OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 08:04:00 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 (38.3%)
both metaphorically and literally - 155 (46%)
Total Voters: 337

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 318874 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2790 on: February 19, 2011, 01:12:37 AM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,307


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2791 on: February 19, 2011, 09:20:58 AM »

I have a question. If we evolved from apes, and there was no God, would our species even last as long as it had?

I mean with no guidance we'd probably killed each other off no?
Acts of compassion are pretty common in the animal world:

Quote
Examples of animal altruism abound. Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels and ducks. Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe. Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill. Velvet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
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 #2792 on: February 19, 2011, 12:50:39 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?

if Adam is a product of evolution then that still means there was death in creation before the sin of man, which makes death a creation of God, and since all that God creates is good, death would then have to be good. But Scripture teaches that God did not create death, nor does He desire the death of anything living (Wisdom of Solomon 1,2), and Christ hung dead upon the Cross specifically for the purpose of defeating death, which is the enemy of all creation. Orthodoxy teaches that the fall of man was a cosmic event, and that the restoration of man is therefore also a cosmic event - death entered creation through the sin of man, it is not a creation of God. if God created death and declared it to be good then we would have to really wonder why the heck He later decided to declare death to be our enemy and then defeat it? why are Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time if death and the place for the dead were actually good creations of God that He intended for His creation? God created us to call us, and with us all of creation, into His life. Death is a temporary kink in that plan brought on by man.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2793 on: February 19, 2011, 12:52:06 PM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

biochemistry and genetics show you how things work now. they dont in any way tell you how mankind began. that is a huge assumption.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,426



« Reply #2794 on: February 19, 2011, 06:11:28 PM »

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.



I do not know how to break up quotes, so this will reply follows the order of your statements. What I was trying to express, and I thought it was obvious, is that an "absolute" belief and faith in abiogenesis occurring on earth without any established scientific evidence for the precise mechanisms by which it was achieved is little different from the belief in God.

Yes it is possible to imagine that life can arise in a relatively short period of time if one ignores the details.

I skimmed through the videos, it only took me a few seconds to know what the speakers were talking about as I skimmed since I have read quite a few of their papers in the past and also recognized the concepts they were in the middle of explaining. What got me pissed off was the dearth information on abiogenesis which you led me to believe this lecture would be about.

Thank you for citing news-type article about a Michael Yarus paper. You might read this short article by Michael Yarus to get an inkling of the complexities of abiogenesis:
"Getting Past the RNA World: The Initial Darwinian Ancestor"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20719875
This symposium wasn't online the last time I checked a couple of months ago and I haven't had the opportunity to go through all of the papers yet.

To get a further grasp about the complexity/diversity of the issues/possibilities, read this Review:
"RNA: Prebiotic Product, or Biotic Invention?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443885

I didn't understand your statement about erroneous assumptions.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,095


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #2795 on: February 19, 2011, 10:53:11 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.

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?

if Adam is a product of evolution then that still means there was death in creation before the sin of man, which makes death a creation of God, and since all that God creates is good, death would then have to be good. But Scripture teaches that God did not create death, nor does He desire the death of anything living (Wisdom of Solomon 1,2), and Christ hung dead upon the Cross specifically for the purpose of defeating death, which is the enemy of all creation. Orthodoxy teaches that the fall of man was a cosmic event, and that the restoration of man is therefore also a cosmic event - death entered creation through the sin of man, it is not a creation of God. if God created death and declared it to be good then we would have to really wonder why the heck He later decided to declare death to be our enemy and then defeat it? why are Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time if death and the place for the dead were actually good creations of God that He intended for His creation? God created us to call us, and with us all of creation, into His life. Death is a temporary kink in that plan brought on by man.

Well said.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2796 on: February 20, 2011, 02:03:34 AM »

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?

if Adam is a product of evolution then that still means there was death in creation before the sin of man, which makes death a creation of God, and since all that God creates is good, death would then have to be good. But Scripture teaches that God did not create death, nor does He desire the death of anything living (Wisdom of Solomon 1,2), and Christ hung dead upon the Cross specifically for the purpose of defeating death, which is the enemy of all creation. Orthodoxy teaches that the fall of man was a cosmic event, and that the restoration of man is therefore also a cosmic event - death entered creation through the sin of man, it is not a creation of God. if God created death and declared it to be good then we would have to really wonder why the heck He later decided to declare death to be our enemy and then defeat it? why are Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time if death and the place for the dead were actually good creations of God that He intended for His creation? God created us to call us, and with us all of creation, into His life. Death is a temporary kink in that plan brought on by man.

Well said.


Selam

I would have to say that the ultimate fail in the GOD didn't create death comes from the claim of a GOD being Omniscient Wink It would have known every "supposed" sin to which could exist before it would have existed. It's like blaming the beasts of your creation for the wrongs it supposedly commits while knowing every wrong it would commit before it was ever created in infinite detail.. Puppet show anyone?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2797 on: February 20, 2011, 02:32:35 AM »

Quote
I didn't understand your statement about erroneous assumptions.

Erroneous assumptions have to do with people specifying a time frame limits on evolution. :/

And yes, they are looking for RNA precursors, or first replicators when it comes to abiogenisis. (something simpler.) Hard to do though.. Especially since we are in an already well established ecological system, and one that has changes so drastically since Early Earth's days when life didn't yet exist on Earth. It's not as easy to solve such a thing by reverse investigation.. And 150 years has brought us to the point of synthetic life. And no, abiogenesis hasn't been completely solved yet, there are a lot of areas in that to which require a lot more research to do. The links on abiogenesis where to give you some insight into the field. There is a lot to learn yet, but I doubt it will take another 150 years in the field to figure it out. Wink And I don't have 6 + years here to provide you with a "Dearth" amount of data on abiogenesis. That is something you would have to go into the field for. I more specifically deal with evolution, information theory, and how chaotic systems lead to complex. Those are the things I am currently in school for Smiley

Anyways this is a pretty good basic video when dealing with the basics of RNA and Abiogenesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

I posted some information here dealing with deep sea vents and volcanic amino acids, and amino acids dealing with water and oil. But keep in mind that in abiogenesis, the exact sequence of events are unknown to which lead to life..(but this doesn't mean we don't know of possible sequence of events).. We only need to prove it can happen. Smiley
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:00:56 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2798 on: February 20, 2011, 03:15:46 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w&feature=related
http://exploringorigins.org/

these are good too for simplicity of explanation.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:25:12 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #2799 on: February 20, 2011, 04:25:27 AM »

So the painting doesn't need a painter just because the paints themselves are chemicals? Uhh sorry but for there to actually be a painting the artist must put into motion the paints to create the artwork. That's a horrible rebuttal to the likes of Kirk Cameron.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2800 on: February 20, 2011, 04:43:03 AM »

So the painting doesn't need a painter just because the paints themselves are chemicals? Uhh sorry but for there to actually be a painting the artist must put into motion the paints to create the artwork. That's a horrible rebuttal to the likes of Kirk Cameron.

Uhh did you even watch that video? Your response here tells me that you are entirely clueless as to what they said..And considering Kirk Cameran's argument,  GOD exists but since GOD exists that GOD couldn't Exist without a GOD! Oh wait..They don't want to apply that circular logic to themselves.. However this has to do with the painting can't replicate itself or paint itself because it can't. It's chemical properties as is can not replicate itself.  It's not the same when dealing with self-replicating molecules such as RNA. BTW Energy itself is self-oscillating. AKA no deity required.. Do try harder..




« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:46:33 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2801 on: February 20, 2011, 12:53:37 PM »


fyi, we're supposed to give a brief description of the links we post (i.e. naked links aren't allowed)
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,426



« Reply #2802 on: February 20, 2011, 09:01:23 PM »

Quote
I didn't understand your statement about erroneous assumptions.

Erroneous assumptions have to do with people specifying a time frame limits on evolution. :/

And yes, they are looking for RNA precursors, or first replicators when it comes to abiogenisis. (something simpler.) Hard to do though.. Especially since we are in an already well established ecological system, and one that has changes so drastically since Early Earth's days when life didn't yet exist on Earth. It's not as easy to solve such a thing by reverse investigation.. And 150 years has brought us to the point of synthetic life. And no, abiogenesis hasn't been completely solved yet, there are a lot of areas in that to which require a lot more research to do. The links on abiogenesis where to give you some insight into the field. There is a lot to learn yet, but I doubt it will take another 150 years in the field to figure it out. Wink And I don't have 6 + years here to provide you with a "Dearth" amount of data on abiogenesis. That is something you would have to go into the field for. I more specifically deal with evolution, information theory, and how chaotic systems lead to complex. Those are the things I am currently in school for Smiley

Anyways this is a pretty good basic video when dealing with the basics of RNA and Abiogenesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

I posted some information here dealing with deep sea vents and volcanic amino acids, and amino acids dealing with water and oil. But keep in mind that in abiogenesis, the exact sequence of events are unknown to which lead to life..(but this doesn't mean we don't know of possible sequence of events).. We only need to prove it can happen. Smiley

Hi Jackel,
Again, sorry for not being knowledgeable enough to quote specific passages of what you wrote.Your reply is reasoned. In regard to what I do not know, you only need to cover the last five years of research in the field (that is when I stopped perusing the Springer journal "Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres". I did read "Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801553, in pre-publication form because I personally know the principal investigator (see the Yarus article cited above for its significance), so you needn't cover that. {yes it is a joke, I really do not need to be informed about the field since I am interested in it} 

I did quickly look at your link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo, but as a scientist you would naturally first think of what is wrong with it. You tend to present your self as a non critical thinker in this thread (I do not read your other posts since the style of writing reminds me of purposeful obscurity in the writings of Michel Foucault (and other structuralists: it is ponderous for no purpose). This is what I saw/thought as I watched the youtube video. There was a nice cartoon of replicating RNA (well done by the way). My thoughts were how does a dsRNA melt so that it can be replicated again. The Tm (melting temperature) of dsRNA is much higher than dsDNA (in water, no salts, up to 110 degC depending on the GC content. Early on this is not a problem because of the fidelity of replication is low, but it becomes a problem later on. How does one melt dsRNA without an ATPase motor driven helicase? Could one screen for a SELEX-derived ribozyme capable of doing this without some simple strand displacement mechanism (based on complementarity which would not be universally relevant)?  I have some ideas on this based on a sequential selective screen prior to amplification. I guess my main point is that if you are going to be a successful scientist, you first thoughts have to start with what is wrong with what is being presented to you, what are the possible experiments that might resolve the problem(s), what is likely best approach in terms of success, current personnel, time frame, cost, and  how to convince funding agencies that it is important.

Hopefully your idealistic frame of mind (and there is nothing wrong with that at this stage) will mature as you proceed into a career in science.

I was wrong in thinking the Yarus article was from the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Evolution, it is from a yet to be published Cold Spring Harbor book titled RNA Worlds. Here is a short quote from Gerald Joyce (a preeminent researcher in the field) from the same book (The Origins of the RNA World; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20739415) which more closely reflects the spirit of the thoughts I was trying to impart:

Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox

The previous discussion has tried mightily to present the most optimistic view possible for the emergence of an RNA replicase ribozyme from a soup of random-sequence polynucleotides. It must be admitted, however, that this model does not appear to be very plausible. The discussion has focused on a straw man: The myth of a small RNA molecule that arises de novo and can replicate efficiently and with high fidelity under plausible prebiotic conditions. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of current understanding of prebiotic chemistry (Joyce 2002), but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and
polynucleotide phosphorylase! If one accepts the notion of an RNA World, one is faced with the dilemma of how such a genetic system came into existence. To say that the RNA World hypothesis “solves the paradox of the chicken-and-the-egg” is correct if one means that RNA can function both as a genetic molecule and as a catalyst that promotes its own replication. RNA catalyzed RNA replication provides a chemical basis for Darwinian evolution  based on natural selection. Darwinian evolution is a powerful way to search among vast numbers of potential solutions for those that best address a
particular problem. Selection based on inefficient RNA replication, for example, could be used to search among a population of RNA molecules for those individuals that promote improved RNA replication. But here one encounters another chicken-and-egg paradox: Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.


I am pretty sure, however, any principal investigator would love to have a postdoc that can make cogent arguments against anything they have written (I certainly would).

Best of luck.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #2803 on: February 20, 2011, 09:14:43 PM »

So the painting doesn't need a painter just because the paints themselves are chemicals? Uhh sorry but for there to actually be a painting the artist must put into motion the paints to create the artwork. That's a horrible rebuttal to the likes of Kirk Cameron.

Uhh did you even watch that video? Your response here tells me that you are entirely clueless as to what they said..And considering Kirk Cameran's argument,  GOD exists but since GOD exists that GOD couldn't Exist without a GOD! Oh wait..They don't want to apply that circular logic to themselves.. However this has to do with the painting can't replicate itself or paint itself because it can't. It's chemical properties as is can not replicate itself.  It's not the same when dealing with self-replicating molecules such as RNA. BTW Energy itself is self-oscillating. AKA no deity required.. Do try harder..

I really don't care about Kirk Cameron's argument, but as soon as the guy in the video gave that awful rebuttal I couldn't watch it anymore. It was a joke. And you completely missed what I said about the paints making the painting...
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #2804 on: February 22, 2011, 04:46:31 AM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #2805 on: February 22, 2011, 07:11:15 AM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)
Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2806 on: February 22, 2011, 09:50:12 AM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)
Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2807 on: February 22, 2011, 09:51:00 AM »

whoops
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 09:51:53 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2808 on: February 22, 2011, 09:51:19 AM »

double whoops
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 09:52:13 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2809 on: February 22, 2011, 11:28:31 AM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2810 on: February 22, 2011, 11:35:17 AM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

We receive energy from the sun.  So the earth is an open system in terms of energy, and thus it's possible for life to evolve and grow.

If you have to argue the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, it also disproves that you are actually born, grow, reproduce, etc.  But since we don't live in an closed system in terms of energy, we then are able to add more energy into the system to avoid entropy.  We will always break down naturally unless we add something into us to keep us together, and if there's surplus, to build more of us.  If you have no food, you will die.  All living things will die.  (biological translation of the second law).  To avoid death at the moment, we need energy, in the form of nutrients, but we still live in a body that is prone to death, just as we live in a nature prone to entropy.

All one needs to do is research, to show that gene duplication, mutations, etc. all don't lead to what we have, but in fact, the research has been done, and it showed that there exists gene duplications and gradual mutations of these duplications do sometimes lead to very different products in living systems.  So we know for a fact, duplications and mutations of these duplications occur in nature.  Humanity is mutated all the time.  Most of the mutations in the human genome occur in "silent" DNA, which makes sense because most of our DNA is "silent."
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 11:54:32 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2811 on: February 22, 2011, 12:26:51 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #2812 on: February 22, 2011, 12:52:57 PM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)
Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

I do not propose any alternative scientific theory to explain the origin of species. Creationism is simply the acknowledgment that science cannot reveal to us the mechanism by which the present order in the Universe was created. Evolutionism would suffice as a theory, provided we could observe natural systems spontaneously increase in organization and informational complexity. We do not observe such increase, however, but only gradual decrease in complexity and organization. Therefore, evolutionary theory contradicts the known laws of physics, as well as the Word of God.

We don't HAVE to have a theory for everything. On the contrary, we have to be prepared to acknowledge the limits of what we can discover about the universe and its origins.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2813 on: February 22, 2011, 01:09:01 PM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)
Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

I do not propose any alternative scientific theory to explain the origin of species. Creationism is simply the acknowledgment that science cannot reveal to us the mechanism by which the present order in the Universe was created. Evolutionism would suffice as a theory, provided we could observe natural systems spontaneously increase in organization and informational complexity. We do not observe such increase, however, but only gradual decrease in complexity and organization. Therefore, evolutionary theory contradicts the known laws of physics, as well as the Word of God.

We don't HAVE to have a theory for everything. On the contrary, we have to be prepared to acknowledge the limits of what we can discover about the universe and its origins.

booyah! great post!
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #2814 on: February 22, 2011, 01:12:00 PM »

Quote
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.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

We receive energy from the sun.  So the earth is an open system in terms of energy, and thus it's possible for life to evolve and grow.

If you have to argue the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, it also disproves that you are actually born, grow, reproduce, etc.  But since we don't live in an closed system in terms of energy, we then are able to add more energy into the system to avoid entropy.  We will always break down naturally unless we add something into us to keep us together, and if there's surplus, to build more of us.  If you have no food, you will die.  All living things will die.  (biological translation of the second law).  To avoid death at the moment, we need energy, in the form of nutrients, but we still live in a body that is prone to death, just as we live in a nature prone to entropy.

All one needs to do is research, to show that gene duplication, mutations, etc. all don't lead to what we have, but in fact, the research has been done, and it showed that there exists gene duplications and gradual mutations of these duplications do sometimes lead to very different products in living systems.  So we know for a fact, duplications and mutations of these duplications occur in nature.  Humanity is mutated all the time.  Most of the mutations in the human genome occur in "silent" DNA, which makes sense because most of our DNA is "silent."

Actually, an open system is not sufficient for spontaneous increase in organizational complexity. You also need a program to direct the increase in complexity, and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Living organisms already have the energy conversion mechanisms in place, so they can take advantage of the sun's energy to grow and reproduce. Non-living things do not have such a mechanism, and therefore we do not observe them growing and reproducing.

Gene duplication and mutations occur, but none of them result in the addition of new information to the biocosm (the sum of all genetic information in the world). Observed changes involve either re-arrangement of the genetic information already present, or else the loss of such information. This includes the "evolution" of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which takes place either by lateral transfer of genes (re-arrangement), or else some kind of degradation of the genes that happens to be beneficial in that environment, such as loss of some structural feature that the antibiotic must attach to in order to work. In other words, change does occur, but not the kind of change needed for Darwinian theory to work.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2815 on: February 22, 2011, 02:41:23 PM »

i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ...

Well, you probably don't, for the moment. At least until you need to benefit from it (antibiotics anyone?)
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2816 on: February 22, 2011, 02:42:10 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.  I'm talking about science here.  We've already addressed patristics, and we'll agree to disagree, but if you have something scientific to add, then by all means, I'd be most edified.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 02:43:00 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2817 on: February 22, 2011, 02:54:00 PM »

Actually, an open system is not sufficient for spontaneous increase in organizational complexity. You also need a program to direct the increase in complexity, and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Living organisms already have the energy conversion mechanisms in place, so they can take advantage of the sun's energy to grow and reproduce. Non-living things do not have such a mechanism, and therefore we do not observe them growing and reproducing.

Gene duplication and mutations occur, but none of them result in the addition of new information to the biocosm (the sum of all genetic information in the world). Observed changes involve either re-arrangement of the genetic information already present, or else the loss of such information. This includes the "evolution" of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which takes place either by lateral transfer of genes (re-arrangement), or else some kind of degradation of the genes that happens to be beneficial in that environment, such as loss of some structural feature that the antibiotic must attach to in order to work. In other words, change does occur, but not the kind of change needed for Darwinian theory to work.

Why do you continually argue against abiogenesis?  You haven't disproved evolution at all here.  But just to entertain the idea I bolded from you, non-living things do change over time.  Rocks change (albeit very slowly).  They do however change very quickly if the environment around it is unforgiving.  When chemicals work together in harmony, things start to change and happen, and change and chemistry is the central idea of life.  If you take biochemistry, you understand that the basis of our life throughout all our body is all simply and basic chemistry.

And yes, it has been observed that duplication and mutations have occurred to lead to the information we have now.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-does-evolution-cause-increases-genetic-information-required-go-single-celled-life-complex-an

John Ross isn't wrong.  Nothing escapes entropy, overall.  But because sunlight is thrown at us (or any other things thrown at us), we avoid entropy.

Forget about evolution right now.  How does growth, life, and reproduction occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 02:58:42 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.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2818 on: February 22, 2011, 02:56:37 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2819 on: February 22, 2011, 03:02:09 PM »

i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ...

Well, you probably don't, for the moment. At least until you need to benefit from it (antibiotics anyone?)

why would i need to scientifically understand origins from billions of years ago in order to fight sicknesses today? observations about today's world and the recent past would do just fine. a scientist who rejects the idea that his grandfather is ape-like could still do work with antiobiotics, it really wouldnt hinder him in the least.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2820 on: February 22, 2011, 03:03:01 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.  I'm talking about science here.  We've already addressed patristics, and we'll agree to disagree, but if you have something scientific to add, then by all means, I'd be most edified.

well if you have any Fathers to add, please do so so we can have real edification. ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2821 on: February 22, 2011, 03:10:22 PM »

i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ...

Well, you probably don't, for the moment. At least until you need to benefit from it (antibiotics anyone?)

why would i need to scientifically understand origins from billions of years ago in order to fight sicknesses today? observations about today's world and the recent past would do just fine. a scientist who rejects the idea that his grandfather is ape-like could still do work with antiobiotics, it really wouldnt hinder him in the least.

So you acknowledge that some creatures follow the laws of nature, but some (humans) do not?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2822 on: February 22, 2011, 03:11:13 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?
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.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2823 on: February 22, 2011, 03:12:02 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.  I'm talking about science here.  We've already addressed patristics, and we'll agree to disagree, but if you have something scientific to add, then by all means, I'd be most edified.

well if you have any Fathers to add, please do so so we can have real edification. ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

Nor should it. But it's discovery may help you to be able to practice these virtues longer by extending your life (or of those whom you love).
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2824 on: February 22, 2011, 03:12:40 PM »

ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

Thank you for that.  This will remind me how futile (and stupid) your replies are.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 03:13:10 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #2825 on: February 22, 2011, 03:31:46 PM »

Actually, an open system is not sufficient for spontaneous increase in organizational complexity. You also need a program to direct the increase in complexity, and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Living organisms already have the energy conversion mechanisms in place, so they can take advantage of the sun's energy to grow and reproduce. Non-living things do not have such a mechanism, and therefore we do not observe them growing and reproducing.

Gene duplication and mutations occur, but none of them result in the addition of new information to the biocosm (the sum of all genetic information in the world). Observed changes involve either re-arrangement of the genetic information already present, or else the loss of such information. This includes the "evolution" of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which takes place either by lateral transfer of genes (re-arrangement), or else some kind of degradation of the genes that happens to be beneficial in that environment, such as loss of some structural feature that the antibiotic must attach to in order to work. In other words, change does occur, but not the kind of change needed for Darwinian theory to work.

Why do you continually argue against abiogenesis?  You haven't disproved evolution at all here.  But just to entertain the idea I bolded from you, non-living things do change over time.  Rocks change (albeit very slowly).  They do however change very quickly if the environment around it is unforgiving.  When chemicals work together in harmony, things start to change and happen, and change and chemistry is the central idea of life.  If you take biochemistry, you understand that the basis of our life throughout all our body is all simply and basic chemistry.

And yes, it has been observed that duplication and mutations have occurred to lead to the information we have now.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-does-evolution-cause-increases-genetic-information-required-go-single-celled-life-complex-an

There are two interconnected reasons I am arguing against abiogenesis and Darwinian "macroevolution": firstly, Orthodox Christianity and Darwinism are dogmatically incompatible, meaning either one or the other may be true, but not both at the same time; secondly, Darwinian theory is not scientifically justified based on the observed laws of physics, which demonstrate an inexorable trend from order to disorder, and organized complexity to disorganized simplicity. Rather, it is justified on the basis of the extra-scientific, philosophical tenet of naturalism, which holds that everything MUST have a materialistic explanation, which is at least in principle discoverable by science. These observations of the current laws of nature entail that organized complexity is primordial, not accidental, and hence that we cannot account for the origins of this primitive order based on our current observations of natural processes. Thus, both science and revelation point to Creation, not evolution.

But the question you ask is not directly relevant to our discussion. I may as well ask you why you are so eager to defend abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. Surely it can't be justified by the need to defend your faith, since there is nothing there that requires belief in evolution, but rather much that opposes it.

No one is arguing there is no change. That would be absurd. But Darwinism requires not just any sort of change. It requires change from simplicity to complexity, aided by purely natural forces, without the intervention of an extraneous intelligence. I submit that this theory is simply not justified by the observed laws of nature and contradicts the teaching of the Church.

The genetic changes resulting from duplication and point mutation result in no net gain in information in the biocosm, as I already explained. All observed point mutations involve either a degradation of the genetic code, or a back-mutation whereby the chemical degradation is reversed under the right conditions. But no mutation has been observed whereby completely new informational complexity is added to the gene. So, it is true that where a gene duplicates, and one copy undergoes a degrading mutation while the other does not, you could express that as a local increase in information: there are two genes with two different expressions in the place of one gene with one expression. But the entire store of genetic information in the biocosm has not been increased by this degradation: proto-gene A with x information has been replaced by copy B with x information and copy C with (x - y) information.

The order of the universe either maintains itself, according to the principles of its inherent design (and, as we Orthodox believe, established by the Will of God), or else it gradually decays into disorder. This is the law of corruption, as revealed to us both by scientific observation and the Word of God.

For more information on the net degradation of the genome, consult the following article:

http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

Here is the abstract of the article:

An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information.  Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome.  This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model.  Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo.  Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here.  1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation.  Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial.  These findings support the creation origins model.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2826 on: February 22, 2011, 03:38:34 PM »



We don't HAVE to have a theory for everything. On the contrary, we have to be prepared to acknowledge the limits of what we can discover about the universe and its origins.

  Creationism is also a theory of a sort. It's nothing more than a fundamental way which gives meaning to the language used in scripture. While no christian would doubt that they are created. The term creationist seems to engulf creation into a fundamentalist account of how we were created. I believe the means of how one is created can be interpreted much differently. The language in scripture itself isn't that precise to allow for a set standard as Creationist would have us believe. The language used is opened to interpretation on many levels. An example of this is seen by our own churches focus on the eight day. That eight day is a literal day and yet it's meaning is based on a future event between the seventh and whenever the eighth occurs. When it happens it will be on a day that god deems as the eight. The day of perfection. So the church technically doesn't see creation as over yet. We are between seven and eight as it stands and the day of perfection isn't here yet. The Church doesn't take such a hard line approach and I always hate it when I see the word "creation" as having a set interpenetration based on fundamental principals. The church clearly never meant to use it that way.
 
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 03:50:10 PM by Tzimis » 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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2827 on: February 22, 2011, 03:47:12 PM »

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 03:51:19 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.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2828 on: February 22, 2011, 03:57:05 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?

The contemplation of nature has always been regarded in the Church as an indirect contemplation of God. Such contemplation is, of course, guided by scripture and other revelation. Perhaps that doesn't count as "science" to you but it's the only science that really matters in Orthodoxy.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #2829 on: February 22, 2011, 04:13:44 PM »

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

I am also defending science and the principles of science, which is why I oppose the unscientific theory of the evolution of all species. The mechanisms of mutation and evolution that we observe are simply not consistent with the kinds of mutations and evolutionary pathways required by Darwinism. Take the mechanism of mutation and selection employed by our bodies' immune systems to fight infection: amazingly, the lymphocytes are designed to allow a highly restricted kind of hypermutation, so that the cells can adapt quickly to fight the invading organisms. But this hypermutation, involving a far higher rate of mutation than needed for Darwinian macroevolution (and in fact it would probably be too high, given the even higher rate of deleterious mutations predicted), is permitted only at one location on the genome, reflecting the very specific function of this kind of mutation in our immune system.

For more details, consult the Spetner article I linked to above, and scroll down to "Mutations in the Immune System". I expect in fact that you are already familiar with much of this, being a student of medicine, but perhaps you haven't yet realized the implications of these facts for evolutionism.

So mutation and selection are important in medical science, and you can call that evolution if you want, but it is obviously quite a different thing from the evolution talked about by evolutionary biologists. Observed mutation and selection is clearly part of a larger design inherent in organisms to adapt to new environments, but it does not allow for any spontaneous improvement in the overall design.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,423


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


WWW
« Reply #2830 on: February 22, 2011, 04:28:53 PM »

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

Quote
However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 04:29:30 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.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #2831 on: February 22, 2011, 05:03:42 PM »

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

Quote
However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.

Forgive me if I couldn't grasp the technical arguments of those abstracts you linked to, but I got the distinct impression that the researchers were comparing the genes of distinct species, ASSUMED that the species were genetically related, and then used the comparatively higher complexity of some species to argue for spontaneous increase in complexity. Take the following from the article by JB Peng:

Quote
There is only one TRPV6-like gene in fish and birds in comparison to both TRPV5 and TRPV6 genes in mammals, indicating TRPV5 gene was likely generated from duplication of TRPV6 gene during the evolution of mammals to meet the needs of complex renal function.

The duplication in this case is a conjecture, not an observed fact. I'm interested in observed facts.

Other articles suggested the researchers were studying the functional type of mutation and adaptation that is part of the inherent design of immune systems that I mentioned earlier. The information increases that occur do not result in the evolution of new traits in daughters, but are specific to the function of adapting the defensive mechanism to sequences of new invading organisms.

Before continuing this discussion, will you please read the articles I linked to, so that you may understand better the evidence on which I'm basing my arguments?

Obviously you are not an atheist, although earlier in this thread you have made atheistic statements, such as "Religion has no place in science". Our faith is meant to be all-encompassing, and it is contradictory to claim to devote our whole lives to Christ, but then exclude Him from consideration in our professional research.

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2832 on: February 22, 2011, 05:07:45 PM »


And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2833 on: February 22, 2011, 05:09:57 PM »

ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

Thank you for that.  This will remind me how futile (and stupid) your replies are.

God bless you too.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 05:19:48 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2834 on: February 22, 2011, 05:21:19 PM »

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?

The contemplation of nature has always been regarded in the Church as an indirect contemplation of God. Such contemplation is, of course, guided by scripture and other revelation. Perhaps that doesn't count as "science" to you but it's the only science that really matters in Orthodoxy.

yes, the attitude on this thread makes St. Maximus and his predecessors useless.
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 0.273 seconds with 75 queries.