OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 10:34:14 AM *
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 46991 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 37,466



« Reply #225 on: February 24, 2009, 12:24:22 AM »

One of my favorites is some hip bone they found: it didn't fit what they thought a transitional form should take.  So they came up with a cow stepping on it in mid fossilization (mid, mind you, not before: if they broke it before, it would just be broken and not "fit" the transitional form).
I am interested in this example.  Can you tell us more?  Where was this fossil founud?  Who found it?  Are you aware of an article somewhere that describes this?

It's been at least ten years, but I had seen something in print on it somewhere, but I really remember it from its incorporation on a PBS program (I burst out laughing when they reinacted the cow stepping on the remains).  I believe it was found in Tanzania, and the question was about the expectation of the modification of the hip going from walking on all fours to bipedal locamotion.
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 #226 on: February 24, 2009, 02:27:40 AM »

I could cut and paste replies, but it should suffice that since you all can't agree on the definition of "species," that makes all that chorttling of observed "speciation" a little suspect.
I've never viewed this as a serious problem.  Ultimately, many definitions in science are somewhat arbitrary.  Species is just one example.  Does your idea generalize?  I don't think so.

Astronomers are currently involved in a pretty contentious debate over the definition of planet.  By your logic, this would make all planetary science a little suspect.  Do you truly wish us to believe that all of our observations and conclusions concerning the solar system are invalid until we universally agree on a definition of planet?  That's a rather extreme position.

Mathematicians have no universally agreed definition of set.  The notion of a set is absolutely central to mathematics.  Absolutely central.  Yet the term is not actually defined.  Would you argue that the mathematics we teach is invalid until this issue is resolved?

This type of thinking is one reason proponents of creationism and ID are not taken seriously by mainstream science.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #227 on: February 24, 2009, 02:34:50 AM »

It's been at least ten years, but I had seen something in print on it somewhere, but I really remember it from its incorporation on a PBS program (I burst out laughing when they reinacted the cow stepping on the remains).  I believe it was found in Tanzania, and the question was about the expectation of the modification of the hip going from walking on all fours to bipedal locamotion.

That seems rather vague.  What hypothesis were they investigating?  And what hypothesis was confirmed/falsified if the semi-fossilized bone had been stepped on and broken?  Was this a primate hip?
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: 11,034


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


WWW
« Reply #228 on: February 24, 2009, 08:34:24 PM »

One of my favorites is some hip bone they found: it didn't fit what they thought a transitional form should take.  So they came up with a cow stepping on it in mid fossilization (mid, mind you, not before: if they broke it before, it would just be broken and not "fit" the transitional form).

I'm glad Chrevbel asked this before I did.

Quote
There is a circle of knowledge, not isolated components.  And I know those for whom this is a big deal, on both sides of the issue.  As a teacher and a parent with children in the public school system, I know the likes of Genie Scott, and more so, her friends Dawkins and company.  Not everyone can be a general in the evolutionists' war.

I know this doesn't sound fair or even may not be economically feasible for you, but if your really care about what to teach your children, don't send them to public schools.  When I was a teen, I never met someone like Genie Scott in high school.  In fact, all I ever cared about was to go to college.  But when I think about it, my high school AP biology teacher, who I enjoyed her teachings very dearly (better than any college professor I have listened to) and perhaps helped me realize my passion, was also very spiritual, who was excited to hear about my spiritual retreats with my church at the time.  She did one day jeer at the idea that men has a missing rib, but she never hid her religious side outside the classroom.  I was still skeptical with evolution at the time, but I had not thought much about evolution as much as I just wanted to move on to college.

And you're only worried about what children learn in the classroom?  What about what children learn after school, or at lunch?  What about the social atmosphere that teens provide, at times very illegal, at other times very hostile.  Teachers, for the most part, provide an atmosphere not just of teaching, but of support for students in such an atmosphere.  I can go home and learn about something, and the Church can twist and change that for me, that already has happened.  But surely evolution in classroom to me, assuming it's wrong, is not as dangerous as peer issues students face, and this is where I would like, and am glad to see, the Church spends more time addressing.

Quote
You argue for descent from similarities, but you admit that not every similarity means descent.

Like I said, I implied descent from homology.  You seem to not want to get past that point.

Quote
You seem to assume that convergence only operates on a superficial level, not lower.

Well, for the most part, when studying homology, a lot of the study depends on skeleton.  It is in this where convergence is hardly seen.

Quote
But you assume shark species are homologous, and not analogous.

This is vague, are you saying between different shark species, or between shark and dolphin species?  I said that dolphins and sharks are analogous, NOT homologous.  I never mentioned anything about the differences in shark species, but ya, I would say there's a lot of homology there.  What's your point exactly?

Quote
Case in point which has nothing to do with evolution: angels are all analogous, yet they are of the same "genus" angel (or would we say "domain"?).

I feel weird doing this, but if you want to use angels as an metaphor for what you're trying to convey, I disagree.  If they are of the same "genus" or "domain," they are all homologous, not analogous.  But then again, you're talking about those within the same species.  Yes, there's homology between YOU and ME, because we're of the same species, but to the highest degree, much higher than homology between humans and chimps let's say.  I would even say there's homology between angels and humans because in common we both have spirits (or we both are spirits, with humans being "incarnate spirits").

Let me repeat: 
Analogy-->dolphin flipper and shark pectoral fin;
Homology-->skeleton of dolphin flipper and skeleton of human arm (or any mammalian arm for that matter)

I'm sorry to say, but again, you just proven to me how you're mixing terms.  Over and over again, you've consistently shown you don't know enough about evolution.

Quote
yes, I understood that.  I'm saying that you haven't ruled analogy out.

I'm saying if you knew enough about evolution, you would have understood I never implied analogy to begin with.  So yes, it was already ruled out from the start.

Quote
ID doesn't rule out common descent.  Doesn't prove it either.

I've noticed that as I read more about ID, ID does not really address the scientific questions that evolution already answered.  For instance, ID fails to address the genetic similarities between chimps and humans.  Yet, all it talks about is the origin of life, not the evolution of life, which goes through reproduction.  They talk about where did the flagella come from or where did DNA and its interactions with other molecules for transcription and translation come from.  All ID cares about is origins, which has nothing to do with evolution (well with the exception of the bacterial flagella, since it has already been shown how that has been evolved).  It's no wonder now to me that the main supporters of ID seem to be related to some sort of field of chemistry (as well as philosophy, law, and math), and very little to do with biology.  The question ID is addressing is how do we go from chemistry to biology, not how to explain the propagation of biology.  My DNA was not directly created by an Intelligent Designer, but rather was propagated through centuries upon centuries of mating from my ancestors all the way down to my parents.  Evolution talks about that propagation, not about origins.  It is true that some biochemists are so keen into taking evolution further into chemical and physical/astronomical domains, but we don't have any studies on that yet.  We've only started to scratch the surface of chemical studies, and how we can turn chemistry into life.

It's interesting then you hit the nail right on the head here.  ID does not rule out common descent.  Therefore, if anything, ID seems to not even rule out evolution to begin with with the arguments they bring.  However, ID proponents still use the "God of the gaps" argument, which is a dangerous argument, one that has been used everytime with no result but disappointment.

Quote
That it explains the origin of life, its progress and the why of it.

LIKE?Huh
You didn't answer the question.  You only made a statement.

I think you need to come to a realization that evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life, but the propagation and advancement of life.  The "progress" and "why" of the progress, or more accurately "how" of the progress has been answered.  Unless you can give me specifics.  So if you have evidence, please give us evidence.

As for origin, yes, it doesn't explain origin at all.  Even Dawkins admits that.

Quote
No, you might say Common Descent is, but the problem is that breeding doesn't produce species.  Now if sustained intellegent breeding hasn't led to species, how does unguided, random natural selection?

Breeding does produce species.  Breeding requires selectivity and separation, whether it be by nature or by human means.  We see the evidence through DNA, and through the fact that we can actually measure rate of allelic change.  In fact, we see both the results of natural and intelligent breeding, which has lead to speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
I'm not talking of evolution at all.

Another reason why you don't know enough about evolution to talk about it.

Quote
Quote
  I feel however that if you are to say God bred species after species until we reached humanity, then there is a theological problem.  You open the door to saying that God created viruses and bacteria and prions for the destruction of living beings.  You open the door to show that God bread certain chimps with tyrannical characteristics over their multiple mates and intruding males.
You're reading something into it here, that's not there.  Is there a good and bad "evolver?"

I'm saying evolution is all over the place.  Traits that can be helpful for propagation in one species can harm another.  Like, bacterial resistance against antiobiotics.  Can we say God made the bacteria resist antiobiotics, so that we can be more susceptible to disease?  Sure, we can say God may have a hand on the good traits in our own species, like the complexity of the human brain and the development of the vocal folds, but even the latter has a bad side effect, like an increased susceptibility to choke.  Are you saying when God breeds, he wanted humans to choke more easily?

Quote
Quote
You open the door to show a certain incompetence God had in creating man with a descended epiglottis to speak, but to also increase the risk of choking.  For everything to be the directly bred product of God holds a lower view of God in my opinion.  It's no different than saying God directly punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience.  We know no such God in Orthodoxy.  God is one who created all things, but in a manner that allows things to take their course. 
That would be the road to hell. God stopped that. We're not deists.

Of course, I haven't denied God's salvation through the incarnation of the Logos, and His intervention in all things spiritual and eventually in the second coming, physical.  I haven't denied there are miracles that do happen, although I personally remain skeptical, since most stories of miracles seem to be vain magic, rather than have spiritual significance.

If you read my signature, I do not believe in vain existence.  That includes deism.  With that being said, I believe what St. Athanasius teaches, that man was created like all created things "impermanent," but received a grace of incorruption.  But man's disobedience showed that man chose nature over spiritual, and thus man joined the rest of nature, which included the law of death, the law of competition and strive for survival, the law, as it is clear to me now through my scientific studies, of evolution.


Quote
Quote
Dualist, ditheist, it's the same to me.  It not dualism to say the same God created two things using the same designing principles.

Quote
But you said He was breeding species, not created them separately with similar principles.  And besides, how is the Soviet Union and the US "one Intelligent Designer" using "similar principles?"  I see two there.

Both using the same principles of aerodynamics to get the results they want (i.e. analogy, not homology).

Do you remember what I asked you when you gave me the metaphor of US and Soviet ships?  I asked you how do you explain the genetic similarities between chimps and humans.  That is not analogy, that is homology.  Furthermore, I don't see analogy between two space shuttles.  I'm no engineer, but if an engineer would like to confirm, the central "skeleton" (or as you say, "central principle") of a space shuttle must be "homologous."  Unless, both US and Soviet engineers developed extremely radical and different ways of flying into outer space (kinda like wings of a bird versus wings of a bat), then I would call that an analogy, not a homology.

And even if you're talking about analogy, are you still saying that the god who created dolphins is not the same god who created sharks?  How is that still not ditheism?

Once again, you claim you know, but your metaphors show how much you don't know.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 08:48:44 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.
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: 37,466



« Reply #229 on: February 24, 2009, 10:00:58 PM »

I could cut and paste replies, but it should suffice that since you all can't agree on the definition of "species," that makes all that chorttling of observed "speciation" a little suspect.
I've never viewed this as a serious problem.  Ultimately, many definitions in science are somewhat arbitrary.  Species is just one example.  Does your idea generalize?  I don't think so.
Roll Eyes
Quote
Astronomers are currently involved in a pretty contentious debate over the definition of planet.  By your logic, this would make all planetary science a little suspect.  Do you truly wish us to believe that all of our observations and conclusions concerning the solar system are invalid until we universally agree on a definition of planet?  That's a rather extreme position.

If you wanted to pursue the analogy with evolution, if the difference made a difference in the theories of planet formation, you might have a point.  But the real division there is not between dwarf planet and planet, but rocky planet and gaseous planet.

Quote
Mathematicians have no universally agreed definition of set.  The notion of a set is absolutely central to mathematics.  Absolutely central.  Yet the term is not actually defined.  Would you argue that the mathematics we teach is invalid until this issue is resolved?

Alas (actually, hurrah) I passes out of the math requirement and didn't have to take it in college, let alone grad school.  I've been reaquainted now with my sons' homework.  I don't recall this contraversy over "set," but I'll take your word for it.  So, it's a postulate/axiom.  As long as you don't have to prove it, not much of a problem.  But in evolution as explaining speciation is what you are trying to prove, that's a problem: you can't assume what you claim to prove, or rather you can't claimed as proved what you assumed.  In other words, begging the question and going in circles.

Quote
This type of thinking is one reason proponents of creationism and ID are not taken seriously by mainstream science.

That IDers refuse to accept circular logic cum laude?  Roll Eyes

It's been at least ten years, but I had seen something in print on it somewhere, but I really remember it from its incorporation on a PBS program (I burst out laughing when they reinacted the cow stepping on the remains).  I believe it was found in Tanzania, and the question was about the expectation of the modification of the hip going from walking on all fours to bipedal locamotion.

Quote
That seems rather vague.
Sorry that my accuity doesn't cover issues I find peripheral at the time, lacking vivid details a decade later. 

Quote
What hypothesis were they investigating?


The transitional form to erect locamotion, linked, of course, to the implications for brain size.  The problem, if I remember correctly, was that the specimens hips compared to the hole in the skull for the spinal cord didn't match what the evolutionists wanted.

Quote
And what hypothesis was confirmed/falsified if the semi-fossilized bone had been stepped on and broken?
LOL. Well, the fossil record was falsified to confirm what they saw as transitional form of the hip from a baboon hip (I think it was baboons that they were using as an example of primates who usually walk on their knuckles) and homo erectus.  I seem to recall that the socket was of particular interest/problem.

 
Quote
Was this a primate hip?

LOL.  I think the evolutionist theory is that man evolved out of primates.  So yes.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 10:18:26 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: 37,466



« Reply #230 on: February 25, 2009, 12:20:19 AM »

One of my favorites is some hip bone they found: it didn't fit what they thought a transitional form should take.  So they came up with a cow stepping on it in mid fossilization (mid, mind you, not before: if they broke it before, it would just be broken and not "fit" the transitional form).

I'm glad Chrevbel asked this before I did.
Cheesy

Quote
There is a circle of knowledge, not isolated components.  And I know those for whom this is a big deal, on both sides of the issue.  As a teacher and a parent with children in the public school system, I know the likes of Genie Scott, and more so, her friends Dawkins and company.  Not everyone can be a general in the evolutionists' war.

Quote
I know this doesn't sound fair or even may not be economically feasible for you, but if your really care about what to teach your children, don't send them to public schools.
 
LOL.  Before I even get to the issue of cost, there's the problem of getting past their mother and her benefactor on the bench.  Actually, I don't have much to complain about their school so far. They even celebrate St. Nicholas Day (it gets cover as being a Polish ethnic holiday.  My sons brought icons so everyone could see what St. Nicholas looked like).

Quote
When I was a teen, I never met someone like Genie Scott in high school.  In fact, all I ever cared about was to go to college.  But when I think about it, my high school AP biology teacher, who I enjoyed her teachings very dearly (better than any college professor I have listened to) and perhaps helped me realize my passion, was also very spiritual, who was excited to hear about my spiritual retreats with my church at the time.  She did one day jeer at the idea that men has a missing rib, but she never hid her religious side outside the classroom.  I was still skeptical with evolution at the time, but I had not thought much about evolution as much as I just wanted to move on to college.

And you're only worried about what children learn in the classroom?

Why do you assUme that?

Quote
What about what children learn after school, or at lunch?  What about the social atmosphere that teens provide, at times very illegal, at other times very hostile.  Teachers, for the most part, provide an atmosphere not just of teaching, but of support for students in such an atmosphere.

I have come across, for instance, strong support from teachers on the "they are going to do it anyway," as justification for the school library to be filled with celeb magazines that glorify unrestrained teenage sex, allowing rap music to be played, etc. etc. etc.  So it depends what teacher is supporting what atmosphere for what for which students.  Witness Al Gore's recent talk at a school, telling children to basically write off their parents as unelightened and in need of the (re)education that their teachers are providing.  (No, I don't buy the Global Warming hype either).

Quote
I can go home and learn about something, and the Church can twist
twist?
Quote
and change that for me, that already has happened.  But surely evolution in classroom to me, assuming it's wrong, is not as dangerous as peer issues students face, and this is where I would like, and am glad to see, the Church spends more time addressing.

As "Expelled" shows, such issues are not as disengagled as you make them out to be.

Quote
You argue for descent from similarities, but you admit that not every similarity means descent.

Quote
Like I said, I implied descent from homology.  You seem to not want to get past that point.

 This will reappear later.

Quote
You seem to assume that convergence only operates on a superficial level, not lower.

Quote
Well, for the most part, when studying homology, a lot of the study depends on skeleton.  It is in this where convergence is hardly seen.

because you aren't looking that way.  A good way not to find something is not to look for it.

Quote
But you assume shark species are homologous, and not analogous.

Quote
This is vague, are you saying between different shark species, or between shark and dolphin species?
 

Here, between shark species.

Quote
I said that dolphins and sharks are analogous, NOT homologous.

I'm aware you said that.  That's why I made this point.

Quote
I never mentioned anything about the differences in shark species, but ya, I would say there's a lot of homology there.  What's your point exactly?

That you are discounting analogy by assUming homology.

Quote
Case in point which has nothing to do with evolution: angels are all analogous, yet they are of the same "genus" angel (or would we say "domain"?).

Quote
I feel weird doing this, but if you want to use angels as an metaphor for what you're trying to convey, I disagree.  If they are of the same "genus" or "domain," they are all homologous, not analogous.
 

Wrong. They are not married nor given in marriage.  There is no homology in the angelic realm, no reproduction.  None.

Quote
But then again, you're talking about those within the same species.  Yes, there's homology between YOU and ME, because we're of the same species, but to the highest degree, much higher than homology between humans and chimps let's say.  I would even say there's homology between angels and humans because in common we both have spirits (or we both are spirits, with humans being "incarnate spirits").

Interesting thought for those in theistic evolution.

This touches on the question of creationism versus traducionism.  But even there, there would be no homology between angels and man.

Quote
Let me repeat: 
Analogy-->dolphin flipper and shark pectoral fin;
Homology-->skeleton of dolphin flipper and skeleton of human arm (or any mammalian arm for that matter)

Yes, I understand your terms and argument.  No, I don't buy your argument.

Quote
I'm sorry to say, but again, you just proven to me how you're mixing terms.  Over and over again, you've consistently shown you don't know enough about evolution.

No, I'm not mixing terms.  You are assUming homology, which isn't proven.

Quote
yes, I understood that.  I'm saying that you haven't ruled analogy out.

Quote
I'm saying if you knew enough about evolution, you would have understood I never implied analogy to begin with.

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said, yes, I know you ruled it out and thus never implied analogy.  I just point out you ruling it out is without justification.

Quote
  So yes, it was already ruled out from the start.

Just because it is ignored, doens't make it go away.

Quote
ID doesn't rule out common descent.  Doesn't prove it either.

Quote
I've noticed that as I read more about ID, ID does not really address the scientific questions that evolution already answered.  For instance, ID fails to address the genetic similarities between chimps and humans.  Yet, all it talks about is the origin of life, not the evolution of life, which goes through reproduction.  They talk about where did the flagella come from or where did DNA and its interactions with other molecules for transcription and translation come from.  All ID cares about is origins, which has nothing to do with evolution (well with the exception of the bacterial flagella, since it has already been shown how that has been evolved).  It's no wonder now to me that the main supporters of ID seem to be related to some sort of field of chemistry (as well as philosophy, law, and math), and very little to do with biology.  The question ID is addressing is how do we go from chemistry to biology, not how to explain the propagation of biology.  My DNA was not directly created by an Intelligent Designer, but rather was propagated through centuries upon centuries of mating from my ancestors all the way down to my parents.  Evolution talks about that propagation, not about origins.  It is true that some biochemists are so keen into taking evolution further into chemical and physical/astronomical domains, but we don't have any studies on that yet.  We've only started to scratch the surface of chemical studies, and how we can turn chemistry into life.
The paradigm of evolution in biology is not so different from the paradigm underlying astrophysics, chemistry etc.  The one guy provided the overlap in "Expelled" when he talked about life piggy back riding on crystals, and brought up random mutation (not his word, I don't remember his word off hand).

Not a little problem when evolutionists insist on Common Descent.

Quote
It's interesting then you hit the nail right on the head here.  ID does not rule out common descent.  Therefore, if anything, ID seems to not even rule out evolution to begin with with the arguments they bring.  However, ID proponents still use the "God of the gaps" argument, which is a dangerous argument, one that has been used everytime with no result but disappointment.

No, yet again.  I haven't seen ID take sides anymore than the Out of Africa model does for single dispersal or multiple dispersal, Out of Africa itself opposed to Multiregional model, which still has its proponents among scientists respected even by the evolutionist establishment.  The ID hasn't ruled out common descent, doesn't mean it can't, or that it can't conversely prove it.  I just haven't seen the conclusive argument either way.



Quote
I'm not talking of evolution at all.

Quote
Another reason why you don't know enough about evolution to talk about it.
police Roll Eyes police
Quote
I feel however that if you are to say God bred species after species until we reached humanity, then there is a theological problem.  You open the door to saying that God created viruses and bacteria and prions for the destruction of living beings.  You open the door to show that God bread certain chimps with tyrannical characteristics over their multiple mates and intruding males.
Quote
You're reading something into it here, that's not there.  Is there a good and bad "evolver?"

Quote
I'm saying evolution is all over the place.
As someone in "Expelled" points out, no one denies that change occurs all over the place.  I proved it more conclusively from theology above.  The question is what does this have to do with "evolution."

Quote
Traits that can be helpful for propagation in one species can harm another.  Like, bacterial resistance against antiobiotics.


Or sickle cell resistence to sleeping sickness.

Quote
Can we say God made the bacteria resist antiobiotics, so that we can be more susceptible to disease?

Sure, why not?

Quote
Sure, we can say God may have a hand on the good traits in our own species, like the complexity of the human brain and the development of the vocal folds, but even the latter has a bad side effect, like an increased susceptibility to choke.  Are you saying when God breeds, he wanted humans to choke more easily?
you mean like misusing free will (something your friends on "Expelled" deny its existence under evolution).

Quote
You open the door to show a certain incompetence God had in creating man with a descended epiglottis to speak, but to also increase the risk of choking.  For everything to be the directly bred product of God holds a lower view of God in my opinion.  It's no different than saying God directly punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience.  We know no such God in Orthodoxy.  God is one who created all things, but in a manner that allows things to take their course. 
That would be the road to hell. God stopped that. We're not deists.[/quote]

Quote
Of course, I haven't denied God's salvation through the incarnation of the Logos, and His intervention in all things spiritual and eventually in the second coming, physical.  I haven't denied there are miracles that do happen, although I personally remain skeptical, since most stories of miracles seem to be vain magic, rather than have spiritual significance.
Well, we're agreed here. Smiley
Quote
If you read my signature, I do not believe in vain existence.  That includes deism.  With that being said, I believe what St. Athanasius teaches, that man was created like all created things "impermanent," but received a grace of incorruption.  But man's disobedience showed that man chose nature over spiritual, and thus man joined the rest of nature, which included the law of death, the law of competition and strive for survival, the law, as it is clear to me now through my scientific studies, of evolution.

Creationists would ask you to explain how "survival of the fitess" can lead to the creation, er, evolution of man, when you seem to claim it is a result of the fall. So the Fall is the cause of the Rise of man?


Quote
Dualist, ditheist, it's the same to me.  It not dualism to say the same God created two things using the same designing principles.

Quote
But you said He was breeding species, not created them separately with similar principles. 
No, I didn't, and yes, I am aware you think that I did.

Quote
And besides, how is the Soviet Union and the US "one Intelligent Designer" using "similar principles?"  I see two there.

I'm sure you do. Roll Eyes The science of engineering is the same.

Quote
Both using the same principles of aerodynamics to get the results they want (i.e. analogy, not homology).

Quote
Do you remember what I asked you when you gave me the metaphor of US and Soviet ships?  I asked you how do you explain the genetic similarities between chimps and humans.  That is not analogy, that is homology.

As I said,  This will reappear later.

You CLAIM that is is homology. I do not share your assumption, at least I am not limited to it.  Analogy CAN explain the same phenomena.

Quote
Furthermore, I don't see analogy between two space shuttles.  I'm no engineer, but if an engineer would like to confirm, the central "skeleton" (or as you say, "central principle") of a space shuttle must be "homologous."
Homologuous would be copying the design of the US shuttle.  In other words, the fact that the Soviet model resembled the US would mean that the Soviets stole the technology.  NASA was admitting (how this example first came up) that it was a matter of analogy: capitalist and communist aerodynamics follow the same principles.  So US and Soviet engineers, in isolation (dare I say, different species), would come up with similar rockets.

Quote
Unless, both US and Soviet engineers developed extremely radical and different ways of flying into outer space (kinda like wings of a bird versus wings of a bat), then I would call that an analogy, not a homology.

My point exactly.

Quote
And even if you're talking about analogy, are you still saying that the god who created dolphins is not the same god who created sharks?  How is that still not ditheism?

You keep on repeating this charge without clarifying it, and despite the fact that I said no such thing.  Where do you get that analogy MUST mean that the Creator of dolphins is different from the Creator of sharks?  Unless you are stuck in your rutt of homology.

Quote
Once again, you claim you know, but your metaphors show how much you don't know.
Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 12:29:31 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
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #231 on: February 25, 2009, 12:29:28 AM »

I don't understand your two rolling eyes and your two LOLs.  All my questions were serious and sincere.  Does your response imply that you thought I was being mocking?  Or were you just intending to be mocking in return?

Quote from: ialmisry
Quote from: chrevbel
And what hypothesis was confirmed/falsified if the semi-fossilized bone had been stepped on and broken?
LOL. Well, the fossil record was falsified to confirm what they saw as transitional form of the hip from a baboon hip (I think it was baboons that they were using as an example of primates who usually walk on their knuckles) and homo erectus.  I seem to recall that the socket was of particular interest/problem.
Again, I really don't get the LOL, but I'll let it go.  This isn't exactly what I meant by falsified, but I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying.  Your claim is that scientists deliberately tampered with the fossil evidence to make it show something that it didn't show naturally?  
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: 37,466



« Reply #232 on: February 25, 2009, 01:20:27 AM »

I don't understand your two rolling eyes and your two LOLs.  All my questions were serious and sincere.  Does your response imply that you thought I was being mocking?  Or were you just intending to be mocking in return?

Quote from: ialmisry
Quote from: chrevbel
And what hypothesis was confirmed/falsified if the semi-fossilized bone had been stepped on and broken?
LOL. Well, the fossil record was falsified to confirm what they saw as transitional form of the hip from a baboon hip (I think it was baboons that they were using as an example of primates who usually walk on their knuckles) and homo erectus.  I seem to recall that the socket was of particular interest/problem.
Again, I really don't get the LOL, but I'll let it go.  This isn't exactly what I meant by falsified, but I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying.  Your claim is that scientists deliberately tampered with the fossil evidence to make it show something that it didn't show naturally?  


I was, am, laughing out loud because you bring me back to how heartily I laughed when I saw it.

I don't claim anything.  I'm just telling you what it showed, and it was quite blatant: in a series of scenes they showed the scientists as they made a plaster cast of the fossil and then cut it and reassembled it to how it "should" be, and sat around brain storming of how it could get that way.  So sure that no one sees that the emperor is naked, they were quite on display, exhibitionism at its best.

That it explains the origin of life, its progress and the why of it.

LIKE?Huh
You didn't answer the question.  You only made a statement.

The "Why" is quite beyond the reach of science.

The origin of life, you claim has "nothing to do with evolution."

I'll bypass that "progress" is antithecal to "random, unguided."  Yes, the claim is that evolution explains the origins of species and the descent of man, but hasn't done either.

Quote
I think you need to come to a realization that evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life, but the propagation and advancement of life. 

Quote
Then, as "Expelled" says, the book should have been "The Propagation and Advancement of Species."
Quote
The "progress" and "why" of the progress, or more accurately "how" of the progress has been answered.  Unless you can give me specifics.  So if you have evidence, please give us evidence.
"Why" is not in the purview of science, so it couldn't have answered that.

Evolution denies "progress."

Its suggestion of "how" glosses over its gaps.  It has neither defined the origin of species nor explained it.

Quote
As for origin, yes, it doesn't explain origin at all.  Even Dawkins admits that.

So at least we are agreed on one thing from the documentary.

Quote
No, you might say Common Descent is, but the problem is that breeding doesn't produce species.  Now if sustained intellegent breeding hasn't led to species, how does unguided, random natural selection?

Quote
Breeding does produce species.  Breeding requires selectivity and separation, whether it be by nature or by human means.  We see the evidence through DNA, and through the fact that we can actually measure rate of allelic change.  In fact, we see both the results of natural and intelligent breeding, which has lead to speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Has this been posted before here, or have I come across it elsewhere.  No matter.  It's the perfect example of evolutionists seeing no problem in their "proofs." e.g.
Quote
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

It seems they are working with the definition of species as groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.  So at one point, according to this story, the species converged, because they interbred and were reproductively isolated from other groups, the article underlining, even the parent species.  So, can man and chimp be brought closer to reproduce fertile offspring?
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 #233 on: February 26, 2009, 07:23:52 AM »

I don't claim anything.  I'm just telling you what it showed, and it was quite blatant: in a series of scenes they showed the scientists as they made a plaster cast of the fossil and then cut it and reassembled it to how it "should" be, and sat around brain storming of how it could get that way.

This is pretty standard procedure.  It's a bit challenging to speculate on what they may have been after, but it appears likely that the fossil was of some species believed to be capable of bipedalism.  (Oreopithecus maybe?)  There are several features that tend to indicate bipedalism, with two of the strongest being the location of the hole at the base of the skull and the structure of the pelvis.  In skulls, bipeds like us have a hole at the bottom; cows have one at the back.  Likewise, pelvic structure can range from a pig's, which can't walk on its hind legs at all; to bears, which can walk on their hind legs awkwardly; to chimps, which can walk fairly well but inefficiently; to humans, who are full bipeds.

It sounds to me like the fossil in the show perhaps had a skull that showed one thing and a pelvis that showed another.  The scientists, in an effort to understand the discrepancy, asked whether there was any plausible way that a fossilized pelvis might look like a quadraped's when it really belonged to a biped.  Their experiment showed how it was possible.  Again, that's all speculation on my part.  If you recall details of the show indicating something different, I'd be interested in hearing them.

But I'm mainly curious about what alternative hypothesis you think exists.  You're skeptical of their conclusions.  What do you think the fossil evidence would have shown if they hadn't recreated the original pelvis from plaster casts?
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: 37,466



« Reply #234 on: February 13, 2010, 09:44:04 AM »

I don't claim anything.  I'm just telling you what it showed, and it was quite blatant: in a series of scenes they showed the scientists as they made a plaster cast of the fossil and then cut it and reassembled it to how it "should" be, and sat around brain storming of how it could get that way.

This is pretty standard procedure.  It's a bit challenging to speculate on what they may have been after, but it appears likely that the fossil was of some species believed to be capable of bipedalism.  (Oreopithecus maybe?)  There are several features that tend to indicate bipedalism, with two of the strongest being the location of the hole at the base of the skull and the structure of the pelvis.  In skulls, bipeds like us have a hole at the bottom; cows have one at the back.  Likewise, pelvic structure can range from a pig's, which can't walk on its hind legs at all; to bears, which can walk on their hind legs awkwardly; to chimps, which can walk fairly well but inefficiently; to humans, who are full bipeds.

It sounds to me like the fossil in the show perhaps had a skull that showed one thing and a pelvis that showed another.  The scientists, in an effort to understand the discrepancy, asked whether there was any plausible way that a fossilized pelvis might look like a quadraped's when it really belonged to a biped.  Their experiment showed how it was possible.  Again, that's all speculation on my part.  If you recall details of the show indicating something different, I'd be interested in hearing them.

But I'm mainly curious about what alternative hypothesis you think exists.  You're skeptical of their conclusions.  What do you think the fossil evidence would have shown if they hadn't recreated the original pelvis from plaster casts?
Perhaps that their ideas about evolution were wrong.  After all, that's the only reason why they questioned the bones as they found them.  Had the bones been the way the evolutionists "predicted" and a creationist claimed a similar scenario claimed here, the creationist would have been poo-pooed.

I guess evolution hasn't gotten away from its Piltdown man roots.
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
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #235 on: February 13, 2010, 12:08:15 PM »

Sorry to jump in here, but I just happened to have watched the movie last night for the first time (didn't make it all the way through, because I didn't think it was that great of a movie). Ben Stein's droning, sarcastic,unemotional voice drove me bonkers and I felt he was actually mocking both sides;I didn't sense any overt sincerity on his part. I felt he was just out to make some kind of name for himself by doing the sensationalistic film thing. It seemed to me a bunch of conglomerated propaganda-even managing to throw in  the(gasp-shock-surprise)Holocaust card into the mix, just in case we had forgotten for a micromillisecond. He showed Dawkins in the makeup room before the interview(when I'm sure Stein himself spent plenty of time there before appearing on film) and made it all seem intentionally sinister. Dawkins was called a bit of a "reptile"by one of the scientists being interviewed. In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 12:33:24 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #236 on: February 13, 2010, 12:15:48 PM »

I thought the movie was awsome. I really enjoyed it.








ICXC NIKA
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/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,555



« Reply #237 on: February 13, 2010, 12:26:04 PM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.
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: 37,466



« Reply #238 on: February 13, 2010, 01:01:17 PM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.

As opposed to those masterpieces Michael Moore puts out....
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,555



« Reply #239 on: February 13, 2010, 01:12:35 PM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.

As opposed to those masterpieces Michael Moore puts out....

What does that have to do with anything? Unless you're arguing that the twisting of facts that Michael Moore does somehow justifies the deception that creationists used in this film. Is that what you're saying?
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: 37,466



« Reply #240 on: February 13, 2010, 01:56:14 PM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.

As opposed to those masterpieces Michael Moore puts out....

What does that have to do with anything? Unless you're arguing that the twisting of facts that Michael Moore does somehow justifies the deception that creationists used in this film. Is that what you're saying?

No, just most of those alleging (alleging) that Stein twisted things in this movie (and he "twisted" things no more than investigative journalism used to do, before they got used to just making things up) take Moore as the gospel truth.  Moore's stunt, for instance, of going to a stock holder's meeting to get a hold of Roger in "Roger and Me" was quite legitimate. Others, well...
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 #241 on: February 14, 2010, 03:33:54 AM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.

Complete codswallop! The film, not your post, Asteriktos. 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)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #242 on: February 14, 2010, 03:36:03 AM »

What films on creationism/evolution has Michael Moore done?  Huh
Logged

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

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #243 on: February 14, 2010, 04:28:31 AM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.

As opposed to those masterpieces Michael Moore puts out....

What does that have to do with anything? Unless you're arguing that the twisting of facts that Michael Moore does somehow justifies the deception that creationists used in this film. Is that what you're saying?

No, just most of those alleging (alleging) that Stein twisted things in this movie (and he "twisted" things no more than investigative journalism used to do, before they got used to just making things up) take Moore as the gospel truth.  Moore's stunt, for instance, of going to a stock holder's meeting to get a hold of Roger in "Roger and Me" was quite legitimate. Others, well...

Moore's films are crap...so is this one by Stein. They're done in the same style and all idiotic propaganda with no basis in truth. Evolution isn't a 'liberal' position, it's a scientific one...the fact that one agrees with science hardly implies they agree with Moore's personal opinions.
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
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: 37,466



« Reply #244 on: February 14, 2010, 09:34:11 AM »

Quote
In my totally uninformed opinion, I found it a sad, lame movie.

A lame movie, indeed, and the people who were interviewed were often misled about the intended aim/content of the project.

As opposed to those masterpieces Michael Moore puts out....

What does that have to do with anything? Unless you're arguing that the twisting of facts that Michael Moore does somehow justifies the deception that creationists used in this film. Is that what you're saying?

No, just most of those alleging (alleging) that Stein twisted things in this movie (and he "twisted" things no more than investigative journalism used to do, before they got used to just making things up) take Moore as the gospel truth.  Moore's stunt, for instance, of going to a stock holder's meeting to get a hold of Roger in "Roger and Me" was quite legitimate. Others, well...

Moore's films are crap...so is this one by Stein. They're done in the same style and all idiotic propaganda with no basis in truth. Evolution isn't a 'liberal' position, it's a scientific one...the fact that one agrees with science hardly implies they agree with Moore's personal opinions.
Stein and plenty of the scientists (and others, like the non-religious Jeiwsh journalist) in the movie agree with science, just not the personal opinion of those scientists and their supporters egaged in the witchhunt in support of evolutionary theory.
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
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #245 on: February 14, 2010, 12:20:11 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
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: 37,466



« Reply #246 on: February 14, 2010, 12:50:55 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.
That's how the Orthodox stayed Orthodox.

The Darwinist claim that they have no orthodoxy.  They don't have right belief (at least not in toto), but they do have a creed that they are trying to preserve.
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
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #247 on: February 14, 2010, 01:18:02 PM »

Quote
That's how the Orthodox stayed Orthodox.

And I don't necessarily find that method of staying Orthodox anything to be proud of.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #248 on: February 14, 2010, 02:52:50 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

You can't try to advance unscientific hypotheses and expect to be taken seriously in the scientific community. Intelligent design isn't unacceptable because it goes against some scientific orthodoxy, it's unacceptable because it's not falsifiable and, therefore, by definition isn't science.
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
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: 37,466



« Reply #249 on: February 14, 2010, 04:09:32 PM »

Quote
That's how the Orthodox stayed Orthodox.

And I don't necessarily find that method of staying Orthodox anything to be proud of.

Depends how it was enforced, and what it was being enforced over. St. Maximos' response to the emperor about Maximos' communion is one thing I am quite proud of.
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: 37,466



« Reply #250 on: February 14, 2010, 04:11:00 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

You can't try to advance unscientific hypotheses and expect to be taken seriously in the scientific community. Intelligent design isn't unacceptable because it goes against some scientific orthodoxy, it's unacceptable because it's not falsifiable and, therefore, by definition isn't science.
All you have to do is demonstrate that random chaos can create,oops!, evolve into order.
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 #251 on: February 14, 2010, 04:16:17 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

The point is though, Rosehip, why would anyone think that they can continue with employment in a scientific faculty position if they keep advocating an "alternative theory", without any research or evidence to back it up. At some point, their tenure would have to be severed because they simply weren't doing their job; which is to teach or produce research that is science; not pie in the sky alternatives that have no substance. Time-wasters get the push, and understandably so.

Logged

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

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #252 on: February 14, 2010, 04:45:07 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

You can't try to advance unscientific hypotheses and expect to be taken seriously in the scientific community. Intelligent design isn't unacceptable because it goes against some scientific orthodoxy, it's unacceptable because it's not falsifiable and, therefore, by definition isn't science.
All you have to do is demonstrate that random chaos can create,oops!, evolve into order.

That's easy, just take a look at any genetic algorithm. Take a look at this applet, for example: http://www.dna-evolutions.com/dnaappletsample.html it generates optimized solutions to the NP-complete TSP. With natural selection parameters, it's trivial to create order from a random number generator.
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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #253 on: February 14, 2010, 06:21:59 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

The point is though, Rosehip, why would anyone think that they can continue with employment in a scientific faculty position if they keep advocating an "alternative theory", without any research or evidence to back it up. At some point, their tenure would have to be severed because they simply weren't doing their job; which is to teach or produce research that is science; not pie in the sky alternatives that have no substance. Time-wasters get the push, and understandably so.



Yep. That's why they tortured and executed Priests in communist Russia. Can't have those anti-science "pie in the sky" religious fanatics keeping the people in ignorance and stifling progress. We're trying to create a tolerant world here, and therefore we can't afford to tolerate those who threaten enlightenment by constantly shining their Christian Light.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
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: 11,034


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


WWW
« Reply #254 on: February 21, 2010, 12:46:59 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

The point is though, Rosehip, why would anyone think that they can continue with employment in a scientific faculty position if they keep advocating an "alternative theory", without any research or evidence to back it up. At some point, their tenure would have to be severed because they simply weren't doing their job; which is to teach or produce research that is science; not pie in the sky alternatives that have no substance. Time-wasters get the push, and understandably so.



Yep. That's why they tortured and executed Priests in communist Russia. Can't have those anti-science "pie in the sky" religious fanatics keeping the people in ignorance and stifling progress. We're trying to create a tolerant world here, and therefore we can't afford to tolerate those who threaten enlightenment by constantly shining their Christian Light.


Selam

That's not a fair analogy.  No one is persecuting priests for being priests, let alone theists, which is what communist Russia did.  It's more like excommunicating someone in the Church for heresy.  Why would I want an Arian, for example, to continue to commune in the Church?

Likewise, IDists really do throw away the principles of science altogether because they never show any falsifiable experimentation for it.  They are indeed, "heretics of science."
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 12:48:09 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"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #255 on: February 21, 2010, 07:54:17 PM »

I do agree that I was rather shocked that respected scientists would be fired just because they believed in and/or taught intelligent design.  It is likely far more complex an issue than what the films presents, but I did think it was going too far to treat people like this. Almost reminded me of how the Proto-Orthodox would root out anyone who believed slightly differently in the beginning.

The point is though, Rosehip, why would anyone think that they can continue with employment in a scientific faculty position if they keep advocating an "alternative theory", without any research or evidence to back it up. At some point, their tenure would have to be severed because they simply weren't doing their job; which is to teach or produce research that is science; not pie in the sky alternatives that have no substance. Time-wasters get the push, and understandably so.



Yep. That's why they tortured and executed Priests in communist Russia. Can't have those anti-science "pie in the sky" religious fanatics keeping the people in ignorance and stifling progress. We're trying to create a tolerant world here, and therefore we can't afford to tolerate those who threaten enlightenment by constantly shining their Christian Light.


Selam

That's not a fair analogy.  No one is persecuting priests for being priests, let alone theists, which is what communist Russia did.  It's more like excommunicating someone in the Church for heresy.  Why would I want an Arian, for example, to continue to commune in the Church?

Likewise, IDists really do throw away the principles of science altogether because they never show any falsifiable experimentation for it.  They are indeed, "heretics of science."

Unfortunately my brother, your response does more to validate my comments than refute them.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
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: 11,034


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


WWW
« Reply #256 on: February 21, 2010, 08:05:33 PM »

I'm not sure how Gebre.  You make it seem like a violent process, as if scientists are out to kill people.  Does our church kill heretics?

I'm not going to convince you whether they're sound science or not, I'm sure.  But in the eyes of us who consider ourselves scientists, we find IDists as essentially a danger to science.  As a devout Orthodox Christian, I find no problem firing any IDist in my staff if I must.  This isn't an atheist vs. theist issue.  It's an issue of science.

As for tolerance, I will tolerate anyone who follows the principles of science.  Show me the experiments, show me your findings, show me a reasonable testable explanation at least, and perhaps we can go from there.  But tolerance does not mean to let anyone in an institution to define for themselves in their own opinions what constitutes as science.  This is just as tolerant as the Church is to heretics.  In other words, tolerance only goes far inasmuch as we draw certain lines.  Even within a society, tolerance on any issue really is variable.

From what I understand in your analogy, you perceive the scientific community as an intolerant group of tyrants with militant actions on eradicating those who disagree with them, whereas in my analogy, I was showing you my perception of the scientific community as a group that protects scientific principles and truths no different than those who want to protect the principles and truths of the Orthodox faith.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 08:08:12 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"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #257 on: February 21, 2010, 08:24:46 PM »

I'm not sure how Gebre.  You make it seem like a violent process, as if scientists are out to kill people.  Does our church kill heretics?

I'm not going to convince you whether they're sound science or not, I'm sure.  But in the eyes of us who consider ourselves scientists, we find IDists as essentially a danger to science.  As a devout Orthodox Christian, I find no problem firing any IDist in my staff if I must.  This isn't an atheist vs. theist issue.  It's an issue of science.

As for tolerance, I will tolerate anyone who follows the principles of science.  Show me the experiments, show me your findings, show me a reasonable testable explanation at least, and perhaps we can go from there.  But tolerance does not mean to let anyone in an institution to define for themselves in their own opinions what constitutes as science.  This is just as tolerant as the Church is to heretics.  In other words, tolerance only goes far inasmuch as we draw certain lines.  Even within a society, tolerance on any issue really is variable.

From what I understand in your analogy, you perceive the scientific community as an intolerant group of tyrants with militant actions on eradicating those who disagree with them, whereas in my analogy, I was showing you my perception of the scientific community as a group that protects scientific principles and truths no different than those who want to protect the principles and truths of the Orthodox faith.

I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.  


Selam
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 08:25:35 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
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: 11,034


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


WWW
« Reply #258 on: February 21, 2010, 08:35:37 PM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

Perhaps attacks come a lot from IDists and creationists so much so as to allow a certain extreme of scientists to not allow anyone to challenge them (which if you ask me, I'm very sympathetic to the scientists on this end), but at the same time the part where I bolded is perhaps the crux of the issue between you and me where for now we have to agree to disagree.  I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 08:36:04 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.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #259 on: February 21, 2010, 09:51:57 PM »

I'm not sure how Gebre.  You make it seem like a violent process, as if scientists are out to kill people.  Does our church kill heretics?

I'm not going to convince you whether they're sound science or not, I'm sure.  But in the eyes of us who consider ourselves scientists, we find IDists as essentially a danger to science.  As a devout Orthodox Christian, I find no problem firing any IDist in my staff if I must.  This isn't an atheist vs. theist issue.  It's an issue of science.

As for tolerance, I will tolerate anyone who follows the principles of science.  Show me the experiments, show me your findings, show me a reasonable testable explanation at least, and perhaps we can go from there.  But tolerance does not mean to let anyone in an institution to define for themselves in their own opinions what constitutes as science.  This is just as tolerant as the Church is to heretics.  In other words, tolerance only goes far inasmuch as we draw certain lines.  Even within a society, tolerance on any issue really is variable.

From what I understand in your analogy, you perceive the scientific community as an intolerant group of tyrants with militant actions on eradicating those who disagree with them, whereas in my analogy, I was showing you my perception of the scientific community as a group that protects scientific principles and truths no different than those who want to protect the principles and truths of the Orthodox faith.

I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.

Science was 'defined' long before Darwin and we haven't changed the standards. And, unless they're hiding something and deliberately trying to mislead people, how could anyone possibly object to the standards of quantifiability, reproducibility, and verifiability for something to be regarded as science?

Furthermore, we are open to new ideas, to alternative theories. The Royal Society had every cultural reason to reject Einstein's Theory of Relativity and preserve the supremacy of Newton's theories, but Relativity fit the evidence better than Classical Mechanics, thus, science rejected Newton in favour of Einstein. If someone were to present an alternative theory to Evolution that better explained the genetic and biological evidence available, it would be seriously considered and, if found to actually explain them better than evolution, would be accepted and evolution dispensed with. But that's not what these fundamentalist advocates of Intelligent Design are doing, they're ignoring the evidence in order to insist that the flying spaghetti monster/invisible pink unicorn/yahweh made everything according to some design, independent of all available evidence.
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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #260 on: February 22, 2010, 02:00:37 AM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

 I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.

I agree. And I would also include scientific philosophy in that discussion, and clarify the difference between science and scientific philosophy.

God bless you too my friend. Smiley


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #261 on: February 22, 2010, 02:13:56 AM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

 I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.

I agree. And I would also include scientific philosophy in that discussion, and clarify the difference between science and scientific philosophy.

God bless you too my friend. Smiley


Selam

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?
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
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #262 on: February 22, 2010, 10:34:55 AM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

 I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.

I agree. And I would also include scientific philosophy in that discussion, and clarify the difference between science and scientific philosophy.

God bless you too my friend. Smiley


Selam

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?
Because what we want to be real tells us a lot about ourselves and about humanity. Hence why philosophy is an art, not a science. It tells us nothing of scientific value, but that is not to say that philosophy has no value at all. This so-called "scientific philosophy," however, is hogwash.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 10:35:24 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » 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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,929


"My god is greater."


« Reply #263 on: February 22, 2010, 10:52:21 AM »

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?

Your crude empiricism and your contrast of "reality" and "imagination" is itself an expression of your own half-formed philosophy.

There was a time where atheists were philosophically literate. What happened to the Percy Shelley's and the Wallace Stevens's?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #264 on: February 22, 2010, 07:08:21 PM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

 I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.

I agree. And I would also include scientific philosophy in that discussion, and clarify the difference between science and scientific philosophy.

God bless you too my friend. Smiley


Selam

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?
This so-called "scientific philosophy," however, is hogwash.

Exactly. If only the evolutionary philosophers would realize it themselves.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #265 on: February 22, 2010, 07:10:01 PM »



Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?

This is exaclty what I keep saying to the evolutionists.

Selam
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 07:10:32 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #266 on: February 22, 2010, 07:49:41 PM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

 I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.

I agree. And I would also include scientific philosophy in that discussion, and clarify the difference between science and scientific philosophy.

God bless you too my friend. Smiley


Selam

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?
So is this your philosophy?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #267 on: February 22, 2010, 08:39:16 PM »

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?

Your crude empiricism and your contrast of "reality" and "imagination" is itself an expression of your own half-formed philosophy.

There was a time where atheists were philosophically literate. What happened to the Percy Shelley's and the Wallace Stevens's?

I spent many a year studying philosophy and theology, I'm well read in the majority of the world's philosophies, mostly western, but eastern as well to some degree (especially Taoism) and concerning one philosophy in particular, I would be surprised if anyone of this forum had a deeper understanding of Platonism, and especially Neo-Platonism, than I.

But the fact that I'm 'literate' in these philosophies doesn't give them any credence...I'm literate in in Tolkien's mythology as well, does that mean it's a real history, as it 'claims'? Philosophy may be a fun mind-game at times, but none of it has any impact on the reality we all live in from day to day. None of it affects how cells divide, none of it affects how gravity attracts objects, none of it affects electro-magnetic currents, none of it affects the computational mechanics of a neural network, it's just not real.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,555



« Reply #268 on: February 22, 2010, 08:44:55 PM »

Philosophy may be a fun mind-game at times, but none of it has any impact on the reality we all live in from day to day.

Yet every one of us, you included, operates according to a life philosophy.  Wink
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #269 on: February 22, 2010, 08:53:22 PM »


I doubt we'll ever agree, but I think the movie in discussion demonstrates the bias and prejudice towards those who have valid scientific reasons for interjecting even the idea of some form of ID into the discussion. The answer is always the same: "They aren't following science." My point is that evolutionists define science according to the criteria that accommodates their theory, and they don't allow anyone else to challenge their definition. To do so is a threat to the "state" of science, and thus these threats must be eradicated from the realm of official scientific debate so that their beloved theory isn't threatened.   


Selam

 I think a discussion on the "definition of science" would be more appropriate and fruitful in the future than a discussion on evolution, and that goes not just in this thread but in any thread on evolution.

God bless.

I agree. And I would also include scientific philosophy in that discussion, and clarify the difference between science and scientific philosophy.

God bless you too my friend. Smiley


Selam

No, that would not be useful, philosophy is nothing but the idle ponderings of overactive imaginations, it does not have, nor has it ever had, even the slightest amount of truth or value. Why not focus on what actually is real, rather than what we want to be real?
This so-called "scientific philosophy," however, is hogwash.
Exactly. If only the evolutionary philosophers would realize it themselves.
That last sentence is also hogwash.
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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.225 seconds with 71 queries.