OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 06:19:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   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 (15.9%)
No - 127 (38%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (46.1%)
Total Voters: 334

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 296619 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2295 on: November 19, 2010, 06:55:36 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2296 on: November 19, 2010, 06:59:53 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

Yes, because we have that many similarities to bacteria. I am not kidding.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2297 on: November 19, 2010, 07:17:44 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/


Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2298 on: November 19, 2010, 07:19:49 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2299 on: November 19, 2010, 07:23:07 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




I note the article uses the words "much of", not "all".
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2300 on: November 19, 2010, 07:30:11 PM »

Not that Episcopalians have much cachet around here, but here goes:

Does this picture of human evolution conflict with the biblical statement that we humans are made in the image and likeness of God?

The phrase does not refer to a physical image and likeness, since God is spirit (John 4:24).  Theologians have sought to explain “image and likeness” in various ways: that it refers to those divine gifts of unconditional love and compassion, our reason and imagination, our moral and ethical capacities, our freedom, or our creativity.  To think that these gifts may have been bestowed through the evolutionary process does not conflict with biblical and theological notions that God acts in creation.  Scripture affirms that God was involved (Gen. 1:26-27).

....
If God creates through evolutionary processes, how may this awareness enhance my spiritual life?

The God of evolution is the biblical God, subtle and gracious, who interacts with and rejoices in the enormous variety, diversity, and beauty of this evolving creation.  When we contemplate the tremendous gift of freedom God has bestowed upon the creation, and how the Holy Spirit preserves in covenantal faithfulness the physical laws, powers and processes that enable such variety and beauty, these thoughts may move our hearts to a deeper admiration, awe and gratitude for God’s works.  They may inspire a curiosity to know God’s creation more deeply, celebrate it with thanksgiving, and devote ourselves to caring for it.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 07:48:40 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.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2301 on: November 19, 2010, 07:33:30 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




I note the article uses the words "much of", not "all".

It's no use, Laconic. Those scientists are sweating beads from fear that they'll be exposed for the great conspiracy to invalidate some people's interpretation of the Bible. That's their life's work, down the toilet. Which is exactly the reason they appear calm and are making no effort to keep these results secret. That's ok, there are still other lies we can tell in the fields of biology, astronomy, history, and geology that haven't been exposed yet by the real scientists. (Where are they, anyway?)
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2302 on: November 19, 2010, 07:41:58 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 07:43:07 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2303 on: November 19, 2010, 07:45:00 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, nipples in men, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

....So? You do realize that a podcast is not a scientific source?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 07:48:17 PM by laconicstudent » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2304 on: November 19, 2010, 07:49:58 PM »

Scientific american is though no ? Shoot the messenger, the poor podcast trying to unveil the conspiracy ahem...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 07:50:13 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2305 on: November 19, 2010, 07:51:32 PM »

Scientific american is though no ?

Actually, no, it certainly isn't.

Shoot the messenger, the poor podcast trying to unveil the conspiracy ahem...

My pleasure.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2306 on: November 19, 2010, 07:54:15 PM »

Look the Journal cited by scientific American cited by the podcast is a good source and the research probably has been corroborated by other Journals. Makes perfect sense that the appendix is not vestigial if tons of other species have it and it hasn't gone away yet. It's used to store good bacteria while the surroundings are bad. Just like the Thyroid secretes hormones to control metabolism, and the pineal is part of the sleep cycle, and so forth, all denied by evolutionists some years ago...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 07:57:02 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2307 on: November 19, 2010, 07:54:44 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

Why do males have nipples? Seem pretty vestigial to me.
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.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2308 on: November 19, 2010, 07:56:40 PM »

Quote
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...

like when they put the feather dinosaur on display saying they had the fossil (when they had nothing) or when the used to teach "pilt down man" and have fabricated diagrams showing "embryonic recurrence" as proof of evolution, and how they will continue to teach lucy as the oldest "primate ancestor" of humans or whatever fable for years to come even though we now have fossils which show this is patently false...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 08:02:23 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2309 on: November 19, 2010, 07:57:27 PM »

Quote
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...
And what is the truth?
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.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2310 on: November 19, 2010, 07:58:17 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2311 on: November 19, 2010, 07:58:47 PM »

Quote
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...

...which is?
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2312 on: November 19, 2010, 07:58:58 PM »

Look the Journal cited by scientific American cited by the pdocast is a good source

I should imagine so, but you aren't citing it, for some reason. You chose to cite Scientific American.

and the research probably has been corroborated by other Journals.

"Probably" isn't good enough.

Makes perfect sense that the appendix is not vestigial if tons of other species have it and it hasn't gone away yet. It's used to store good bacteria while the surroundings are bad. Just like the Throid secretes hormones to control metabolism, and the pineal is part of the sleep cycle, and so forth, all denied by evolutionists some years ago...

Do you know what "vestigial" means in this context?....
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2313 on: November 19, 2010, 08:00:38 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?


Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 08:01:46 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2314 on: November 19, 2010, 08:02:16 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?


Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.

No, they said it has not disappeared because of natural selection.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2315 on: November 19, 2010, 08:03:33 PM »

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/




Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.


So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?


Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.

No, they said it has not disappeared because of natural selection.


They previously said it was about to disappear because of natural selection and claimed that since we are the only ones with one that it was vestigial, now they reversed argument.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2316 on: November 19, 2010, 08:04:34 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

<citation needed>
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2317 on: November 19, 2010, 08:34:34 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

<citation needed>


Can't find for Bacteria species, but found platypus at least 82% human :

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/07/platypus.genome.explains.animals.peculiar.features.holds.clues.evolution.mammals

Behold the long lost missing link :




 Shocked  Shocked  Shocked
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 08:39:19 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2318 on: November 19, 2010, 08:43:29 PM »

two words...sexy beast.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2319 on: November 19, 2010, 10:02:59 PM »

So, let me get this straight.  You cite the similar DNA we have with so many creatures, not as evidence that we descended from a common ancestor, but rather to take the, "Gosh! We don't look anything like those creatures!  It must mean nothing!" line of reasoning?  Interesting.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2320 on: November 19, 2010, 10:14:28 PM »

I challenge you to prove the immortal platypus ancestor so as to not infringe the canon of the "7th ecumenical council" !
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 10:15:06 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 11,869


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #2321 on: November 19, 2010, 10:41:59 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity.

I mentioned this.

Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.
Quote
"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.

Without denying your example, you're using theory to support theory.

When I was young, there was no such thing as  animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.

That's not evolution. The experiment just hadn't been tried. The Gorilla already had that capability.

We have the fossil remains of Primitive Humans. We can see how they changed and adapted. We can see the influence of things like climate change. We can trace their migrations and we have found their settlements. So the physical evidence for evolution is certainly there. If it's not enough for you personally, then God Bless. It is for me.

Apes have the physical capability for manipulating their fingers and hands and the brain capacity to learn sign language.
This learning occurred when they came into contact with a more advanced creature, us. They can now express themselves, They turn out to have complex thoughts, desires and a certain self awareness. That is how evolution works. Something changes in the environment. The weather changes, food sources disappear or appear, or there is contact with other creatures that they learn something from. If the new skill is useful it is then passed on and refined. We now have talking Apes.... Go figure.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 11,869


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #2322 on: November 19, 2010, 10:46:53 PM »

Human Ancestors More Primitive That Once Thought

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145343.htm


ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2007) — A team of researchers, including Herman Pontzer, Ph.D., assistant professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences, has determined through analysis of the earliest known hominid fossils outside of Africa, recently discovered in Dmanisi, Georgia, the former Soviet republic, that the first human ancestors to inhabit Eurasia were more primitive than previously thought.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2323 on: November 19, 2010, 10:50:01 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

<citation needed>


Can't find for Bacteria species, but found platypus at least 82% human :

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/07/platypus.genome.explains.animals.peculiar.features.holds.clues.evolution.mammals

Behold the long lost missing link :




 Shocked  Shocked  Shocked

If a platypus is 82% genetically similar to a human (which I am sure is wrong--we are biologically almost identical to a platypus, since most of the genome accounts for microscopic traits only), then there is no way we are 97% similar to a bacterium. A protozoan, sure, but not a prokaryotic cell. Prokaryotes haploids anyway. If you don't know what any of this means, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion, just like there is no point in continuing discussions with door-to-door evangelists who absolutely refuse to learn anything about Orthodox Christianity.

By the way, I noticed the source for your platypus picture. Creation science, of course, is a field of study invented by heretics for heretics (ie radical protestants). You can be an Orthodox Christian and be a biologist. you cannot be Orthodox and protestant at the same time. They can't even get the age of the young earth straight--they think it's 6000 years, not 7500. Little do they know!
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2324 on: November 19, 2010, 10:52:26 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity.

I mentioned this.

Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.
Quote
"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.

Without denying your example, you're using theory to support theory.

When I was young, there was no such thing as  animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.

That's not evolution. The experiment just hadn't been tried. The Gorilla already had that capability.

We have the fossil remains of Primitive Humans. We can see how they changed and adapted. We can see the influence of things like climate change. We can trace their migrations and we have found their settlements. So the physical evidence for evolution is certainly there. If it's not enough for you personally, then God Bless. It is for me.

Apes have the physical capability for manipulating their fingers and hands and the brain capacity to learn sign language.
This learning occurred when they came into contact with a more advanced creature, us. They can now express themselves, They turn out to have complex thoughts, desires and a certain self awareness. That is how evolution works. Something changes in the environment. The weather changes, food sources disappear or appear, or there is contact with other creatures that they learn something from. If the new skill is useful it is then passed on and refined. We now have talking Apes.... Go figure.

Marc, the apes learning sign language thing is operant conditioning, I can teach a pigeon to play the piano like Skinner did (or bowling, soccer, play chess, etc.) doesn't mean they understand. All they understand is "if I move my hand this way I get a banana, if I do it twice this other way I get 2 bananas".

"Climate change"...I suggest you look up what "Maunder minimum" was and how sun spots correlate with climate change to see it's not as simple as some say. I have not formed an opinion on this yet.

Quote
If a platypus is 82% genetically similar to a human (which I am sure is wrong--we are biologically almost identical to a platypus, since most of the genome accounts for microscopic traits only), then there is no way we are 97% similar to a bacterium.

I don't think they mapped out the entire platypus Genome, just what they found is so far 82% similar. Maybe that's what they meant. I also read we are roughly 45% algae somewhere else
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 10:57:19 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2325 on: November 19, 2010, 10:56:19 PM »

Human Ancestors More Primitive That Once Thought

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145343.htm


ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2007) — A team of researchers, including Herman Pontzer, Ph.D., assistant professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences, has determined through analysis of the earliest known hominid fossils outside of Africa, recently discovered in Dmanisi, Georgia, the former Soviet republic, that the first human ancestors to inhabit Eurasia were more primitive than previously thought.


See? This dashes to pieces what they have coming up concerning "Lucy" over the last decades, now they will have to re-write everything. And meanwhile the textbooks will stay teaching the "common ancestor Lucy". I had this great lecture by an Orthodox Archimandrite on a "Death Icon" placed in the smithsonian by the way by evolutionists.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2326 on: November 19, 2010, 11:01:34 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.
Since you've contradicted yourself already on this, you may wish to reassess your view of who's propagandizing.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2327 on: November 19, 2010, 11:08:22 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.
Since you've contradicted yourself already on this, you may wish to reassess your view of who's propagandizing.


What? I remember a ridiculously high figure such as over 80% or 96-97% being given to me, I will get the source, and it's already been shown that the platypus is 82% Human minimum which proves my point that these figures aren't used in a fair way by evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape. But then platypus is also <80% human, why can't I have a platypus as my common ancestor, or a protozoa, or anything ? Find me the immortal platypus/ape/protozoa needed to not infringe the canon of the OC (which is not my problem since I'm not from the OC but should worry you).
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 11:08:38 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,307


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #2328 on: November 19, 2010, 11:24:07 PM »

It warms my heart to know that the memory of Matthew777 is living on through the squabbling in this thread  Grin Cheesy
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #2329 on: November 19, 2010, 11:34:20 PM »

It warms my heart to know that the memory of Matthew777 is living on through the squabbling in this thread  Grin Cheesy

Well, I'm tripping out over your ever changing profile picture.  Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,307


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #2330 on: November 19, 2010, 11:46:51 PM »

It warms my heart to know that the memory of Matthew777 is living on through the squabbling in this thread  Grin Cheesy

Well, I'm tripping out over your ever changing profile picture.  Grin

I think my last one was freaking people out. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but anyway...  Wink
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2331 on: November 19, 2010, 11:49:46 PM »

Find me the immortal platypus/ape/protozoa needed to not infringe the canon of the OC (which is not my problem since I'm not from the OC but should worry you).

I think you mean your interpretation of the canon of the OC.  Unless of course you think they were referencing the theory of evolution and had that in mind when stating what they stated.  Because there's no way that statement was in reference to anything going on then.  The councils were never about specific heresies.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2332 on: November 19, 2010, 11:54:08 PM »

evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape.

You do realize that that isn't what the theory of evolution proposes, right?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2333 on: November 20, 2010, 12:27:17 AM »

It warms my heart to know that the memory of Matthew777 is living on through the squabbling in this thread  Grin Cheesy

Well, I'm tripping out over your ever changing profile picture.  Grin

I think my last one was freaking people out. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but anyway...  Wink

I liked it  Cool
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2334 on: November 20, 2010, 01:57:09 AM »


evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape.
Nothing wrong with apes.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 01:59:04 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.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2335 on: November 20, 2010, 03:14:03 AM »


evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape.
Nothing wrong with apes.



The scientific classification of 'ape' includes humans.

"the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 03:15:52 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,307


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #2336 on: November 20, 2010, 04:21:21 AM »

Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2337 on: November 20, 2010, 07:44:53 AM »


evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape.
Nothing wrong with apes.



The scientific classification of 'ape' includes humans.

"the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Hominidae used to contain only humans; over the past few decades, scientists have included the African ("great") apes in it, as well. So, one could say that Hominidae, collectively known as "human", includes the great apes. The great apes are now human.

And they deserve human rights.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 07:49:57 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.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2338 on: November 20, 2010, 11:03:42 AM »


evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape.
Nothing wrong with apes.



The scientific classification of 'ape' includes humans.

"the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Hominidae used to contain only humans; over the past few decades, scientists have included the African ("great") apes in it, as well. So, one could say that Hominidae, collectively known as "human", includes the great apes. The great apes are now human.

And they deserve human rights.

Does that include health coverage under "Obama-care"?  Shocked
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 11:04:02 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2339 on: November 20, 2010, 11:13:18 AM »


evolutionists who try to imply that since we are over 80% ape we are descended from ape.
Nothing wrong with apes.



The scientific classification of 'ape' includes humans.

"the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Hominidae used to contain only humans; over the past few decades, scientists have included the African ("great") apes in it, as well. So, one could say that Hominidae, collectively known as "human", includes the great apes. The great apes are now human.

And they deserve human rights.

Does that include health coverage under "Obama-care"?  Shocked
No, because the government defines "human" as Homo sapiens.
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.
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 0.196 seconds with 74 queries.