lucky. 


LOL - That bad, eh?
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)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2008, 12:25:29 AM »

I think it has been mentioned several times that I teach High School.  You just noticing?

Sorry to disappoint, I'm not your OC.net stalker.  I pretty much use OC.net to pass the time during boring lectures and when I have time to kill (i.e when I should be studying)... so hardly read every thread.

Quote
I think it also came up that you don't have children.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but when my fiancee and I, God willing, have children someday we plan to teach them evilution... and raise them as Christians. 

Quote
The problem with US children is the brat progeny of Dr. Spock, whose repentance of it has been mentioned on another thread.  In conection with the gun scare at my school Friday

That'd be nice, expect that countries far more progressive than Dr. Spock have far lower rates of violent crime and school shootings (which are a very new fad in Europe and copy cats from God's very own USA).  But this seems to be how you typically post in a thread: throw in a bunch of random information that has no relevance at all but shows how some grand liberal and godless conspiracy (run of course by GiC and I) is destroying the world.  All that is missing is you starting each post with "Jane, you ignorant..." 

Quote
survey of high school science teachers, showing some number (40%?) didn't believe in evolution.

If one drops the former CSA states, hopefully that number becomes something more reasonable.   
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 12:29:58 AM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2008, 12:28:34 AM »


LOL - That bad, eh?

Enjoy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QF1_rxZEQNU

I made it about 15 minutes into the movie before I stopped watching, that's how bad it was. 
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2008, 12:33:02 AM »

Enjoy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QF1_rxZEQNU

I made it about 15 minutes into the movie before I stopped watching, that's how bad it was. 

Oh dear, I see what you mean.
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)
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2008, 01:49:00 AM »

S
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but when my fiancee and I, God willing, have children someday we plan to teach them evilution... and raise them as Christians. 

Ok Nektarios did you write that consciously, because I think I busted my colon laughing at that HAHAHA
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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2008, 01:53:27 AM »

Ok Nektarios did you write that consciously, because I think I busted my colon laughing at that HAHAHA

Oh, I missed the "evilution"!! LOL
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)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2008, 03:02:40 AM »

Ok Nektarios did you write that consciously

 Wink Grin
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2008, 07:14:08 AM »

Sorry to disappoint, I'm not your OC.net stalker.  I pretty much use OC.net to pass the time during boring lectures and when I have time to kill (i.e when I should be studying)... so hardly read every thread.

No disappointment.  Sorry to burst the projection of paranoia.  It's been mentioned on threads I've parried with you and Greeki.

Quote
Not sure what that has to do with anything,

when you do, perhaps you will figure it out.

 
Quote
but when my fiancee and I, God willing, have children someday we plan to teach them evilution... and raise them as Christians.
 
And the smugness rolls on.  Where are you taking those boring lectures again?

Quote
That'd be nice, expect that countries far more progressive than Dr. Spock have far lower rates of violent crime and school shootings (which are a very new fad in Europe and copy cats from God's very own USA).  But this seems to be how you typically post in a thread: throw in a bunch of random information that has no relevance at all but shows how some grand liberal and godless conspiracy (run of course by GiC and I) is destroying the world.  All that is missing is you starting each post with "Jane, you ignorant..."
 

Yes, the great right wing conspiracy strikes again.

As for you and Greeki, fish don't know they are wet.

Btw, I've been to Europe. Several times in fact, and was married to one. A lot of the social conformity, even in the heard of independent minds, has a lot to do with the difference.

Quote
If one drops the former CSA states, hopefully that number becomes something more reasonable.   

And the argument from ignorance rolls on.  What's with the animus with the South?

Btw, I'm in a blue state, Illinois, and an even bluer city, Chicago.

And with that, I think I'll start focusing on fora less and on Great Lent more.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 08:41:04 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #59 on: March 31, 2008, 09:40:52 AM »

I'm only against those theories that exclude God as creator. I think you can have forms of evolution, which was started/caused by God. However, you cannot have absolute darwinism/evolution, because it takes God out of the picture. Yet even in the Creed it states: "I Believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible" So we know God created ALL things. Thus to say everything comes from evolution, and all life is a cause of evolution is against our own Creed. Yet to believe that God caused evolution among living things (Created them, then caused evolution) I think, is not against the Creed.

Personally, I could care less how God did it, that isn't for me to know. All I know is that everything was created by him.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 09:41:51 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #60 on: March 31, 2008, 12:48:49 PM »

Yes, the great right wing conspiracy strikes again.

I have nothing against right wing ideology - I'm a card carrying Republican and quite happy to live in the home state of the great Barry Goldwater.  There is a difference between not wanting religious zealots to set school curricula over legitimate science and paranoia.  Thankfully the whole evolution "debate" is laughable and should be a non-issue by the time I have high school age children.  Then I can focus on my real grievances with the US education system: not teaching foreign languages well, kids graduating with no knowledge of even the classic literary works in their native language, lack of any real teaching of history etc.

Quote
Btw, I've been to Europe. Several times in fact, and was married to one. A lot of the social conformity, even in the heard of independent minds, has a lot to do with the difference.

Ok, so you concede my point that the problems among American youth are a bit more complex than simply scapegoating Dr. Spock's ideas.  I feel like I'm talking to Michael Moore - take a few unrelated events, a few axes to grind and voilà...

Quote
What's with the animus with the South?

Sherman's march wasn't extensive enough. 

Quote
Btw, I'm in a blue state, Illinois, and an even bluer city, Chicago.

Your bad.

Quote
And with that, I think I'll start focusing on fora less and on Great Lent more.

And with it being Opening Day for the Diamondbacks and the first pitch being in just over an hour, definitely less time on the forum around here. 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 12:51:12 PM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #61 on: March 31, 2008, 12:58:36 PM »

I really don't care about ANY "isms."

You're preaching to the choir here, Heorhij.  Wink  I was going to put "Darwinism" in quotation marks in my post, but decided against it.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #62 on: March 31, 2008, 01:19:08 PM »

I'm only against those theories that exclude God as creator. I think you can have forms of evolution, which was started/caused by God. However, you cannot have absolute darwinism/evolution, because it takes God out of the picture.

In order to avoid duplication of arguments, could you please seek out the  many discussions we've had? You see, we've been over this topic....ummm, well, quite a few times here at OC.net.  I am expecting Heorhij to enter the picture any second with a reasoned refutation of your remarks, so I will try and save him the trouble....

Scientific theories cannot, by their very nature, either include or exclude God.  It is not within the realm of how science works to incorporate or not incorporate an element of the divine.  Unfortunately, people who are otherwise very competent scientists seem to be incompetent enough in other areas of life that they arrogantly assume, (along with some theologians who should know better) that science has all the answers for any metaphysical  questions that might trouble humanity.  Other theologians who should know better (and many who are simply incompetent and incapable of knowing better) oppose these scientists and apostate(?) theologians, replaying the scene that has been played on the Western stage of civilisation since at least the time of Galileo and probably earlier.  The Western Church, by agreeing to counter "science" on its own playing field (ie, on terms defined by "science"), has condemned itself to losing the war, since only "scientific" criteria of "proof" can be accepted as evidence.  And we all know that if anything isn't rational, it must by definition be irrational, don't we? Wink  After all, we live in the post-Enlightenment West.  Of course, I shouldn't just cite the West and leave out the East, because the whole world is now so under the thraal of Western categories of "normalcy", that it doesn't know what has hit it.  It seems to me that a lot of Orthodox have this kind of knee-jerk reaction to the whole debate and side with "creationists".  It's like they're saying to themselves:  "hmmm.  Orthodoxy is "conservative", right?  Guess I'd better show my conseravative colours and stand up for "creationism"!"  (Of course, Orthodoxy is neither conservative nor liberal, but the living faith of the apostles...but this is a discussion for another thread.) 

BTW, I'd like to pre-empt a bashing from GIC or lubeltri or whoever else who would like to accuse me of being anti-Enlightenment or anti-Western.  I actually think that a lot of good things came out of the Enlightenment.  I really value science, in fact I am a scientist of sorts, though of a much humbler variety than Heorhij.  I don't mean to say that science cannot enter the realm of the metaphysical at times; in fact, fascinating work being done in physics right is going in this direction, and it's mind boggling.  But in the field of evolution?  For now, at any rate, there is no mixture at all.

I am a convinced Orthodox Christian.  I am also a convinced believer in evolution.  Are there things that we don't understand fully?  Absolutely, on both the theological and scientific end of things.  Just because evolution appears to be random is no reason at all to deny God's hand in things.  (How spiritually childish and oafishly cataphatic can one be?  This points to  one reason of several why I personally find this debate so tiresome.)  What appears as being "random" to us limited human creatures indeed hides greater mysteries beyond our understanding.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 02:07:30 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
stewie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #63 on: March 31, 2008, 04:10:30 PM »

isn't what it all comes down to that science has a lot of question marks - the most significant being that there is no theory that addresses how matter is created out of nothing.  Sure, we have the big bang and everything that comes after it, but nobody can explain HOW or WHY all of this came about. 

so I don't see why science and religion have to be in opposition to each other.  In fact, it seems like a uniquely American debate.  and a very superficial one, at that.

As for Mr. Stein, I'm not a fan.  He comes across as a blowhard with very strong opinions about things he knows litte about (his recent financial columns are quite bad).  And the movie itself seems like a Michael Moore-esque one-sided farce.  I'll still watch it though, because it looks entertaining. 
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #64 on: March 31, 2008, 04:25:09 PM »

Assertion.  Care to explain and back it up?
Sure. Hypothetically: Take a noteworthy scientist and ask them to explain a theory they've been working on. Count the number of people who show up. Now take a celebrity and ask them to explain the same theory. Which head count do you think will be higher?

Quote
You mean that Ben makes millions?
I mean that I hope Stein's anti-intellectualism is revealed as clearly as Gibson's anti-semitism.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #65 on: March 31, 2008, 05:57:48 PM »

Sure. Hypothetically: Take a noteworthy scientist and ask them to explain a theory they've been working on. Count the number of people who show up. Now take a celebrity and ask them to explain the same theory. Which head count do you think will be higher?
You said:
Thank you, George, but I'm afraid your voice will not fall on receptive ears, especially in the religious community. People would rather listen to people with money than people with ideas.
Most of the religious community do not worship the idols of secular fame.

So to answer your question, really, neither.  A group of pinheads and a group of empty heads is about the same, no matter the number.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #66 on: April 02, 2008, 08:28:28 PM »

Sherman's march wasn't extensive enough.
I am reminded of the beautiful city of Savannah, Georgia, the jewel of the South.  It was spared by Sherman, who offered it intact to President Lincoln as a gift.  I'm stationed a few miles down the road, and I visit it often.  Just a few more months and I'll be back... Smiley

The discussion of a movie I'll probably never see may now continue...
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #67 on: April 03, 2008, 05:02:53 PM »

You said:Most of the religious community do not worship the idols of secular fame.
That's not been my experience. Dr. Phil and Oprah are just as much idols in most "Christian" homes as well. Even those who claim to be discriminating merely switch celebrities for "Christian" celebrities. They denounce Jim Carrey for his role in Bruce Almighty while praising Kirk Cameron for his role in Left Behind. The sad truth is that most Christians have no idea what their religion is all about. So yes, the words of a Christian standing by the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation of why species change over time will likely fall on deaf ears. They certainly do around here.

Quote
So to answer your question, really, neither.  A group of pinheads and a group of empty heads is about the same, no matter the number.
I agree with you, but I would venture to guess that the millions who flocked to see Mel Gibson's piece of trash will be breaking down the doors to see this one. It all depends on how much they spend on advertising.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2008, 08:07:16 PM »

Erastothenes perhaps? The objections of the Church to financing Columbus in his endevour to reach the Indies from a western sea route weren't anything to do with people believing in a flat earth. At the time, the circumference of the earth was believed to be more than it acutally is and sailing off into the sunset was considered a death sentence. I remember reading that Columbus presented a much smaller circumference that is actual to convince their Majesties of Spain. I don't recall all the details, but I do recall being flabbergasted when my elder granddaughter came home from her Christian school and told me that her teacher informed her that the Church refused to finance Columbus because Catholics at the time believed in a flat earth.  Roll Eyes

The scripture was 2 Esdras 6:52:
On the third day Thou didst command the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts Thou didst dry up and keep so that some of them might be planted and cultiveated and be of service before Thee.

Columbus figured that the Atlantic couldn't be so wide, and convinced their most catholic majesties to finance the journey.  Btw, if Ferd and Isa were "Christian" they wouldn't have paid attention to "Catholic" scripture.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2008, 08:15:40 PM »

That's not been my experience. Dr. Phil and Oprah are just as much idols in most "Christian" homes as well. Even those who claim to be discriminating merely switch celebrities for "Christian" celebrities. They denounce Jim Carrey for his role in Bruce Almighty while praising Kirk Cameron for his role in Left Behind. The sad truth is that most Christians have no idea what their religion is all about. So yes, the words of a Christian standing by the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation of why species change over time will likely fall on deaf ears. They certainly do around here.
I agree with you, but I would venture to guess that the millions who flocked to see Mel Gibson's piece of trash will be breaking down the doors to see this one. It all depends on how much they spend on advertising.

If you are refering to "the Passion" (a great movie, btw), I heard plenty on it in all quarters.  I've heard of this movie only on this thread.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2008, 09:16:57 PM »

The scripture was 2 Esdras 6:52:
On the third day Thou didst command the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts Thou didst dry up and keep so that some of them might be planted and cultiveated and be of service before Thee.

Not sure what point you are making.

Quote
Columbus figured that the Atlantic couldn't be so wide, and convinced their most catholic majesties to finance the journey.

Columbus used figures that were understated; and, of course, he had no idea that the continent of America was in the direct path of the illusive sea-route to the treasures of India etc. I don't remember the name of the chap whose figures he used and my books are still packed away, so I can't check.

Quote
Btw, if Ferd and Isa were "Christian" they wouldn't have paid attention to "Catholic" scripture.

Not sure what point you are making.

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)
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #71 on: April 04, 2008, 08:52:03 AM »

If you are refering to "the Passion" (a great movie, btw), I heard plenty on it in all quarters.  I've heard of this movie only on this thread.
So have I, but like I said, the amount of money a movie brings in is largely determined by the amount of money spent on advertisement. It is my sincere hope that this movie falls into oblivion and ruins the career of Ben Stein the way Left Behind ruined Kirk Cameron's reputation. Unfortunately, I don't think it will. We'll be hearing more on this from all quarters soon enough.
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
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,909


« Reply #72 on: April 04, 2008, 09:45:18 AM »

Nice... this movie was produced in more or less the same manner as Borat.
deleted, not worth the time to have posted here. have a nice day.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 09:56:35 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #73 on: May 17, 2008, 09:41:24 AM »

Not sure what point you are making.

Columbus used figures that were understated; and, of course, he had no idea that the continent of America was in the direct path of the illusive sea-route to the treasures of India etc. I don't remember the name of the chap whose figures he used and my books are still packed away, so I can't check.

Not sure what point you are making.



The point is that part of Columbus' argument to their "Most Catholic Majesties" on the smaller circumference was based in part on scripture the Protestants reject, and its interpretation.  Not saying that I agree with the interpretation, but just acknowledging the part that interpretation played in the decision to support the voyage.

Btw, I like the commercial for the movie.  Not far off from its portrayal of academia.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 09:42:23 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 17, 2008, 03:44:27 PM »

I thought the movie was good. I saw it some weeks ago. I thought the movie was pretty balanced too. They allowed both sides to talk about their points.


In doing so, you saw that every Atheistic Scientist wasn't on the same level as another Atheistic scientist, and every Chreationist wasn't the same either.

You had one Atheistic scientist that was honest about the implications of Atheism. I think this one point alone, is worth seeing the movie.


Over all, I thought it was good.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 03:48:45 PM by 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/
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #75 on: August 25, 2008, 06:15:21 AM »

I heard a lot about this movie. I'm going to watch it--in fact several times; once for me, and once each for Nectarios, Minasoliman, Pravoslavbob, and Iambic Pen. And no, I'm not toothless! (well I am missing one tooth).

BTW, you all are aware that Columbus began his expedition with not three, but four ships?

Apparently, one fell over the  edge! Wink
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #76 on: August 25, 2008, 09:45:50 AM »

Also most of the advances in science in the last 500 years came from both Roman Catholic and Protestant christians.......who believed in both a creator and science.

many of whom were clergymen


Slave dealers, thieves, killers, land barons and money men.

You missed a few people.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 09:51:17 AM by Amdetsion » Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 25, 2008, 06:37:10 PM »

I heard a lot about this movie. I'm going to watch it--in fact several times; once for me, and once each for Nectarios, Minasoliman, Pravoslavbob, and Iambic Pen. And no, I'm not toothless! (well I am missing one tooth).

BTW, you all are aware that Columbus began his expedition with not three, but four ships?

Apparently, one fell over the  edge! Wink

I'm flattered and unworthy to be named among people like Nectarios and Pravoslavbob.

But I will say I get my inspiration now from people like the Catholic Dr. Kenneth Miller, PhD and the evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins, MD.  I encourage you to watch whatever you want to watch two more times just for these guys.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #78 on: August 25, 2008, 07:37:38 PM »

I'm flattered and unworthy to be named among people like Nectarios and Pravoslavbob.

But I will say I get my inspiration now from people like the Catholic Dr. Kenneth Miller, PhD and the evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins, MD.  I encourage you to watch whatever you want to watch two more times just for these guys.  Roll Eyes

I agree. Let these people be a light in a dark world of ignorance!
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)
Son of Man
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 09, 2008, 11:12:49 PM »

Here's a funny rap video about Expelled.  : )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mkcfdrB9EQ
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2008, 11:20:06 PM »

Here's a funny rap video about Expelled.  : )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mkcfdrB9EQ

I don't think I'm going to be able to ever read anything by Richard Dawkins again without seeing that clip! Shame on you for corrupting an innocent yiayia!  laugh
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 11:20:26 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)
Acolyte
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Jurisdictionalism is sin.
Posts: 202



« Reply #81 on: September 16, 2008, 05:51:44 PM »

Please read this review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #82 on: October 25, 2008, 04:37:30 PM »


Quote
So what’s going on here with this stupid Expelled movie? No, I haven’t seen the dang thing. I’ve been reading about it steadily for weeks now though....

And I should read further why?  Seems to confirm Ben's point: have to shut up those you can't debate.  Reading the rest of the article confirms that.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 04:48:33 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #83 on: October 25, 2008, 04:55:43 PM »

I thought the movie was good. I saw it some weeks ago. I thought the movie was pretty balanced too. They allowed both sides to talk about their points.


In doing so, you saw that every Atheistic Scientist wasn't on the same level as another Atheistic scientist, and every Chreationist wasn't the same either.

You had one Atheistic scientist that was honest about the implications of Atheism. I think this one point alone, is worth seeing the movie.


Over all, I thought it was good.




JNORM888

It was excellent.  I can see why the PC crowd doesn't like it.  Those parallels to Stalin, Communism and Nazism always makes them nervous.  Btw, I noticed a lot of the expelled scientists, etc. went to the U of C, where I was cured of evolutionism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justinian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 176


« Reply #84 on: October 25, 2008, 06:43:34 PM »

I thought the movie was good. I saw it some weeks ago. I thought the movie was pretty balanced too. They allowed both sides to talk about their points.


In doing so, you saw that every Atheistic Scientist wasn't on the same level as another Atheistic scientist, and every Chreationist wasn't the same either.

You had one Atheistic scientist that was honest about the implications of Atheism. I think this one point alone, is worth seeing the movie.


Over all, I thought it was good.




JNORM888

It was excellent.  I can see why the PC crowd doesn't like it.  Those parallels to Stalin, Communism and Nazism always makes them nervous.  Btw, I noticed a lot of the expelled scientists, etc. went to the U of C, where I was cured of evolutionism.


Oh, what nonsense.

Stalin and the rest of the Communist gang were Lamarckians, Darwinism did not fit within Marxist ideology. Furthermore, Hitler and Stalin were not the only one's who built nations on the so-called "Darwinian" ends-justify-the-means ideology. 
Logged

"All this indignation have I hurled, At the pretending part of the proud world. Who, swollen with selfish vanity devise: false freedoms, holy cheats, and formal lies, Over their fellow slaves to tyrannize." - John Wilmot
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #85 on: October 25, 2008, 08:04:45 PM »

It's not so much that the parallels are making whoever nervous.  It's simply a one-sided, prejudiced view of the matter.  To say that evolution lead to Hitler is like saying black people are criminals.  As I said before:

Actually Darwinism can both influence Ghandi and Hitler.  It's all about competition of moral traits, not about immorality.  So, we can rightly also say Darwinism is responsible for human altruism, human societal organization, government systems like democratic republics, etc.  These particular traits of human behavior have been more successful than traits of tyranny.  So yes, it's about survival of the fittest, and it seems that certain moral behaviors are the "fittest".

So, to say Darwinism exclusively leads to one thing just shows that Ben Stein really doesn't know what in the world he's talking about, either that or there's really an agenda, or both.

God bless.

Ben Stein either was ignorant or had underlying deceptive motives.  Don't be fooled by what a lawyer tries to tell you about science.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 08:05:58 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #86 on: October 25, 2008, 11:58:52 PM »

I thought the movie was good. I saw it some weeks ago. I thought the movie was pretty balanced too. They allowed both sides to talk about their points.


In doing so, you saw that every Atheistic Scientist wasn't on the same level as another Atheistic scientist, and every Chreationist wasn't the same either.

You had one Atheistic scientist that was honest about the implications of Atheism. I think this one point alone, is worth seeing the movie.


Over all, I thought it was good.




JNORM888

It was excellent.  I can see why the PC crowd doesn't like it.  Those parallels to Stalin, Communism and Nazism always makes them nervous.  Btw, I noticed a lot of the expelled scientists, etc. went to the U of C, where I was cured of evolutionism.


Oh, what nonsense.

Stalin and the rest of the Communist gang were Lamarckians,

Their problem was with Mendel, not Darwin.

Quote
Darwinism did not fit within Marxist ideology.


That would be news to Lenin, who saw a troika of Hegelian dialectics, class struggle in history and the unification of the laws of evolution of Darwin and Marx.

Btw, the Marketplace-solves-all-problems crowd is just as materialistic as the Marxists.  Sorry, Gordon Gekko, greed is a deadly sin, and NEVER good.

Quote
Furthermore, Hitler and Stalin were not the only one's who built nations on the so-called "Darwinian" ends-justify-the-means ideology. 
Didn't say they were.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #87 on: October 26, 2008, 12:17:13 AM »

It's not so much that the parallels are making whoever nervous.
Roll Eyes
Quote
It's simply a one-sided, prejudiced view of the matter.
 

Unlike the Academy. Roll Eyes police

The evolutionists had their say in the movie.  Perhaps they didn't like Dawkins being so honest.

Quote
To say that evolution lead to Hitler is like saying black people are criminals.

You're comparing apples and wombats.

Hitler and his theories make explicit reference to Darwin and Darwinism.


  As I said before:

Actually Darwinism can both influence Ghandi and Hitler.  It's all about competition of moral traits, not about immorality.  So, we can rightly also say Darwinism is responsible for human altruism, human societal organization, government systems like democratic republics, etc.  These particular traits of human behavior have been more successful than traits of tyranny.  So yes, it's about survival of the fittest, and it seems that certain moral behaviors are the "fittest".

Wasn't the history-is-ended argument put the rest already?  I've seen the Darwinists grappling with the altruism problem, without success.

Democratic republics?  Not even close: absolute monarchies are far ahead in the range of historical survival.  The United States didn't even survive its first century (unless you want to classify Sherman's march as part of Lincoln's campaign for a second term Tongue).

Quote
So, to say Darwinism exclusively leads to one thing just shows that Ben Stein really doesn't know what in the world he's talking about,
Quote

Since Mr. Stein doesn't say that, do you know what you are talking about?

 
Quote
either that or there's really an agenda, or both.
Judge not....
Quote
Ben Stein either was ignorant or had underlying deceptive motives.  Don't be fooled by what a lawyer tries to tell you about science.

Yes, that's why the evolutionists resort to the courts, as Mr. Stein shows.

I never trust a lawyer's word on anything, including the law.  In fact, especially the law.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 26, 2008, 02:23:22 AM »

What did Dawkins say?  I didn't watch the movie.

You're not getting it.  Just because Hitler mentions evolution doesn't make evolution equivalent to Hitler's ideals.  When St. Constantine was emperor, he used the Cross to fight in war and kill the enemy.  Does that mean using the Cross will help you win bloody wars?  Hitler's use of evolution to justify his actions does not mean evolution is the culprit.

The battle with altruism is not so hard.  We see it in other animals.  That tells us the trait of altruism was adopted for the use of survival also.  Groups got together and seem to understand that if they help one another, love one another, they can actually survive together, and make offspring successfully.  What a novel idea!  Instead of fighting, live in peace.  This is where competition of traits come by.  The trait of altruism vs. the trait of totalitarianism.  Evolution is not the latter only, or the former only.  The fight between the traits is the fundamental law of evolution.

What I seem to understand is that the movie (which shamefully lied to Dawkins and many other evolutionists, not quite the exemplary attitude) simply explained one side of evolution, but not the other.  Yes, there are evolutionists that will show you how altruism evolved.  I don't see how "you saw evolutionists" grapple with the issue.  Are you a scientist of some sort?  Did you read journal articles?  Have you experienced a committee that had heavy debates.  How did you "see" this exactly?

I recommend two books for you, both by Christian scientists.  Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" and Francis Collins "The Language of God," and I think they're brilliant and to the point in addressing not only objections to evolution, but also objections to theism from people like Dawkins.  These are where the HONEST attacks lie.  Not Ben Stein's Law School tactics.  And just to be a nitpick:

Quote
I never trust a lawyer's word on anything, including the law.  In fact, especially the law.

Then you don't trust the documentary to begin with.  Ben Stein's specialty is Law.  He takes a position, and sticks with it without regard to objectivity.  I wouldn't go as far as saying I don't trust lawyers on "anything, including the law."  But using Law School tactics on science is not valid.  One can easily come up with the refutations.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #89 on: October 26, 2008, 10:17:14 AM »

What did Dawkins say?  I didn't watch the movie.
Roll Eyes

He says a lot of things, but one is that he up front says that he is the worst spokesman for evolution, because he would have to say under oath that theism and evolution are incompatible.  Now, that's admittedly just his opinion (one that I don't share, but many ID and Creationists and, importantly, Evolutionists do), but it comes up in the documentary when the evolutionists get into a discussion of their support from mainstream/liberal Christians.

The accute embassment of Mr. Dawkins can come from Ben's interview with him following up on the idea of Panspermia (one of the most hilarious parts of the movie on the origins of life "Aliens did it," an idea that Mr. Stein correctly identifies with Dr. Crick, whom he correctly identifies as the discoverer of DNA.  Btw, Dr. Crick accepted the position at Churchcill College because it didn't have a chapel, and resigned in protest when the College accepted the donation of one.  So much for tolerance).  Mr. Dawkins admits that life could have a designer, but admanently denies it could be God.  How objective and undogmatic. Roll Eyes

One critic said the movie contradicts itself: the first half says ID has nothing to do with religion (and it doesn't) but then the second half goes on to accuse the evolutionists with irreligion.  The critic misses the point: the evolutionists pushing the expulsion (not all evolutionsts) themselves make the point that science and religion are incompatible, and are enforcing dogmatic conformity on that issue.  Many of those pointing out that evolutionsists, not the ID people, are acting out of dogma are self-described agnostics, non-religious, Jews, etc. (Ben Stein mentions himself in the last group in passing).

Quote
You're not getting it.  Just because Hitler mentions evolution doesn't make evolution equivalent to Hitler's ideals.


You're not getting it.  Because Hitler mentions evolution means a facile statement "that's not true evolutioniary science" isn't going to do.  Marxists do just as much when they say Stalinism isn't true communism (Gorbochev went so far to say that it wasn't true Leninism Roll Eyes).  In particular when the Academy trying to discredit ID has a vested interest in claiming the rights to decide whether Nazism was properly based on evolutionary science.  You yourself said:
Actually Darwinism can both influence Ghandi and Hitler.
whicn means it is a two edged sword.  People don't like how Hitler used the sword, so they say he didn't use it properly.  How so?

Quote
When St. Constantine was emperor, he used the Cross to fight in war and kill the enemy.

I can't remember the movie when the actor grabs a processional Cross to fight off the mob.

Quote
  Does that mean using the Cross will help you win bloody wars?
Uh, who won at Milvian bridge?

Quote
  Hitler's use of evolution to justify his actions does not mean evolution is the culprit.

How about contributing factor?  Accessory?

Quote
The battle with altruism is not so hard.  We see it in other animals.  That tells us the trait of altruism was adopted for the use of survival also.  Groups got together and seem to understand that if they help one another,

Help those that help them.  A great ethicist once said "Can't the heathen do the same."

Btw, Darwin stated the lack of charity and the abundance of cruelty in the animal world of natural selection made him lose his faith in God.  Another failed seminarian.

Quote
love one another,

your anthropomorphism is showing

Quote
they can actually survive together, and make offspring successfully.

You haven't described any population in the animal world (except the human: the deprivileging of man by evolution and the consequences is something the movie touches on).  At least none that evolutionary biology has studied.

Quote
What a novel idea!  Instead of fighting, live in peace.  This is where competition of traits come by.

and Survival of the Fittest goes where?

Quote
The trait of altruism vs. the trait of totalitarianism.  Evolution is not the latter only, or the former only.

The Eugenicists make a better argument that Evolution is the former only (something the doc also shows, and yes, where Nazism comes in at that point).

Quote
The fight between the traits is the fundamental law of evolution.
What happened to the "make love, not war" you espoused above?  That "instead of fighting, live in peace?"  Now you are sounding like a Eugenicist.

Quote
What I seem to understand is that the movie (which shamefully lied to Dawkins and many other evolutionists, not quite the exemplary attitude)

I don't know: what is the ethics on undercover reporting?  Do investigators announce themselves to those they are investigating?

The movie makes reference to the fact that what many evolutionists say in public and what they say in private amongst themselves are two different things.  Is it dishonest to bring that out? (Btw, being at the U of C and working amongst Democratic constituencies, I can attest to that first hand.  Conservatives also may be guilty of the same, but no one complains when they are called on it, even when they are not guilty of it).

Quote
simply explained one side of evolution, but not the other.

You seem to know a lot about a movie you say you haven't seen.  Did you read the transcript?

What "other side" didn't it explain.  I'll give you that theist evolutionists were underrepresented.

Quote
Yes, there are evolutionists that will show you how altruism evolved.  I don't see how "you saw evolutionists" grapple with the issue.  Are you a scientist of some sort?
No.  But I took evolutionary biology at one of the leading institutions (University of Chicago), my best friend there was agnostic/leaning atheist paleontology major (who inadvertently pushed me into Orthodoxy, may God reward him).  I've worked 6 years in the med/psych field, and 8 years teaching (history, Arabic), at college, high school and elementary levels.  So I know a thing or two about being PC.

Most of the writing on this topic I admit I see through the lens of E.O. Wilson of "On Human Nature" fame.  Could be worse.  Around 2000 there was a sociobiologist who was saying that rape shouldn't be a crime because it is programmed in the genes.  That's the problem when you deconstruct free will: all things are possible.

Quote
  Did you read journal articles?
Yes. Peer reviewed.

Quote
Have you experienced a committee that had heavy debates.
 
Yes.

Quote
How did you "see" this exactly?

Originally, I came to the U of C a theist evolutionist.  Taking it, I could and can notice a proganda program when I see it.  The two biggest nails in the coffin were speciation and the "fossil record" of human evolution.

Quote
I recommend two books for you, both by Christian scientists.  Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" and Francis Collins "The Language of God," and I think they're brilliant and to the point in addressing not only objections to evolution, but also objections to theism from people like Dawkins.  These are where the HONEST attacks lie.

Still quetioning Mr. Stein's honesty for a movie you haven't seen.  In shaa' al-Rabb I'll take a look at your recommendations, in particular as I'm taking my sons to the Field Museum's evolution exhibit again this week.

Quote
Not Ben Stein's Law School tactics.  And just to be a nitpick:

Just to nitpick, what "Law School tactics" are you talking about in a film you haven't seen?  If I didn't know that Ben was a lawyer (yes, I knew that before), you couldn't tell it from the movie.  It struck me more like journalism and college professors.

Quote
I never trust a lawyer's word on anything, including the law.  In fact, especially the law.

Quote
Then you don't trust the documentary to begin with.  Ben Stein's specialty is Law.


Mr. Stein has quite a few specialties, not a common feat for lawyers.  But even lawyers can make a valid argument, they just have to be evaluated separately from their "qualificitions" as a lawyer, you know, knowing what the definition of "is" "is."

Quote
He takes a position, and sticks with it without regard to objectivity.


That the evolutionists hang themselves and their theist cohorts in the movie doesn't effect Ben's objectivity at all.  Sure, he takes a position.  So does Michael Moore.  But unlike the latter's doctoredmentaries, he connects the dots.  The only valid objection could be that more arguement could be given to those who expelled the expelled on why they expelled them. But since he gives them time to do so (most refused it), and one flatly contradicted their own written statements of the matter, and another was up front, I'm not sure an objection is valid.  The theist evolutionist could have been given their time, though.

Quote
I wouldn't go as far as saying I don't trust lawyers on "anything, including the law."  But using Law School tactics on science is not valid.  One can easily come up with the refutations.
Then why don't they, instead of shutting down discussion?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 11:08:29 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #90 on: October 26, 2008, 02:27:30 PM »

I just wonder how someone as educated as Mr. Stein can be so intellectually depraved as to believe it's valid to use social arguments against scientific theories. Who cares if nazis or communists liked or disliked evolution, the support comming out of comparative genomics over the last decade is simply undeniable.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #91 on: October 27, 2008, 11:54:34 AM »

 Sad

I was using Constantine's use of the Cross as an analogy to Hitler's use of evolution, not as a part of the movie.

...

Okay, lemme try one more thing.  The laws of nature are harsh, tough, filled with competition, filled with choices, strife and peace, good and evil, totalitarianism or teamwork.  Nature shows that there could be "injustice" among animal groups (and even humans) and even selfless help (we've discussed this in oc.net before).

Did not even Christ say "peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you, not as the world gives do I give to you."  We as humans understand the harshness of the world because of these laws of nature; we also are sent to the world in a manner to bring the world in a direction of the divine will, and this will is the selfless ideal.  If we can take the good of the world, bring it to battle against the bad of the world, the world (and humanity) does not instantly change, but EVOLVES into a "Christocentric" trait.  Does not instantly change because we have to go through struggles and strife, but we have hope that love wins in the end.  The world, the laws of nature is evolution.  It's inevitable.  Be we as humans are above the world, above the laws of nature, above evolution.  We have reached a position where we can guide evolution even though we are part of it.

It is in this fashion, I don't find evolution contradictory of religion, but rather affirms Christ's teachings of what the world really is in contrast to Christian faith.

I admit, I haven't watched the movie Expelled, and perhaps I will just so I can give a better answer, but I doubt I'll be convinced of what it says, since it seems to show evolution and faith are incompatible under the ID opinions, no different than the stubborn Dawkins opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58UDTq3kaZM (Dr. Francis Collins MD, leader of the genome project, is in this video).
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #92 on: October 27, 2008, 12:11:00 PM »

I just wonder how someone as educated as Mr. Stein can be so intellectually depraved as to believe it's valid to use social arguments against scientific theories. Who cares if nazis or communists liked or disliked evolution, the support comming out of comparative genomics over the last decade is simply undeniable.

Then why the fuss over supressing any discussion of its denial (evolution, that is, not the genome.  They are not one and the same, much to the Darwinist's dilema).

Mr. Stein is not using social arguments against scientific theories.  He is using reason to show the holes in the scientific theory that the theory's proponents in society are silencing, by societal, not scientific, means.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #93 on: October 27, 2008, 12:32:53 PM »

Sad

I was using Constantine's use of the Cross as an analogy to Hitler's use of evolution, not as a part of the movie.

...

Okay, lemme try one more thing.  The laws of nature are harsh, tough, filled with competition, filled with choices, strife and peace, good and evil, totalitarianism or teamwork.  Nature shows that there could be "injustice" among animal groups (and even humans) and even selfless help (we've discussed this in oc.net before).
Totalitarianism:enforced teamwork. police

Injustice in the animal world is an anthropormorphism.  If your Christian, there's nothing wrong with that (God put man in charge, after all, to take care of Creation).  If you are argueing from evolution, there is no concepts of injustice, good, evil or for that matter "choice."

Quote
Did not even Christ say "peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you, not as the world gives do I give to you."  We as humans understand the harshness of the world because of these laws of nature; we also are sent to the world in a manner to bring the world in a direction of the divine will, and this will is the selfless ideal.  If we can take the good of the world, bring it to battle against the bad of the world, the world (and humanity) does not instantly change, but EVOLVES into a "Christocentric" trait.

No.  Socialism evolves into a utopia (according to the theory, at least).  Christianity works out the implications of the Resurrection of Christ, a change He accomplished in a moment of time for all eternity.

Quote
Does not instantly change because we have to go through struggles and strife, but we have hope that love wins in the end.  The world, the laws of nature is evolution.  It's inevitable.  Be we as humans are above the world, above the laws of nature, above evolution.  We have reached a position where we can guide evolution even though we are part of it.

If you mean change by evolution, you can more authoritatively and conclusively prove that from Scripture.  St.  Luke records that Christ grew.  Since the Incarnation of the changeless God grew (i.e. changed), all things must change.

Quote
It is in this fashion, I don't find evolution contradictory of religion, but rather affirms Christ's teachings of what the world really is in contrast to Christian faith.
For one thing (and your recommendended reading pointed that out, more later), the problem comes in claiming to explain the origins of life, which evolution does not do (something Ben points out decisively).  As someone in the film points out, it is not a problem if Darwin claimed organism change over time.  Everyone can see and admits that.  "But Darwin wrote a book "On the Origin of Species."
Btw, monasticism is an affront to evolution, a sign that there is something that transcends just replicating the species.  This was more evident in the Roman Empire, where the childless and unmarried were penalized (St. Constantine had to remove the penalties from the law).

Quote
I admit, I haven't watched the movie Expelled, and perhaps I will just so I can give a better answer, but I doubt I'll be convinced of what it says, since it seems to show evolution and faith are incompatible under the ID opinions, no different than the stubborn Dawkins opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58UDTq3kaZM (Dr. Francis Collins MD, leader of the genome project, is in this video).
[/quote]

I'll have to wait until I get on a computer that doesn't block youtube. police

The main thrust of the movie is NOT that evolution and faith are incompatible.  One of the agnostics says that more often than not, science and religion are NOT in conflict.  The point of the movie is that a dogmatic conformity is being imposed for a theory that has massive holes in it, begging an explanation to questions that the PC powers don't want answered.  It is in asking the question "why so dogmatic" that Ben gets into the atheist agenda of some evolutionists, i.e. the ones calling the shots in academia.

I got "Finding Darwins' God," but I am perplexed as to why you recommended it, as it seems to prove "Expelled"'s point.  For instance chapter six talks exactly about the anti-religion agenda that Mr. Stein is warning about.  I have a long critic of the book, which I am debating whether to post here or start its own thread as a review.

I'm still looking for Collins book.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 27, 2008, 02:27:53 PM »

When people mention "holes" I don't understand why people stand on some "holes" to disprove the whole of the theory.  Medicine is also filled with many "holes," but this does not discredit medical practices we use today.  Since you read Ken Miller's book, you can also see that he shows detective work also has holes in criminal investigation.  But where there are holes, there is also evidence.  It seems that ID likes to spend time on the "holes" of science, as much as Dawkins likes to spend time on the "holes" of religion.  Kenneth Miller when talking about the agenda of atheist evolutionists equates their agenda with those of the ID proponents.  They are two sides of the same coin.

While Darwin may have given a provocative title to his book, many admit he doesn't discuss "Origins" at all.  Evolution is not "origins," it's simply a process.  Origins is actually a very "vague" word.  Perhaps, Darwin meant the origin of the human species.  Perhaps, you mean the origin of life, to which "abiogenesis" is devoted to studying.  The idea of "panspermia" (not the idea that aliens made us) is actually not that offensive of an idea.  The building blocks of life, like amino acids, were actually found on a meteor that landed on earth.  This means that these building blocks can be formed even outside our world.  Perhaps, the first bacteria came from a meteor.

Origins can also mean the origin of matter altogether.  In this area, philosophy, religion, and science form grey lines.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #95 on: October 27, 2008, 03:41:14 PM »

When people mention "holes" I don't understand why people stand on some "holes" to disprove the whole of the theory.
 
That whole "weakest link" thing.

Quote
Medicine is also filled with many "holes," but this does not discredit medical practices we use today.


You'll have to be more specific.

Quote
Since you read Ken Miller's book, you can also see that he shows detective work also has holes in criminal investigation.  But where there are holes, there is also evidence.  It seems that ID likes to spend time on the "holes" of science, as much as Dawkins likes to spend time on the "holes" of religion.  Kenneth Miller when talking about the agenda of atheist evolutionists equates their agenda with those of the ID proponents.  They are two sides of the same coin.
Not quite.  ID points to a designer, evolutionists try to disprove God by positing His absence, and then trying to explain it.

Quote
While Darwin may have given a provocative title to his book, many admit he doesn't discuss "Origins" at all.  Evolution is not "origins," it's simply a process.  Origins is actually a very "vague" word.  Perhaps, Darwin meant the origin of the human species.  Perhaps, you mean the origin of life, to which "abiogenesis" is devoted to studying.  The idea of "panspermia" (not the idea that aliens made us) is actually not that offensive of an idea.  The building blocks of life, like amino acids, were actually found on a meteor that landed on earth.  This means that these building blocks can be formed even outside our world.  Perhaps, the first bacteria came from a meteor.
Like Ben Stein says, "Aliens did it."

Quote
Origins can also mean the origin of matter altogether.  In this area, philosophy, religion, and science form grey lines.
This question is a avartar of the ancient debate of an eternal universe versus a created (i.e. a temporal) one.  So yes, it has been with us a long time, and no, it has not been a march of "reason" against religion, in particular as many of the rationalists/philosophers were on Faith's side, e.g. St. Basil (a contrast would be with Origen in the religious sphere).
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 03:42:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #96 on: October 27, 2008, 04:13:50 PM »

You'll have to be more specific.

Can I ask you to do the same for evolution?

Cancer research, genetics, pharmacology all have holes.  There's a lot missing, and we're making new discoveries every year, as in evolutionary research.

History itself has holes.  That does not discredit the whole of some history that outweighs the holes.

Quote
Not quite.  ID points to a designer, evolutionists try to disprove God by positing His absence, and then trying to explain it.

Both ID and Dawkins equate evolution with atheism.  One tries to discredit evolution on behalf of a designer, and the other discredits a designer on behalf of evolution.  They are both sides of the same coin.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Eleos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Posts: 255


« Reply #97 on: December 26, 2008, 10:05:40 PM »

I watched this movie just a few days ago, and truly found it worthwhile.  It mainly deals with the academic politics of the science community and how those who don't accept the "standard" scientific view are dealt with.  What's funny to me after reading this thread is just how much some posters who refuse to watch it exhibit the same behavior that is documented in the film!  You're missing out on some good thought-provoking journalism and expose.

Also, the connection of eugenics to theories of evolution is real, and is definitely involved with all sorts of terrible injustices (to put it mildly).

If you have a Netflix subscription, it can be viewed online through their instant viewing feature.
Logged

"The Unity of the Church, as Your Holinesses well know it, is the will of God and ought to be an inspiring example to all men. It should always be a help and not a hindrance to the unity of men of different religions."-Emperor Haile Selassie To the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches 1965
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #98 on: December 27, 2008, 04:16:07 AM »

I watched this movie just a few days ago, and truly found it worthwhile.  It mainly deals with the academic politics of the science community and how those who don't accept the "standard" scientific view are dealt with.  What's funny to me after reading this thread is just how much some posters who refuse to watch it exhibit the same behavior that is documented in the film!  You're missing out on some good thought-provoking journalism and expose.

Also, the connection of eugenics to theories of evolution is real, and is definitely involved with all sorts of terrible injustices (to put it mildly).


The politics of academia is an entirely separate issue than the veracity of evolution.  I do agree that such politics are an issue and can affect the quality of education at an institution.  But, on the other hand all institutions do need to keep academic standards.  Should anything or any pet theory of an instructor be allowed under the guise of academic freedom?  The whole system of peer review is set up in order to try to prevent such problems.   

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #99 on: December 27, 2008, 11:30:36 AM »

I watched this movie just a few days ago, and truly found it worthwhile.  It mainly deals with the academic politics of the science community and how those who don't accept the "standard" scientific view are dealt with.  What's funny to me after reading this thread is just how much some posters who refuse to watch it exhibit the same behavior that is documented in the film!  You're missing out on some good thought-provoking journalism and expose.

Also, the connection of eugenics to theories of evolution is real, and is definitely involved with all sorts of terrible injustices (to put it mildly).


The politics of academia is an entirely separate issue than the veracity of evolution.  I do agree that such politics are an issue and can affect the quality of education at an institution.  But, on the other hand all institutions do need to keep academic standards.  Should anything or any pet theory of an instructor be allowed under the guise of academic freedom?  The whole system of peer review is set up in order to try to prevent such problems.   



It's not that ID has been reviewed and found not up to standards: it is that academia has prevented its peers from getting a review, as the movie shows.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Eleos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Posts: 255


« Reply #100 on: December 27, 2008, 11:37:41 AM »

The politics of academia is an entirely separate issue than the veracity of evolution.  I do agree that such politics are an issue and can affect the quality of education at an institution.  But, on the other hand all institutions do need to keep academic standards.  Should anything or any pet theory of an instructor be allowed under the guise of academic freedom?  The whole system of peer review is set up in order to try to prevent such problems.   
Honestly, I don't know the answer.  I'm not a participator in the university academic system myself, but I do study and use my mind and senses for ongoing education.  Instantly, that disqualifies me from having a valid viewpoint to some people.  So that being the case, my opinion is that the way that the educational system works results in compartmentalization according to strict rules of specialization/expertise.  So some subjects, such as that of transcendent intelligence and will having an originating relationship to nature and its laws are considered invalid and those who verbalize it are marginalized.  Yet atheist theories of origin which cannot be observed are allowed and acceptable in the course of a science class.  My father-in-law, who watched the film with me, is a college biology professor.  He told me that one time in class he simply mentioned that Intelligent Design is an alternative theory of origin of the life and was reported by someone who walked by his classroom hearing only the words "Intelligent Design".  He had to have a sit down meeting with the dean of the school over it.  Luckily he didn't lose his job and livelihood.  Personally, I think that treating ID as a particular instructor's pet theory is disingenuous, (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, btw, but it does seem like people in the system do).  As an outsider, the standardized negative reaction to it appears to me to be more about power play.
Logged

"The Unity of the Church, as Your Holinesses well know it, is the will of God and ought to be an inspiring example to all men. It should always be a help and not a hindrance to the unity of men of different religions."-Emperor Haile Selassie To the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches 1965
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #101 on: December 27, 2008, 03:51:19 PM »

The politics of academia is an entirely separate issue than the veracity of evolution.  I do agree that such politics are an issue and can affect the quality of education at an institution.  But, on the other hand all institutions do need to keep academic standards.  Should anything or any pet theory of an instructor be allowed under the guise of academic freedom?  The whole system of peer review is set up in order to try to prevent such problems.   
Honestly, I don't know the answer.  I'm not a participator in the university academic system myself, but I do study and use my mind and senses for ongoing education.  Instantly, that disqualifies me from having a valid viewpoint to some people.  So that being the case, my opinion is that the way that the educational system works results in compartmentalization according to strict rules of specialization/expertise.  So some subjects, such as that of transcendent intelligence and will having an originating relationship to nature and its laws are considered invalid and those who verbalize it are marginalized.  Yet atheist theories of origin which cannot be observed are allowed and acceptable in the course of a science class.  My father-in-law, who watched the film with me, is a college biology professor.  He told me that one time in class he simply mentioned that Intelligent Design is an alternative theory of origin of the life and was reported by someone who walked by his classroom hearing only the words "Intelligent Design".  He had to have a sit down meeting with the dean of the school over it.  Luckily he didn't lose his job and livelihood.  Personally, I think that treating ID as a particular instructor's pet theory is disingenuous, (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, btw, but it does seem like people in the system do).  As an outsider, the standardized negative reaction to it appears to me to be more about power play.

Eleos,

Because of what you mentioned in your other post, I'm going to try to make an effort and watch the movie for you.  But until then I agree with Nektarios.  Intelligent Design claims that there's a designer.  I'm not asking what is the proof of a designer, but how does a scientist go about proving it?  First of all, the new ID movement don't even tell us "who or what" this designer might be.  Is it God?  If so, then you crossed the line between science and philosophy, which is why it is rejected in academia, and why people like your father-in-law need to be talked to seriously.  If aliens, then they also need some proof of some sort of life from space, although this one might be a whole lot less speculative than God, according to science standards, since we did find meteors with amino acids and other organic compounds.

With evolution, all what was said was there was a common ancestor.  How was this proven?  Scientists offered the solution that whatever was inherited should have similarities.  That makes sense, since my sister and I would carry similar looks and genes to my parents, this should be the same in the animal kingdom.  Lo and behold, the evolutionists were right!  The answer was in genetics, and the similarities, and this proved ancestry.

Now, imagine your father-in-law was an atheist evolutionist who taught biology.  If he was caught teaching students that God doesn't exist, he would likewise also be called to see the dean, because he also crossed the line in a class where he is not permitted under his job description to teach about.

In conclusion, ID is not a valid theory because no scientist can even explain how one can go about proving it in order to lead the way to further experimentation.  Earlier evolutionists offered future scientists how one may go about making experiments to prove it, but ID theorists could not and have never done so.  Their only concern was to disprove something else, not to prove their own theory.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #102 on: December 27, 2008, 04:11:13 PM »

The politics of academia is an entirely separate issue than the veracity of evolution.  I do agree that such politics are an issue and can affect the quality of education at an institution.  But, on the other hand all institutions do need to keep academic standards.  Should anything or any pet theory of an instructor be allowed under the guise of academic freedom?  The whole system of peer review is set up in order to try to prevent such problems.   
Honestly, I don't know the answer.  I'm not a participator in the university academic system myself, but I do study and use my mind and senses for ongoing education.  Instantly, that disqualifies me from having a valid viewpoint to some people.  So that being the case, my opinion is that the way that the educational system works results in compartmentalization according to strict rules of specialization/expertise.  So some subjects, such as that of transcendent intelligence and will having an originating relationship to nature and its laws are considered invalid and those who verbalize it are marginalized.  Yet atheist theories of origin which cannot be observed are allowed and acceptable in the course of a science class.  My father-in-law, who watched the film with me, is a college biology professor.  He told me that one time in class he simply mentioned that Intelligent Design is an alternative theory of origin of the life and was reported by someone who walked by his classroom hearing only the words "Intelligent Design".  He had to have a sit down meeting with the dean of the school over it.  Luckily he didn't lose his job and livelihood.  Personally, I think that treating ID as a particular instructor's pet theory is disingenuous, (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, btw, but it does seem like people in the system do).  As an outsider, the standardized negative reaction to it appears to me to be more about power play.

Eleos,

Because of what you mentioned in your other post, I'm going to try to make an effort and watch the movie for you. 
Wasn't it you who recommended some books?  I've read them and I'll post my commments later, when I have more time.

Quote
But until then I agree with Nektarios.  Intelligent Design claims that there's a designer.  I'm not asking what is the proof of a designer, but how does a scientist go about proving it? 
Proving that everything we have observed is designed, and only design overcomes entropy.  Makes more sense than noting that everything we have observed is designed, and then say that life "spontaneously happens."
Quote
First of all, the new ID movement don't even tell us "who or what" this designer might be. 
First things first.
Quote
Is it God?  If so, then you crossed the line between science and philosophy,

Empirical science did that when it embraced empricism and moved it from epsitomology to ontology.

Quote
which is why it is rejected in academia, and why people like your father-in-law need to be talked to seriously.


Yes, gotta keep it atheist (note: not agnostic) to keep it honest.

Quote
If aliens, then they also need some proof of some sort of life from space, although this one might be a whole lot less speculative than God, according to science standards, since we did find meteors with amino acids and other organic compounds.

Hold that thought: it's one of the funnier ones of the movie.

Quote
With evolution, all what was said was there was a common ancestor.  How was this proven?
 
 
You are confusing the past tense with the future tense.

Quote
Scientists offered the solution that whatever was inherited should have similarities.  That makes sense, since my sister and I would carry similar looks and genes to my parents, this should be the same in the animal kingdom.  Lo and behold, the evolutionists were right!  The answer was in genetics, and the similarities, and this proved ancestry.

And whales and fish both swim in the sea, eat similar food, look similar.  Lo and behold, the evolutionists were right!  The similarities proved a common ancestor.

One question: if you were a creator, and you were making animals what would live in the same biosphere, etc. how similar would you create them?

Quote
Now, imagine your father-in-law was an atheist evolutionist who taught biology.  If he was caught teaching students that God doesn't exist, he would likewise also be called to see the dean,


You all very sure of that?  Or would he be congratualated?

Quote
because he also crossed the line in a class where he is not permitted under his job description to teach about.

Ever teach in the public school system? There's a reason why there is such an uproar over the incestuous relationship between the teachers' union and other powers that be.

Quote
In conclusion, ID is not a valid theory because no scientist can even explain how one can go about proving it in order to lead the way to further experimentation.
 

The failure of science (as the movie demonstrates) to account for the origin of life, and the failure to create species by experimentation hasn't stopped evolutionists from sticking to their guns.

Quote
Earlier evolutionists offered future scientists how one may go about making experiments to prove it, but ID theorists could not and have never done so.


Wrong on both counts.

Quote
Their only concern was to disprove something else, not to prove their own theory.

Even if true, that is a valid form of science.  Pasteur spent time disproving spontaneous generation.  The evolutionists seem busy trying to revive it.

God bless.
[/quote]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #103 on: December 27, 2008, 06:09:24 PM »

ialmisry,

If you were a Math teacher, would you say "God made 2+2=4" or "no God is necessary to make 2+2=4" or "2+2=4"?

I've been to a philosophy class, where the philosophy teacher was an atheist.  He objectively offered arguments against theists and atheists in the class for their positions, which showed a true, unbiased professor, and I appreciated it.  And this is the class where speculation is permitted.

Yes, I recommended books by Miller and Collins.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #104 on: December 27, 2008, 10:34:19 PM »

ialmisry,

If you were a Math teacher, would you say "God made 2+2=4" or "no God is necessary to make 2+2=4" or "2+2=4"?

As a Math teacher I would say the Designer's intelligence made 2+2=4.  As a Christian I know the importance of 1X1X1=1, but that's beyond math.

Quote
I've been to a philosophy class, where the philosophy teacher was an atheist.  He objectively offered arguments against theists and atheists in the class for their positions, which showed a true, unbiased professor, and I appreciated it.  And this is the class where speculation is permitted.

I've seen lots of speculation in Biology classes: punctuated equalibrium, panspermia, etc. permitted or not.

Quote
Yes, I recommended books by Miller and Collins.

God bless.

I got to find my notes: when I finished them, the board was down at the time (how many times has it been now?).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Eleos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Posts: 255


« Reply #105 on: December 27, 2008, 11:20:20 PM »

Eleos,

Because of what you mentioned in your other post, I'm going to try to make an effort and watch the movie for you.  But until then I agree with Nektarios.  Intelligent Design claims that there's a designer.  I'm not asking what is the proof of a designer, but how does a scientist go about proving it?  First of all, the new ID movement don't even tell us "who or what" this designer might be.  Is it God?  If so, then you crossed the line between science and philosophy, which is why it is rejected in academia, and why people like your father-in-law need to be talked to seriously.  If aliens, then they also need some proof of some sort of life from space, although this one might be a whole lot less speculative than God, according to science standards, since we did find meteors with amino acids and other organic compounds.

With evolution, all what was said was there was a common ancestor.  How was this proven?  Scientists offered the solution that whatever was inherited should have similarities.  That makes sense, since my sister and I would carry similar looks and genes to my parents, this should be the same in the animal kingdom.  Lo and behold, the evolutionists were right!  The answer was in genetics, and the similarities, and this proved ancestry.

Now, imagine your father-in-law was an atheist evolutionist who taught biology.  If he was caught teaching students that God doesn't exist, he would likewise also be called to see the dean, because he also crossed the line in a class where he is not permitted under his job description to teach about.

In conclusion, ID is not a valid theory because no scientist can even explain how one can go about proving it in order to lead the way to further experimentation.  Earlier evolutionists offered future scientists how one may go about making experiments to prove it, but ID theorists could not and have never done so.  Their only concern was to disprove something else, not to prove their own theory.

God bless.
Well I hope you don't feel your time is wasted on my account bro.  I really don't wish to get too far into the debate of ID versus evolution.  When the full truth is revealed ultimately, I wager that all will fall short of the mark.  BTW, I don't really agree with my father-in-law's views.  Personally, my understanding is that there was a massive period of time and development leading up to the final formation and completion of conscious humanity as we know it, and that we are a special case among creatures, characterized by perception, reason, apprehension of meaning, valuation, will, love and probably other aspects of us I'm leaving out.  The evolution theorie(s) help me to understand our natural similarities with other creatures, but for me they fall short of explaining our unique qualities, and particularly my experience of being which cannot be abstracted completely for scientific observation.  As far as how things are vs. how much we know about them, either way I personally give all credit to God, our Father for every aspect of creation and strive to glorify Him as I encounter it physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, aesthetically, spiritually etc.  I find new knowledge, including the portion of scientific knowledge I've gained, even grief and suffering, in its own way to be delightful and something to be thankful for.  Those who consider themselves evolution or ID adherents face the same enemy and it's not each other, hopefully some will realize that.
Logged

"The Unity of the Church, as Your Holinesses well know it, is the will of God and ought to be an inspiring example to all men. It should always be a help and not a hindrance to the unity of men of different religions."-Emperor Haile Selassie To the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches 1965
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #106 on: December 27, 2008, 11:38:04 PM »

Well I hope you don't feel your time is wasted on my account bro.  I really don't wish to get too far into the debate of ID versus evolution.  When the full truth is revealed ultimately, I wager that all will fall short of the mark.  BTW, I don't really agree with my father-in-law's views.  Personally, my understanding is that there was a massive period of time and development leading up to the final formation and completion of conscious humanity as we know it, and that we are a special case among creatures, characterized by perception, reason, apprehension of meaning, valuation, will, love and probably other aspects of us I'm leaving out.  The evolution theorie(s) help me to understand our natural similarities with other creatures, but for me they fall short of explaining our unique qualities, and particularly my experience of being which cannot be abstracted completely for scientific observation.  As far as how things are vs. how much we know about them, either way I personally give all credit to God, our Father for every aspect of creation and strive to glorify Him as I encounter it physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, aesthetically, spiritually etc.  I find new knowledge, including the portion of scientific knowledge I've gained, even grief and suffering, in its own way to be delightful and something to be thankful for.  Those who consider themselves evolution or ID adherents face the same enemy and it's not each other, hopefully some will realize that.

I can't reiterate this enough. I.D is not a scientific theory, it never will be in its current form, the reason being that its whole foundation is antithetical to the foundation of True Scientific procedure (Karl Popper). Whether or not you believe or like evolution (I don't really believe I know where I stand on the issue) the fact of the matter is that it actually is based on scientific procedure and if you believe in the "theory" of I.D then other "theories" should be allowed in the flood gates like my theory that dogs unknown to many are actually aliens from Venus. Because of this I.D should never be in taught in a science class, because it is not an "alternative" to evolution (scientifically speaking).
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #107 on: December 28, 2008, 01:07:51 AM »

ialmisry,

If you were a Math teacher, would you say "God made 2+2=4" or "no God is necessary to make 2+2=4" or "2+2=4"?

As a Math teacher I would say the Designer's intelligence made 2+2=4.  As a Christian I know the importance of 1X1X1=1, but that's beyond math.


I don't know whether you're taking this discussion seriously or you're just mocking me.  Either way, I suspect that it would be useless if I had any further discussion with you on this point, or even after you share your notes if you don't understand my point.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #108 on: December 28, 2008, 01:21:54 AM »

ialmisry,

If you were a Math teacher, would you say "God made 2+2=4" or "no God is necessary to make 2+2=4" or "2+2=4"?

As a Math teacher I would say the Designer's intelligence made 2+2=4.  As a Christian I know the importance of 1X1X1=1, but that's beyond math.


I don't know whether you're taking this discussion seriously or you're just mocking me.  Either way, I suspect that it would be useless if I had any further discussion with you on this point, or even after you share your notes if you don't understand my point.

God bless.

Looking forward to your review after you have seen the movie.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #109 on: December 28, 2008, 01:36:59 AM »

Well I hope you don't feel your time is wasted on my account bro.  I really don't wish to get too far into the debate of ID versus evolution.  When the full truth is revealed ultimately, I wager that all will fall short of the mark.  BTW, I don't really agree with my father-in-law's views.  Personally, my understanding is that there was a massive period of time and development leading up to the final formation and completion of conscious humanity as we know it, and that we are a special case among creatures, characterized by perception, reason, apprehension of meaning, valuation, will, love and probably other aspects of us I'm leaving out.  The evolution theorie(s) help me to understand our natural similarities with other creatures, but for me they fall short of explaining our unique qualities, and particularly my experience of being which cannot be abstracted completely for scientific observation.  As far as how things are vs. how much we know about them, either way I personally give all credit to God, our Father for every aspect of creation and strive to glorify Him as I encounter it physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, aesthetically, spiritually etc.  I find new knowledge, including the portion of scientific knowledge I've gained, even grief and suffering, in its own way to be delightful and something to be thankful for.  Those who consider themselves evolution or ID adherents face the same enemy and it's not each other, hopefully some will realize that.

I can't reiterate this enough. I.D is not a scientific theory, it never will be in its current form, the reason being that its whole foundation is antithetical to the foundation of True Scientific procedure (Karl Popper).

This would come as a surprise to those scienticists (with real degrees from real universities, you know, the ones involved in the peer review process), some of whom appear in the film.

Quote
Whether or not you believe or like evolution (I don't really believe I know where I stand on the issue) the fact of the matter is that it actually is based on scientific procedure and if you believe in the "theory" of I.D then other "theories" should be allowed in the flood gates like my theory that dogs unknown to many are actually aliens from Venus.

If you have some info on why that would be (dogs breath carbon dioxide, etc.), go for it.

Showing that structures don't just pop out of nowhere is a pretty easy theory to prove.

Quote
Because of this I.D should never be in taught in a science class, because it is not an "alternative" to evolution (scientifically speaking).

LOL.  Like teaching the falsified "Birmigham moths," "Haeckel's embryos," etc. and punctuated equalibrium to keep it all in sync.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #110 on: December 28, 2008, 04:42:53 AM »

This would come as a surprise to those scienticists (with real degrees from real universities, you know, the ones involved in the peer review process), some of whom appear in the film.

Although it wouldn't surprise them, many if not all of these Anti-Evolutionary scientists. But many of them have proposed changing the philosophical foundations of science as empiricism and change its posteriori understanding to posit the existence of unnecessary supernatural beings as a prerequisite for all scientific theorems. Which I understand is fine if your a theist but True science is not even bothered with that because it observes only the natural world and comes to conclusions naturalistically.

Quote
LOL.  Like teaching the falsified "Birmigham moths," "Haeckel's embryos," etc. and t to keep it all in sync.

Yes Ialmisry faked examples still being taught is ludicrous, but you can't compare ideologically incompatible science with a couple of frauds.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #111 on: December 28, 2008, 10:13:28 AM »

This would come as a surprise to those scienticists (with real degrees from real universities, you know, the ones involved in the peer review process), some of whom appear in the film.

Although it wouldn't surprise them, many if not all of these Anti-Evolutionary scientists. But many of them have proposed changing the philosophical foundations of science as empiricism and change its posteriori understanding to posit the existence of unnecessary supernatural beings as a prerequisite for all scientific theorems.
They did no such thing: they noticed that order out of chaos seems to "work" only in evolution, and they decided bring life in line with the rest of the observable universe.
Certainly no more a speculation than panspermia "aliens did it."

Quote
Which I understand is fine if your a theist but True science is not even bothered with that because it observes only the natural world and comes to conclusions naturalistically.

LOL.  Academia is a jungle.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #112 on: December 28, 2008, 02:40:25 PM »

It's not that ID has been reviewed and found not up to standards: it is that academia has prevented its peers from getting a review, as the movie shows.

If I submitted something to a review among social scientists saying that since we have gaps in the historical record over a certain period, the logical conclusion is that God created the situation that is currently observed, I would not be taken seriously.  For example, there are still disputes in the historiography as to exactly why Muscovy rose to prominence among the principalities of Kievian Rus', so since the precise historical, economic and political data is missing, would it be best to posit that God ordained it so? 

Then there is the problem that if you are going to impose a Judeo-Christian-Islam style God into biology, why is that any more logical than a Hindu, Daoist etc. cosmology?
 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #113 on: December 28, 2008, 05:50:24 PM »

It's not that ID has been reviewed and found not up to standards: it is that academia has prevented its peers from getting a review, as the movie shows.

If I submitted something to a review among social scientists saying that since we have gaps in the historical record over a certain period, the logical conclusion is that God created the situation that is currently observed, I would not be taken seriously.  For example, there are still disputes in the historiography as to exactly why Muscovy rose to prominence among the principalities of Kievian Rus', so since the precise historical, economic and political data is missing, would it be best to posit that God ordained it so? 

You, as usual, are reading your ideas of ID into your presentation.  In fact, it is evolution that has the missing gaps that it is filling in with its dogma.

Quote
Then there is the problem that if you are going to impose a Judeo-Christian-Islam style God into biology, why is that any more logical than a Hindu, Daoist etc. cosmology?
 

ID doesn't, at least the forms I seen, "impose a Judeo-Christian-Islam style God into biology," over a "Hindu, Daoist etc. cosmology," althought the latter only defers the problem, like panspermia.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #114 on: December 28, 2008, 09:36:26 PM »

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2DOGKbHfCeE - Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial (Part 1) Full

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg2xZxsx8I4&feature=related - Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial (Part 2) Full

I think this documentary might be pertinent to this discussion. Perhaps some of our posters will find it interesting. It speaks of gaps claimed by ID proponent Phillip Johnston; a lawyer, not a biologist. There seems a danger with "finding God in the gaps" - as the gaps are explained the Creationist's God seems to shrink and these opponents of evolution are left grasping for another unexplained biological point in an attempt to reestablish the "mystery". But God, as the Master and Creator of a dynamic and self-creating Nature seems simply awesome. Anyway, this is my view as I come to understand the workings of biological evolution. 


« Last Edit: December 28, 2008, 09:42:34 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)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #115 on: December 28, 2008, 10:12:47 PM »

It's not that ID has been reviewed and found not up to standards: it is that academia has prevented its peers from getting a review, as the movie shows.

If I submitted something to a review among social scientists saying that since we have gaps in the historical record over a certain period, the logical conclusion is that God created the situation that is currently observed, I would not be taken seriously.  For example, there are still disputes in the historiography as to exactly why Muscovy rose to prominence among the principalities of Kievian Rus', so since the precise historical, economic and political data is missing, would it be best to posit that God ordained it so? 

You, as usual, are reading your ideas of ID into your presentation.  In fact, it is evolution that has the missing gaps that it is filling in with its dogma.

As was mentioned in another thread, people like Dawkins really aren't the best spokesmen of evolutionary biology.  They have placed a level of theology / philosophy on top the science - but that doesn't mean that every person who accepts the validity of the science also accepts their philosophical baggage.  For me (and it is worth noting for many posters on this forum) this is no contradiction between holding to a Christian view of theology and seeing empirical science as a means to explain the physical workings of the physical universe. 

Like I said before: we don't know with 100% percent certainty the precise reasons why Muscovy rose to prominence over other principalities of the former Kievian Rus'.  We make conjectures based on evidence from some scant written sources, geography and such to make a coherent theory.  This makes far more sense than saying that because our historical primary sources have gaps and we see an advance end product (the advanced Muscovite principality with consolidated the under principalities under its rule) there must be some intelligent driving force to history and simply writing off the gaps as God's will.

ID doesn't, at least the forms I seen, "impose a Judeo-Christian-Islam style God into biology," over a "Hindu, Daoist etc. cosmology," althought the latter only defers the problem, like panspermia.

Back in the day, when the Big Bang was just becoming accepted among the scientific community there were many Hindu fundamentalists that were coming up with all sorts of things akin to ID to get out of the Big Bang.  Why I mentioned the three major monotheistic religions is that they have an essentially similar cosmology of a created universe.  If you read the anti-scientific literature of religious groups with a different cosmology the differences are interesting. 
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #116 on: February 07, 2009, 08:24:13 PM »

"Intelligent design" as the "theory" now stands is a joke.  If Stein brings something new to light in this film regarding this, then all power to him.  However, IMHO, to equate biological Darwinism with Nazi-style eugenics as Stein does here is outrageous.  But then again, as I have stated again and again here, with my points seemingly falling on deaf ears, IMHO it's outrageous to juxtapose the theory of evolution with religious belief as people seem to do, especially (but not exclusively) in the United States.  So I will be sure not to see this movie, unless I hear from reputable sources that it really makes one think about how life has developed on earth, and doesn't just throw out the same tired and untenable "intelligent design" arguments. 

The biological sciences are not the only academic discipline where a kind of obtuse refusal to look at things in any other way than the view that is currently held as the orthodox opinion.  In fact, this happens in varying degrees in all disciplines at various times, as far as I can tell.  So the kind of conspiracy theory that Stein appears to be putting forth here regarding evolution seems to me to be farfetched.


An open minded person would see this movie. The whole argument of the movie centers around professors who were ostracized and even fired for daring to allow for another possibility for the existence of intelligent life. These professors were not in any way advocates of creationism, and they were not even promoting intelligent design. All they did was dare to allow the science to determine veracity, rather than marching lock step in line with the pseudo scientific theory of evolution. (I say "pseudo scientific" because evolutionary theory hinges upon an atheistic presupposition, and true science is not held hostage by presuppositions.)

Now, regarding Darwinism and the Nazis:
1. Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin's writings.
2. It is impossible to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and not subscribe to social Darwinism. Ideas have consequences, and if the theory of atheistic evolution is correct, then human life loses its sanctity. Thus, the holocaust and abortion are the result. No serious minded person can separate these inhumane evils from the influence of Darwinian theory.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 08:25:56 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #117 on: February 07, 2009, 08:40:56 PM »



Now, regarding Darwinism and the Nazis:
1. Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin's writings.
2. It is impossible to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and not subscribe to social Darwinism. Ideas have consequences, and if the theory of atheistic evolution is correct, then human life loses its sanctity. Thus, the holocaust and abortion are the result. No serious minded person can separate these inhumane evils from the influence of Darwinian theory.

?

Now regarding the Bible and torture and mass murder:
1.)The inquisition was strongly influenced by the Bible.
2.)It is impossible to "believe" in the Bible and not subscribe to the idea of a Church (that allowed for the inquisition).
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,978


black metal cat


« Reply #118 on: February 07, 2009, 09:00:02 PM »

Do I really need to say this? Yes, apparently I do, though surely serious minded individuals will be intellectually honest enough grant my point: Darwin wasn't an atheist, and the "Darwinian" theory of evolution does not automatically equate to "atheistic evolution". Leave the straw men be.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #119 on: February 07, 2009, 11:36:06 PM »



Now, regarding Darwinism and the Nazis:
1. Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin's writings.
2. It is impossible to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and not subscribe to social Darwinism. Ideas have consequences, and if the theory of atheistic evolution is correct, then human life loses its sanctity. Thus, the holocaust and abortion are the result. No serious minded person can separate these inhumane evils from the influence of Darwinian theory.

?

Now regarding the Bible and torture and mass murder:
1.)The inquisition was strongly influenced by the Bible.
2.)It is impossible to "believe" in the Bible and not subscribe to the idea of a Church (that allowed for the inquisition).
Luke 9:51-6

Do I really need to say this? Yes, apparently I do, though surely serious minded individuals will be intellectually honest enough grant my point: Darwin wasn't an atheist,
agnostic, and he claimed his theory made him give up on a merciful God.

Quote
and the "Darwinian" theory of evolution does not automatically equate to "atheistic evolution". Leave the straw men be.

Burn the straw man.

It's come in mighty handy for atheistic evolution, in fact creating it.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 11:38:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #120 on: February 08, 2009, 01:24:25 AM »



Now, regarding Darwinism and the Nazis:
1. Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin's writings.
2. It is impossible to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and not subscribe to social Darwinism. Ideas have consequences, and if the theory of atheistic evolution is correct, then human life loses its sanctity. Thus, the holocaust and abortion are the result. No serious minded person can separate these inhumane evils from the influence of Darwinian theory.

?

Now regarding the Bible and torture and mass murder:
1.)The inquisition was strongly influenced by the Bible.
2.)It is impossible to "believe" in the Bible and not subscribe to the idea of a Church (that allowed for the inquisition).

Forgive my sloppiness in argumentation; I wrote the first reply in a haste. So, allow me to hone my argument a bit:

There is something called an "non sequitur," which means "it does not follow." (Forgive my use of this latin philosophical term, as I am not a fan of Western philosophical influences.) To say that the Bible influenced the Crusades or Inquisition is a non sequitur. What influenced the Crusades was a particular understanding of the Bible that many (including myself) would condemn as erroneous and misinformed. The Bible has many themes and covers a wide variety of topics and issues. Of course, being Orthodox, I accept the Orthodox Church's teachings and explanations of the Holy Text.

But the theory of Darwinian evolution - which at its crux propounds macro evolution -  is very specific and narrow in its subject matter. The theory that man is the result of chaotic cosmic coincidence has logically resulted in dire ramifications for humanity. I did not say that Darwinian theory caused evil and inhumanity. I said that it is impossible to separate social Darwinism from atheistic evolutionary theory, unless you are willing to be logically inconsistent. This is not a non sequitur at all; but your point about the Bible and the Crusades and such is a non sequitur.

Now, true science follows the scientific method. Read Carl Hempel's book The Philosophy of Natural Science for an in depth understanding of the scientific method (which is the accepted method by the entire scientific community.) Now, simply test the theory of Darwinian evolution - macro, not micro - by the rigid standards of the scientific method, and all you are left with is an interesting theory. This is why evolutionary theory hinges upon an atheistic presupposition, because the ostensible evidence for evolution only appears to be valid when the possibility of intelligent design is taken off the table. For example, where is the preponderance of fossil evidence demonstrating the countless intermediary species that evolution would have produced?

I also find it very interesting that the evolutionists are far more religious in tone than those of us who remain open minded to the evidence. Darwinists have a fundamentalist zeal that drives them to silence any other competing theories- which is largely what Expelled is about. Personally, I am very open to the idea of macro evolution. My faith and my religion do not compell me to reject it prima facia. I am simply looking for the EVIDENCE! And evidence is not the narrow minded propaganda of Richard Dawkins and his atheistic ilk. Use the scientific method and prove your theory. And scientific proof is not validated by those who are the loudest or by the majority opinion.   

But I don't want to get too caught up in philosophical debate. My beliefs are based upon the Bible and the Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail...

Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #121 on: February 08, 2009, 02:05:43 AM »

Now, regarding Darwinism and the Nazis:
1. Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin's writings.
2. It is impossible to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and not subscribe to social Darwinism. Ideas have consequences, and if the theory of atheistic evolution is correct, then human life loses its sanctity. Thus, the holocaust and abortion are the result. No serious minded person can separate these inhumane evils from the influence of Darwinian theory.
Now, regarding Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker:
1. They were strongly influenced by Ford V-8s in enabling their crime spree of robbery and murder.
2. It is impossible to subscribe to American automobile manufacturing and not subscribe to the use of the auto in criminal activity.  No serious minded person can separate these inhumane evils from the influence of internal combustion theory.

Uhh, no.  This is not valid logic.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #122 on: February 08, 2009, 02:48:53 AM »

This is not a non sequitur at all; but your point about the Bible and the Crusades and such is a non sequitur.
I disagree.  They are both non sequiturs, as is mine above.

Quote
Now, simply test the theory of Darwinian evolution - macro, not micro - by the rigid standards of the scientific method, and all you are left with is an interesting theory.
All of science leaves us with little more than interesting theories.  Every conclusion in science is potentially falsifiable through new observations.

Quote
This is why evolutionary theory hinges upon an atheistic presupposition, because the ostensible evidence for evolution only appears to be valid when the possibility of intelligent design is taken off the table.
Evolutionary theory hinges upon no such thing.  Like all other science, it hinges only upon observations and conclusions drawn from them.  Currently, only evolution through natural selection can consistently explain all known observations.

Quote
For example, where is the preponderance of fossil evidence demonstrating the countless intermediary species that evolution would have produced?
Where to begin?  How about Australopithecus afarensis->A. africanus->Homo ergaster->Homo erectus->Homo heidelbergensis->Homo sapiens?

Quote
Use the scientific method and prove your theory.
Theories aren't proven in science.  They are always subject to being displaced by a better theory.

Quote
My beliefs are based upon the Bible and the Church,
Agreed, as are mine.  But the Bible says nothing of Archaeopteryx, or fossils, or telomeres, or platyrrhines.  For that matter, the Bible is also silent on Jupiter's moons, North America, bacteria, and the law of cosines, too.  God left many things for us to figure out.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #123 on: February 08, 2009, 04:14:15 AM »

This is not a non sequitur at all; but your point about the Bible and the Crusades and such is a non sequitur.
I disagree.  They are both non sequiturs, as is mine above.

Quote
Now, simply test the theory of Darwinian evolution - macro, not micro - by the rigid standards of the scientific method, and all you are left with is an interesting theory.
All of science leaves us with little more than interesting theories.  Every conclusion in science is potentially falsifiable through new observations.

Quote
This is why evolutionary theory hinges upon an atheistic presupposition, because the ostensible evidence for evolution only appears to be valid when the possibility of intelligent design is taken off the table.
Evolutionary theory hinges upon no such thing.  Like all other science, it hinges only upon observations and conclusions drawn from them.  Currently, only evolution through natural selection can consistently explain all known observations.

Quote
For example, where is the preponderance of fossil evidence demonstrating the countless intermediary species that evolution would have produced?
Where to begin?  How about Australopithecus afarensis->A. africanus->Homo ergaster->Homo erectus->Homo heidelbergensis->Homo sapiens?

Quote
Use the scientific method and prove your theory.
Theories aren't proven in science.  They are always subject to being displaced by a better theory.

Quote
My beliefs are based upon the Bible and the Church,
Agreed, as are mine.  But the Bible says nothing of Archaeopteryx, or fossils, or telomeres, or platyrrhines.  For that matter, the Bible is also silent on Jupiter's moons, North America, bacteria, and the law of cosines, too.  God left many things for us to figure out.


It is obvious that you have been "well educated," which is perhaps your problem. There lot of educated fools in the world (not saying that you are one of them). The few examples of "evidence" that you cited above hardly constitute a proponderence of evidence that would certainly exist if Darwinian evolution were indeed a fact.

You apparrently misunderstand the laws of science and the laws of logic. It is a scientific fact that the chemical makeup of water is h2o. It is a logical fact that 1 + 1  = 2. These are immutable facts that are not subject to a better or newer theory.

You evolutionists are in love with Archaeopteryx! There is no evidence to suggest that this or any of your other examples were intermediary species. But I'm sure that your professors drilled the names of these pitiful examples into your memory so that you could regurgitate them to the rest of us in an attempt to intimidate us with your facade of scientific knowledge. 

If your beliefs are based upon the Bible and the Church, then why are you so adamant about defending evolution? Like I said before, an open minded person is open to the evidence; and the evidence for evoltuion is sorely lacking. 

You say that science is "based upon observations and conclusions drawn from them." But all observations and conclusions begin with certain presuppositions. Evolutionists begin with the unfounded presupposition that there is no posssibility for intelligent design. Skepticism and rationalism begin with the presupposition of doubt, which is erroneously believed by some to be the most objective point of scientific inquiry. But doubt is a negative bias. True science has always been predicated upon curiosity and wonder. Curiosity and wonder are unbiased starting points, and the greatest scientific discoveries always come about as the result of curious and wondering minds. And genuine curiosity about the natural creation will inevitably lead to the knowledge of the Creator.

I recommend these books to you:

The Philosophy of Natural Science by Carl Hempel
The Soul of Science by Percy and Thaxton
Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson

But above all, read your Bible and heed the teachings of the Church. A true Orthodox believer should exert their energy on something other than defending Godless philosophies such as Darwinian evolution.

If you buy in to Darwinian evolution, then you can't condemn Hitler, abortion, slavery, or any other inhumanity; you have no logical basis. It's the survival of the fittest! Really brother, your life loses all meaning if it's merely the result of a cosmic accident. So, when they come to exterminate you, I hope your Darwinian philosophy gives you comfort.

Selam

« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 04:19:26 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #124 on: February 08, 2009, 06:29:10 AM »

It is obvious that you have been "well educated," which is perhaps your problem.
Wow.  Why resort to ad hominem arguments?

Quote
There lot of educated fools in the world (not saying that you are one of them).
Then why say it at all?

Quote
The few examples of "evidence" that you cited above hardly constitute a proponderence of evidence that would certainly exist if Darwinian evolution were indeed a fact.
Darwinian evolution will never be a fact.  No theory will ever be a fact.  That's why they're called theories.  Otherwise we'd just call them facts.  I indicated that my one example was only a place to begin.  How many examples would you require to qualify as a preponderance of evidence?  And why do you call my examples "evidence", with quote marks?  What would qualify as evidence to you, as opposed to "evidence"?  Help me out here, and I'll attempt to provide it.

Quote
It is a logical fact that 1 + 1  = 2. These are immutable facts that are not subject to a better or newer theory.
1+1=2 only in base 3 or higher.  In base 2, 1+1=10.  Everything in science is subject to a better or newer theory or reinterpretation.

Quote
You evolutionists are in love with Archaeopteryx! There is no evidence to suggest that this or any of your other examples were intermediary species.
Then I don't understand what you mean by intermediary species.  How do you define the term?

Quote
But I'm sure that your professors drilled the names of these pitiful examples into your memory so that you could regurgitate them to the rest of us in an attempt to intimidate us with your facade of scientific knowledge.
Honestly, Gebre, spare us the invective.

Quote
If your beliefs are based upon the Bible and the Church, then why are you so adamant about defending evolution?
I'm no more adamant about defending evolution than I am about the germ theory of disease, universal gravitation, or anything else.  What I'm adamant about is that there is no inconsistency between Orthodox theology and science.  Adam may have bitten the apple, but Newton explained why it was laying on the ground. 

Quote
Evolutionists begin with the unfounded presupposition that there is no posssibility for intelligent design.
I disagree.  First, evolutionism isn't an ism in the sense of a doctrine or belief.  It's an ism in the sense of a theory.  It didn't start with a presupposition of "okay, let's suppose there is no God."  It started with something like "all right, Lamarckism fails to account for what we actually observe in nature; is there a better explanation?"

Quote
If you buy in to Darwinian evolution, then you can't condemn Hitler, abortion, slavery, or any other inhumanity; you have no logical basis. It's the survival of the fittest! Really brother, your life loses all meaning if it's merely the result of a cosmic accident. So, when they come to exterminate you, I hope your Darwinian philosophy gives you comfort.
This one puzzles me.  I'm truly at a loss for words.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #125 on: February 08, 2009, 07:14:05 PM »

I'm going to repeat something I wrote in another forum.

Here's a video on common ancestry of humans and chimps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

For those who can't view youtube videos as fast, basically what he is saying is this.  We have these things called "chromosomes," and for simpleton's sake, these are your DNA.  Each of these chromosomes look like a rope with a knot in the middle (called the centromere).  Pretend that throughout the length of the rope you see seemingly random colors of red (T), white (A), blue (G), and green (C) in a seemingly random sequence (I say seemingly because there are small parts of the DNA that are not random after all, but codes for a seemingly endless variety of protein in your body).  At the ends of this rope however, they stop being random.  You have a repeating sequence in specifically the order of red, red, white, blue, blue, blue (TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG...etc).  These are called telomeres.

Humans have 46 "ropes" (chromosomes) each (they are usually grouped in pairs though, each pair with the same length, with the exception of males in one set of sex chromosomes) with the middle knot (centromere) and the repetitive TTAGGG ends (telomeres).  In fact, all mammals' chromosomes have the same structure.  Nevertheless, chimps and orangutans have 48 chromosomes, not 46.  What gives?  It turns out, human chromosome pair number 2 has the same exact length as two certain two pairs of chromosomes in a chimp as if the ropes were added one on top of the other.  Furthermore, the sequence of both knots of a chimp chromosome matched one of the knots (an activated centromere of chromosome 2) and another unknoted area (no longer a centromere, but retaining the same sequence) where one would expect.  Even more crazy, and what's unique about the human chromosome number 2 is that somewhere in the middle, you see repetitive TTAGGG sequences, being twice as long as either end of that one big rope, sequences that are required at the ends, and indications that these used to be ends themselves.  It's as if the two ropes were added together, one on top of the other, and retaining sequences expected in areas where you would find when added a rope to a rope (in fact, the human genome is over 99% exactly the same to that of chimps).

Dr. Kenneth Miller goes on to proclaim his faith, "I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm a theist; in the broadest sense, I would say I'm a believer in a Designer, but I don't believe in a deceptive designer."

Here's his two-hour lecture refuting everything being said against evolution that has been said.  We can discuss the intricacies of his lecture if you guys want.  The point is I'd like to see some valid scientific arguments here, which has been a major lack.  But other than that, people who post here against evolution are repeating things already said earlier.  Just know this:  there are theistic evolutionists here, who are highly moral and highly religious (though not perfect of course).  By these alone, arguments against the moral stand of evolution fail.

Enjoy this one when you get the time.  This is an enjoyable lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #126 on: February 08, 2009, 09:39:30 PM »

The theory that man is the result of chaotic cosmic coincidence has logically resulted in dire ramifications for humanity.

But we are finite beings and the "chaotic cosmic coincidence" might only seem so to us. If the infinitie and all knowing God used evolution to create, He did so foreknowing the outcome would indeed be the mankind with whom He could have a relationship with. From His point of view there is nothing chaotic nor coincidental about it.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 10:05:46 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)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #127 on: February 08, 2009, 10:52:51 PM »

Theistic evolution is a nice idea, but it is scientifically untenable and very naive. If two competing runners begin at the starting line, and then one of them is shot and killed as soon as the race begins, then there is only one possible winner. The evolutionists know that their theory rests on atheistic presupposition (it is irrelevant whether or not you disagree, it is a fact; just see how many "esteemed" scientists - such as Richard Dawkins - actually consider theistic evolution as a viable posssibility; they do not exist!); thus, they have to assassinate God at the outset. Now, once you allow deism or theism to enter into the picture, then you have to allow for intelligent design. And to allow for intelligent design is to acknowledge the possibility that God created man as he exists today. God could have used evolution, or He could have created man in a single moment. Open minded people and serious minded scientists will welcome all legitimate options to enter into the debate. Now, I can hear the doors slam shut on people's minds as soon as I read all these posts from you guys who say you will not even consider seeing "Expelled." Wow! What are you so afraid of?   

Now, why is all of this so important? It is important because it fundamentally shapes the value of human life. You may be a God fearing Orthodox theistic evolutionist, and you may stand up for human rights at every level. That is good for you to do so (and I do hope that you do.) But there are many, many evolutionists who logically conclude that the unborn are not fully human (not yet evolved enough), and therefore abortion is no problem. They logically conclude that the handicapped, the senile and the elderly, and the mentally retarded are not fully human, and thus euthanasia and "natural selection" (i.e. extermination) are no problem either. Darwinism also has very racist implications, which is no problem either if the theory is correct. Why not try to manipulate and foster a race of Arian superiority?

As I said before, I remain open to the evidence. Where are the intermediary species walking around today? Where were they 1000 years ago? Where were they 2000 years ago? By the way - and I am only speaking for the teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church here - the Church teaches that the earth is only 7000 years old. So, in that regard, our Orthodoxy does indeed preclude the possibility for Darwinian evolution. And by the way, from a spiritual perspective, I know that your "LUCY" that they found in sacred Ethiopia is nothing more than a manifestation of Lucifer! 

As far as invectives, I do believe that fundamentalist evolutionists inveigh against the God-believing far more virulently than anything I have said.

By the way, have you read the books I mentioned? Will you? Are you open minded enough to do so? Are YOU open to a better theory than the one that you so adamantly espouse?

And like I said before, I hope your Darwinism gives you comfort when they come to exterminate you! But if they do come for you, I will be there to speak up for the sanctity of your life. For you are the image of God, whether you realize it or not.

Please know that the intention of my words is to promote mutual learning and the benefit of greater understanding. I enjoy the challenge and the sharing of knowledge. I seriously do believe that most of us engaged in this discussion have something to offer. I will try to tone down any perceived invectives. I don't think I am guilty of making "ad hominem" remarks, but in the future I will try to be extra careful. If we are all Orthodox, then love must prevail- even if we strongly disagree on certain matters. God bless you all, and may Our Lord guide us in all matters. Let us revere mystery, and never become enslaved by finite logic and mortal understanding.   

Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #128 on: February 08, 2009, 11:20:28 PM »

I'm going to repeat something I wrote in another forum.

Here's a video on common ancestry of humans and chimps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

For those who can't view youtube videos as fast, basically what he is saying is this.  We have these things called "chromosomes," and for simpleton's sake, these are your DNA.  Each of these chromosomes look like a rope with a knot in the middle (called the centromere).  Pretend that throughout the length of the rope you see seemingly random colors of red (T), white (A), blue (G), and green (C) in a seemingly random sequence (I say seemingly because there are small parts of the DNA that are not random after all, but codes for a seemingly endless variety of protein in your body).  At the ends of this rope however, they stop being random.  You have a repeating sequence in specifically the order of red, red, white, blue, blue, blue (TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG...etc).  These are called telomeres.

Humans have 46 "ropes" (chromosomes) each (they are usually grouped in pairs though, each pair with the same length, with the exception of males in one set of sex chromosomes) with the middle knot (centromere) and the repetitive TTAGGG ends (telomeres).  In fact, all mammals' chromosomes have the same structure.  Nevertheless, chimps and orangutans have 48 chromosomes, not 46.  What gives?  It turns out, human chromosome pair number 2 has the same exact length as two certain two pairs of chromosomes in a chimp as if the ropes were added one on top of the other.  Furthermore, the sequence of both knots of a chimp chromosome matched one of the knots (an activated centromere of chromosome 2) and another unknoted area (no longer a centromere, but retaining the same sequence) where one would expect.  Even more crazy, and what's unique about the human chromosome number 2 is that somewhere in the middle, you see repetitive TTAGGG sequences, being twice as long as either end of that one big rope, sequences that are required at the ends, and indications that these used to be ends themselves.  It's as if the two ropes were added together, one on top of the other, and retaining sequences expected in areas where you would find when added a rope to a rope (in fact, the human genome is over 99% exactly the same to that of chimps).
All very nice, but what's your point?
I remember the lecturer who pointed out that a cloud is 100% water and a waternelon 99% water, so a watermelon is only 1% from being a cloud.

Quote
Dr. Kenneth Miller goes on to proclaim his faith, "I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm a theist; in the broadest sense, I would say I'm a believer in a Designer, but I don't believe in a deceptive designer."

Here's his two-hour lecture refuting everything being said against evolution that has been said.  We can discuss the intricacies of his lecture if you guys want.  The point is I'd like to see some valid scientific arguments here, which has been a major lack.  But other than that, people who post here against evolution are repeating things already said earlier.  Just know this:  there are theistic evolutionists here, who are highly moral and highly religious (though not perfect of course).  By these alone, arguments against the moral stand of evolution fail.

This is the same argument my atheist friend gives on the unnecessity of religion (even Voltaire admitted, that if God didn't exist, He would have to be invented), given her morality (not perfect, but close enough to keep up the point).  The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally.  And as for Dr. Miller, my probleme isn't with his faith (well, it is, but that is a seperate issue, filioque and all you know).  It's his science.  His faith is an issue with his scientific colleagues who postulate God out of the equation and proceed from there, and then conclude that they have disproved God's existence.  No, you've just set it aside.

Quote
Enjoy this one when you get the time.  This is an enjoyable lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

I'll try to get the time.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #129 on: February 08, 2009, 11:46:25 PM »

Quote
Now, why is all of this so important? It is important because it fundamentally shapes the value of human life. You may be a God fearing Orthodox theistic evolutionist, and you may stand up for human rights at every level. That is good for you to do so (and I do hope that you do.) But there are many, many evolutionists who logically conclude that the unborn are not fully human (not yet evolved enough), and therefore abortion is no problem. They logically conclude that the handicapped, the senile and the elderly, and the mentally retarded are not fully human, and thus euthanasia and "natural selection" (i.e. extermination) are no problem either. Darwinism also has very racist implications, which is no problem either if the theory is correct. Why not try to manipulate and foster a race of Arian superiority?

But I don't think theistic evolution implies this. It rejects the Darwinian philosophy behind evolution, but acknowledges the process. If God was behind the whole evolutionary process, then race would come out equally, and mental retardation would not be a problem. Now from an atheistic standpoint, racism could easily be justified, since it would be quite a coincidence that all races evolved equally without a God.
Logged

signature
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #130 on: February 09, 2009, 12:02:33 AM »

The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally.

Nonsense.  It is a pretty easy and straightforward argument from social contract that morality of some sort certainly brings personal benefit.  The argument further breaks down when you consider how many theists were perfectly happy to cooperate with the above mentioned two in order to secure their own personal gain. 
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #131 on: February 09, 2009, 01:11:02 AM »

Quote
I remember the lecturer who pointed out that a cloud is 100% water and a waternelon 99% water, so a watermelon is only 1% from being a cloud.

Ya, of course.  Just because both are mostly water doesn't mean both waters are the same.  Somehow God created water from the clouds that did not happen to water the ground upon which watermelons get their water from.  In fact, God might have created water ex nihilo in a watermelon before clouds were created.  Very effective analogy I see.

Or better yet, that a child who has blood test confirming he is the son of those parents might not actually be true after all since the blood test can only be an illusion.

Or maybe the PC and the notebook might have have arisen from a central past idea, but that's ridiculous.  Two people had different ideas leading to different machines of course...duh!

Hey and everyone in prison right now...they're innocent.  Just because their hair follicle or blood matches their own DNA doesn't mean they were the same DNA.

Seriously?

Quote
The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally

Oh absolutely!  Emperor Diocletian, Judas Iscariot, and Mohammedans had to have believed in evolution to do what they did (and perhaps those who killed those who believed in a different Christology).

Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of evolution shows how much we're all related with the world.  Just as I am related to my family, and I love my family, maybe learning from evolution, I should be able to respect and love the environment around me as well.  Maybe evolution teaches people to be stewards of the world.

But whatever evolution is, if we are to compare humans and chimps as evolution does, Darwin offers this:

Quote
It has, I think, now been shewn that man and the higher animals, especially the Primates, have some few instincts in common. All have the same senses, intuitions, and sensations,----similar passions, affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude, and magnanimity; they practise deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humour; they feel wonder and curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason, though in very different degrees. The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence. They are also liable to insanity, though far less often than in the case of man. (Descent of Man, ch. 3)

Darwin doesn't say evolution shows how one can be immoral, but how there's a diversity of traits in this world.  To say evolution leads to immorality is just one-side of the coin.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 01:33:00 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #132 on: February 09, 2009, 01:29:41 AM »

I just wonder how someone as educated as Mr. Stein can be so intellectually depraved as to believe it's valid to use social arguments against scientific theories. Who cares if nazis or communists liked or disliked evolution, the support comming out of comparative genomics over the last decade is simply undeniable.

Ben Stein's arguments are not nearly as egregious as those of you who use scientific arguments against social theories that uphold the sanctity of human life- such as Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger and others have done.

And I think the quotation at the bottom of all your posts ["Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -Robert Heinlein-] reveals how little regard you apparrently have for the sanctity of human life. I guess I would be first on the extermination list, since I have never been very good at math! But  then again, if its it's simply a matter of "survival of the fittest," then perhaps the math nerds will be exterminated by those who are physically stronger. But as long as you hold to evolution, then don't you dare make any moral judgments about whatever happens to you or anyone else!
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 01:32:28 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #133 on: February 09, 2009, 01:48:55 PM »

If two competing runners begin at the starting line, and then one of them is shot and killed as soon as the race begins, then there is only one possible winner.
But in this matter, truth is not a contest between two competitors.  Orthodox theology and evolution are not in competition with each other.  I don't believe that God has directly revealed all truth.  Some of it (much of it!), he left for us to figure out.  A better analogy is that of a race car -- Orthodoxy and science are cylinders in the same engine.  Sure, the car might still run on 7 cylinders, but it runs much more smoothly when all plugs are firing.  If you insist that the two are incompatible, then I would certainly never encourage you to consider replacing your Orthodox beliefs with some kind of philosophical Darwinistic atheism.  What I'm saying is that there is room for both.  They are not in conflict.  Evolution describes the means; Genesis provides the meaning.

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus
As I said before, I remain open to the evidence. Where are the intermediary species walking around today? Where were they 1000 years ago? Where were they 2000 years ago?
Well, I gave you a few examples, and you condescendingly called them "evidence".  You would need to define what you consider an intermediary species to be before I could properly answer.  You still haven't done so, but I will try again.  There are now 21 different species of dinosaurs known to have had feathers.  All of these are likely intermediaries between non-feathered dinosaurs and birds. 

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus
By the way - and I am only speaking for the teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church here - the Church teaches that the earth is only 7000 years old. So, in that regard, our Orthodoxy does indeed preclude the possibility for Darwinian evolution.
Then the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is saying something different from the rest of Orthodoxy.  This is from the OCA website, but I've seen the exact same text in other places:  "Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus
And by the way, from a spiritual perspective, I know that your "LUCY" that they found in sacred Ethiopia is nothing more than a manifestation of Lucifer!
I'm not sure I fully understand this.  It almost sounds like you're inferring a spiritual nature of a physical object (a fossil).  This view is reminiscent of Origen, whose views on the spiritual nature of celestial bodies was anathematized by the Church.

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus
As far as invectives, I do believe that fundamentalist evolutionists inveigh against the God-believing far more virulently than anything I have said.
But you weren't responding to fundamentalist evolutionists.  You were responding to me.  I make every effort to be frank yet polite and objective.  If you bring pent-up angst into the discussion, then I would sincerely ask "who is the one bringing presuppositions with them?"

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus
For you are the image of God, whether you realize it or not.
I realize it.

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus
God bless you all, and may Our Lord guide us in all matters. Let us revere mystery, and never become enslaved by finite logic and mortal understanding.
Indeed.  But also let us not eschew logic and understanding.  Mind is one of the talents our Lord gave us.  Let us not be ones who simply bury our talent until his return.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #134 on: February 09, 2009, 02:30:57 PM »

Quote
I remember the lecturer who pointed out that a cloud is 100% water and a waternelon 99% water, so a watermelon is only 1% from being a cloud.

Ya, of course.  Just because both are mostly water doesn't mean both waters are the same.  Somehow God created water from the clouds that did not happen to water the ground upon which watermelons get their water from.  In fact, God might have created water ex nihilo in a watermelon before clouds were created.  Very effective analogy I see.

Or better yet, that a child who has blood test confirming he is the son of those parents might not actually be true after all since the blood test can only be an illusion.

Or maybe the PC and the notebook might have have arisen from a central past idea, but that's ridiculous.  Two people had different ideas leading to different machines of course...duh!

Hey and everyone in prison right now...they're innocent.  Just because their hair follicle or blood matches their own DNA doesn't mean they were the same DNA.

Seriously?

Seriously, I've been to prison, and I was shocked to find that it was full of the guilty. Or so they said themselves.  They told me that I didn't belong there, because I didn't do anything.

But as to your other points:one of the problems your friends have is that when the the genetic data doesn't fit their theory, or the fossils don't fit their theory, they make it fit their theory.  Case in point, the DNA studies showing everyone being descended from a common ancestor of about a hundred thousand years ago, far less than they had been claiming from the fossil record.  Of course, that's another problem: no genetic connection that can be tested between fossils and living specimens.  Who was it again with the evolution in embryoes?

Quote
The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally

Quote
Oh absolutely!  Emperor Diocletian, Judas Iscariot, and Mohammedans had to have believed in evolution to do what they did (and perhaps those who killed those who believed in a different Christology).

One heresy fits all?  Hmm.  I'll give it a thought. Roll Eyes

Quote
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of evolution shows how much we're all related with the world.  Just as I am related to my family, and I love my family, maybe learning from evolution, I should be able to respect and love the environment around me as well.  Maybe evolution teaches people to be stewards of the world.

Or maybe it means I should kill off the rest of humanity, except for my chosen mates.  Survival of the fittest.

The idea of us being in a great chain of being is not new: the pagans so thought.

Quote
But whatever evolution is, if we are to compare humans and chimps as evolution does, Darwin offers this:

It has, I think, now been shewn that man and the higher animals, especially the Primates, have some few instincts in common. All have the same senses, intuitions, and sensations,----similar passions, affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude, and magnanimity; they practise deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humour; they feel wonder and curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason, though in very different degrees. The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence. They are also liable to insanity, though far less often than in the case of man. (Descent of Man, ch. 3)

I remember our evolution class at the U of C stated that man was just an usual ape.  When I see the ape Mona Lisa, I'll believe it.

Quote
Darwin doesn't say evolution shows how one can be immoral, but how there's a diversity of traits in this world.  To say evolution leads to immorality is just one-side of the coin.
Christian morality is not the other side of that coin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #135 on: February 09, 2009, 02:34:18 PM »

The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally.

Nonsense.  It is a pretty easy and straightforward argument from social contract that morality of some sort certainly brings personal benefit. 

Evolution knows no social contract.

Quote
The argument further breaks down when you consider how many theists were perfectly happy to cooperate with the above mentioned two in order to secure their own personal gain. 
Coooperated or coopted?  Or coerced?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #136 on: February 09, 2009, 09:13:43 PM »

Francis Collins, a leading scientist and Christian, is the head of the Human Genome Project. In his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, he says this of Intelligent Design:

So, scientifically, ID fails to hold up, providing neither an opportunity for experimental validation nor a robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity. More than that, however, ID also fails in a way that should be more of a concern to the believer than to the hard-nosed scientist. ID is "God of the gaps" theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain. Various cultures have traditionally tried to ascribe to God various natural phenomena that the science of the day have been unable to sort out - whether the solar eclipse or the beauty of a flower. But those theories have a dismal history. Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps, to the dismay of those who had attached their faith to them. Ultimately a "God of the gaps" religion runs a huge risk of simply discrediting faith. We must not repeat this mistake in the current era. Intelligent Design fits into this discouranging tradition, and faces the same ultimate demise. Furthermor, ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life. For a believer who stands in awe of the almost unimaginable intelligence and creative genius of God, this is a very unsatisfactory image."

William Demski, advocate for ID writes: If it could be shown that biological systems that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated, such as the bacterial flagellum, could have been formed by gradual Darwian process (and thus that their specified complexity is an illusion), then Intelligent Design would be refuted on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when undirected natural causes will do. In that case, Occam's razor would finish off Intelligent Design quite nicely.

In answering this statement, Francis Collins states: A sober evaluation of current scientific information would have to conclude that this outcome is already at hand. The perceived gaps in evolution that ID intended to fill with God are instead being filled by advances in science. By forcing this limited, narrow view on God's role, Intelligent Design is ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith.

We are all well aware of the need for believers to stand firm in the eternal truths of our faith, despite great social and scientific upheavals. Yet we also should see the need to celebrate discoveries about the natural world that God created. If we don't, it isn't science that suffers, it's faith. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on literal interpretations of Genesis sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of evolution. They then face a terrible and unnecessary choice. Do they adhere to the faith of their childhood where they are required to reject the rigorous body of scientific data in favour of evolution - effectively committing intellectual suicide? Or do they simply conclude that they cannot believe in a God who would ask them to reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world. I have seen far to much of the latter; to the point that they become openly hostile to all forms of faith. We do a great disservice to our young people if, in bringing them up to honour truth in one instant, we expect them to deny it in another. 

Saint Augustine, in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. 

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.






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)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #137 on: February 09, 2009, 10:00:47 PM »

Francis Collins, a leading scientist and Christian, is the head of the Human Genome Project. In his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, he says this of Intelligent Design:

So, scientifically, ID fails to hold up, providing neither an opportunity for experimental validation nor a robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity. More than that, however, ID also fails in a way that should be more of a concern to the believer than to the hard-nosed scientist. ID is "God of the gaps" theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain. Various cultures have traditionally tried to ascribe to God various natural phenomena that the science of the day have been unable to sort out - whether the solar eclipse or the beauty of a flower. But those theories have a dismal history. Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps, to the dismay of those who had attached their faith to them. Ultimately a "God of the gaps" religion runs a huge risk of simply discrediting faith. We must not repeat this mistake in the current era. Intelligent Design fits into this discouranging tradition, and faces the same ultimate demise. Furthermor, ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life. For a believer who stands in awe of the almost unimaginable intelligence and creative genius of God, this is a very unsatisfactory image."

William Demski, advocate for ID writes: If it could be shown that biological systems that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated, such as the bacterial flagellum, could have been formed by gradual Darwian process (and thus that their specified complexity is an illusion), then Intelligent Design would be refuted on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when undirected natural causes will do. In that case, Occam's razor would finish off Intelligent Design quite nicely.

In answering this statement, Francis Collins states: A sober evaluation of current scientific information would have to conclude that this outcome is already at hand. The perceived gaps in evolution that ID intended to fill with God are instead being filled by advances in science. By forcing this limited, narrow view on God's role, Intelligent Design is ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith.

We are all well aware of the need for believers to stand firm in the eternal truths of our faith, despite great social and scientific upheavals. Yet we also should see the need to celebrate discoveries about the natural world that God created. If we don't, it isn't science that suffers, it's faith. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on literal interpretations of Genesis sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of evolution. They then face a terrible and unnecessary choice. Do they adhere to the faith of their childhood where they are required to reject the rigorous body of scientific data in favour of evolution - effectively committing intellectual suicide? Or do they simply conclude that they cannot believe in a God who would ask them to reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world. I have seen far to much of the latter; to the point that they become openly hostile to all forms of faith. We do a great disservice to our young people if, in bringing them up to honour truth in one instant, we expect them to deny it in another. 

Saint Augustine, in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. 

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.








Why anyone would be intrepreting Scripture in light of "scientific knowlege" is beyond me.

Dr. Collins et alia continue to make such dogmatic statements, but that doesn't plug up evolution's holes.  The critics in "Expelled" didn't come from Oral Roberts or Liberty U.  I lost faith in evolution studying it at the University of Chicago (where an agnostic paleontologist was the one who pushed me into the Church).  It seems Dr. Collins and comp. can only answer these criticizms by stereotyping.  Let alone the likes of Hawkins.

Btw, as Augustine shows, this is not a new question.  Pagan science on this matter was not, with the philosophical underpinnings of emanation, very different with evolution.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #138 on: February 10, 2009, 12:14:32 AM »

I have a sincere question:
If Darwinian evolution is correct, then who decides or defines who and what is "fully human"? In fact, it seems to me that none of us are fully human, since we are still evolving. Therefore, if we are not fully human, then why are we concerned with human rights and social justice? Let the unborn be aborted, let the Nazis conduct their experiments, let man enslave his fellow man, etc.

Now those of you who are theistic evolutionists will invoke God and biblical morality at this point. But you are an insignificant and irrelevant voice in the mainstream scientific community. The atheistic scientists are not impressed by the fact that you agree with Darwinian evolution, so don't kid yourselves. Your religious convictions will not deter them from their atheistic scientific aims. You are only an annoying impediment standing in the way of their "scientific progress." And their path of scientific progress may involve doing to you or to me things that are far worse than the atrocious experiments of Josef Mengele. But since we are still evolving and not yet fully human, then who cares?

Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #139 on: February 10, 2009, 03:45:11 AM »

If Darwinian evolution is correct, then who decides or defines who and what is "fully human"?
Now those of you who are theistic evolutionists will invoke God and biblical morality at this point.
I will invoke God and biblical morality at this point, and there is no inconsistency in doing so.

This type of question is not unique to the evolution discussion.  Have you heard of chimerism?  It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, thought to be rare, but no one knows how rare since one can live their entire life completely unaware of it.  Essentially, it is an extreme case of conjoined twins.  But the two zygotes fuse so early in their development that they mature into one organism.  Perhaps a person's bones, skin, and nervous system then come from one fertilized egg, and their digestive system, heart and lungs from the other.  Reasonable questions include "Were there ever two souls?" and "If so, what became of one of them?" or "Were there originally two fully human beings?"  I believe the answer is "Only God knows."

The point (and the way this relates to the OP) is that science can't answer these questions.  Science is unable to effectively address matters of theology.  And theology has a poor track record in answering scientific questions.  Which is why the subjects in Expelled aren't taken seriously by their peers.  They are trying to give theological answers to scientific questions.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #140 on: February 10, 2009, 08:58:40 AM »

If Darwinian evolution is correct, then who decides or defines who and what is "fully human"?
Now those of you who are theistic evolutionists will invoke God and biblical morality at this point.
I will invoke God and biblical morality at this point, and there is no inconsistency in doing so.

This type of question is not unique to the evolution discussion.  Have you heard of chimerism?  It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, thought to be rare, but no one knows how rare since one can live their entire life completely unaware of it.  Essentially, it is an extreme case of conjoined twins.  But the two zygotes fuse so early in their development that they mature into one organism.  Perhaps a person's bones, skin, and nervous system then come from one fertilized egg, and their digestive system, heart and lungs from the other.  Reasonable questions include "Were there ever two souls?" and "If so, what became of one of them?" or "Were there originally two fully human beings?"  I believe the answer is "Only God knows."

The point (and the way this relates to the OP) is that science can't answer these questions.  Science is unable to effectively address matters of theology.  And theology has a poor track record in answering scientific questions.  Which is why the subjects in Expelled aren't taken seriously by their peers.  They are trying to give theological answers to scientific questions.
No, as "Expelled shows, they aren't.  They are posing scientific questions to a allegedly scientific theory.  One of the highlights is were Hawkins says there can be a designer, it's just isn't God.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 10, 2009, 11:15:18 AM »

I have a sincere question:
If Darwinian evolution is correct, then who decides or defines who and what is "fully human"? In fact, it seems to me that none of us are fully human, since we are still evolving. Therefore, if we are not fully human, then why are we concerned with human rights and social justice? Let the unborn be aborted, let the Nazis conduct their experiments, let man enslave his fellow man, etc.

Now those of you who are theistic evolutionists will invoke God and biblical morality at this point. But you are an insignificant and irrelevant voice in the mainstream scientific community. The atheistic scientists are not impressed by the fact that you agree with Darwinian evolution, so don't kid yourselves. Your religious convictions will not deter them from their atheistic scientific aims. You are only an annoying impediment standing in the way of their "scientific progress." And their path of scientific progress may involve doing to you or to me things that are far worse than the atrocious experiments of Josef Mengele. But since we are still evolving and not yet fully human, then who cares?

Selam

Bingo!

Alot of the Atheists(There are different kinds of Atheists) I use to argue with on myspace either refused to believe this or they just wasn't able to see what their naturalistic/materialistic philosophy will ultimately lead to.

They will just deny it.....just like they deny the existence of God. They have no reason for it. Many of them are just emotionaly attached to an idea or lifestyle that they just don't want to give up. So they refuse to question it. And this is true for alot of "so called Atheists". I say that because there were alot of self professed Athiests who were Jews that went to synagogue, and one of them admitted that his rabbi was an Atheist. There were self professed Atheists who were into Bhuddism, Confuicism, and other Eastern forms of philosophy/religion. Some were neopagans/vampire. You even have Satanists that are Atheists. So alot of Atheists are religious/spiritual, ....if you allow them to talk long enough......many of them will show their true colors. The problem is, our society is drunken on Secular Humanism. So this germ can be seen everywhere. And this is one of the reasons why I say, there is no such thing as a true Athiest. And if their is such a thing as an Athiest, then they are few in number. Many of them stop short of what their philosophy truely demands.


Now in regards to Theology:
Theology only had a poor track record with the rise of Darwin and Heckel. So I would say from about 1890 to about 1960. Before that time, theology permeated the sciences.


In recent times, Theology is able to answer alot of the naturalistic philosophical objections of Atheism.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 11:34:42 AM by 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/
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #142 on: February 10, 2009, 01:07:44 PM »

The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally.

Nonsense.  It is a pretty easy and straightforward argument from social contract that morality of some sort certainly brings personal benefit. 

Evolution knows no social contract.

You need to pick an argument and stick to it.  The point you put forward is that it is impossible to convince an atheist of morality.  My response is that it is a very simple argument from self-interest that morality (especially in the form of a social contract) is relevant to an atheist.  A good example of that is Thomas Jefferson (while not an atheist, his deism had the same practical impact): he certainly didn't shy from speaking in absolute terms regarding morality from the concept of social contract.  Thus, I say that your argument that atheist are somehow inherently amoral and that this relates to evolution is flawed.  I also find it ironic since in real life, all of the social darwinists that I know are bible-thumping Christians and my atheist friends are quite far to the left on social justice issues, volunteer in soup kitchens etc. 

As for your arguments about Hitler and Stalin, so what?  You also have Franco and Mullah Omar - does that mean theism is an inherently brutal ideology that can only end in a violent dictatorship? 

Quote
The argument further breaks down when you consider how many theists were perfectly happy to cooperate with the above mentioned two in order to secure their own personal gain. 
Coooperated or coopted?  Or coerced?
[/quote]

Look beyond Hitler and Stalin.  There have been plenty of diabolical theists in recent history.  A good case study is Perica's Balkan Idols. 
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #143 on: February 10, 2009, 01:43:38 PM »

Theology only had a poor track record with the rise of Darwin and Heckel. So I would say from about 1890 to about 1960. Before that time, theology permeated the sciences.
Remember how theology reacted to Copernicus' and Galileo's reactionary claims concerning physics?
Remember how the ancient Hebrews thought that a rabbit chewed its cud?
Theology has a quite lengthy history of getting science wrong.

No, as "Expelled shows, they aren't.  They are posing scientific questions to a allegedly scientific theory.
Well, it doesn't count if all you do is say "but Theory X doesn't fully explain Y."  You have to propose a new hypothesis; one which not only explains Y, but also accounts for all other known observations.  What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #144 on: February 10, 2009, 01:55:29 PM »

The problem is not moral atheists, it is the problem of them convincing amoral atheists (Stalin, Hitler, whatever) to act morally.

Nonsense.  It is a pretty easy and straightforward argument from social contract that morality of some sort certainly brings personal benefit. 

Evolution knows no social contract.

Quote
You need to pick an argument and stick to it.  The point you put forward is that it is impossible to convince an atheist of morality.

No, my point is that it is impossible for an atheist to convince another atheist of morality.

You detoured the discussion by bringing sociology into your biology.  Not I.

Quote
  My response is that it is a very simple argument from self-interest that morality (especially in the form of a social contract) is relevant to an atheist.

Very simple?  Then why not make it?

Quote
A good example of that is Thomas Jefferson (while not an atheist, his deism had the same practical impact): he certainly didn't shy from speaking in absolute terms regarding morality from the concept of social contract. 


The Thomas Jefferson who railed against George III for slavery in the original declaration of independence, and then sired children from his slave (his wife's half sister it seems), and sold off his slaves to pay his debts, that Thomas Jefferson?  Btw he took the "inferiority" of blacks, and that they smelt bad, as self evident.

Quote
Thus, I say that your argument that atheist are somehow inherently amoral and that this relates to evolution is flawed.
 

No, my arugment is that atheists don't have a leg to stand on to argue morality.  If there is no God, all things are permitted.  And if it's all survival of the fittest, well....

Quote
I also find it ironic since in real life, all of the social darwinists that I know are bible-thumping Christians

and of course, only what you know is "real life."

Bible-thumping Christians like the Abolitionists?

Quote
and my atheist friends are quite far to the left on social justice issues, volunteer in soup kitchens etc. 


Social justice issues.  The left's attempt at morality.

Quote
As for your arguments about Hitler and Stalin, so what?  You also have Franco and Mullah Omar - does that mean theism is an inherently brutal ideology that can only end in a violent dictatorship?


With Franco and even Mullah Omar, you have something to argue from.  Not so Hitler and Stalin.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #145 on: February 10, 2009, 03:12:05 PM »

Since the quotes are a mess in your post, I'll forego quoting:

Essentially, I am arguing that, in practice, religion has surprisingly little to do with a person's morality.  Rather than derail the conversation with a string of one-liners, I pointed out that people without overtly religious beliefs have developed ethical systems.  Again rather than jump in with one-liners in response, I'd point out that pretty much every system has had major flaws in it - thus it is silly to try a tit for tat battle.  And frankly, with the crusades and inquisition, burning of Old Ritualists, etc. etc. it is a tough argument to make from the viewpoint of Christianity. 

Why do you disparage an atheist working in a soup kitchen?  It has been my experience that that is often some of the ripest ground for real missionary work.  It has definitely been my experience that telling such a person that they are amoral because they are an atheist doesn't really work to show them the message of Christ.


« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 03:12:48 PM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #146 on: February 10, 2009, 04:22:33 PM »

Since the quotes are a mess in your post, I'll forego quoting:

Essentially, I am arguing that, in practice, religion has surprisingly little to do with a person's morality.  Rather than derail the conversation with a string of one-liners, I pointed out that people without overtly religious beliefs have developed ethical systems.  Again rather than jump in with one-liners in response, I'd point out that pretty much every system has had major flaws in it - thus it is silly to try a tit for tat battle.  And frankly, with the crusades and inquisition, burning of Old Ritualists, etc. etc. it is a tough argument to make from the viewpoint of Christianity. 

Why do you disparage an atheist working in a soup kitchen?  It has been my experience that that is often some of the ripest ground for real missionary work.  It has definitely been my experience that telling such a person that they are amoral because they are an atheist doesn't really work to show them the message of Christ.




The social contract theory is relative. What is right today will be wrong tomorrow. And religion has everything to do with a person's morality. The English speaking Atheists that walk around today are mostly cultural christians and jews, not to mention buddhist and other eastern philosophical/religious school of thought. Once they die and the noncultural christian bunch takes over then you will have a break down in moral code.

They will keep rewriting their moral code as they see fit. Secular Humanism pushes a person to do as they see fit. If each person acts as an anarchist individual, only wanting to do what they want, and not caring what the next man wants then the moral code will ultimately be the rule of the strongest individual, and when that person dies, the moral code will change in the image of the next strongest individual.

We can see this in gang violence. The older generation tends to be more moral than the younger generation. The next generation of Atheists will be more heartless than the cultural christian bunch we have today.

And by the way, Hitler, Stalin, Mow and the other Asian Atheists in that region, killed way more people in the last century alone.... than christians ever did for the past 2,000 years.


And it will only get worse.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 04:36:08 PM by 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/
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #147 on: February 10, 2009, 04:38:23 PM »

The social contract theory is relative. What is right today will be wrong tomorrow. And religion has everything to do with a person's morality.

I certainly hope that you do not have a mortgage, any loans or a credit card.  As you Christian that believes in absolute morality, you must know the usury is a sin. 

The English speaking Atheists that walk around today are mostly cultural christians and jews, not to mention buddhist and other eastern philosophical/religious school of thought. Once they die and the noncultural christian bunch takes over then you will have a break down in moral code.

They will keep rewriting their moral code as they see fit.

I hate to break it to you, but atheism is a bit older than a generation. 

Several of James Thrower's books deal with that topic.  These two are the best:
http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Tradition-Unbelief-Ancient-Religion/dp/9027979979/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234297679&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Atheism-History-James-Thrower/dp/1573927562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234297768&sr=1-1

I'm not in any way advocating anyone become an atheist - afterall, I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian myself.  Rather, let's not use hackneyed halftruths against it either. 

Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #148 on: February 10, 2009, 04:42:22 PM »

Theology only had a poor track record with the rise of Darwin and Heckel. So I would say from about 1890 to about 1960. Before that time, theology permeated the sciences.
Remember how theology reacted to Copernicus' and Galileo's reactionary claims concerning physics?
Remember how the ancient Hebrews thought that a rabbit chewed its cud?
Theology has a quite lengthy history of getting science wrong.

No, as "Expelled shows, they aren't.  They are posing scientific questions to a allegedly scientific theory.
Well, it doesn't count if all you do is say "but Theory X doesn't fully explain Y."  You have to propose a new hypothesis; one which not only explains Y, but also accounts for all other known observations.  What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?
Copernicus was a christian too, and his findings didn't seem to bother his theology. Galileo was a christian and at first the Roman pontiff supported Galileo. It wasn't until other scientists pushed the pontif to do other wise that things went bad for Galileo. So I wouldn't blame theology. Instead, I would blame "politics" and Aristotlian philosophy.

Alot of the Biblical interpretation "of western christianity" in those days was seen through the lens of Aristotle. So I wouldn't blame the Bible nor would I blame theology for that.




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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #149 on: February 10, 2009, 04:52:09 PM »

The social contract theory is relative. What is right today will be wrong tomorrow. And religion has everything to do with a person's morality.

I certainly hope that you do not have a mortgage, any loans or a credit card.  As you Christian that believes in absolute morality, you must know the usury is a sin. 

The English speaking Atheists that walk around today are mostly cultural christians and jews, not to mention buddhist and other eastern philosophical/religious school of thought. Once they die and the noncultural christian bunch takes over then you will have a break down in moral code.

They will keep rewriting their moral code as they see fit.

I hate to break it to you, but atheism is a bit older than a generation. 

Several of James Thrower's books deal with that topic.  These two are the best:
http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Tradition-Unbelief-Ancient-Religion/dp/9027979979/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234297679&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Atheism-History-James-Thrower/dp/1573927562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234297768&sr=1-1

I'm not in any way advocating anyone become an atheist - afterall, I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian myself.  Rather, let's not use hackneyed halftruths against it either. 



I never said Atheism began yesturday. I know more about the history of Atheism than you think. I even know about Atheistic Anglican Bishops and an Atheistic French Roman Catholic Cardinal of the 17 hundreds (a century before the French Revolution) Some people think modern Atheism began in the late 18 hundreds, but I always pointed the finger at the pagan philosopher Epicurus.

Also it doesn't matter if you attend an Orthodox Church regularly. If Jewish Rabbi's, Anglican priests and Bishops, and if Roman Catholic Cardinals, and Bishops can be Athiests, if Baptist Deacons can be Athiests, then going to an Orthodox Church doesn't necessarily free anyone from the charge of not being an Atheist. Shoot, even Masons go to Church.......even Orthodox Churches..... Now I'm not calling you an Athiest nor a Mason. I am just saying that you can't use that to say you're not an Atheist......for alot of Athiests and Agnostics go to church. My own step dad is Agnostic and he goes to church.....every now and then. I dated a Roman Catholic (a cultural Roman Catholic) who turned out to be agnostic....if not a practical Atheist. Now she stopped going to church since high school, but she still calls herself "Roman Catholic".

You can still be a cultural christian and an Atheist at the sametime. Infact, even Dawkins said he was a cultural christian. There are other Anglicans in England who are Athiests and actually go to church, and sing the songs, now they may stop short when it comes to partaking of communion. But alot of Atheists go to Church and Synagogue.


Thanks for the list of books, but I really don't have the time to read new books. I have too much on my plate as it is. A friend gave me this book some days ago.

Etienne Borne "Atheism"
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Twentieth-century-encyclopedia-Catholicism/dp/B0006AXB9G

It's written by a Roman Catholic, but I don't have the time to read it. I may in the future, but I have too much on my plate right now.


The point I was getting at was........as our christian culture dies all around us, the next generation of Athiests won't have the same inhibitions as previous generations of Athiests. Thus they will be more free to do heinous acts.....aka more depraved. And what ever social contract they will have or make.....it won't be as strict and it will keep changing to be more and more loose.






JNORM888

P.S. "I already know that Usury is a sin.......trust me.....I know, and argued about it some months ago on a different thread."
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:23:09 PM by 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/
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2009, 05:09:05 PM »

But as to your other points:one of the problems your friends have is that when the the genetic data doesn't fit their theory, or the fossils don't fit their theory, they make it fit their theory.  Case in point, the DNA studies showing everyone being descended from a common ancestor of about a hundred thousand years ago, far less than they had been claiming from the fossil record.  Of course, that's another problem: no genetic connection that can be tested between fossils and living specimens.  Who was it again with the evolution in embryoes?

Ever studied punctuated equilibrium?

And yes, it's interesting you stand behind a "no genetic" connection between fossils and living specimens.  Sure, for ID creationists, let's assume the fossils of a neanderthal had really weird chromosomes, probably 100 pairs of them, that somehow made his skeleton look similar to both apes and humans.

Quote
Or maybe it means I should kill off the rest of humanity, except for my chosen mates.  Survival of the fittest.

The idea of us being in a great chain of being is not new: the pagans so thought.

Pagans also had morality.  Apparently, morality is not something you get directly from God, but from your heart, as St. Paul taught.

Interestingly enough, the Old Testament, if taken literally taught survival of the fittest.  Let's kill all the people of Canaan so that the chosen people of God may live.  So let's not just blame the pagans alone for their own thought.

Quote
I remember our evolution class at the U of C stated that man was just an usual ape.  When I see the ape Mona Lisa, I'll believe it.

That's like saying if I see a wolf that looks like a chihuahua, then I'll believe in evolution.

Quote
Christian morality is not the other side of that coin.

Did you know there exists altruism in chimps?

I agree to be truly selfless is the key to Christian morality.  But the fact that the kind of morality can exist in lower form of animals also means something about the innateness of morality itself.  In addition, I think these behaviors in chimps point to a side of evolution where the trait of altruism competes with the trait of tyranny.  The difference with us humans is that we can truly achieve a selfless form of altruism in a spiritual manner no other animal can because they don't have a spirit.

God bless.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:25:44 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #151 on: February 10, 2009, 05:15:00 PM »


What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?

Logical Positivism is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. (Logical Positivism is the assertion that only that which can be proven is that which is true. But this assertion is itself not testable or falsifiable, and thus it disproves itself.) And Darwinian evolution is established upon this untenable logical positivism approach.
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #152 on: February 10, 2009, 05:24:54 PM »

I never said Atheism began yesturday. I know more about the history of Atheism than you think. I even know about Atheistic Anglican Bishops and an Atheistic French Roman Catholic Cardinal of the 17 hundreds (a century before the French Revolution) Some people think modern Atheism began in the late 18 hundreds, but I always pointed the finger at the pagan philosopher Epicurus.

Since you admit all of this, doesn't that make the hysteria of the atheist are coming seem a bit absurd?  My point about the intellectual foundations of the United States being from deists influenced by enlightenment thinking still stands.

And the initial point was that atheist can't be moral people, and I have yet to see this addressed.  All you have done is point out that after a few thousand years the slippery slope argument still isn't working.

Also it doesn't matter if you attend an Orthodox Church regularly. If Jewish Rabbi's, Anglican priests and Bishops, and if Roman Catholic Cardinals, and Bishops can be Athiests, if Baptist Deacons can be Athiests, then going to an Orthodox Church doesn't necessarily free anyone from the charge of not being an Atheist. Now I'm not calling you an Athiest. I am just saying that you can't use that to say you're not an Atheist......for alot of Athiests and Agnostics go to church.

I think the only way to tell for sure would be to throw me in a lake and see if I float or sink.   Roll Eyes  

Again, I am not advocating atheism.  I am advocating actually understanding how and why atheists view the world.  Unless that is done accurately, there is little hope of actually reaching out to anyone.  The laughable and inaccurate caricatures that I've seen on this thread are about as sophisticated a Jack Chick tract.  
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #153 on: February 10, 2009, 05:39:22 PM »

Modern Western Science (MWS) is a game, a game that when played well, results in useful, practical knowledge that can be used to explicate, control, and predict events in the empirically observable and quantifiable universe of matter and energy. The track record of MWS in helping the human species live longer and healthier lives is non-debatable. (Whether MWS has helped humanity live more moral lives, well, you can debate that if you choose. Morals isn't quantifiable.)

And the game of MWS has rules. The first rule of Fight Club...uh, I mean, the first rule of Modern Western Science is (1) you do not invoke what is not empirically observable and quantifiable in order to explain what is empirically observable and quantifiable. The second rule of MWS is (2) you DO NOT INVOKE what is not empirically observable and quantifiable in order to explain what IS empirically observable and quantifiable. The third rule of MWS is (3) if you do invoke what is not empirically observable and quantifiable in order to explain what is empirically observable and quantifiable, then you are no longer playing the game of MWS. At which point, you are playing SOME OTHER game -- perhaps philosophy, perhaps aesthetics, perhaps theology, but you are no longer playing the game of MWS.

It's OK to not play the game of MWS.

It's totally fine to not play the game of MWS.

You are not a bad person if you are not playing the game of MWS.

The game of MWS is not superior or inferior (necessarily) to any other particular game.

The game of MWS will not (in itself) make you happy.

The game of MWS will not (in itself) lead to nirvana.

The game of MWS will not (in itself) open the door to salvation.

But the game of MWS has rules, those rules make the game work, and if you're not playing by the rules, you are simply not doing MWS.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:40:03 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #154 on: February 10, 2009, 05:49:27 PM »

I never said Atheism began yesturday. I know more about the history of Atheism than you think. I even know about Atheistic Anglican Bishops and an Atheistic French Roman Catholic Cardinal of the 17 hundreds (a century before the French Revolution) Some people think modern Atheism began in the late 18 hundreds, but I always pointed the finger at the pagan philosopher Epicurus.

Since you admit all of this, doesn't that make the hysteria of the atheist are coming seem a bit absurd?  My point about the intellectual foundations of the United States being from deists influenced by enlightenment thinking still stands.

And the initial point was that atheist can't be moral people, and I have yet to see this addressed.  All you have done is point out that after a few thousand years the slippery slope argument still isn't working.

Also it doesn't matter if you attend an Orthodox Church regularly. If Jewish Rabbi's, Anglican priests and Bishops, and if Roman Catholic Cardinals, and Bishops can be Athiests, if Baptist Deacons can be Athiests, then going to an Orthodox Church doesn't necessarily free anyone from the charge of not being an Atheist. Now I'm not calling you an Athiest. I am just saying that you can't use that to say you're not an Atheist......for alot of Athiests and Agnostics go to church.

I think the only way to tell for sure would be to throw me in a lake and see if I float or sink.   Roll Eyes  

Again, I am not advocating atheism.  I am advocating actually understanding how and why atheists view the world.  Unless that is done accurately, there is little hope of actually reaching out to anyone.  The laughable and inaccurate caricatures that I've seen on this thread are about as sophisticated a Jack Chick tract.  

no, because the spread of democrocy really means the spread of "Secular Humanism". So what once was a small cancer will soon be a major cancer. The spread of Communism/Socialism & Democracy will all spread "Secular Humanism".......all over the globe. I see it as a snow ball effect.

Many church fathers and nonfathers believed that the end would come when the city of Rome was destroyed. They believed this because Rome was seen as a great system of law. She held the world in check from super duper evil. But once she is destroyed then there will be nothing left to restrain super duper evil on this planet.


The system of law and order will be broken, and all evil will break loose. A true Athiest won't be able to tell the difference between good and evil. They won't know what is goos and they won't know what is evil. Therefore, great evil is possible with them.

If you saw the movie "expelled". Then you would of saw an Athiest who had cancer, and he spoke about how he devolved from a christian to an Atheist to a consistant Athiest.....in where he no longer believed in free will. This shows that nbot every Athiest is on the same level. This shows that alot of them are not consistant Athiests.

But as they grow in number, then many of them will become consistent Atheists. It will take time for many of them to know the implications of philosophical naturalism/scientific materialism.

I once argued with an Athiest on myspace( which is still on their forum section) but two or 3 years ago I argued with one that thought there were no implications to Atheism. She thought there were no consequences to philosophical naturalism. So not every Athiest is on the same level......nor do they all understand where such ideas will naturally lead to.



If you can't see it, it's because you are not looking at the implications of "Philosophical Naturalism /Scientific Materialism".

We are looking at their ideas, and what such ideas can lead too.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:55:50 PM by 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/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #155 on: February 10, 2009, 11:08:03 PM »

Since the quotes are a mess in your post, I'll forego quoting:

Yes, I saw when I posted.  But lunch break was over and so I had to return to class: full of all those genetic mistakes that qualify as "the fittest" and the Spartans would have hurled off the cliff.  But we keep them anyways.

Quote
Essentially, I am arguing that, in practice, religion has surprisingly little to do with a person's morality. 

So you keep on asserting without thinking you have to prove it.

 
Quote
Rather than derail the conversation with a string of one-liners,


Derail with one liners?  Or rather, call sterotypes (Bible thumpers, Southern hics, etc.) for what they are?

Quote
I pointed out that people without overtly religious beliefs have developed ethical systems.

Might makes right is a moral system, one that Hitler and Stalin implemented on a vast scale.

Your moral atheist's argument for an alternative?  Falls flat. 

Quote
Again rather than jump in with one-liners in response, I'd point out that pretty much every system has had major flaws in it - thus it is silly to try a tit for tat battle.  And frankly, with the crusades and inquisition, burning of Old Ritualists, etc. etc. it is a tough argument to make from the viewpoint of Christianity.
 

Actually, it's quite easy.  Luke 9:51-6, Matthew 26:52, etc.  It's quite easy to show from Christian sources that inquisitors, persecutors of the Old Ritualists, Crusaders etc. are acting in spite of the Christian Faith.  It is equally easy to show how Jihadists, Eugenicists, etc. are following their faith's teaching.

Quote
Why do you disparage an atheist working in a soup kitchen?
 

I notice you dropped your reference to "social justice issues."

Atheists in soup kitchens, noble in itself, do not make atheism a sound moral system.  Seeing them there never gave me faith (and atheism is a faith) in atheism, any more than Jimmy Swaggert made me lose my Faith in Chrisitanity.

Quote
It has been my experience that that is often some of the ripest ground for real missionary work.  It has definitely been my experience that telling such a person that they are amoral because they are an atheist doesn't really work to show them the message of Christ.

Nor do I.  But I do challenge them when they make the assertion that atheists can be just as moral.  When they can convince amoral atheism, I'll be convinced.

Btw, what's the picture of?

The social contract theory is relative. What is right today will be wrong tomorrow. And religion has everything to do with a person's morality.

I certainly hope that you do not have a mortgage, any loans or a credit card.  As you Christian that believes in absolute morality, you must know the usury is a sin.

Luke 19:23 not in your Bible?

That being said, there is the question of how absolute the concept of interest is, now that such transactions create money.  Our latest "correction" might be instruction in this.

The English speaking Atheists that walk around today are mostly cultural christians and jews, not to mention buddhist and other eastern philosophical/religious school of thought. Once they die and the noncultural christian bunch takes over then you will have a break down in moral code.

They will keep rewriting their moral code as they see fit.

I hate to break it to you, but atheism is a bit older than a generation.

But post-Christian society is not, and that's what he was talking about.


I hope he talks about the changing face of atheism: the early Christians were thrown to the lions on charges of atheism.

Quote
I'm not in any way advocating anyone become an atheist - afterall, I'm a practicing Orthodox Christian myself.

How about a believing one?
Quote
Rather, let's not use hackneyed halftruths against it either. 

 Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 11:24:33 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #156 on: February 11, 2009, 12:47:28 AM »

But as to your other points:one of the problems your friends have is that when the the genetic data doesn't fit their theory, or the fossils don't fit their theory, they make it fit their theory.  Case in point, the DNA studies showing everyone being descended from a common ancestor of about a hundred thousand years ago, far less than they had been claiming from the fossil record.  Of course, that's another problem: no genetic connection that can be tested between fossils and living specimens.  Who was it again with the evolution in embryoes?

Ever studied punctuated equilibrium?

Why, yes.  I remember it being passed off as a minor difference, not resembling catastrophism  Roll Eyes (remember, that is supposed to be Lyell's great genesis of modern geology).  "What difference if you go up a ramp [gradualism] or up a staircase [PE]?" was the one liner.  "Ask someone in a wheelchair" was my retort.

Rather odd that such a major "fine tuning" of an "established scientific fact" comes along so late in the game, no?

Btw, the embryo drawings were Haeckel's, who popularized Darwin while taking "artistic license" with the "proof" in his drawings, and promoting white supremacy.  He was right, however, in coining the term "First World War."

Quote
And yes, it's interesting you stand behind a "no genetic" connection between fossils and living specimens.  Sure, for ID creationists, let's assume the fossils of a neanderthal had really weird chromosomes, probably 100 pairs of them, that somehow made his skeleton look similar to both apes and humans.


Those who have been mapping the Neanderthal genome say that it is 99.5 to 99.9% the same as modern man.  Since the difference between Human and chimp genomes is 5% it would seem that any "similarity" of Neanderthal to the chimp would be only slightly more than modern humans.  Since so much is made of only a 5% difference, what of the 10x greater difference between man and Neanderthals versus chimps?  How then are they "similar" in any meaninful way to apes and humans?  Of course, then there's the wide spectrum of images of Neanderthals in palaeontology from their discovery till today.  And even with the mapped genomes of Neanderthals and us, and still palaeontologists can't agree on whether they represent a dead of evolution or gave rise to us, or if they interbred with us, etc.

As for "no connection" between fossils and living specimens, that is just a fact: most fossils are nothing more than rock, no DNA.

Btw, I don't think we are on the same page with your coupling of "ID creationist."

Or maybe it means I should kill off the rest of humanity, except for my chosen mates.  Survival of the fittest.

The idea of us being in a great chain of being is not new: the pagans so thought.

Pagans also had morality.  Apparently, morality is not something you get directly from God, but from your heart, as St. Paul taught.

Interestingly enough, the Old Testament, if taken literally taught survival of the fittest.  Let's kill all the people of Canaan so that the chosen people of God may live.  So let's not just blame the pagans alone for their own thought.

Their destruction was on the pagans' own head.  Genesis 15:16, Romans 1:20 (btw, St. Paul says God put it in their hearts 2:15, 1:19).

I remember our evolution class at the U of C stated that man was just an usual ape.  When I see the ape Mona Lisa, I'll believe it.

That's like saying if I see a wolf that looks like a chihuahua, then I'll believe in evolution.

Sorry, let me clarify: when an ape can create an artifact that matches the Mona Lisa, then I will believe that man is just a little unusual ape.

Christian morality is not the other side of that coin.

Did you know there exists altruism in chimps?

For the moment I will ignore the question of anthropomorphism.  But yes, I am aware of the claims.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm

Quote
I agree to be truly selfless is the key to Christian morality.  But the fact that the kind of morality can exist in lower form of animals also means something about the innateness of morality itself.
 

So there's Ape law? (viz. "Planet of the Apes").

Does the existence (or claimed existence) of murder, warfare, genocide, etc. among chimps also show the innateness of immorality itself?  (of course, one can argue this against Pelagianism.  Btw, did you know that Muslims claim to be Pelagian, just without the name?).

Quote
In addition, I think these behaviors in chimps point to a side of evolution where the trait of altruism competes with the trait of tyranny.  The difference with us humans is that we can truly achieve a selfless form of altruism in a spiritual manner no other animal can because they don't have a spirit.

Watch it, you're mixing religion and science.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #157 on: February 11, 2009, 01:20:50 AM »

Theology only had a poor track record with the rise of Darwin and Heckel. So I would say from about 1890 to about 1960. Before that time, theology permeated the sciences.
Remember how theology reacted to Copernicus'
Ptolemy was a scientist.  And a pagan.
Quote
and Galileo's reactionary claims concerning physics?
The curia let him discuss the hypothesis.

Quote
Remember how the ancient Hebrews thought that a rabbit chewed its cud?
Convient way to take rabbits off the menu.  Like whales (no scales).

Quote
Theology has a quite lengthy history of getting science wrong.

The reason why up into very recently, nearly all scientists were men of the cloth (or their equivalent). Roll Eyes

No, as "Expelled shows, they aren't.  They are posing scientific questions to a allegedly scientific theory.
Well, it doesn't count if all you do is say "but Theory X doesn't fully explain Y."  You have to propose a new hypothesis; one which not only explains Y, but also accounts for all other known observations.  What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?
Intelligent design.  A related concept would be chaos theory.


What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?

Logical Positivism is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. (Logical Positivism is the assertion that only that which can be proven is that which is true. But this assertion is itself not testable or falsifiable, and thus it disproves itself.) And Darwinian evolution is established upon this untenable logical positivism approach.

Just to clarify, I didn't write "What testable...." Good point on Logical Positivism.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 01:22:34 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #158 on: February 11, 2009, 03:30:44 AM »

Quote
Their destruction was on the pagans' own head.  Genesis 15:16, Romans 1:20 (btw, St. Paul says God put it in their hearts 2:15, 1:19).

Please clarify the bold part (i.e. how does this disprove my claim of Israelites killing in relation to "survival of the fittest" morality, or immorality in Christian standards?).  I haven't denied God created morality in their hearts, hence the word I used, "directly."  Just as I have not denied God's creation of humans, but indirectly through this process called <gasp> evolution.

Quote
Rather odd that such a major "fine tuning" of an "established scientific fact" comes along so late in the game, no?

Well, you explained it rather nicely, the stair vs. ramp analogy.  It's not really a new concept.  It has been implied by the Hardy-Weinberg principle how evolution is under a certain rate under different conditions.  For instance, bacteria have a certain rate of evolution, but when subject to on-and-off antibiotic treatment, their rate increases dramatically, until there's a certain point where they can develop resistance, or might even develop a new species altogether.  In addition, Darwin seemed to somewhat imply it in his works too, according to Miller (I remember he mentioning it in his book).

And despite your earlier claims:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126082351.htm

Quote
Btw, the embryo drawings were Haeckel's, who popularized Darwin while taking "artistic license" with the "proof" in his drawings, and promoting white supremacy.  He was right, however, in coining the term "First World War."

Btw, Intelligent design proposed by Behe opens doors to astrology, numerology, etc as valid scientific points and that he had many disproven claims such as irreducible complexity and the lack of studies on the evolution of the immune system.  Unfortunately, the movie "Expelled" failed to mention that.

Quote
As for "no connection" between fossils and living specimens, that is just a fact: most fossils are nothing more than rock, no DNA.

You say that after acknowledging similarities between neanderthal and human genomes?  If you find very strong structural differences between a hominid looking fossil and humans, wouldn't you theorize based on previous mapping experiments (like the neanderthal mapping) that the genome has striking similarities?

Quote
when an ape can create an artifact that matches the Mona Lisa, then I will believe that man is just a little unusual ape.

When a chihuahua can create an artifact that matches the Mona Lisa, then I will believe that man is just a little unusual mammal?

Quote
Does the existence (or claimed existence) of murder, warfare, genocide, etc. among chimps also show the innateness of immorality itself?  (of course, one can argue this against Pelagianism.  Btw, did you know that Muslims claim to be Pelagian, just without the name?)

Actually there is existence of tyrannical character of chimps, like male abuse of harem females and killing of other intrusive males. (what does this stuff in the parentheses have to do with the subject; please stop sidetracking; it's annoying)

Quote
Watch it, you're mixing religion and science.

No, I'm not.  There's a scientific aspect of morality, and there's a religious aspect to it.  We can understand both without mixture or confusion  Wink
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 03:42:16 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #159 on: February 11, 2009, 03:39:35 AM »

Logical Positivism is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
Logical positivism is not a hypothesis at all.  It is a philosophy of science which had its day, but is largely disregarded today.

Quote from: Gebre
Logical Positivism is the assertion that only that which can be proven is that which is true.
No, logical positivism does not assert this.  A better statement of the basic tenet of LP would be something like "an idea has cognitive meaning only if it is possible to demonstrate that it is true or false."  Under the tenets of LP, other ideas can have meaning, but not cognitive meaning.  Under this view, "Jesus loves me" has no cognitive meaning because one can't empirically show it to be true or false.  LP makes little comment on other meaning, however.  "Jesus loves me" can have emotional meaning, theological meaning, metaphysical meaning, etc.

None of which is really the point.  As I said, logical positivism had its day but is now largely regarded as merely another noble, but incomplete, attempt at codifying the meaning of science.

Quote from: Gebre
And Darwinian evolution is established upon this untenable logical positivism approach.
Absolutely not.  Logical positivism didn't even exist until the early 20th century, I believe the 1920s.  Darwin proposed his theories in the mid-19th century.  By what criterion do you state that "Darwinian evolution is established upon this untenable logical positivism approach"?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #160 on: February 11, 2009, 04:56:41 AM »

Just to clarify, I didn't write "What testable...."
You're right.  I asked that.  As it remains unanswered, I will ask again:
What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #161 on: February 11, 2009, 08:36:09 AM »

Got to get ready for school, but would you mind being a more specific on this?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #162 on: February 11, 2009, 08:37:53 AM »

Just to clarify, I didn't write "What testable...."
You're right.  I asked that.  As it remains unanswered, I will ask again:
What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?


For one, that of a designer.  It comes to the fore most in the discussion of Panspermia and Hawkins admission that there might be a designer, just not God.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #163 on: February 11, 2009, 09:40:38 AM »

What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?
For one, that of a designer.
And what tests were suggested?  What results would tend to confirm a scientific concept of design?  What results would tend to refute a scientific concept of design?

Quote from: ialmisry
It comes to the fore most in the discussion of Panspermia and Hawkins admission that there might be a designer, just not God.
This is at least twice you've invoked Hawkins.  You have pretty high regard for his ideas?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #164 on: February 11, 2009, 10:29:34 AM »

What testable, falsifiable hypothesis did Expelled propose?
For one, that of a designer.
And what tests were suggested?  What results would tend to confirm a scientific concept of design?  What results would tend to refute a scientific concept of design?
If it was a documentary outlining ID, I'd look for that.  Since it's a documentary on the banning of the investigation of ID, I wouldn't expect more than a sinopsis.

Quote from: ialmisry
It comes to the fore most in the discussion of Panspermia and Hawkins admission that there might be a designer, just not God.

Quote
This is at least twice you've invoked Hawkins.  You have pretty high regard for his ideas?
Useful idiot.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #165 on: February 11, 2009, 11:47:37 AM »

And what tests were suggested?  What results would tend to confirm a scientific concept of design?  What results would tend to refute a scientific concept of design?
If it was a documentary outlining ID, I'd look for that.  Since it's a documentary on the banning of the investigation of ID, I wouldn't expect more than a sinopsis.
That's perfect; a synopsis should work just fine for discussion purposes, here.  According to Expelled, what testable, falsifiable hypotheses have been banned from investigation?  Can you give a synopsis?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,671


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #166 on: February 11, 2009, 12:16:57 PM »

Got to get ready for school, but would you mind being a more specific on this?

You claimed earlier that evolution's predictions and fossil records are incongruous.  This article shows otherwise.

But looking back, you were concerned only with genetic dating.  Right now, genetic dating is taking some time to be perfected.  There is many different parts of our genes we can use.  Mitochondrial DNA (which gave us estimations of an "ancestral mother" about 140,000 - 290,000 years ago, although this doesn't give us the assumption that she was a homo sapien or that we have only one mother in common to all of us humans), Y chromosome DNA (70,000 years ago; reason for this relatively small number is because of higher extinction rates in males due to reproductive competition), and microsatellite DNA (75,000 to 287,000 years ago).  Fossil evidences points to about 250,000 years ago, which seems somewhat close to what genetic data suggests.

It's not like fossil evidence points to a million years ago and genetics a tenth of that.  There seems to be about 50 to 100 thousand year difference, which shows some accuracy.  Remember, we haven't found all the fossils.  Not every living being in the history of this world was preserved into a fossil.  Most of them we burn in our cars.  But we know there are numerously new fossils discovered every year.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,864



« Reply #167 on: February 11, 2009, 12:44:01 PM »

Got to get ready for school, but would you mind being a more specific on this?

You claimed earlier that evolution's predictions and fossil records are incongruous.  This article shows otherwise.

No, the ariticle claims otherwise.  It also says other things:
Quote
When the two tell the same story, the most likely explanation is that both reflect the truth. When they disagree, and the order of animals on the tree is out of whack with the order in the rocks, you either have a dodgy tree, lots of missing fossils, or both.The researchers studied gaps in the fossil record, so-called ‘ghost ranges’, where the evolutionary tree indicates there should be fossils but where none have yet been found. They mapped these gaps onto the evolutionary tree and calculated statistical probabilities to find the closeness of the match.

Dr Wills said: “Gaps in the fossil record can occur for a number of reasons. Only a tiny minority of animals are preserved as fossils because exceptional geological conditions are needed. Other fossils may be difficult to classify because they are incomplete; others just haven’t been found yet.

“Pinning down an accurate date for some fossils can also prove difficult. For example, the oldest fossil may be so incomplete that it becomes uncertain as to which group it belongs. This is particularly true with fragments of bones. Our study made allowances for this uncertainty.

“We are excited that our data show an almost perfect agreement between the evolutionary tree and the ages of fossils in the rocks. This is because it confirms that the fossil record offers an extremely accurate account of how these amazing animals evolved over time and gives clues as to how mammals and birds evolved from them.”

What it doesn't cover is determining species in the fossil recored, i.e. finding organisms that interbreed in dead rock.

Quote
But looking back, you were concerned only with genetic dating.  Right now, genetic dating is taking some time to be perfected.  There is many different parts of our genes we can use.  Mitochondrial DNA (which gave us estimations of an "ancestral mother" about 140,000 - 290,000 years ago, although this doesn't give us the assumption that she was a homo sapien or that we have only one mother in common to all of us humans), Y chromosome DNA (70,000 years ago; reason for this relatively small number is because of higher extinction rates in males due to reproductive competition), and microsatellite DNA (75,000 to 287,000 years ago).  Fossil evidences points to about 250,000 years ago, which seems somewhat close to what genetic data suggests.

Perfected, or jimmyied in?

The earliest dated Cro magnon is 35,000.  There seems to be a reluctance to equate them with modern man.  Neanderthal dating, is it any better?  They seem to be missing the Most Recent Common Ancestor and Identical Ancestor points.

Quote
It's not like fossil evidence points to a million years ago and genetics a tenth of that.  There seems to be about 50 to 100 thousand year difference, which shows some accuracy.  Remember, we haven't found all the fossils.  Not every living being in the history of this world was preserved into a fossil.  Most of them we burn in our cars.  But we know there are numerously new fossils discovered every year.

yes, we'll find Piltdown man any day now....

« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 12:47:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*