OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 12:22:07 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 - 54 (15.7%)
No - 133 (38.6%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 345

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 344294 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1980 on: February 12, 2010, 12:23:28 PM »

Observable? Who was their to observe it? Wink
Who was their what? Grin

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
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
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1981 on: February 12, 2010, 12:29:43 PM »

Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.
I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.

Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.

I just finished The Greatest Show on Earth and it really is a great book. Even though people might be put off by Dawkins just because of who he is, I'd definitely recommend it. Dawkins is a clear, concise, and articulate writer, and goes into great depth of the evidence that is there, while recommending a few other books as well. Frankly after reading Dawkins' new book, I can't imagine how anyone could read it, and come away and NOT accept the fact of evolution. Anyone who does is as Dawkins says, a "history denier". Smiley

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,090


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1982 on: February 12, 2010, 12:43:59 PM »

This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1983 on: February 12, 2010, 12:45:59 PM »

Observable? Who was their to observe it? Wink
Who was their what? Grin

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.



Not to mention evolution is happening right now. It just so happens that most animals and plants evolve on such large time scales that our human lives are simply too short to see it. And yet, there are some cases where we can see evolution at work, even over the last 100-150 years which 'The Greatest Show on Earth' actually goes into those examples. The Guppy study is a great example cited in the book. And of course microscopic organisms evolve much faster because their lifespans are much shorter.

Hopefully one day all this anti-evolution stuff will pass. I mean at one time people used to say/believe a sun centered solar system was atheistic, now almost no one says that. So maybe in 400 years time, Christians will stop saying evolution is inherently atheistic too. It's just too bad it takes us Christians so long to "catch" up, because at one time some of the greatest scientists ever we in fact Christians.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1984 on: February 12, 2010, 12:48:56 PM »

This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
I acknowledge it, all right.  It's that much larger philosophical disagreement that I'm trying to address. Wink
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 12:49:10 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1985 on: February 12, 2010, 01:54:40 PM »

Hopefully one day all this anti-evolution stuff will pass. I mean at one time people used to say/believe a sun centered solar system was atheistic, now almost no one says that. So maybe in 400 years time, Christians will stop saying evolution is inherently atheistic too. It's just too bad it takes us Christians so long to "catch" up, because at one time some of the greatest scientists ever we in fact Christians.
Agreed. And you're right about Christian scientists: For example, Darwin himself was an ordained minister.
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1986 on: February 12, 2010, 02:05:19 PM »

Quote
In part 4 of Fr. Tom Hopko's talks on the Darwinian revolution, he looks at what Charles Darwin may have experienced in terms of Christianity in his day.
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.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1987 on: February 12, 2010, 02:24:40 PM »

This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake

Every bird and every other creature is an immense world of delight, a wonderful and beautiful thing made all the more so by evolution. How can one fully appreciate the bird without an appreciation for the genetic source code (DNA), the complexity of it's organic neural network, protein syntheses, protein folding, immune systems, cell signaling, etc, etc. That a bird can fly is an interesting curiosity, the how and why are fascinating and enlightening.
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #1988 on: February 12, 2010, 05:47:54 PM »

Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.
I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.

Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.

I just finished The Greatest Show on Earth and it really is a great book. Even though people might be put off by Dawkins just because of who he is, I'd definitely recommend it. Dawkins is a clear, concise, and articulate writer, and goes into great depth of the evidence that is there, while recommending a few other books as well. Frankly after reading Dawkins' new book, I can't imagine how anyone could read it, and come away and NOT accept the fact of evolution. Anyone who does is as Dawkins says, a "history denier". Smiley


It depends on who's history you believe. Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #1989 on: February 12, 2010, 06:06:02 PM »

History is interpretation.  Read any basic summary of the nature of historiography, and you will see that we are all denying many histories, as we all deny many gods.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #1990 on: February 13, 2010, 10:07:01 AM »

History is interpretation.  Read any basic summary of the nature of historiography, and you will see that we are all denying many histories, as we all deny many gods.
It depends on who's "interpretation" of history you believe then. Now don't get me wrong. I'm very open when it comes to these matters. I'm neither denying evolution nor embracing a fundamentalist view of creation. But what I don't pretend to do is to, is demand to know something that is for the most part unknowable. The spectrum is just to large with ample missing piece in between to embrace fully a fundamentalist view of creation. You see what you accuse the Protestants of doing, you yourselves are doing.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,090


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1991 on: February 13, 2010, 11:15:44 AM »

This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake

Every bird and every other creature is an immense world of delight, a wonderful and beautiful thing made all the more so by evolution. How can one fully appreciate the bird without an appreciation for the genetic source code (DNA), the complexity of it's organic neural network, protein syntheses, protein folding, immune systems, cell signaling, etc, etc. That a bird can fly is an interesting curiosity, the how and why are fascinating and enlightening.

I can fully appreciate the beauty of a work of art without conducting a chemical analysis of its material components- in fact, to do the latter would detract from the former. You are still imprisoned by your "vegetable" consciousness.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #1992 on: February 13, 2010, 11:33:27 AM »

Observable? Who was their to observe it? Wink
Who was their what? Grin

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.



Not to mention evolution is happening right now. It just so happens that most animals and plants evolve on such large time scales that our human lives are simply too short to see it. And yet, there are some cases where we can see evolution at work, even over the last 100-150 years which 'The Greatest Show on Earth' actually goes into those examples. The Guppy study is a great example cited in the book. And of course microscopic organisms evolve much faster because their lifespans are much shorter.

Hopefully one day all this anti-evolution stuff will pass. I mean at one time people used to say/believe a sun centered solar system was atheistic, now almost no one says that. So maybe in 400 years time, Christians will stop saying evolution is inherently atheistic too. It's just too bad it takes us Christians so long to "catch" up, because at one time some of the greatest scientists ever we in fact Christians.



They still are.

Just curious, as I do not have the time at present to waste on Mr. Dawkins: does he explain the evolution of reproduction in bees?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,963



« Reply #1993 on: February 13, 2010, 11:34:57 AM »

This current debate will continue to go nowhere because there is a basic philosophical disagreement, going far beyond "creation vs. evolution", which is largely unacknowledged here by both sides.
At some point, I or someone else should open a new thread discussing philosophy and cosmology from a Christian perspective. I don't have the energy for it right now, so I'll just close with this:

"How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?" - William Blake

Every bird and every other creature is an immense world of delight, a wonderful and beautiful thing made all the more so by evolution.
You're assUming again.
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
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1994 on: February 13, 2010, 01:20:23 PM »

History is interpretation.  Read any basic summary of the nature of historiography, and you will see that we are all denying many histories, as we all deny many gods.
It depends on who's "interpretation" of history you believe then.

Interpreting history and denying history are two different things. Dawkins makes a good point that denying evolution is like denying that the Roman Empire ever existed. True, we might interprete the history of Rome differently; what did it mean, when was Rome in a "golden age", did it have a "golden age", when did it fall, did it fall or just evolve etc. But we don't deny Rome ever existed, which (from a scientific POV) Young earth creationists are doing.

Quote
Now don't get me wrong. I'm very open when it comes to these matters. I'm neither denying evolution nor embracing a fundamentalist view of creation. But what I don't pretend to do is to, is demand to know something that is for the most part unknowable. The spectrum is just to large with ample missing piece in between to embrace fully a fundamentalist view of creation. You see what you accuse the Protestants of doing, you yourselves are doing.

What missing pieces? Are you refering to "missing links"? Well they actually aren't missing anymore and haven't been missing for a long time. I recommended some good books on the subject, as did others. The evidence really is overwhelming. People of course are free to choose to ignore this evidence, it is certainly their right; but they shouldn't dress it up as either science like the Young earth Creationists, or claim that it is some requirement to ignore the reality of the natural world in order to be a Christian. As has been pointed out, some of the greatest scientists ever we Christians who when discovering that "the bible/Church was wrong" on an issue of the natural world, marveled even MORE at God's glory.

In the end, most people are blissfully unaware of the fact of evolution, and that knowledge really doesn't affect people in their every day lives on a personal level. The problem is if Fundamentalist Creationism ever becomes a matter of public policy it could affect ALL our lives quite drastically, and mostly for the worse. Imagine no antibiotics, polio vaccines, no modern garden vegetables like corn, cabbage, disease resistant tomatoes, or no golden retrievers, bulldogs, breeds of house cats etc. All of these are the result of the reality of evolutionary biology, and to forbid the teaching of these sciences say 80 years ago, would have meant polio would still be rampant. Now project that into the future and imagine what might be prevented from being discovered or developed if for example the most extreme Creationists had their way? Granted the most extreme creationists are a minority, and I doubt anyone here fits into that group, but the reason it's important is the same reason it's important for people to know the earth revolves around the sun and takes a year to do it. (aprox. half of Americans get that wrong in polls every year, and its a true or false question  Shocked)

It might be asked, "why does that matter, I personally don't care"....but it matters because it is humanities inherent curiosity of the natural world that has lead to so many good things, without that curiosity, the world, and Christianity would be very different than it presently is.

BTW I'm hardly a technology freak, or a lover of the "modern world"...I'm much of the mind of Tolkien....I prefer non mechanized farming/gardening, away from industry, where the stars can still can be seen, and where the loudest noise is an owl, or wolves howling at midnight. I'm very much a Hobbit, though I aspire to be an Elf. Smiley

But the reality of evolution has none the less improved our lives, deny that reality, and we would deny future improvements that benefit us all. Even if it were never to be public policy, it's still not a good thing when people don't and don't care that the earth goes around the sun. I would imagine that that attitude is fairly recent in human civilization, as it seems to be ancient people pondered these questions much more (why do the seasons come and go so regularly, why does the sun always rise in the east etc) the ironic thing is we now know why these things happen, but many people today simply don't care. It's a flip flop of truly philosophical proportions. Smiley

Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1995 on: February 13, 2010, 01:32:20 PM »


They still are.


Yes I know some of the greatest scientists around are still Christians. I named 3 well known ones in a previous post. But I think at one time there was a larger proportion of Christian scientists than there are today.

Quote
Just curious, as I do not have the time at present to waste on Mr. Dawkins: does he explain the evolution of reproduction in bees?

Not that I recall in the Greatest Show on Earth, though he goes into ants quite extensively at one point as well as touching on at least 50 other species. He does talk about the evolutionary relationship between bees and flowers and pollination somewhat extensively. But as others have said, the book is most definitely a primer, though it's the most in depth primer I've personally read on the subject.

BTW, why do you feel like reading Dawkins would be a waste of time? Like him or hate him, he happens to be one of the premiere biologists in the world today. That doesn't mean I agree with his philosophical conclusions but as a biologist he's hard to beat. And this book anyways is quite mildly written, or at least I thought so.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,416


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1996 on: February 14, 2010, 06:15:26 PM »

Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! Wink


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1997 on: February 14, 2010, 06:21:07 PM »

Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! Wink


Selam
You just like finding bullies, don't you?  There's no need to look for them under every rock. Wink
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,416


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1998 on: February 14, 2010, 06:25:12 PM »

Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! Wink


Selam
You just like finding bullies, don't you?  There's no need to look for them under every rock. Wink

I'm not looking for bullies under those rocks, just fossils of intermediate species. Wink


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1999 on: February 14, 2010, 06:29:03 PM »

Wow. My internet was knocked down for a few days due to the snow we had here in Mississippi, so that's why I haven't been able to respond for a while. Honestly, the time away was very refreshing.

I don't know why I am blamed for "stirring up a hornet's nest" when I merely responded to the OP by posting some pertinent quotes by blessed Father Seraphim Rose. But that's fine. I've made my points, FWIW, and so I think I'll now shake the dust from my feet and move on to more spiritually productive things. I'll revisit this thread from time to time in order to help others who are being bullied by the militant evolutionists on here.

BTW, thanks for having my back JNORM! Wink


Selam
You just like finding bullies, don't you?  There's no need to look for them under every rock. Wink

I'm not looking for bullies under those rocks, just fossils of intermediate species. Wink


Selam
Well, you seem to find a lot of "bullies" here.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,234


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #2000 on: February 14, 2010, 06:34:33 PM »

I'm not looking for bullies under those rocks, just fossils of intermediate species. ;)

1. Find a fossil
2. If you found one, then you have a fossil of an "intermediate species"
3. ???
4. Profit
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 06:34:50 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #2001 on: February 14, 2010, 06:40:10 PM »


They still are.


Yes I know some of the greatest scientists around are still Christians. I named 3 well known ones in a previous post. But I think at one time there was a larger proportion of Christian scientists than there are today.

Quote
Just curious, as I do not have the time at present to waste on Mr. Dawkins: does he explain the evolution of reproduction in bees?

Not that I recall in the Greatest Show on Earth, though he goes into ants quite extensively at one point as well as touching on at least 50 other species. He does talk about the evolutionary relationship between bees and flowers and pollination somewhat extensively. But as others have said, the book is most definitely a primer, though it's the most in depth primer I've personally read on the subject.

BTW, why do you feel like reading Dawkins would be a waste of time? Like him or hate him, he happens to be one of the premiere biologists in the world today. That doesn't mean I agree with his philosophical conclusions but as a biologist he's hard to beat. And this book anyways is quite mildly written, or at least I thought so.
I'm afraid zoology isn't high on my list of interests. Most of my interest on it is traditional Arab fare on the subject, somewhat more like Rippley's Believe It or Not.  My sense of duty to read him only comes from Dawkins' daring to venture into the moral realm, and his jump from ethology to metaphysics falls quite short IMHO. I last spent my time on Dawkins in perusing "The Dawkins Delusion."  Not exactly reading Dawkins, but someone else has spared me.

I'm afraid Dr. Dawkins is one of the rare authors who makes me heed the warning of Ecclesiasticus.
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
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #2002 on: February 16, 2010, 10:58:19 AM »



What missing pieces? Are you refering to "missing links"? Well they actually aren't missing anymore and haven't been missing for a long time. I recommended some good books on the subject, as did others. The evidence really is overwhelming. People of course are free to choose to ignore this evidence, it is certainly their right; but they shouldn't dress it up as either science like the Young earth Creationists, or claim that it is some requirement to ignore the reality of the natural world in order to be a Christian. As has been pointed out, some of the greatest scientists ever we Christians who when discovering that "the bible/Church was wrong" on an issue of the natural world, marveled even MORE at God's glory.





This is exactly what I am referring to. What evidence? Are you referring to an ape like specimen like Lucy? You keep claiming that there is a holy grail of evidence. All I'm asking is where is it? Or is it a bunch of little pieces of evidence that are grouped together to look like a "historical account" of what the grouper himself thinks? Let me give you a scenario of your over whelming evidence looks like. Lets say we are walking into a bank and on the way in we see 25 people coming out counting money. As soon as we walk in we hear a clerk yelling. "we have bin robbed"  We know for sure that the thief was one of the people walking out. But how pray tell can we know from our vantage point who it was? This is the same vantage point the scientists are in. There is just no way for them to know.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #2003 on: February 16, 2010, 12:01:34 PM »


They still are.


Yes I know some of the greatest scientists around are still Christians. I named 3 well known ones in a previous post. But I think at one time there was a larger proportion of Christian scientists than there are today.

Quote
Just curious, as I do not have the time at present to waste on Mr. Dawkins: does he explain the evolution of reproduction in bees?

Not that I recall in the Greatest Show on Earth, though he goes into ants quite extensively at one point as well as touching on at least 50 other species. He does talk about the evolutionary relationship between bees and flowers and pollination somewhat extensively. But as others have said, the book is most definitely a primer, though it's the most in depth primer I've personally read on the subject.

BTW, why do you feel like reading Dawkins would be a waste of time? Like him or hate him, he happens to be one of the premiere biologists in the world today. That doesn't mean I agree with his philosophical conclusions but as a biologist he's hard to beat. And this book anyways is quite mildly written, or at least I thought so.
I'm afraid zoology isn't high on my list of interests. Most of my interest on it is traditional Arab fare on the subject, somewhat more like Rippley's Believe It or Not.  My sense of duty to read him only comes from Dawkins' daring to venture into the moral realm, and his jump from ethology to metaphysics falls quite short IMHO. I last spent my time on Dawkins in perusing "The Dawkins Delusion."  Not exactly reading Dawkins, but someone else has spared me.

I'm afraid Dr. Dawkins is one of the rare authors who makes me heed the warning of Ecclesiasticus.

I can understand that. Dawkins can definitely be frustrating in those categories you mentioned, though I admit he does raise some interesting points at times. But in that regard I don't particularly disagree with you.  However writing as a biologist, which is what he sticks to in his latest book for all but the introduction, and the appendix (maybe 15 pages total?) he speaks strictly as a biologist and comes across as a very different writer than in the God Delusion. Of course I've always loved the natural world, wildlife and ecosystems, and as you said for someone who doesn't have a high interest in zoology, the book would probably be rather bland.  For me, it was a great read though. But considering my favorite shows as a kid were "Wild America" and "Wild Kingdom", my interests are probably different than many. Smiley


Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #2004 on: February 16, 2010, 12:51:42 PM »


This is exactly what I am referring to. What evidence?

You know, Dawkins talked about an  interview he did with a well known Creationist in England. She kept saying "what evidence!?" When his response was to list the evidence, specimen after specimen, she continued to repeat "what evidence" over and over. He even told her to just go to a museum to look at it for herself, and she simply ignored his suggestion and repeated "what evidence?!"

What he described very much reminded me of the scene in Planet of the Apes when Heston is on "trial" and explaining how humans were intelligent, and the Ape council covers their eyes and ears because they simply didn't want to admit the evidence existed.

It also reminds me of when Michael Shermer debated Kent Hovind, and Hovind said "there are no intermediate species between whales and their supposed land mammal relatives", there's nothing but a  big "gap"....Shermer then proceeded to show a slide of a recently discovered and amazing transitional fossil between land mammals and modern day whales, and Hovind then chimed in "well, now you have TWO gaps". Smiley If one begins with the assumption that evolution is not or cannot be true, then no amount of evidence will convince a person. Unless we deliberately tell ourselves we will go where the evidence does, and then go from there.

Now I'm not saying that's what your doing, but some people do do that very thing. And all I can say as a former young earth creationist all I can really remember is that the more I learned about HOW science actually works, and that evolution is verified by so many independent scientific fields independently it became harder to deny it. I also found out that so many creationist arguments were simply flat out wrong, either by misconceptions or misunderstandings, and in some cases total fabrications that the whole thing came down like a house of cards. But that's just my perception. It could be totally wrong....in fact evolutionary theory "could" be totally wrong. Because it is a falsifiable scientific theory. All someone has to do is dig up a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock and the whole thing comes down like a house of cards. However "creationism" isn't falsifiable because no one could ever "disprove it"...because in the end it's not science, but theology. I just don't think those things should be mixed because it could be horribly dangerous to do so. Anyways, I digress.....

Quote
Are you referring to an ape like specimen like Lucy? You keep claiming that there is a holy grail of evidence.

There is no single holy grail, because that's not how evolution works.  Lucy is but an early ancestor, but there are many, many after the Lucy fossil, the so called "transitional fossils" between Lucy and us.

here's a quick list I copied off wikipedia (for speed) of just the genus Homo...this doesn't even consider pre homo ancestors like "Lucy"...you want the transitional fossils, here's a list:

    * Homo habilis†
    * Homo rudolfensis†
    * Homo ergaster†
    * Homo georgicus†
    * Homo erectus†
    * Homo cepranensis†
    * Homo antecessor†
    * Homo heidelbergensis†
    * Homo rhodesiensis†
    * Homo neanderthalensis†
    * Homo sapiens
          o Homo sapiens idaltu†
          o Archaic Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)†
    * Homo floresiensis†


At least a dozen species there, with a few subspecies at the end. Now
100 years ago the whole "there are gaps" argument worked because they really hadn't been discovered yet. Now there are almost no gaps. We can clearly see how for example Neaderthals are very close relatives to modern day humans, and yet we are not genetically identical. (the Neaderthal genome has been mapped in a "first draft" this far, so we KNOW this, it's not an educated guess) BTW it's important to get the linear 1950's text book picture of human evolution out of minds...where on the left is a "monkey" and the right is a man...evolution is now known to be a branching tree not the popularized misconception of lower to higher lifeform.


Quote
All I'm asking is where is it? Or is it a bunch of little pieces of evidence that are grouped together to look like a "historical account" of what the grouper himself thinks?

It's both. There are a bunch of "little pieces" and a bunch of "big pieces" as well as in tact skeletons, etc. Of course it is much like putting together a puzzle, but so is history, and so is anything. If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion we couldn't know anything about anything, and we'd have to remain totally agnostic about anything that happened prior to our own life times.

Granted some people do take that position, but then my question would be, if everything is just a "guess" then how do you know Christianity is even true? what evidence do you have Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is NONE, if indeed one assumes we can't know anything unless we directly experience it for ourselves.

If you're really interested in all this go check out Dawkins book at the library, that's what I did. He explains quite lucidly everything you just asked, in great detail. Then go read Ken Miller, and Francis Collins, both Christians. Again, why would a devoutly anti religious atheist, and orthodox Catholics be able to come to the same conclusions independently if in fact evolution wasn't true? That to me just doesn't make sense unless it was in fact true.

You can also check out this website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

edited for clarity I hope
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 01:06:58 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #2005 on: February 16, 2010, 02:18:03 PM »

Shermer then proceeded to show a slide of a recently discovered and amazing transitional fossil between land mammals and modern day whales, and Hovind then chimed in "well, now you have TWO gaps". Smiley

LOL! Cheesy
Thank you for a well thought out and entertaining post!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #2006 on: February 16, 2010, 04:36:55 PM »



It's both. There are a bunch of "little pieces" and a bunch of "big pieces" as well as in tact skeletons, etc. Of course it is much like putting together a puzzle, but so is history, and so is anything. If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion we couldn't know anything about anything, and we'd have to remain totally agnostic about anything that happened prior to our own life times.

Granted some people do take that position, but then my question would be, if everything is just a "guess" then how do you know Christianity is even true? what evidence do you have Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is NONE, if indeed one assumes we can't know anything unless we directly experience it for ourselves.



This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.  And I'm the type that is not convinced of anything unless I see it with my own eye's. One could say the same things about Christianity. Well look at the evidence around you. The sun is there because god put it their to give us the exact day lite needed to grow food and so and so. The evidence of god is all around you.

  Now I'm not sure but I think I mentioned that God doesn't want to be known through science and that no logical person could ever find god through science. So how is it that you insist that we need a science in order to make god knowable?

« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 04:37:33 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2007 on: February 16, 2010, 05:11:39 PM »



It's both. There are a bunch of "little pieces" and a bunch of "big pieces" as well as in tact skeletons, etc. Of course it is much like putting together a puzzle, but so is history, and so is anything. If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion we couldn't know anything about anything, and we'd have to remain totally agnostic about anything that happened prior to our own life times.

Granted some people do take that position, but then my question would be, if everything is just a "guess" then how do you know Christianity is even true? what evidence do you have Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is NONE, if indeed one assumes we can't know anything unless we directly experience it for ourselves.



This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.  And I'm the type that is not convinced of anything unless I see it with my own eye's. One could say the same things about Christianity. Well look at the evidence around you. The sun is there because god put it their to give us the exact day lite needed to grow food and so and so. The evidence of god is all around you.

  Now I'm not sure but I think I mentioned that God doesn't want to be known through science and that no logical person could ever find god through science. So how is it that you insist that we need a science in order to make god knowable?
How is it that you're such an authority on how God wants to be known that you posit your reasoning as axiomatic to this argument? Wink
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #2008 on: February 16, 2010, 05:14:25 PM »

How is it that you're such an authority on how God wants to be known that you posit your reasoning as axiomatic to this argument? Wink

Must be through revelation.  laugh
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
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2009 on: February 16, 2010, 07:26:30 PM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2010 on: February 16, 2010, 07:44:16 PM »

We know for sure that the thief was one of the people walking out. But how pray tell can we know from our vantage point who it was? This is the same vantage point the scientists are in. There is just no way for them to know.
Au contraire.  First, we can inquire which of the walkers have teller receipts of the same amount as the cash they're carrying; that may well rule out several of them.  We could compare the amount each was carrying to the amount the teller reported stolen; that would be a rather strong indicator of guilt.  We could check the security camera; that might show clearly that it was the tall guy in the striped shirt and sneakers.
You are correct that this situation is analogous to science.  It's why certain investigations are referred to as forensic science.  Remember, science doesn't seek some kind of absolute truth.  It only seeks to answer the question "What's the best explanation that fits all known observations?"
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2011 on: February 16, 2010, 08:25:30 PM »

I'm afraid zoology isn't high on my list of interests. Most of my interest on it is traditional Arab fare on the subject, somewhat more like Rippley's Believe It or Not.

On this matter, at least, I tend to agree with you. While I have a great interest in the diversity of the genome, the evolution of our genetic structure, and the physics and mathematics which govern how our genetic 'source code' is 'executed' to produce the resulting animal, I have little interest in the fossil record, paleontology, zoology, etc. Zoology is to genetics what observational astronomy with the naked eye is to astrophysics...that is to say, boring.

However, I would not dream of contradicting current research in zoology and paleontology without at least having the common courtesy of familiarizing myself with the last century of research and latest publications in the field. If you refuse to educate yourself in a field, it would be absurd to criticize ongoing research. Don't put forth the effort to study a field if you don't want to...but if that's the case, criticizing it comes across as foolish and absurd.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,963



« Reply #2012 on: February 16, 2010, 08:34:03 PM »

I'm afraid zoology isn't high on my list of interests. Most of my interest on it is traditional Arab fare on the subject, somewhat more like Rippley's Believe It or Not.

On this matter, at least, I tend to agree with you. While I have a great interest in the diversity of the genome, the evolution of our genetic structure, and the physics and mathematics which govern how our genetic 'source code' is 'executed' to produce the resulting animal, I have little interest in the fossil record, paleontology, zoology, etc. Zoology is to genetics what observational astronomy with the naked eye is to astrophysics...that is to say, boring.

However, I would not dream of contradicting current research in zoology and paleontology without at least having the common courtesy of familiarizing myself with the last century of research and latest publications in the field. If you refuse to educate yourself in a field, it would be absurd to criticize ongoing research. Don't put forth the effort to study a field if you don't want to...but if that's the case, criticizing it comes across as foolish and absurd.

You forget, the Paleontologists and geneticists at the U of C were the ones who cured me of Darwinism.
Logged

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2013 on: February 16, 2010, 08:43:43 PM »

I'm afraid zoology isn't high on my list of interests. Most of my interest on it is traditional Arab fare on the subject, somewhat more like Rippley's Believe It or Not.

On this matter, at least, I tend to agree with you. While I have a great interest in the diversity of the genome, the evolution of our genetic structure, and the physics and mathematics which govern how our genetic 'source code' is 'executed' to produce the resulting animal, I have little interest in the fossil record, paleontology, zoology, etc. Zoology is to genetics what observational astronomy with the naked eye is to astrophysics...that is to say, boring.

However, I would not dream of contradicting current research in zoology and paleontology without at least having the common courtesy of familiarizing myself with the last century of research and latest publications in the field. If you refuse to educate yourself in a field, it would be absurd to criticize ongoing research. Don't put forth the effort to study a field if you don't want to...but if that's the case, criticizing it comes across as foolish and absurd.

You forget, the Paleontologists and geneticists at the U of C were the ones who cured me of Darwinism.

Would you care to reference the relevant journal articles?
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #2014 on: February 16, 2010, 11:49:27 PM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2015 on: February 17, 2010, 12:25:05 AM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.

No, it's not, it's a theory of diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of what we've come to define as life, but even then, life is a fairly arbitrary thing by definition, a reproduction of sorts in a chemical reaction is far more fundamental, so-called 'life' just applies this to a molecular level. Even the Big Bang theory isn't truly a theory of origins, though a few scientists may idly speculate on it's causes, the scientific theory is centered around the physical state of the universe in the fractions of a second following the Big Bang. There simply isn't enough evidence to establish a viable theory about any 'first cause' and speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning.
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #2016 on: February 17, 2010, 01:06:44 AM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.

No, it's not, it's a theory of diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of what we've come to define as life, but even then, life is a fairly arbitrary thing by definition, a reproduction of sorts in a chemical reaction is far more fundamental, so-called 'life' just applies this to a molecular level. Even the Big Bang theory isn't truly a theory of origins, though a few scientists may idly speculate on it's causes, the scientific theory is centered around the physical state of the universe in the fractions of a second following the Big Bang. There simply isn't enough evidence to establish a viable theory about any 'first cause' and speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning.
We are talking biological life here. We derived from a common ancestor of ape and man. Our existence in time is measured by when man first appeared. We can trace biological life to the first point in time using the same technique of undoing natural selection. That first bacterium or what ever biological anode and chemical reaction you want to choose.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2017 on: February 17, 2010, 01:17:25 AM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.

No, it's not, it's a theory of diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of what we've come to define as life, but even then, life is a fairly arbitrary thing by definition, a reproduction of sorts in a chemical reaction is far more fundamental, so-called 'life' just applies this to a molecular level. Even the Big Bang theory isn't truly a theory of origins, though a few scientists may idly speculate on it's causes, the scientific theory is centered around the physical state of the universe in the fractions of a second following the Big Bang. There simply isn't enough evidence to establish a viable theory about any 'first cause' and speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning.
We are talking biological life here. We derived from a common ancestor of ape and man. Our existence in time is measured by when man first appeared. We can trace biological life to the first point in time using the same technique of undoing natural selection. That first bacterium or what ever biological anode and chemical reaction you want to choose.

A time when man first appeared? That's a pretty arbitrary standard in a history that is a analog genetic continuum than rather than a binary stratification. We distinguish between species based on ability to produce offspring that are themselves able to reproduce...but is there any evidence that the first such 'human's' genetic mutation even survived? It is very likely that this genetic mutation took several attempts before being linked to an allele that gave enough genetic benefit to survive the process of natural selection. Your standard seems to be a bit confusing.
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #2018 on: February 17, 2010, 01:32:06 AM »

 I didn't think listing the species between ape and man by name was prudent to understanding our origin since all that exist today is ape and man.  o Homo sapiens idaltu, o Archaic Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2019 on: February 17, 2010, 02:14:39 AM »

I didn't think listing the species between ape and man by name was prudent to understanding our origin since all that exist today is ape and man.  o Homo sapiens idaltu, o Archaic Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis.

Well, technically, man is classified as an ape, since an ape is any member of the Hominoidea family of primates, including homo sapiens. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #2020 on: February 17, 2010, 09:14:47 AM »

I'm afraid zoology isn't high on my list of interests. Most of my interest on it is traditional Arab fare on the subject, somewhat more like Rippley's Believe It or Not.

On this matter, at least, I tend to agree with you. While I have a great interest in the diversity of the genome, the evolution of our genetic structure, and the physics and mathematics which govern how our genetic 'source code' is 'executed' to produce the resulting animal, I have little interest in the fossil record, paleontology, zoology, etc. Zoology is to genetics what observational astronomy with the naked eye is to astrophysics...that is to say, boring.

However, I would not dream of contradicting current research in zoology and paleontology without at least having the common courtesy of familiarizing myself with the last century of research and latest publications in the field. If you refuse to educate yourself in a field, it would be absurd to criticize ongoing research. Don't put forth the effort to study a field if you don't want to...but if that's the case, criticizing it comes across as foolish and absurd.

You forget, the Paleontologists and geneticists at the U of C were the ones who cured me of Darwinism.

Would you care to reference the relevant journal articles?
I was referring to the actual professors.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,963



« Reply #2021 on: February 17, 2010, 09:19:04 AM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.

No, it's not, it's a theory of diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of what we've come to define as life, but even then, life is a fairly arbitrary thing by definition, a reproduction of sorts in a chemical reaction is far more fundamental, so-called 'life' just applies this to a molecular level. Even the Big Bang theory isn't truly a theory of origins, though a few scientists may idly speculate on it's causes, the scientific theory is centered around the physical state of the universe in the fractions of a second following the Big Bang. There simply isn't enough evidence to establish a viable theory about any 'first cause' and speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning.
We are talking biological life here. We derived from a common ancestor of ape and man. Our existence in time is measured by when man first appeared. We can trace biological life to the first point in time using the same technique of undoing natural selection. That first bacterium or what ever biological anode and chemical reaction you want to choose.

A time when man first appeared? That's a pretty arbitrary standard in a history that is a analog genetic continuum than rather than a binary stratification. We distinguish between species based on ability to produce offspring that are themselves able to reproduce

And you discern this in the fossil "record" how?

This was one of the nails that the U of C nailed into the coffin of Darwinism for me: the admission of the widely arbitrary (my words) speciation of fossils.


Quote
...but is there any evidence that the first such 'human's' genetic mutation even survived? It is very likely that this genetic mutation took several attempts before being linked to an allele that gave enough genetic benefit to survive the process of natural selection. Your standard seems to be a bit confusing.

Another way of wording what I have just said.
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
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #2022 on: February 17, 2010, 10:09:10 AM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.

No, it's not, it's a theory of diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of what we've come to define as life, but even then, life is a fairly arbitrary thing by definition, a reproduction of sorts in a chemical reaction is far more fundamental, so-called 'life' just applies this to a molecular level. Even the Big Bang theory isn't truly a theory of origins, though a few scientists may idly speculate on it's causes, the scientific theory is centered around the physical state of the universe in the fractions of a second following the Big Bang. There simply isn't enough evidence to establish a viable theory about any 'first cause' and speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning.
I'm glad that we can agree that speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning. The only place it really matters is when the medical budgets are drawn up or when the collection plate is passed around. In the end the money goes to the one that can save you.  Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2023 on: February 17, 2010, 03:26:26 PM »

This is exactly what makes evolutionists religion seekers. They don't have the evidence in its entirety needed for a finite resolution to the debate. They use the same circular arguments Christians use.
This is a false dichotomy -- one of the most basic errors of logic.  You are comparing two things and assuming they are mutually exclusive.  They are not.
Actually they very well could be. A theistic biologist can inject a deity into history and wala! God started it. Most biologists will tell you that god has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is a theory of origins.

No, it's not, it's a theory of diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of what we've come to define as life, but even then, life is a fairly arbitrary thing by definition, a reproduction of sorts in a chemical reaction is far more fundamental, so-called 'life' just applies this to a molecular level. Even the Big Bang theory isn't truly a theory of origins, though a few scientists may idly speculate on it's causes, the scientific theory is centered around the physical state of the universe in the fractions of a second following the Big Bang. There simply isn't enough evidence to establish a viable theory about any 'first cause' and speculation without evidence really doesn't have any value or meaning.
We are talking biological life here. We derived from a common ancestor of ape and man. Our existence in time is measured by when man first appeared. We can trace biological life to the first point in time using the same technique of undoing natural selection. That first bacterium or what ever biological anode and chemical reaction you want to choose.

A time when man first appeared? That's a pretty arbitrary standard in a history that is a analog genetic continuum than rather than a binary stratification. We distinguish between species based on ability to produce offspring that are themselves able to reproduce

And you discern this in the fossil "record" how?

This was one of the nails that the U of C nailed into the coffin of Darwinism for me: the admission of the widely arbitrary (my words) speciation of fossils.

I'll be honest, I'm not familiar enough with the fossil record to opine, as I mentioned previously, it never was my area of interest. My statements were based on comparative genetics and the gene sequencing of modern apes (including humans) and a few extinct but close relatives. The fossil record always bothered me because while species separated by very large amounts (tens of millions of years) of time may be clearly identifiable, is it truly objectively possible to distinguish between say a mere million years of evolution and a random deformity?

To me, the smoking gun was always the genetic similarities...and difference...between species, the fact that we are so genetically similar in so many ways strongly points to a common ancestor and the differences found in the, relatively few, segments of DNA that separate, say, humans from chimps or different species of yeast, allow us to create models that demonstrate history of genetic mutation in the divergent species. Models that have been demonstrated accurate enough to make independent predictions, including detecting errors in the sequencing of one species' dna based on the already sequenced DNA of a separate but related species.

Darwin made a huge qualitative leap, he observed change, but was unable to quantify and formalize it (living nearly a hundred years before the discovery of the structure of DNA), but it was a huge leap of insight that took over a century before we could finally quantify and formalize it. Today, we've made huge leaps in quantifying genetic divergence between species and have the real quantifiable, verifiable, and repeatable data we need to prove Darwin's theory at least beyond a reasonable doubt.  Over the next couple decades, once we've cataloged several million more genomes and continue to develop our tools to analyze it from information theory we should arrive at a fairly complete picture of the history of life on this planet...this is certainly an exciting time to be alive.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2024 on: February 24, 2010, 07:51:14 PM »

Observable? Who was their to observe it? Wink
Who was their what? Grin

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.

Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Logged
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   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 0.199 seconds with 74 queries.