OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 05:40:02 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  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

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 324594 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1665 on: October 17, 2009, 11:53:54 PM »

How needlessly complicated and unnecessary.  Tongue
« Last Edit: October 17, 2009, 11:54:27 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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1666 on: October 18, 2009, 12:26:28 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.

Very entertaining explanation.

Remember, there is no spoon!
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: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1667 on: October 18, 2009, 02:10:29 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

Your question assumes what it needs to prove.

But anyway, is it possible that these stars were created billions of years before the earth?

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]
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1668 on: October 18, 2009, 05:01:31 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

Your question assumes what it needs to prove.

But anyway, is it possible that these stars were created billions of years before the earth?

Selam

If you are a literalist YEC you can't believe this. What did God create on the literal Fourth Day of Creation, if stars already existed from billions of years?

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.

Since you claim that this YEC position is based on the Church tradition and on the Bible as inerrant, where can you find the "photons-created-on-their-way-to-Earth" theory in Scriptures and in the Church Fathers? It is like assuming that God created the world with an appearance of age, but I can't find any scriptural and traditional proof for that. Even st. Basil, a strict creationist as many other Fathers of the Church, clearly interprets that plants were created in the form of seeds, and not as fully grown plants... and some Father (I can't remember who) believed that Adam was created a child, and not an adult, so the general approach of the "appearance of age" seems to lack any unanimous support from Holy Tradition.

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")
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #1669 on: October 18, 2009, 05:19:23 AM »

Quote
and some Father (I can't remember who) believed that Adam was created a child, and not an adult

"Now, having made man lord of the earth and all things in it, He secretly appointed him lord also of those who were servants in it. They however were in their perfection; but the lord, that is, man, was (but) small; for he was a child; and it was necessary that he should grow, and so come to (his) perfection. And, that he might have his nourishment and growth with festive and dainty meats, He prepared him a place better than this world; excelling in air, beauty, light, food, plants, fruit, water, and all other necessaries of life, and its name is Paradise. And so fair and good was this Paradise, that the Word of God continually resorted thither, and walked and talked with the man, figuring beforehand the things that should be in the future, (namely) that He should dwell with him and talk with him, and should be with men, teaching them righteousness. But man was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected; wherefore also he was easily led astray by the deceiver." - St. Ireneaus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 12

If memory serves, other Church Fathers also put forward this concept. I believe I read about this in Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person by Panayiotis Nellas. Unfortunately I sold my copy of this book years ago, and while I have reordered it, the publisher hasn't printed any more copies.
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1670 on: October 18, 2009, 09:27:39 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

Your question assumes what it needs to prove.

But anyway, is it possible that these stars were created billions of years before the earth?

Selam

If you are a literalist YEC you can't believe this. What did God create on the literal Fourth Day of Creation, if stars already existed from billions of years?

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.

Since you claim that this YEC position is based on the Church tradition and on the Bible as inerrant, where can you find the "photons-created-on-their-way-to-Earth" theory in Scriptures and in the Church Fathers? It is like assuming that God created the world with an appearance of age, but I can't find any scriptural and traditional proof for that. Even st. Basil, a strict creationist as many other Fathers of the Church, clearly interprets that plants were created in the form of seeds, and not as fully grown plants... and some Father (I can't remember who) believed that Adam was created a child, and not an adult, so the general approach of the "appearance of age" seems to lack any unanimous support from Holy Tradition.

In Christ,      Alex
The above account is typical from a YEC perspective, which itself is usually understood as one of many "Protestant" perspectives. YEC within the context of Orthodoxy, however, would likely involve a slightly different set of ideas, of which I am not very familiar.
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.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1671 on: October 18, 2009, 09:37:51 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

Your question assumes what it needs to prove.

But anyway, is it possible that these stars were created billions of years before the earth?

Selam

If you are a literalist YEC you can't believe this. What did God create on the literal Fourth Day of Creation, if stars already existed from billions of years?

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.

Since you claim that this YEC position is based on the Church tradition and on the Bible as inerrant, where can you find the "photons-created-on-their-way-to-Earth" theory in Scriptures and in the Church Fathers? It is like assuming that God created the world with an appearance of age, but I can't find any scriptural and traditional proof for that. Even st. Basil, a strict creationist as many other Fathers of the Church, clearly interprets that plants were created in the form of seeds, and not as fully grown plants... and some Father (I can't remember who) believed that Adam was created a child, and not an adult, so the general approach of the "appearance of age" seems to lack any unanimous support from Holy Tradition.

In Christ,      Alex
The above account is typical from a YEC perspective, which itself is usually understood as one of many "Protestant" perspectives. YEC within the context of Orthodoxy, however, would likely involve a slightly different set of ideas, of which I am not very familiar.

Yeah, but the problem here is that we are discussing the Creationism/Evolutionism controversy from an Orthodox perspective, and those who support a YEC have claimed YEC to be an Orthodox doctrine, including you. If you want to support YEC you have to bring proofs from Tradition of the above statement that light was created on its way to Earth, otherwise it isn't an Orthodox doctrine... it's a Protestant speculation. I don't want to sound rude... I'm a Biblical literalist, so I can understand your efforts... but the evidence that the stars have been lit some billion years ago just can't be dismissed using this kind of speculations: YEC should offer a valid and demonstrable scientific theory to disprove an Old Universe. If Creation Scientists would be more objective, they would see that all data given by science are just more then speculation. I don't understand how a recent human creation would conflict with an older universe, seeing that the Bible clearly uses a symbolic language when the word YOM (hemera) is adopted in the Genesis account of creation.

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")
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1672 on: October 18, 2009, 12:02:05 PM »

I don't think Jetavan is a YEC.  I think he's just presenting what YEC's might believe.
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 #1673 on: October 18, 2009, 12:11:51 PM »

I don't think Jetavan is a YEC.  I think he's just presenting what YEC's might believe.
If he isn't, I beg pardon, and propose the same critic to the "true" YEC's.

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")
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1674 on: October 18, 2009, 02:48:00 PM »

True, I am not an YECist Shocked.
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.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1675 on: October 18, 2009, 03:23:45 PM »

Better for you XD
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")
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1676 on: October 18, 2009, 09:45:30 PM »

Quote
Abstract: Human creation and evolution is often a theological topic that is dominated by Creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible and the book of Genesis in particular. As an Orthodox Christian, I have for years been dismayed at the lack of clarity within our own Church on this fundamental issue. In response to this problem, this essay is an attempt to reconcile the traditional dichotomy between Darwinism and Creationism. My intention for writing on this topic is twofold. First, using a hybridized hypothetical theory consisting of mainly Darwinism and Patristic theology, I hope to demonstrate that science and faith share a common ground, perhaps a much wider ground than once thought. Second and most importantly I intend that an honest open-minded reading of this essay will leave the reader with more questions than answers on this vital, yet often ignored question: how can Orthodoxy account for human evolution given the current dichotomy between strict Darwinism and literal Creationism of the Genesis account?
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.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #1677 on: October 18, 2009, 10:02:05 PM »

Grace and Peace,

There are actually several very good texts on this topic from both the Roman Catholic viewpoint and that of the Orthodox Christian viewpoint. What are after that a trip to the library wouldn't address?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1678 on: October 18, 2009, 11:06:01 PM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.
Here you contradict yourself. First you say God only put photons between the Earth and a star, and now you say the photons are 360 degrees stretching outward from the star (which is scientifically correct). You can't have it both ways.

And what about the new stars which are born all the time? Does God place a web of photons around each of them as they are formed? What of the stars which die? Does God suddenly snuff out the web of photons? Apply Occam's Razor here and tell me which is more believable: that God in the beginning made the stars to appear old when they are not, and constantly adjusts the universe so that we think it's older than it actually is; or that the universe actually is as old as it appears.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1679 on: October 19, 2009, 12:02:49 AM »

Quote
Abstract: Human creation and evolution is often a theological topic that is dominated by Creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible and the book of Genesis in particular. As an Orthodox Christian, I have for years been dismayed at the lack of clarity within our own Church on this fundamental issue. In response to this problem, this essay is an attempt to reconcile the traditional dichotomy between Darwinism and Creationism. My intention for writing on this topic is twofold. First, using a hybridized hypothetical theory consisting of mainly Darwinism and Patristic theology, I hope to demonstrate that science and faith share a common ground, perhaps a much wider ground than once thought. Second and most importantly I intend that an honest open-minded reading of this essay will leave the reader with more questions than answers on this vital, yet often ignored question: how can Orthodoxy account for human evolution given the current dichotomy between strict Darwinism and literal Creationism of the Genesis account?

A very interesting article...

What I like about the article the most is the recognition of what a "spirit" is.  It's interesting that he doesn't limit the definition of the "spirit" as "self-conscious" or "rational," which is something I also personally avoid, since there is a neurobiological definition of these things.  However, I also acknowledge we are the only species living today with these characteristics, which may make it so easy to define our spirit as just that.  But I see the spirit as the gateway to a transcendance of all the "physical" characteristics of humanity.  But I also see the spirit as the spiritual side to self-awareness and rationality, upon which sits in the physical side of the brain.  As soon as humanity was able to develop these characteristics, I find that the spirit becomes their enhancement as well, or what enlivens the physical side.  I think perhaps he needs to write a separate long article on what it means for man to possess a spirit, and connect that as well with talk about the angelic realm, in which according to Church fathers are spirits, while we are in the higher heirarchy of ape-spirits.

He interestingly connects his thought experiments to the moralities of vegetative patients and the zygote.  These in my opinion can still be disputed.  Concerning the zygote:  if man is ever to develop a technique of cloning another man simply by the use of a somatic cell in that body, then defining what a "person" is is not going to be that easy and straightforward, and I've discussed this in another thread in my personal thought experiment.  Concerning patients with vegetative states:  I'm not sure if one can really be sure to define these as "alive" in the spiritual sense.  Maybe?  It's too early to decide.  I've like how my father once told me as a child that we live in a home, and as we age, the home has poorer conditions for the spirit to live in, and one day, the spirit may not find it fit to stay in the home anymore.  It could be possible with the author's definition of a spirit that a vegetative patient's brain is not a home fit for a spirit to stay, but we do not know for sure.

He didn't delve into other parts of the evolutionary theory and theology.  For example, although I know this is just a thought experiment, it would very helpful for him to do a comparison and contrast of Church fathers on their beliefs of origins as well as the scientific ideas of the time, and how their thoughts have developed and changed over the centuries, to prove the "contextual" point of view in Biblical interpretation.  He also didn't delve into the idea of the number of first humans that existed, or how one is to read things like being created out of a rib.

Nevertheless, it's a good start to keep people thinking and discussing, and I commend Mr. Meletis.  I hope he writes more in the future considering my concerns and many others' concerns.  Man would I love to have a conversation with this guy.
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.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1680 on: October 19, 2009, 12:37:27 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.
Here you contradict yourself. First you say God only put photons between the Earth and a star, and now you say the photons are 360 degrees stretching outward from the star (which is scientifically correct). You can't have it both ways.

And what about the new stars which are born all the time? Does God place a web of photons around each of them as they are formed? What of the stars which die? Does God suddenly snuff out the web of photons? Apply Occam's Razor here and tell me which is more believable: that God in the beginning made the stars to appear old when they are not, and constantly adjusts the universe so that we think it's older than it actually is; or that the universe actually is as old as it appears.
Right. God put photons at each point in space between Adam and the star in question, making it appear, from Adam's point of view, that the photons did physically originate from the star. God could have created stars at various stages of evolution, some fully formed, some still forming, and a web of photons are created in association with each of the stars. God could have even created stars that have appeared as if they have already gone white dwarf or supernova -- and God would have created the web of photons apparently manifesting from such entities, as well.

The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. Modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic. Such science is part of the language of the public arena, which is the arena all of us -- believers and non-believers -- share. Thus, the True Knowledge of the universe should not be taught in the public arena, say, public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge.

True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. Neo-Darwinian theory is a tremendous scientific achievement, and it could be said that such a theory is the best scientific theory for how biological diversity is achieved. However, such theory is still relevant only to this Fallen cosmos, as understood by our Fallen logics. Evolution is indeed true -- but it's true within a context that is, of course, summarily rejected by the likes of Richard Dawkins. One need not debate a Dawkins, because he knows how to adeptly operate within the context of Fallen logic. If, one day, he intuits the unsatisfactory nature of such logic, we will be eager to share with him the light of True Knowledge.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 12:55:27 AM 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.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #1681 on: October 19, 2009, 12:47:38 AM »

The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. And one could make the case that modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic, and thus the true knowledge of the universe should not be taught in public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge. True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. However, Occam's razor shatters against the diamond of True Knowledge.

I find it amazing that such Fallen Logic allows to to put men on the moon and rovers on mars. Mundane Scientific Knowledge is not the 'enemy' of the spiritual life. Yes it can distract us but it can also inform us. Truth is Truth.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1682 on: October 19, 2009, 12:58:13 AM »

The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. And one could make the case that modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic, and thus the true knowledge of the universe should not be taught in public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge. True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. However, Occam's razor shatters against the diamond of True Knowledge.

I find it amazing that such Fallen Logic allows to to put men on the moon and rovers on mars. Mundane Scientific Knowledge is not the 'enemy' of the spiritual life. Yes it can distract us but it can also inform us. Truth is Truth.
Fallen logic can do wonders. It is simply a result of living within a Fallen cosmos. No need to assume Fallen logic is somehow 'evil', or 'against' the good. Fallen logic has been used to do great good. Indeed, one could argue that, in this Fallen world, Fallen logic has a necessary place, an irreplaceable function in terms of human survival and human advancement. But survival and advancement is not Truth. The Crucifixion disabused us of that notion forever.
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1683 on: October 19, 2009, 01:25:06 AM »

The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. And one could make the case that modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic, and thus the true knowledge of the universe should not be taught in public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge. True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. However, Occam's razor shatters against the diamond of True Knowledge.

I find it amazing that such Fallen Logic allows to to put men on the moon and rovers on mars. Mundane Scientific Knowledge is not the 'enemy' of the spiritual life. Yes it can distract us but it can also inform us. Truth is Truth.
Fallen logic can do wonders. It is simply a result of living within a Fallen cosmos. No need to assume Fallen logic is somehow 'evil', or 'against' the good. Fallen logic has been used to do great good. Indeed, one could argue that, in this Fallen world, Fallen logic has a necessary place, an irreplaceable function in terms of human survival and human advancement. But survival and advancement is not Truth. The Crucifixion disabused us of that notion forever.

Thank God for "Fallen Logic."  Tongue

There really is no spoon.  Cool
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.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1684 on: October 19, 2009, 01:38:59 AM »



How do you know that reason/logic are fallen?  What if they are the language to understand true knowledge?
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1685 on: October 19, 2009, 01:46:13 AM »


Grin
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.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1686 on: October 19, 2009, 05:33:13 PM »



How do you know that reason/logic are fallen?  What if they are the language to understand true knowledge?
In order to understand true knowledge, one must understand fallen logic, its strengths and its weaknesses. Fallen logic is a felix culpa, if you will. Without the Matrix, there would be no Neo. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 05:34:12 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 #1687 on: October 19, 2009, 05:34:47 PM »

^^I wish I knew what you guys were talking about.  laugh
Logged

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

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1688 on: October 19, 2009, 08:34:40 PM »



How do you know that reason/logic are fallen?  What if they are the language to understand true knowledge?
In order to understand true knowledge, one must understand fallen logic, its strengths and its weaknesses. Fallen logic is a felix culpa, if you will. Without the Matrix, there would be no Neo. Roll Eyes

Hmmm.... I don't think logic can be "fallen." Those that misapply or erroneously attempt to use logic in an illogical manner are fallen. In other words, logic itself is irrefutable. But logic alone cannnot bring man into relationship with Transcendental Holy Mystery. Logic may be able to bring man to the point where he acknowledges that there is something beyond logic, bigger than logic, and more powerful than logic in which he must humbly place his faith. But logic alone is insufficient to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and it is insufficient to fill that mysterious void in the human soul.

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]
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #1689 on: October 19, 2009, 08:39:06 PM »

Quote
^^I wish I knew what you guys were talking about.

I dunno, but they do seem to enjoy quoting that picture of Keanu Reeves...  Tongue
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1690 on: October 19, 2009, 08:48:57 PM »

Quote
^^I wish I knew what you guys were talking about.

I dunno, but they do seem to enjoy quoting that picture of Keanu Reeves...  Tongue

 laugh
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)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1691 on: October 19, 2009, 09:19:08 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXKFTzlBziI

It's a scene from the Matrix.  All this logic and fallen logic talk reminded me of this scene.
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.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1692 on: October 22, 2009, 04:29:34 AM »

I found another one!  Grin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/21/fossil-ida-missing-link (Ida, fossil that fascinated the world, may miss out on missing link status)

This is what this article says:

Quote
Quote:
"Tear up the wallchart documenting "humanity's long lost ancestor". Correct the recently altered "primate family tree" [pdf]. Dismiss the 3.7bn year timeline "from bacteria to mammals" [pdf]. Ignore the front page comment by Sir David Attenborough.

Ida, the 47 million-year-old fossil described as the "first link in human evolution" and vociferously championed by the media (including the Guardian) earlier this year, is no such thing, according to a team of scientists. They say that Ida is, instead, from a "group of extinct primates" that are "not ancestors" to humans.


The initial unveiling of the fossil by Dr Jørn Hurum, described as "a bit of a showman" and "a real-life Indiana Jones", set palaeontological pulses racing in May this year.

Ida, named after Hurum's daughter, was hailed by some as a "missing link" between animals and humans.

The team identified Ida as having lived at around the time the biological order of primates was splitting into distinct branches – our branch of the primates (the haplorhines), which includes monkeys and apes, split from a second group including lemurs, lorises, pottos and bush babies (the strepsirrhines).

Ida was exciting because of her lack of lemur-like physical characteristics – no fused teeth in the middle of her lower jawbone, no grooming claw – suggesting she was from the newly developed "human branch" of primates.

Presenting his findings, Hurum said Ida was the "first link in human evolution": the first step towards the branch of primates from which humans, apes and monkeys developed.

It was an exciting time. Attenborough presented a BBC1 documentary about the discovery and claimed: "This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals – with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters."

However, Ida's significance is being called into question by a paper that will be published in the science magazine Nature tomorrow.

A team led by Erik Seiffert, from Stony Brook University in New York, examined a 37 million-year-old primate, which they describe as a close relative of Ida. Like Ida, the fossil shares several features with higher primates, the branch that includes humans.

But Seiffert says both mammals belong to the adapoids – a group of extinct primates that are not related to humans


To read the rest, please visit the link.



It seems like the pressups of some is what drives the interpretation of the evidence. If you want to see it as such and such.......then most likely you will interprete it to be such and such.













ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 04:40:29 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

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

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1693 on: October 22, 2009, 04:43:07 AM »

^And?
Logged

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

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1694 on: October 22, 2009, 04:58:29 AM »

^And?

This type of stuff happens often, but very few get to know that such and such was really false, no, they only get to hear the hype in big print on the front page of Mags, Newspapers, and the history channel.......etc.

But this side of the story is barely heard........let alone told.


There should be a lesson in all this. This should tell us, that there is alot of Philosophy, assumptions, speculations in modern science, and so one shouldn't take the claims too seriously, because what is forced down your throat today will be seen as a myth tomorrow.


If one can't give "absolute" truth, then one really don't have anything of worth to give.

Just think of all the people who lived 100 years ago that mocked christians because they thought we were stupid and foolish for not believing that the Universe was eternal. The Steady State theory is now seen as a myth, and so just think of all the people that rejected  christianity because of that myth. They are dead now, but there are people living right now who believe in myths, and they are holding on to those myths and mocking those who believe in other things, and one day they too will die and it will one day be known that what they once thought was true was in reality just another naturalistic myth.










ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 05:17:58 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

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

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #1695 on: October 22, 2009, 05:10:19 AM »

Quote
There should be a lesson in all this. This should tell us, that there is alot of Philosophy, assumptions, speculations in modern science, and so one shouldn't take the claims too seriously, because what is forced down your throat today will be seen as a myth tomorrow.

What you are describing has a lot to do with media hype. The media has to fill their papers and news programs with information. It's dangerous to create the news, so they'll often take whatever news is available. That's where the scientists come in. Scientists need funding, and they can only get that if people are supporting what they do. And they have to get results to maintain their funding. So they are eager to get results. Perhaps a little too eager sometimes. However, the great thing about science is that it has self-correcting mechanisms. If a scientist or team of scientists make a claim, you can be sure that there's a whole gang of scientists who'll be more than happy to examine their claim and see if it holds up. It's not the fault of scientists if the media doesn't cover the later findings as much as the initial claims.
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1696 on: October 22, 2009, 01:13:17 PM »

I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 01:14:10 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: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1697 on: October 22, 2009, 04:21:33 PM »

I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.


Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

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
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1698 on: October 22, 2009, 07:24:46 PM »

I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.


Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

Selam

Gebre,

What exactly don't you understand about it?  I thought you know something about the scientific method and how the community works.  Part of the system is how these experiments are falsifiable, testable, and other scientists will challenge the ideas of others, putting the hypothesis to the test.  If there is inconsistency, as they show, then there is room for rejection.
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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1699 on: October 22, 2009, 07:27:19 PM »

I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.


Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

Selam

Gebre,

What exactly don't you understand about it?  I thought you know something about the scientific method and how the community works.  Part of the system is how these experiments are falsifiable, testable, and other scientists will challenge the ideas of others, putting the hypothesis to the test.  If there is inconsistency, as they show, then there is room for rejection.
The last part sounds like congress.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1700 on: October 22, 2009, 07:53:54 PM »

Science does not proceed by demonstrating that certain theories are irrefutably true.  It demonstrates by repeated testing that they are not false.  The more a theory is confirmed, the stronger the probability that the explanation it offers is correct.  This process produces what amounts to the explanation which best fits the facts we have collected (even if the fit is not always complete).  And how does such confirmation proceed?  There are two main tests.  The first is to make a series of predictions based on the theory and then to explore the validity of those predictions.  If a prediction holds, the theory has been confirmed; if not, then the theory has been challenged, perhaps even disproved.  The second method of confirmation is to see how the theory accounts for new, unexpected discoveries.  Can these be explained in terms of the theory?  If so, then the theory has been confirmed; if not, then the theory has been challenged or disproved.  By these two tests, the theory of evolution is spectacularly successful: it has been confirmed countless times over the past three centuries (at least).  It would take only one discovery to discredit the entire theory (e.g., the existence of a mammal fossil in the lowest rock layers).  That has never occurred. http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay2.htm
 
The Scientific Method Made Easy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature=fvw

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)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #1701 on: October 22, 2009, 07:59:56 PM »

Riddikulus

Quote
By these two tests, the theory of evolution is spectacularly successful: it has been confirmed countless times over the past three centuries (at least).

Out of curiosity, do you know why they said the "past three centuries (at least)" when The Origin of Species was only released 150 years ago? I realise that there were other theories of evolution before that of Darwin, but I somehow doubt that that is what is being spoken of. Otherwise, thank you for the quote, I might have to bookmark that for times when I see someone say "it's only a theory!"

EDIT--Nevermind, it occured to me that the answer is rather simple, that they are merely speaking of scientific findings (e.g. fossils) from the last three centuries which confirm Darwin's theory. I'm a bit slow today I guess.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 08:17:51 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1702 on: October 22, 2009, 08:21:27 PM »

Riddikulus

Quote
By these two tests, the theory of evolution is spectacularly successful: it has been confirmed countless times over the past three centuries (at least).

Out of curiosity, do you know why they said the "past three centuries (at least)" when The Origin of Species was only released 150 years ago? I realise that there were other theories of evolution before that of Darwin, but I somehow doubt that that is what is being spoken of. Otherwise, thank you for the quote, I might have to bookmark that for times when I see someone say "it's only a theory!"

EDIT--Nevermind, it occured to me that the answer is rather simple, that they are merely speaking of scientific findings (e.g. fossils) from the last three centuries which confirm Darwin's theory. I'm a bit slow today I guess.

Being slow every day, I can relate!  laugh
Logged

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

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1703 on: October 22, 2009, 08:48:05 PM »

I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.

I obviously trust "some" scientists, but there is something "inherently" wrong with what's going on. There needs to be another way to do science to avoid all this nonsense.

Something shouldn't be givin to the public "pre-maturely".

A car company makes sure that their product is safe before it goes out to the public.

A company that makes baby food makes sure that their product is safe enough before they allow babies to eat it.


So something needs to change, their needs to be a variation of the scientific method or some other alternative to avoid such "half-cooked" stuff.

It's not efficient.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 08:59:21 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

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

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1704 on: October 22, 2009, 11:06:22 PM »

^ You don't seem to understand how many years of research go into these stories before you ever lay your fingers on them. I for one am glad scientists know more now than they used to; it proves they're doing their job. I would be concerned if no new knowledge ever came from a laboratory; I'd wonder how they were spending their time.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #1705 on: October 22, 2009, 11:27:37 PM »

Quote
I obviously trust "some" scientists, but there is something "inherently" wrong with what's going on. There needs to be another way to do science to avoid all this nonsense. Something shouldn't be givin to the public "pre-maturely". A car company makes sure that their product is safe before it goes out to the public. A company that makes baby food makes sure that their product is safe enough before they allow babies to eat it. So something needs to change, their needs to be a variation of the scientific method or some other alternative to avoid such "half-cooked" stuff. It's not efficient.

As though creationists and IDers don't already ridicule scientists as an elitist clique that is trying to create a bottleneck preventing certain information from getting out, you want them to be even more secretive!?
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1706 on: October 22, 2009, 11:56:28 PM »

Something shouldn't be givin to the public "pre-maturely".

A car company makes sure that their product is safe before it goes out to the public.

But a car company doesn't hide its future models that are being built and tested.  Media can hype up "promising future cars" like the hopeful mass production of alternative fuel cars.  I'm afraid that could be a failure considering how media is hyping up the hope of such things to occur without realizing all the political issues it's involved with.

Likewise, why should scientists hide discoveries.  It's just a discovery.  I'm glad only scientists are authorized to describe and challenge their findings, and not the public.  The public is like an audience; they just sit there and watch, and they can say whatever they want to say, but the public is not a credible source, just as their hopes that alternative fuel cars that are being built by our greedy car companies are not credible or realistic hopes.

Quote
A company that makes baby food makes sure that their product is safe enough before they allow babies to eat it.

Yet, the company doesn't hide the fact that the baby food is being produced and tested.  It's just not as "newsworthy" as a fossil that's apelike.

Quote
So something needs to change, their needs to be a variation of the scientific method or some other alternative to avoid such "half-cooked" stuff.

It's not efficient.

No, it's efficient.  You have to differentiate between the public/media reaction verses the scientific studies.  Unless you want science to work like the CIA, I'd rather keep things public.  Let the media say what they want to say.  Smart people can differentiate what's credible from what's not.

Think of all the news that come out of a "promising vaccine against HIV" or "promising cure for cancer," with media hyping in complete disregard of the testing done by scientists.  It's not the scientists' fault, it's the media.  But do you want to hide that at least there's some progress being done, some work being done, instead of feeling that there are people that are lazy?

What do you suggest should be changed in the scientific method?

God bless.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 12:00:24 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,229


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1707 on: October 23, 2009, 12:42:53 AM »

I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.


Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

Selam

Gebre,

What exactly don't you understand about it?  I thought you know something about the scientific method and how the community works.  Part of the system is how these experiments are falsifiable, testable, and other scientists will challenge the ideas of others, putting the hypothesis to the test.  If there is inconsistency, as they show, then there is room for rejection.

I asked the question because earlier in this thread I asserted that the scientific method involves very rigid criteria by which the theory of macro evolution remains unverifiable. I pointed to Carl Hempel's scientific method that has been widely accepted by secular science http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Natural-Science-Foundations/dp/0136638236, but you seemed to indicate that the scientific method is not set in stone (If I am mischaracterizing your position, please correct me). My point is that if there is no obejctive and inflexible scientific method (and I think there is, i.e. Hempel's definition of the scientific method), then any theory under the sun can be supported by simply adjusting the criteria of the scientific method to suit the particular theory.

Selam
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 12:44:14 AM 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
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


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


WWW
« Reply #1708 on: October 23, 2009, 11:47:45 AM »

I'm not sure what you mean by "not set in stone."  In very simple terms, it seems that the scientific method would make sense.  You ask a question, you answer that question, you test the answer through experimentation, you report your data, which leads you to a conclusion and discussion of further questions.  This isn't over however, as other scientists will repeat your experiment, and will challenge the answer to your first question.  This is a way of checks and balances.  It's a good thing that scientists did not jump gun to say that Ida is an ancestor of man, and that other scientists were able to challenge that idea successfully.

With macroevolution, or evolution in general, it was challenged again and again, many many times, and yet it all lead to the same conclusion, which is why evolution is widely and strongly accepted among the scientific community.  Believe it or not, scientists are the most skeptical of people.  They challenge each other, and that is good.  There's a sincere effort in almost every scientist to try to debunk other scientists, and when they can't, then they must accept the hypothesis as theory.

So the scientific method actually verified evolution, no matter how many challenges was brought against it, and it stood the test of time.  One can only accept therefore the ideas brought forth to us by Jetavan earlier on how nature is deceptive, how things aren't what they seem, in order to reject evolution.  This hypothesis however, has not been tested, and there is no experimentation to show how it can be tested so far.  Therefore, it only remains a speculation, not a theory like evolution.

Is it set in stone?  I don't know what you mean by this, but in my opinion, this seems to be the best way of understanding and verifying truth in nature.
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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #1709 on: October 23, 2009, 12:35:37 PM »

Quote
Is it set in stone?  I don't know what you mean by this, but in my opinion, this seems to be the best way of understanding and verifying truth in nature.

I know Khun has his detractors, but fwiw, when I think of "set in stone" in this context, I think of something he said in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He pointed out that many scientists will hold tenaciously to certain positions. Until absolutely and overwhelmingly proven wrong, it can be difficult to switch from one position to another, especially if you've devoted a significant portion of your life to demonstrating that position. This is not to say that scientists are not open-minded, or open to the possibility of being proven wrong, of course. As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the theory of evolution. In principle scientists are open to it being falsified. Yet because of the evidence in support of the theory, scientists accept it as fact, and treat it as such in their work. The same may be true of the scientific method in general. While scientists are probably in principle open to changing their methodology should it become necessary, the scientific method might nonetheless be used with such certitude that some would describe it as being a methodology that is "set in stone". If that is the case, then I would say that the scientific method is indeed not "set in stone".
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 12:38:35 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
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 0.195 seconds with 75 queries.