OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 02:50:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 317086 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #1395 on: October 02, 2009, 11:38:06 AM »

People advance hypotheses, or, plainly put, GUESS about things. Then some guesses turn out to be plain wrong, and are fogotten. Other guesses receive some factual support and are held as "working hypotheses," or scientific theories for a while, to be later changed by newer theories. That's ALL there is to science. There are no revelations, no dogmas. No "knowledge" if under knowledge you understand something final, something that will reveal the whole truth and will never change.


that's entirely true.  I think part of the "problem" is that hypotheses are often exhibit as fact long before they are proven or disproven, especially by the media at large which does not understand science, at all.  Also, you can't tell me that the hypothesis of so-called "global warming" has not been presented as fact (eg "dogma") by both scientists that believe it to be true and the media.  We rarely, if ever, hear about the growing dissent amongst climatologists, meteorologists and the like as the the veracity of this particular hypothesis.

This is not a "modern" phenomenon, either, but as old as newspapers.  It's quite saddening.

that's why Ben Stein gives such a prominent place to the press in "Expelled."
Logged

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

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1396 on: October 02, 2009, 11:44:08 AM »

I wonder what all the people who were so sure and certain that we evolved directly from Apes or chimps are gonna say now?

Yaaawwwwwwn.   Roll Eyes  No one ever said that we evolved directly from "apes" or "chimps."  Evolutionary theory posits that we share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we evolved from them.

What did the person in the article say?

QUOTE:
Quote
"This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way"


Also, when I was arguing with professor or teacher Heorhij some months ago, it was over the issue of a group of Apes eventually evolving into a group of humans over hundreds of millions of years.

Plus on top of that, I know what my teachers said a long time ago in school. The issue was always over Apes or Chimps eventually evolving into humans.

Do you remember those pictures inschool? The ones similar to this:





The Chimp is the first one on the pick, now would you like to "rephrase" what you said above? For I think you misspoke.









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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1397 on: October 02, 2009, 11:45:39 AM »

Also, you can't tell me that the hypothesis of so-called "global warming" has not been presented as fact (eg "dogma") by both scientists that believe it to be true and the media.  We rarely, if ever, hear about the growing dissent amongst climatologists, meteorologists and the like as the the veracity of this particular hypothesis.

Please, please, please do not open this can of worms again.  I will send you 17 venerable recipes for Bavarian and English suds and all the barely and  hops needed to make them if you promise not to start a new discussion on this topic.   Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1398 on: October 02, 2009, 11:54:22 AM »

What did the person in the article say?

A person who is a journalist writing for the Associated Press?  Whatever.  He's putting words in the anthropologist's mouth that he didn't say.  If you get your "science" from a journalist who is not writing for an academic journal or even a science magazine, be prepared to be led down the garden path.

Quote
Plus on top of that, I know what my teachers said a long time ago in school. The issue was always over Apes or Chimps eventually evolving into humans.

I don't much care what your or my or anybody else's grade school teachers said about it.  Unfortunately they are either not competent scientists, or are simply using imagery and language that children can understand.


Quote
The Chimp is the first one on the pick, now would you like to "rephrase" what you said above? For I think you misspoke.

Pictures like this don't prove or disprove anything.  They are sometimes just artists' conceptions of how evolution took place.  There is really nothing new in saying that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor.  This AP writer has not clearly understood this.  Despite this, even he uses the term "chimp-like" and does not refer to modern chimps.   Humans were never modern chimps or gorillas or orangutans or whatever.  You referred explicitly to humans evolving from "chimps" or "apes", and I take issue with that, and the idea that it is somehow a HUGE revelation that humans and apes share a common ancestor.  Even the article you cite, if you would care to actually consider it, mentions how the search for a common ancestor has been paramount in scientific circles, and not whether or not we evolved from "apes" or "chimps", the very idea of which is sheer lunacy. You've missed the entire point of what the scientists cited in the article are trying to say, because you are hung up on the editorialising of the non-scientist AP journalist.  I don't have time to go back and cite individual parts to show this to you.  Perhaps you could read it again.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 04:23:09 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1399 on: October 02, 2009, 12:02:40 PM »

Also, you can't tell me that the hypothesis of so-called "global warming" has not been presented as fact (eg "dogma") by both scientists that believe it to be true and the media.  We rarely, if ever, hear about the growing dissent amongst climatologists, meteorologists and the like as the the veracity of this particular hypothesis.

Please, please, please do not open this can of worms again.  I will send you 17 venerable recipes for Bavarian and English suds and all the barely and  hops needed to make them if you promise not to start a new discussion on this topic.   Grin

LOL.  Sorry, I didn't mean to even pull that can off the shelf. So, I will put my moderator hat on and say:

Schultz, please stay on topic.  If you want to start a thread about global warming, please do so.
Thanks.
Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator


Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,479


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1400 on: October 02, 2009, 01:26:53 PM »

I remember when I was a kid, they said a super volcano destroyed the dinosaurs, now they are saying it was an astroid, 10 years from now, they may say it was some super solar flare or some mega cosmic ray or something.......anything and everything but the flood.
So you're asserting that it was the Flood that killed the dinosaurs?  What scientific evidence is there for that hypothesis?  Is that hypothesis even falsifiable through scientific testing?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 01:30:23 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1401 on: October 02, 2009, 02:06:00 PM »

Engineering is a science. All forms of Engineering are derivatives of Physics.


Infact, Engineering is called a "Hard Science", whereas other forms of sciences are called "Soft Sciences".

To me, Engineering is real Science.......about as real as you can get.

[...]

ICXC NIKA

I have to disagree that engineering is in and of itself a hard science, but that is for another thread.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1402 on: October 02, 2009, 03:27:35 PM »

So what's the problem? It's that science works by hypothesis and speculation but proposes all discoveries as definitive truths, time after time, until a new theory will replace it as another "truth". Maybe scientists should stop using expressions such as "X years ago the world was thus" and replace them with "It is speculated/it is a general opinion of the scientific community that X years ago the world was thus". That would make science maybe a little less credible, but surely more humble in its approach to the world.

OK. Then we should say, "it is speculated and is a general opinion of the scientific community that a molecule of water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen."
Logged

Love never fails.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1403 on: October 02, 2009, 06:47:20 PM »

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

Quote
QUOTE:
"WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.

....

To read the rest, please visit the link....

This find doesn't "reverse" anything. It simply indicates that modern humans probably did not evolve from an ancestor that was predominantly "chimp-like", and instead indicates that both modern chimps and modern humans evolved from an ancestor that was probably "chimp-and-human-like". And that ancestor would still be classified biologically as an "ape", though not identical to any species of apes that currently exist.



The recent Ardis find doesn't contradict the commonly held idea (as seen above) that chimps are the closest living relatives of humans. What the find does is indicate that the species located at the "~5mybp [5 million years before present]" point was not as "chimp-like" as previously thought, and probably possessed characteristics that both were both human-like and chimp-like.

This ancestor of both chimps and humans would still be classified as an ape, because both gorillas and orangutans (which split earlier from the human-chimp ancestor lineage) are classified as apes.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 06:48:50 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1404 on: October 02, 2009, 08:18:57 PM »

The problem with science is this:


This grandma objects most strongly to this!!! Tongue laugh
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 08:19:30 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

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

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #1405 on: October 02, 2009, 09:52:23 PM »


This ancestor of both chimps and humans would still be classified as an ape,..

Are you sure?  I would've thought 'hominid'.  Undecided
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1406 on: October 02, 2009, 09:56:42 PM »

Are you sure?  I would've thought 'hominid'.  Undecided

Which means...?  Great ape.   Wink
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 09:57:17 PM by Nebelpfade » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #1407 on: October 02, 2009, 10:05:23 PM »

Are you sure?  I would've thought 'hominid'.  Undecided

Which means...?  Great ape.   Wink

And now I know!  Cheesy
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1408 on: October 02, 2009, 11:08:56 PM »

I remember when I was a kid, they said a super volcano destroyed the dinosaurs, now they are saying it was an astroid, 10 years from now, they may say it was some super solar flare or some mega cosmic ray or something.......anything and everything but the flood.
So you're asserting that it was the Flood that killed the dinosaurs?  What scientific evidence is there for that hypothesis?  Is that hypothesis even falsifiable through scientific testing?
Not to mention the Biblical evidence, if one interprets it literally, that Noah must have had four of each species of dinosaur aboard the Ark (seeing as how they were unclean), and therefore they would not have been wiped out by the Flood.
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
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1409 on: October 03, 2009, 07:58:30 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
So what's the problem? It's that science works by hypothesis and speculation but proposes all discoveries as definitive truths, time after time, until a new theory will replace it as another "truth". Maybe scientists should stop using expressions such as "X years ago the world was thus" and replace them with "It is speculated/it is a general opinion of the scientific community that X years ago the world was thus". That would make science maybe a little less credible, but surely more humble in its approach to the world.

OK. Then we should say, "it is speculated and is a general opinion of the scientific community that a molecule of water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen."

No, because you you CAN SEE experimentally how atoms and molecules are built, and the main three forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction) that govern it: the theories have made previsions, and the previsions have been up to now confirmed experimentally; the only certainty is that these theories describe very well reality, but they may be incomplete and need to be filled in with new discoveries (if you're used to physics, an example is the search for the boson of Higgs). What always surprises me is that we arrived at this conclusions in an incredibly easy way despite the many obstacles of looking into the "infinitely little" (including Heisemberg's principle of indetermination).
On the contrary, you can't say with accuracy which ape was an ancestor of modern man. There was a period when scientists taught with certainty that the Cro-magnon man and Neanderthals were son and father, but now the opinion is that they are cousins independently evolved from a common ancestor Homo Heidelbergensis, and that they walked on Earth simultaneously for a long period of their existence. A similar error was made when scientists assumed as obvious that - as reptiles - dinosaurs were cold-blooded. These things were taught as "scientific dogmas" in school books, in my country (I don't know of the US). Recent studies have shown that this certainty was an error, since there are solid hints that they were warm-blooded. Nevertheless, school books of the time gave cold-blooded dinosaurs and our supposed father Neanderthal as certainties, which has been clearly disproved. Proofs are necessary to sustain a theory.
The problem with paleontology is that the only known model for life exists on Earth, so that we can't verify experimentally the path of evolution from one species into another. An Italian physicist, former director of CERN Antonio Zichichi, has been largely criticized for having put in discussion the evolutionary theory as a strictly-speaking scientific theory. Of this theory he criticized the METHODS, since evolution is neither experimental nor mathematical.
I will invent a "visual" experiment, if you like, to explain how evolution is based on a weak scientific base. Let's assume we have a man in front of three different ladders who bring from a point A to a point B. We go away and give a look at this place after one hour, and we find out that the individual has already reached point B. We know that he somehow moved from point A to point B, and we might assume that he did so through the most direct and short of the three ladders, but how can we be sure? He could have taken the longer ladder and be there in an hour. He could have used a different means to reach point B. He could even have travelled as fast as light and have circled the entire Earth, reaching point B from the opposite direction, or he might have used  a teleportation device. There are virtually an unlimited possible range of ways to reach point B from point A, and the most logical may be nevertheless wrong: it's only a GUESS, an hypothesis or theory which we could verify only asking to the individual directly or to an eyewitness who must have seen the entire travel of the individual. Even using alternated cameras along the possible paths from A to B doesn't grant us that, in the points from a camera to another, he might have used other means of travel then the ladders.
Bringing this to evolution, we can easily understand that men and apes are biologically linked (I mean in their DNAs) but:
1) We can't be sure of the evolutionary path of man, i.e. which steps of evolution man has really followed to become what it is.
2) We can't be sure by which means man evoluted from some primate, even if we can take pictures of man (i.e. find the missing links) at some points of his evolutionary process.
We could say this is a "principle of indetermination" applied to evolutionism: as the electrons move in a "cloud of probability", so that we can either calculate the position of an electron, but we can't know how fast it travels before its relevation, in the same way we can calculate the space-time coordinates of a fossil animal and compare with others, but we can't know for sure whence the animal evolved, or what he was going to evolve into.

In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 08:04:15 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1410 on: October 03, 2009, 09:23:31 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
So what's the problem? It's that science works by hypothesis and speculation but proposes all discoveries as definitive truths, time after time, until a new theory will replace it as another "truth". Maybe scientists should stop using expressions such as "X years ago the world was thus" and replace them with "It is speculated/it is a general opinion of the scientific community that X years ago the world was thus". That would make science maybe a little less credible, but surely more humble in its approach to the world.

OK. Then we should say, "it is speculated and is a general opinion of the scientific community that a molecule of water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen."

No, because you you CAN SEE experimentally how atoms and molecules are built, and the main three forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction) that govern it: the theories have made previsions, and the previsions have been up to now confirmed experimentally; the only certainty is that these theories describe very well reality, but they may be incomplete and need to be filled in with new discoveries (if you're used to physics, an example is the search for the boson of Higgs). What always surprises me is that we arrived at this conclusions in an incredibly easy way despite the many obstacles of looking into the "infinitely little" (including Heisemberg's principle of indetermination).

Yes, of course, this is all correct, but my point is, we do not directly "see" atoms. The notion that there are three atoms in a molecule of water is DEDUCED from observations, itself not being an observation. Similarly, the notion that substances consist of molecules is also a DEDUCED notion (i.e. hypothesis, not a "fact"). Yes, there is evidence that supports the atomic-molecular hypothesis (or theory). And yet, why do people argue that "evolution is not a fact but merely a theory," and do not usually make the same argument about the atomic-molecular theory of matter?

On the contrary, you can't say with accuracy which ape was an ancestor of modern man.

AFAIK, the current working hypothesis is that the evolutionary ancestor of the present-day species Homo sapiens is extinct.

2) We can't be sure by which means man evoluted from some primate, even if we can take pictures of man (i.e. find the missing links) at some points of his evolutionary process.

I think we can. There are five principal mechanisms of evolution: mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and non-stochastic sexual replication. All of them make a certain contribution into the diversification of life forms. No reason to exclude them from the evolution of hominids.

Logged

Love never fails.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1411 on: October 03, 2009, 10:59:40 AM »

Quote
I think we can. There are five principal mechanisms of evolution: mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and non-stochastic sexual replication. All of them make a certain contribution into the diversification of life forms. No reason to exclude them from the evolution of hominids.
Are these mechanisms certain to have worked on hominids to bring such to our actual form? Where's the scientific proof that these factors contributed to evolution? Maybe we could discover that, for example, the genes have a "reason", so-to-say, in other words that they tend to channel informations to the new generations so that evolution is no more a natural selection (the best new characteristics make some animals survive and some others die), but a natural adaptation (over time DNA adapts from one generation and another to produce better characteristics). this is one of the many possible ways evolution could occur. Another one is sudden genetic mutations due to catastrophs or radiations. In this case, entire processes of evolution would be ignited from outside.

In the atoms, things are different. We assist to a cause-effect phenomenon in a direct way. We see the forces in action NOW, and we perceive their effects... we can even capture or sense the bosons resulting from the fundamental interactions (except for gravitons, I know), and science as verified that they have the characteristics of electric charge, flavour, color, spin and mass anticipated by the Standard Model. So YES, I think the model of an atom is as clear as the anatomy pf a human: some mechanisms may be still unknown, but what is known is entirely certain and can be verified by common experience and by scientific tests. That's what lab science serves for.
Now, physics, chemistry and other sciences can make precise predictions of the future. Evolution, on the contrary, is the observation of old or new phenomena, but no mathematical prevision of new phenomena is possible. There's more certainty in model of physics then in the theory of evolution - which doesn't mean that evolution is plainly faulty, but just that we can't be sure of how it worked/works.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1412 on: October 03, 2009, 11:05:25 AM »

 laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,269


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


WWW
« Reply #1413 on: October 03, 2009, 11:46:04 AM »

Quote
Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

This article doesn't know how to portray the science of this.  First of all, biologists never said chimps evolved into humans.  They ALWAYS said, as the article points out that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.  That is not a theory, that is considered FACT (remember? Theory explains fact?).  The theory is when, or who, or what fossil can be shown to be this common ancestor.  They were wrong earlier (actually they weren't wrong, they might have simply found a more encompassing ancestor, maybe even a common ancestor to chimps, humans, and Lucy...so I wouldn't criticize anything yet), and they found this new hominid to explain it.

The media doesn't know how to explain science.  Poorly written article, and I would suggest reading what the researchers said.

If you keep reading the article, the article actually implied Darwin even said chimps and humans share a common ancestor:

Quote
White noted that Charles Darwin, whose research in the 19th century paved the way for the science of evolution, was cautious about the last common ancestor between humans and apes.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it," White said. "And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared."

Now compare this yahoo self-contradictory article with this description:

Quote from: Sciencemag
In its 2 October 2009 issue, Science presents 11 papers, authored by a diverse international team, describing an early hominid species, Ardipithecus ramidus, and its environment. These 4.4 million year old hominid fossils sit within a critical early part of human evolution, and cast new and sometimes surprising light on the evolution of human limbs and locomotion, the habitats occupied by early hominids, and the nature of our last common ancestor with chimps.

Think about how many times the media misrepresented Orthodox Christianity in a little, but major way in their articles, and you will understand why scientists slap their foreheads at them, and at the repercussions of people like you who don't go and read the boring source.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 12:04:56 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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,269


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


WWW
« Reply #1414 on: October 03, 2009, 11:55:18 AM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 11:58:22 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,522



« Reply #1415 on: October 03, 2009, 12:02:18 PM »

The problem may the dumbing down of "theory" by scientists themselves. From the Wiki (and I would appreciate if any scientists among us would correct this entry):

In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [5]

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[6]

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe untested but intricate hypotheses in addition to repeatedly confirmed models. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)." (my emphasis). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#List_of_notable_theories

I am not a scientist but I am involved in "performance management" and am conscious of the fact that in any formal argument the premise(s) must be true to have a valid conclusion. For example, in process improvement one must have valid baseline data which is then contrasted to the results after a change has been implemented. In this field, datapoints are very important, as it is in biology, for example. Modern biology can show that organisms evolve because scientists have before and after data. When it comes to human evolution, however, the baseline data are scarce and arrived at by applying the principles of evolution backwards: that is, there are more than one conclusion and some of them put forth as premises. If I may chart it in formal logic,

Premise 1: Evolution theory (and current empirical evidence that organisms evolve)
Premise 2/Conclusion 1: There must be a logical progression from the baseline (whatever and whenever it was) to now.
Premise 3: Observation shows common traits between species
Premise 4/Conclusion 2: Working backwards in accordance with Premises 1, 2 and 3 will allow us to find the baseline.
Premise 5: Lucy is the oldest datapoint that we have and confirms that men and apes have a common ancestor.

Conclusion: Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes.

This is  fascinating but does not rise to the confidence level that the Academy of Sciences posits, that is, a reliable account  of the real world. Evolution theory is a valid scientific theory but it does not empirically prove the conclusion of the argument I made above. Also, I believe that this has risen to the level of scientific dogma (a contradiction in terms but there you have it), fiercely defended by some scientists as if it is more than a matter of science.

Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1416 on: October 03, 2009, 12:12:16 PM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

Is evolution your religion too?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1417 on: October 03, 2009, 12:51:34 PM »

Quote
I think we can. There are five principal mechanisms of evolution: mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and non-stochastic sexual replication. All of them make a certain contribution into the diversification of life forms. No reason to exclude them from the evolution of hominids.
Are these mechanisms certain to have worked on hominids to bring such to our actual form? Where's the scientific proof that these factors contributed to evolution? Maybe we could discover that, for example, the genes have a "reason", so-to-say, in other words that they tend to channel informations to the new generations so that evolution is no more a natural selection (the best new characteristics make some animals survive and some others die), but a natural adaptation (over time DNA adapts from one generation and another to produce better characteristics).

That's not what modern biology holds as its working hypothesis. Our current understanding is that mutations are absolutely random. DNA has no "brain" and mutagens have no "brain." It is the environment that selects those mutants that are better fit to it - not anything in the intrinsic mechanism of mutation. And just what is "better" or "best" characteristics? If you live in Italy or New York city, getting the mutation that causes sickle-cell anemia is "bad." But if you are living in those parts of the world where malaria is all around, getting the SAME mutation is "good," because the malaria plasmodium cannot live in s-hemoglobin-containiang red blood cells, so you live longer and have more children...

this is one of the many possible ways evolution could occur. Another one is sudden genetic mutations due to catastrophs or radiations. In this case, entire processes of evolution would be ignited from outside.

Well, essentially, all mutations are "from outside" - they are caused by mutagens like UV light, cosmic rays, gamma rays etc. Sudden catastrophies lead to the so-called genetic drift, when the whole subset of genetic variants in a population is lost and the genetic makeup of the population changes dramatically over a very short time. And yes, the genetic drift is a powerful driving force in evolution.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 12:52:49 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,269


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


WWW
« Reply #1418 on: October 03, 2009, 01:38:02 PM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

Is evolution your religion too?

Is ignorance one of your traits too?
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.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1419 on: October 03, 2009, 01:44:46 PM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

Is evolution your religion too?

Is ignorance one of your traits too?

Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,479


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1420 on: October 03, 2009, 02:29:14 PM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

Is evolution your religion too?

Is ignorance one of your traits too?

Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Do you have anything of any real substance you would like to contribute to this discussion, Mr. Statler?
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1421 on: October 03, 2009, 02:36:29 PM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

Is evolution your religion too?

Is ignorance one of your traits too?

Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Do you have anything of any real substance you would like to contribute to this discussion, Mr. Statler?

I just did, for more preview check out my profile signature and avatar.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,479


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1422 on: October 03, 2009, 02:46:30 PM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

Is evolution your religion too?

Is ignorance one of your traits too?

Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Do you have anything of any real substance you would like to contribute to this discussion, Mr. Statler?

I just did, for more preview check out my profile signature and avatar.
That's not substance.  That's heckling.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1423 on: October 03, 2009, 02:57:37 PM »

The problem may the dumbing down of "theory" by scientists themselves. From the Wiki (and I would appreciate if any scientists among us would correct this entry):....
Premise 5: Lucy is the oldest datapoint that we have and confirms that men and apes have a common ancestor.

Conclusion: Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes.

This is  fascinating but does not rise to the confidence level that the Academy of Sciences posits, that is, a reliable account  of the real world. Evolution theory is a valid scientific theory but it does not empirically prove the conclusion of the argument I made above. Also, I believe that this has risen to the level of scientific dogma (a contradiction in terms but there you have it), fiercely defended by some scientists as if it is more than a matter of science.

The currently most widely held theory (supported by much evidence) would disagree with the phrase "Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes", because that phrase implies this:

                Apes
               /
              /
Non-Ape Ancestor
              \
                \
                 Humans

Such a model flies in the face of the evidence, which supports something like this model instead:


                                  Gibbon                                  Chimpanzee
                                  /     Orangutan                      /
                                 /       /         Gorilla               /   Early "humans"-------------H. sapiens
                                /       /          /                      /    /
                               /       /          /      Human-Chimp Ancestor---------------?
                              /       /          /        /
                     The 1st True Ape--------------------?
                           /
                          /
Non-Ape Ancestor

As you  can see, it's not that "apes" and "humans" share one "common" ancestor. Humans evolved from an earlier species of ape. H. sapiens is indeed classified in the Hominidae family, which includes the apes. H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 02:58:30 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1424 on: October 03, 2009, 04:05:44 PM »

H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.

And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.
Logged

Love never fails.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,522



« Reply #1425 on: October 03, 2009, 06:22:19 PM »

The problem may the dumbing down of "theory" by scientists themselves. From the Wiki (and I would appreciate if any scientists among us would correct this entry):....
Premise 5: Lucy is the oldest datapoint that we have and confirms that men and apes have a common ancestor.

Conclusion: Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes.

This is  fascinating but does not rise to the confidence level that the Academy of Sciences posits, that is, a reliable account  of the real world. Evolution theory is a valid scientific theory but it does not empirically prove the conclusion of the argument I made above. Also, I believe that this has risen to the level of scientific dogma (a contradiction in terms but there you have it), fiercely defended by some scientists as if it is more than a matter of science.

The currently most widely held theory (supported by much evidence) would disagree with the phrase "Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes", because that phrase implies this:

                Apes
               /
              /
Non-Ape Ancestor
              \
                \
                 Humans

Such a model flies in the face of the evidence, which supports something like this model instead:


                                  Gibbon                                  Chimpanzee
                                  /     Orangutan                      /
                                 /       /         Gorilla               /   Early "humans"-------------H. sapiens
                                /       /          /                      /    /
                               /       /          /      Human-Chimp Ancestor---------------?
                              /       /          /        /
                     The 1st True Ape--------------------?
                           /
                          /
Non-Ape Ancestor

As you  can see, it's not that "apes" and "humans" share one "common" ancestor. Humans evolved from an earlier species of ape. H. sapiens is indeed classified in the Hominidae family, which includes the apes. H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.

Either way, evolution enthusiasts are less than scientific in insisting that the theory of the evolution of man is a "reliable account of the real world."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,522



« Reply #1426 on: October 03, 2009, 06:26:45 PM »

H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.

And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.

I thought that the Orthodox perspective was that God created us in His image and likeness and apart from the rest of creation. Being intimately related to the animal kingdom and being subject to the natural laws does not negate our uniqueness. I happen to believe that, while we did not evolve from another species, we are similar to other animals and we do evolve as biologists observe.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1427 on: October 03, 2009, 07:10:02 PM »

H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.

And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.

I thought that the Orthodox perspective was that God created us in His image and likeness and apart from the rest of creation.
Genesis states that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. The dust of the ground was itself something that God created. I don't see how Adam was created "apart from the rest of creation".
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,522



« Reply #1428 on: October 03, 2009, 08:22:26 PM »

H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.

And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.

I thought that the Orthodox perspective was that God created us in His image and likeness and apart from the rest of creation.
Genesis states that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. The dust of the ground was itself something that God created. I don't see how Adam was created "apart from the rest of creation".

Apart in the following sense (New King James Version):

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 08:23:54 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1429 on: October 03, 2009, 09:37:50 PM »

Just so everyone remembers, we do have an ongoing thread debating evolution/creationism and their places within Orthodoxy:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.0.html
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #1430 on: October 03, 2009, 09:51:59 PM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 09:56:00 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,269


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


WWW
« Reply #1431 on: October 03, 2009, 11:48:57 PM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?

Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 12:01:58 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1432 on: October 04, 2009, 04:27:35 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process, and the evolutionary model can't make sure previsions, why not call it "statistics" and not "science"? Statistics are equally useful, they apply a mathematical concept (probability) but they still don't have to be accurate. In fact, I can enter a casino and play the roulette 900 times, yet it COULD happen that number 3, despite the statistics, doesn't result of those 900 attempts. I refute to accept "models" as science if they can't make sure assertions. The prototype of science is this: "Given an X system, X always turns into Y". For example, it is science to say: "Given an isolated neutron, this will decay within 15 minutes into a proton, an electron and a neutrino electron, with an exchange of a W boson". The Standard Model foretells this as a consequence of the weak interaction. In other words, the weak interaction, when correctly understood, allows to make certain previsions: if they are verified experimentally, the theory is a very good description of reality, and certainly MORE then just a simple "theory".
On the contrary, evolution proves to be ruled by "vague" laws with even more "vague" conclusions. The fact that evolutionists expected a common ancestor for chimps and humans to be "more chimp-like" and "less human-like" but this theory seems to have been disproved by the recent discoveries, puts some doubts on its ability to make sure previsions.
I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1433 on: October 04, 2009, 05:08:10 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process, and the evolutionary model can't make sure previsions, why not call it "statistics" and not "science"? Statistics are equally useful, they apply a mathematical concept (probability) but they still don't have to be accurate. In fact, I can enter a casino and play the roulette 900 times, yet it COULD happen that number 3, despite the statistics, doesn't result of those 900 attempts. I refute to accept "models" as science if they can't make sure assertions. The prototype of science is this: "Given an X system, X always turns into Y". For example, it is science to say: "Given an isolated neutron, this will decay within 15 minutes into a proton, an electron and a neutrino electron, with an exchange of a W boson". The Standard Model foretells this as a consequence of the weak interaction. In other words, the weak interaction, when correctly understood, allows to make certain previsions: if they are verified experimentally, the theory is a very good description of reality, and certainly MORE then just a simple "theory".
On the contrary, evolution proves to be ruled by "vague" laws with even more "vague" conclusions. The fact that evolutionists expected a common ancestor for chimps and humans to be "more chimp-like" and "less human-like" but this theory seems to have been disproved by the recent discoveries, puts some doubts on its ability to make sure previsions.
I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

In Christ,   Alex


The facts bear out the evolutionary prediction exactly.

The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [5][6]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second. [7]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. [8]
Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[8]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 05:15:49 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #1434 on: October 04, 2009, 05:19:45 AM »

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.

So how do you determine what is to be taken allegorically and what is to be taken literally?
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1435 on: October 04, 2009, 05:25:12 AM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?

Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.

the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally; ad hominem removed
 Two unnecessary ad hominem.  Therefore, you are now on post moderation for another 40 days.  If you think this unfair, please appeal my decision to Global Mod, or Fr. Chris.

-- Nebelpfade
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 03:08:52 PM by Nebelpfade » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1436 on: October 04, 2009, 05:34:11 AM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
While I don't believe that God literally descended from heaven and formed man out of the dust (but I still don't exclude this - everything's possible to God), I know this for sure: man's creation was specific. God created Adam and Eve directly, out of pre-existing matter, in a full human nature endowed with both human body and soul, being granted immortality by grace since the beginning of their creation - and that this occured in a very precise moment - be it in 5508 BC as the Bible says, or in 12000 BC as I believe, or sometime around 200000 BC at the appearance of homo sapian according to science, it doesn't really matter. The human body may have taken thousands of years to evolve, but human nature is not an animal body: it's a spirit+body union which could have been created only by God directly, and not by an evolutionary process. Evolution doesn't create souls, and a soul must have been injected first into an individual by God himself to have our human nature formed. And I do believe those things on account of this: that nobody was there to see that man was formed over time, but the only eye-witness is God, who says He created man out of the dust (the Church Fathers already said this meant matter, as breath meant soul), and I trust Him with all of my heart. Nothing else matters to understand our existence. So, I would say: I'm with you, Ortho_cat.

In Christ,   Alex

Quote
the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally;but what can we expect from an monophysite...
Sincerely, I don't associate the denial of this biblical event to minasoliman's myaphysitism (and NOT monophysitism). In fact, there are many among Chalcedonians who still reject the historicity of these events. As for me, I doubt of NONE of the events written in the Bible, unless their nature of parable is clear from the text. Isaac's sacrifice is for me a truly historical event, no doubt of this in my heart. Afterall the ancient ones, before the introduction of the Law, were almost surely used to human sacrifices. God did not only show a figure of Christ's sacrifice: he also showed that he is different then the other blood-thirsty gods of paganism. As God himself said: "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13).
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #1437 on: October 04, 2009, 05:38:19 AM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?

Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.

the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally;but what can we expect from an monophysite...

The admins aren't going to take kindly to this...
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1438 on: October 04, 2009, 05:42:04 AM »

Quote
The admins aren't going to take kindly to this...
And they'd have good reasons to do, unfortunately.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1439 on: October 04, 2009, 06:24:57 AM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?

Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.

the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally;but what can we expect from an monophysite...

The admins aren't going to take kindly to this...

They aren't the only ones.  Angry
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)
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   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 0.206 seconds with 75 queries.