OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 02:58:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 332233 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,960



« Reply #2745 on: February 16, 2011, 02:54:36 PM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...

Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&feature=player_embedded


The sources I provided for evolution come from Christians, and Non-Christians. And they at least have some level of intellectual integrity. So lets weigh the intellectual integrity here in this forum.

Evolution
Micro evolution
Macro evolution
Speciation
Natural Selection


1) Define those words I have provided above and post the definitions here for us. Yes, I want YOU to do this literally just so we all know that we comprehend the definitions of Evolution, Speciation, Natural Selection, Adaptation, Micro-evolution, and Macro-evolution ect..

2) Read the rest of my post to which has a good amount of information and examples in it..

3) Comeback here and then repost the definitions of: Evolution, Speciation, Natural Selection, Adaptation, Micro-evolution, and Macro-evolution ect..

4) Review them

5) Then reply to me in scientific methodology why you think evolution Wink


Also we can look at some more recent evolution in the human Genome:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=genome+evolution+in+human&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Speciation in action:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/?npu=1&mbid=yhp

The length of a birds wings adapt to the changes in the environments to which they fly in:

http://www.conservationmaven.com/frontpage/birds-changing-wing-shape-as-possible-adaptation-to-environm.html
Where's the link on the evolution of universal sterility 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
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2746 on: February 16, 2011, 05:15:33 PM »

Where's the link on the evolution of universal sterility in bees?
Universal?  Methinks we wouldn't see bees at all if that were the case.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2747 on: February 16, 2011, 07:21:15 PM »

Quote
Where's the link on the evolution of universal sterility in bees?

If you believed someone that told you that, I can't help but feel sorry for your gullibility ;/

You can also address your argument here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=universal+sterility+in+bees?&source=bl&ots=5a5_28gbCZ&sig=ilZkJpzyMPmtgFFtbxChKedHSTk&hl=en&ei=D1tcTZCwIYOclgeo1LjkCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=universal%20sterility%20in%20bees%3F&f=false

Abstract:


Quote
Distinction between the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids -- Sterility various in degree, not universal, affected by close interbreeding

Pretty damn hard to breed with universal Sterility o.O


How about you actually address the post above vs drifting off into nonsense that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject? I posted that information for you for a reason. I would hope you would actually take the time to comprehend what evolution actually is. Apparently that is beyond your capacity to do. :/
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 07:24:20 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2748 on: February 16, 2011, 09:04:21 PM »

^^ Thank you for demonstrating my point.

you can sit through a lecture on abiogenesis here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObuQhCozCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seIZSkpTLEo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX3N1Ots6Hw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wi4JSrGTw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfbUG66yS4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhE1-21xNI0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YpwsZQwdY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7L-lnbHwmw&feature=related

OR:

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

Then you can research synthetic life, molecular assemblers, dna robots that self replicate, ect.

You can also watch this video:

Evolution and Common Decent:
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2749 on: February 17, 2011, 09:56:39 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.

Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. Roll Eyes

ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2750 on: February 17, 2011, 09:58:00 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...

Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. Good thing that Patristic sources weren't used because Bats aren't birds, and insects don't have 4 legs.  So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:


Patristic sources are required to establish the Orthodox interpretation of Genesis.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2751 on: February 17, 2011, 11:50:35 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...

Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. Good thing that Patristic sources weren't used because Bats aren't birds, and insects don't have 4 legs.  So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:


Patristic sources are required to establish the Orthodox interpretation of Genesis.

Good thing those sources are clueless to biochemistry much less are completely absent of, and clueless of their accuracy in accordance to reality. And the key words here are "interpretation of Genesis".. Self-inventing context and then trying to fill in the blanks with ignorance as if it would make any logical sense what-so-ever. But isn't that why some of you cling to the word 'incomprehensible" to make it all better?

You can feel free to point to me a biochemistry lecture in Genesis that goes into Biochemical functional micro-structures, and self-organizing enzymes ect. LOL.. It's Orthodox Christians trying to shape science into religion while ignoring 99 percent of the science? Is Sarfati one of those so called Orthodox Christians ?

Tell me, did the Bee argument come from Orthodox interpretation of Genesis? How about 4 legs on insects? Regardless it's not going to make evolution a magical fairy tale.. Well I suppose you can teach people to be stupid ? Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/

How about this.. Point me to the page here that lists your "sources" Wink... This should be rather fun.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 12:00:08 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #2752 on: February 17, 2011, 11:59:50 AM »

Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2753 on: February 17, 2011, 12:06:57 PM »

Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.

That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/

Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #2754 on: February 17, 2011, 12:09:54 PM »

Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.

That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/


I agree with you that expressing views on things you don't understand is the biggest weapon you can give to your opponent and claim defeat. However, this goes both ways, both to those that speak on evolution without studying it and those that speak on Eastern Orthodoxy without studying what it stands for. Just generally speaking though, without pointing at anyone, really. Just my two cents.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


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


WWW
« Reply #2755 on: February 17, 2011, 12:52:25 PM »

Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.

That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/


I agree with you that expressing views on things you don't understand is the biggest weapon you can give to your opponent and claim defeat. However, this goes both ways, both to those that speak on evolution without studying it and those that speak on Eastern Orthodoxy without studying what it stands for. Just generally speaking though, without pointing at anyone, really. Just my two cents.

Well, unfortunately, when some Orthodox Christians continue to use the Church fathers as a way to discredit reality in science, they are opening the flood gates of blasphemy against the Church fathers by non-believers.  They are the Canaans of the Church.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 12:53:55 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2756 on: February 17, 2011, 03:46:28 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #2757 on: February 17, 2011, 04:41:35 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.

It's also hard to deny that evolution has become a prevailing view within science. Over time we my have to see a christian view that encompasses the prevailing views of science. Otherwise one will become fiction and remain a story in a period in time when man was primitive in his thinking regarding the sciences. It's not about a bastardization of the truth so much as it is a revelation to add to the truths already known. What is most important to remember is that while a science can hold truth it doesn't necessitate that it is an end onto itself. The science doesn't have to become a competitive theory to Christianity if encompassed within it.   
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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2758 on: February 17, 2011, 07:52:50 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
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 #2759 on: February 17, 2011, 11:24:33 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
I think he's argued that from the beginning, no?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2760 on: February 17, 2011, 11:52:16 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?

absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2761 on: February 17, 2011, 11:54:55 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.

It's also hard to deny that evolution has become a prevailing view within science. Over time we my have to see a christian view that encompasses the prevailing views of science. Otherwise one will become fiction and remain a story in a period in time when man was primitive in his thinking regarding the sciences. It's not about a bastardization of the truth so much as it is a revelation to add to the truths already known. What is most important to remember is that while a science can hold truth it doesn't necessitate that it is an end onto itself. The science doesn't have to become a competitive theory to Christianity if encompassed within it.  

the problem is that evolution cant just be added to the truths already held by the Orthodox Church - it forces a change in those truths we hold. some will say that science is the higher truth in this matter, but i, and others, hold that the Church is the higher truth in regards to Scripture.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 11:55:47 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2762 on: February 18, 2011, 12:07:37 AM »

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2763 on: February 18, 2011, 12:11:19 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.

Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. Roll Eyes

ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 12:16:54 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2764 on: February 18, 2011, 12:17:27 AM »

Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.

That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/


I agree with you that expressing views on things you don't understand is the biggest weapon you can give to your opponent and claim defeat. However, this goes both ways, both to those that speak on evolution without studying it and those that speak on Eastern Orthodoxy without studying what it stands for. Just generally speaking though, without pointing at anyone, really. Just my two cents.

Yes, and Yes to a point. I understand that Genesis has no information what-so-ever when it comes to being a source of biochemistry and evolution. All it states is that things were created in an order of events to which it can't even agree on vs the OLD Testament and the NEW. And says nothing other than the assumption that an invisible man did it.. However, I have read a lot of Theist science papers that try to paint that picture of Genesis and every one of them had shown to be completely ignorant, or disingenuous.. Now I am not Sure if Sarfati for example is one of those Partristic sources of yours, but it's rather interesting to see their attempts at molding science into religion.  I will have to browse through this thread to see if any of those Patristic sources have been posted here...

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2765 on: February 18, 2011, 12:20:45 AM »

Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.

That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/


I agree with you that expressing views on things you don't understand is the biggest weapon you can give to your opponent and claim defeat. However, this goes both ways, both to those that speak on evolution without studying it and those that speak on Eastern Orthodoxy without studying what it stands for. Just generally speaking though, without pointing at anyone, really. Just my two cents.

Yes, and Yes to a point. I understand that Genesis has no information what-so-ever when it comes to being a source of biochemistry and evolution. All it states is that things were created in an order of events to which it can't even agree on vs the OLD Testament and the NEW. And says nothing other than the assumption that an invisible man did it..

Invisible, yes. Man, no.

Quote
Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.

This might be true, but it's a little hard to believe, considering you're bringing up Scripture passages to use against us. That won't get you very far in dealing with Orthodox believers, because we don't rely on the inerrancy of the Scriptures for our beliefs.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2766 on: February 18, 2011, 12:25:14 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.

Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. Roll Eyes

ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.

the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2767 on: February 18, 2011, 12:37:50 AM »

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.

Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2768 on: February 18, 2011, 01:50:44 AM »

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.

Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.

I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/

« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 01:51:31 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2769 on: February 18, 2011, 01:57:35 AM »

Quote
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.

Nice fail.. I've read what Modern Saints had to say and they are as about as uneducated in evolution as the person that made the BEE argument. Btw, do you know that the Partristics base most of their logic on the basic Newtonian Physics while ignoring why that is an epic fail? Especially with systems that have feedback? Or the physics involved with electromagnetism?

I will give you one Example of the educational failure of Partristics:

Quote
This explanation, that order evolved from chaos, is put forward despite the fact that it flies in the face of the well-established Second Law of Thermodynamics, which infers that all ordered systems tend towards disorder.

Let's see if You can find a link above that deals with thermodynamics.. Patristics assume everything is a closed system because they ignore all the other laws that Govern Thermodynamics.. Nor do they comprehend the energy metabolism of a living cell, or living organisms. Talking to them would be like talking to a brick wall of pure ignorance or intentional ignorance. They might want to also learn what entropy is. We wouldn't exist in closed system as the biological life forms we currently are. So it's a good thing that the other laws of thermodynamics exist Wink.. Every wonder why you sweat? or why your body can absorb and radiate heat? Patristics intentionally ignore entire swaths of science in order to plead of ignorance, or in order to attempt to make science mold to religious ideological constructs. This is why you get the video series "Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At" on youtube to which was made by a Christian :/

Can you please state the other laws of thermodynamics for us?




Quote
as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it

Wrong, I posted it point blank in your face lol. Your failure or laziness is not my problem. I deny your position because I'm actually educated enough in the field to know when people like you are pleading for ignorance, or simply are not educated enough in the subject to know what you are talking about. Let me know when you can actually address my posts properly vs resorting to pleading arguments.  
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 02:27:40 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2770 on: February 18, 2011, 02:31:22 AM »

Talking to them is reference to those who believe or had written the Patristics.. Sorry, had to clarify..

Creationists also base their arguments on the concept of Conspiracy as if science was conspiring against them.. You you get dumb arguments like:

 "Haldane's dilemma"

This is an erroneous argument and this is why:

    The dilema referred to is an assertion or assumption of the pace at which they themselves just magically made up while knowing that evolution is a chaotic system to which is not predictable on a time scale. They have zero data to even support it, much less statistical data to show it as even relevant! It's also very ignorant, or rides on peoples ignorance of how long 3.X billion years is!. It's one stupid argument after another, and most from a Carl Sagan's Dragon position.

Quote
   Wiki:
    A recent estimate of the maximum rate of evolution by natural selection may be too low, based as it is on a maxim that seems to be erroneous.

    Creationists like Walter ReMine seem to operate under the mistaken impression that scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to "obscure" and "brush aside" Haldane's Dilemma and other problems with the theory of evolution. Well, it's already been well addressed because In order to know whether or not the the substitution cost even has the potential to be an issue in real world evolution, these creationist scientists would have to know everything man currently doesn't about Earth's continuously changing dynamics at every time frame anywhere on the Earth in total completeness. That's both geologically and biologically.

    Hence, you can not place rates of increase or decrease based on your own predetermined rates and assumptions. That is a key sign of disingenuous argument!

And then you get things like the following that show why that is:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/03/living-dinosaur-found-to-be-fastest-evolving-creature.ars
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090126-bird-evolution-missions.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/11/126
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/08/09/2977453.htm
http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=18582

Rate of evolution is relative and is not bound to some creationist's made up time table.. :/
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 02:48:54 AM by TheJackel » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2771 on: February 18, 2011, 09:46:50 AM »

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.

Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.

I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/



i dont expect the Fathers to be masters of evolution, they are masters of the Scriptures. so to continually deride them based on secular science has no bearing on anything im saying. if thats the angle you want to stick with, then im not sure there's anything to dialogue with me about.
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 #2772 on: February 18, 2011, 10:06:51 AM »

Creationists also base their arguments on the concept of Conspiracy as if science was conspiring against them.. You you get dumb arguments like:

 "Haldane's dilemma"
Do they? I believe that God created everything visible and invisible, yet I don't argue about this, nor do I think science is "conspiring" against me (I'm pretty sure my doctorate was based in science) and I've never heard of Haldane's dilemma, nor am I interested to learn about it.
So where's your argument?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2773 on: February 18, 2011, 10:18:48 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.

Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. Roll Eyes

ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.

the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2774 on: February 18, 2011, 11:14:43 AM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.

Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. Roll Eyes

ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.

the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?

ummm wouldnt that question apply just as much to you?

have any of our modern Saints taken to valuing secular materialistic science over the wisdom of illumined Saints?

the only reason i continue to post the beliefs of the Fathers is because people continue to place science and themselves above the Fathers. i am no more incessant than the naysayers.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 11:15:26 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,081


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #2775 on: February 18, 2011, 11:43:54 AM »

Do creatures and plants and living things of all kinds and the World itself change over time?

Yes, much of it due to adapting to changes in the environment/food supply etc.

Is Darwin's theory of Evolution as expressed in his treatise "Origin of the Species" correct?

Probably not. Darwin himself said that if we discover species who make a sudden appearance, it would mortally wound his basic assumptions.

Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?

This is a hotly debated topic but there is considerable evidence of "Sudden Appearance"   

Conclusion: Anyone who simply provides evidence of change as we have seen in this thread is side stepping the core issues. Things change, species adapt. That does not mean Darwin's Theory of Evolution is correct or that these changes somehow exclude God as the Creator of all.

In addition, The Theory of Evolution has had an effect of secular social attitudes. The idea is that all things "evolve" for the better over time. A great example of this World View is the Star Trek series and movies which has a vision of the future based on an evolutionary line of March. It also seems ( to me) to incorporate Dialectics. Two opposing social norms collide, there is friction between the two and then POP, the better system or social structure emerges from the process.

I am not convinced that is how history operates.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2776 on: February 18, 2011, 11:48:19 AM »

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.

Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.

I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/



i dont expect the Fathers to be masters of evolution, they are masters of the Scriptures. so to continually deride them based on secular science has no bearing on anything im saying. if thats the angle you want to stick with, then im not sure there's anything to dialogue with me about.

Then why are you using your computer? Ignoring entire swaths of science for sake of ideological preservation isn't going to magically make it all go away. In fact it's entire disingenuous and show's how weak you position is. The Fathers aren't even in the Grade school level of understanding evolution. And scriptures don't address it at all, which probably explains their level of intelligence when it comes to evolution, biochemical cycles and processes ect. People in the biblical era had no conceptual clue as to what evolution was. It's probably why they thought bats were birds. They knew nothing of genetics, dna, rna, tna, biochemistry, entropy, ect in the level we know it today.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2777 on: February 18, 2011, 11:58:32 AM »

Quote
Yes, much of it due to adapting to changes in the environment/food supply etc.



Quote
Is Darwin's theory of Evolution as expressed in his treatise "Origin of the Species" correct?

You just contradicted yourself. And Darwin's theories are only but a mere fraction of what evolution is based on today.. I strongly suggest you take further time to understand that, and study why that is.
Quote
Probably not. Darwin himself said that if we discover species who make a sudden appearance, it would mortally wound his basic assumptions.

Good thing that things don't just magically appear out of thin air..

Quote
Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?

Nope, we've seen them evolve.. Given plenty of examples already.
Quote

This is a hotly debated topic but there is considerable evidence of "Sudden Appearance"  

Actually it's not.


Quote
Conclusion: Anyone who simply provides evidence of change as we have seen in this thread is side stepping the core issues. Things change, species adapt. That does not mean Darwin's Theory of Evolution is correct or that these changes somehow exclude God as the Creator of all.

Wrong! Again you seem to have taken zero time to actually read my posts, or even bothered to define the term Evolution.

Quote
In addition, The Theory of Evolution has had an effect of secular social attitudes.

Irrelevant and further proves the point of evolution.

Quote
The idea is that all things "evolve" for the better over time.

Wrong! Evolution does not state that things will only evolve for the better, or ever guarantee they will evolve for the better! Failure to adapt = extinction and it happens all the time! I suggest you look into the endangered species list while your at it too, or the extinct species list. The dodo Bird would be a good example here for this forum.


Quote
A great example of this World View is the Star Trek series and movies which has a vision of the future based on an evolutionary line of March. It also seems ( to me) to incorporate Dialectics. Two opposing social norms collide, there is friction between the two and then POP, the better system or social structure emerges from the process.

Actually you are again contradicting your own argument with that attempt. Behavioral evolution is still apart of evolution Wink..

Quote
I am not convinced that is how history operates.

I am not convinced your education level in evolution makes you qualified to make that statement.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 12:00:04 PM by TheJackel » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2778 on: February 18, 2011, 01:04:02 PM »

hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.

Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. Roll Eyes

ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.

the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?

ummm wouldnt that question apply just as much to you?
I was aware of the self-indicting nature of my words when I posted them. However, I'm not trying to use the Fathers in some attempt to win an online argument as you seem to be doing.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,081


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #2779 on: February 18, 2011, 01:08:30 PM »

Quote
Yes, much of it due to adapting to changes in the environment/food supply etc.



Quote
Is Darwin's theory of Evolution as expressed in his treatise "Origin of the Species" correct?

You just contradicted yourself. And Darwin's theories are only but a mere fraction of what evolution is based on today.. I strongly suggest you take further time to understand that, and study why that is.
Quote
Probably not. Darwin himself said that if we discover species who make a sudden appearance, it would mortally wound his basic assumptions.

Good thing that things don't just magically appear out of thin air..

Quote
Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?

Nope, we've seen them evolve.. Given plenty of examples already.
Quote

This is a hotly debated topic but there is considerable evidence of "Sudden Appearance"  

Actually it's not.


Quote
Conclusion: Anyone who simply provides evidence of change as we have seen in this thread is side stepping the core issues. Things change, species adapt. That does not mean Darwin's Theory of Evolution is correct or that these changes somehow exclude God as the Creator of all.

Wrong! Again you seem to have taken zero time to actually read my posts, or even bothered to define the term Evolution.

Quote
In addition, The Theory of Evolution has had an effect of secular social attitudes.

Irrelevant and further proves the point of evolution.

Quote
The idea is that all things "evolve" for the better over time.

Wrong! Evolution does not state that things will only evolve for the better, or ever guarantee they will evolve for the better! Failure to adapt = extinction and it happens all the time! I suggest you look into the endangered species list while your at it too, or the extinct species list. The dodo Bird would be a good example here for this forum.


Quote
A great example of this World View is the Star Trek series and movies which has a vision of the future based on an evolutionary line of March. It also seems ( to me) to incorporate Dialectics. Two opposing social norms collide, there is friction between the two and then POP, the better system or social structure emerges from the process.

Actually you are again contradicting your own argument with that attempt. Behavioral evolution is still apart of evolution Wink..

Quote
I am not convinced that is how history operates.

I am not convinced your education level in evolution makes you qualified to make that statement.


Correct. I dont read your posts very thoroughly. They seem  egotistical and chock full of straw man arguments and miss characterizations.

You have much to learn about how to persuade people. Do you really beleive that you can beat people into submission by telling them how dumb they are and how smart you are? A sure sign of a bad argument is the constant use of personal put downs, your stock in trade.


I am not convinced your education level in evolution makes you qualified to make that statement.

I actually have a degree in Political Science and know quite a bit about Dialectical materialism
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 01:10:52 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,608



« Reply #2780 on: February 18, 2011, 01:15:51 PM »


One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.  It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.  And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).

By the way, Ortho_cat made a compelling argument for evolution in this thread. And what happens with a compelling argument by those who do not believe in evolution - ignore it.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2781 on: February 18, 2011, 01:31:53 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?

absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
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.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2782 on: February 18, 2011, 02:17:11 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?

absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?

no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2783 on: February 18, 2011, 02:19:00 PM »

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.

Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.

I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/



i dont expect the Fathers to be masters of evolution, they are masters of the Scriptures. so to continually deride them based on secular science has no bearing on anything im saying. if thats the angle you want to stick with, then im not sure there's anything to dialogue with me about.

Then why are you using your computer? Ignoring entire swaths of science for sake of ideological preservation isn't going to magically make it all go away. In fact it's entire disingenuous and show's how weak you position is. The Fathers aren't even in the Grade school level of understanding evolution. And scriptures don't address it at all, which probably explains their level of intelligence when it comes to evolution, biochemical cycles and processes ect. People in the biblical era had no conceptual clue as to what evolution was. It's probably why they thought bats were birds. They knew nothing of genetics, dna, rna, tna, biochemistry, entropy, ect in the level we know it today.


eeeh why would i not use my computer? do i have to believe that im the 12th cousin of an ape to accept computer technology?

ever think that they didnt define birds the same way we do? i mean, eh, it was thousands of years ago ....

i didnt say the Fathers knew anything about evolution. they know about Scripture, they know about God. and evolution is incompatible with what they know.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2784 on: February 18, 2011, 02:34:38 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?

absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?

no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.

Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2785 on: February 18, 2011, 04:29:41 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?

absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?

no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.

Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.

well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 04:33:49 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2786 on: February 18, 2011, 04:54:39 PM »

Over time we my have to see a christian view that encompasses the prevailing views of science.
I don't even understand why this should happen over time.  Right now, the christian view should encompass the prevailing views of science. 
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #2787 on: February 18, 2011, 10:57:07 PM »

and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?

absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?

no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.

Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.

well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.

This is the main stream view within a platonic philosophy. Now what if Adam inherited his nature from evolution and god created the person of Adam. How would that change things?
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.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2788 on: February 19, 2011, 12:16:18 AM »


Quote
One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.

abiogenisis is not a religion lol.. And the information I provided was for educational purposes for people that are entirely ignorant of the subject. Sounds like you are making up excuses to simply ignore it lol.




Quote
 It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.


incorrect


Quote
 And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).

Actually it's not because that argument is assuming Earth to be as it is today lol. Earth was a very much different place when life began that it is today. Life is unlikely to restart here when an already existing ecological system has been established.. it would simply end up as food. And in the RNA world they have already shown how life can synthesize on it's own from inorganic materials. Creationists just try to use the odds game as if it were to be impossible for it to happen naturally.. That's the fundamental logical fail Creationists use. Btw.. I provided links that touch on that subject.

You want to ignore what evolution is, or what abiogenisis is and the information available on those subjects, that is your problem. "_

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2789 on: February 19, 2011, 01:01:46 AM »

Quote
One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.

Abiogenisis is not a religion lol. You might want to define the term religion before you use it. And the information I provided was for educational purposes for people that are entirely ignorant of the subject. Sounds like you are making up excuses to simply ignore it lol. It's not at all a problem with my post.

Quote
It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.


That is more than enough time for life to form. And really, there is not defined amount of time that would require. It's not hard to imagine at all. This tells me you didn't really watch and listen to the lectures provided, or really understand the info provided to you.

Such as:

The Low molecular weight liquid hydrocarbons from various sources, would have formed an oil layer covering the primeval ocean (present already 4.0–4.4 × 109 yr ago), preventing water from evaporating into the atmosphere. Water from other sources, precipitated by cold traps at higher altitude in the atmosphere, becomes trapped in the ocean. In a thereby more dry and presumably reducing atmosphere (before 3.9 × 109 yr ago) even more hydrocarbons, as well as reactive molecules will form. An oil layer can possibly act as a dry solvent for reactions, where the reactive molecules can produce monomers and condensing agents. Monomers and eventual polymers formed could become strongly concentrated at the oil-water interface, favoring molecular interactions at high mobility and low dilution, without exposure to the destructive action of UV-light even though Volcanic Haze would be sufficient enough for UV-light protection. Increased water leakiness of the oil layer due to accumulation of polar molecules within, would lead to photo-oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons, and subsequent emulsification at the oil-water interface, forming cellular structures. The atmosphere would then have lost its reducing character. Not only this, volcano's make up the majority of the amino acids required for life on early Earth.

Also found to be true here:

* NASA - Oil-Seeps:
* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:
* Volcanoes produced much of the world's oil:
* Amino acids, oil / water:
* NASA: Life origins - Volcanic amino acids:
* Patroleum Origin

RNA:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm (no human intervention)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/


Quote
And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).

Actually it's not because because the rate of synthesis vs degradation is not bound to erroneous assumptions.. It's no different than why the Dilema posted above is erroneous. It's actually not really a problem for the RNA world. RNA can also act like an enzyme which is a major player(vital actually?) in protein synthesis. RNA molecules have already been shown capable of duplicating themselves.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 01:06:09 AM by TheJackel » 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 »   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 0.238 seconds with 75 queries.