OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 01:47:53 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 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

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 315668 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2835 on: February 22, 2011, 05:46:48 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.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 05:48:06 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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2836 on: February 22, 2011, 05:53:58 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, that's fine.  I'm perfectly fine with that.  I see evolution as a proof to the greatness of God, but not a proof of being God.  Since God cannot be tested by scientific means, but by means of true and honest faith and love, then the phrase "religion has no place in science" is a valid one.

One can misconstrue your arguments of pantheism.  It's time we're not careless with our words and call it like we see it.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 05:54:57 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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2837 on: February 22, 2011, 06:13:03 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.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.

This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2838 on: February 22, 2011, 06:13:59 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.



Yes, really.
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2839 on: February 22, 2011, 06:15:03 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.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.

This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't disagree with you, but that's not science.  If you flaunt this around as science, then there's no point in this discussion anymore.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 06:16:00 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.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2840 on: February 22, 2011, 06:22:58 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.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.

This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't disagree with you, but that's not science.  If you flaunt this around as science, then there's no point in this discussion anymore.

Science is the study of the "things that are made". I have just shown that the "things that are made" cannot account for their own making, so any scientific theory about their origins is impossible. Theories about the things themselves, and how they are observed to behave, is another matter, one that is within the realm of science.

Exactly how does this relate to our discussion?
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2841 on: February 22, 2011, 06:28:05 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.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.

This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't disagree with you, but that's not science.  If you flaunt this around as science, then there's no point in this discussion anymore.

Science is the study of the "things that are made". I have just shown that the "things that are made" cannot account for their own making, so any scientific theory about their origins is impossible.

On an overall scale, creation doesn't originate itself, but instead is reformed into other forms of creation.  So in any case, your statement is not contradicted here, and neither does it contradict the science of evolution.

Quote
Theories about the things themselves, and how they are observed to behave, is another matter, one that is within the realm of science.

Good.  So, pretty much, whatever materials in creation there is, these materials have been used to create us.  Correct?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 06:28:31 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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2842 on: February 22, 2011, 08:11:24 PM »


On an overall scale, creation doesn't originate itself, but instead is reformed into other forms of creation.  So in any case, your statement is not contradicted here, and neither does it contradict the science of evolution.

Yes, creation is changing. As the pagan philosopher Heraclitus observed, all things are in flux. However, the fact of change does not justify the belief of Heraclitus and his modern followers, that change accounts for the existence of all things. This is because the change we observe proceeds in one direction, from order to disorder, indicating that order is the original state of things.


Good.  So, pretty much, whatever materials in creation there is, these materials have been used to create us.  Correct?

Certainly the evidence points that way. Firstly, Scripture tells us that God formed us out of clay. And the chemical elements we are made of do seem to be common to other substances. What does this have to do with the law of entropy, which is the primary evidence that the natural order is the product of deliberate creation, rather than spontaneous generation?
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #2843 on: February 22, 2011, 08:48:18 PM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 08:49:32 PM by CBGardner » Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2844 on: February 22, 2011, 09:06:51 PM »


On an overall scale, creation doesn't originate itself, but instead is reformed into other forms of creation.  So in any case, your statement is not contradicted here, and neither does it contradict the science of evolution.

Yes, creation is changing. As the pagan philosopher Heraclitus observed, all things are in flux. However, the fact of change does not justify the belief of Heraclitus and his modern followers, that change accounts for the existence of all things. This is because the change we observe proceeds in one direction, from order to disorder, indicating that order is the original state of things.

How does one prevent, or at the very least slow down disorder?

Quote

Good.  So, pretty much, whatever materials in creation there is, these materials have been used to create us.  Correct?

Certainly the evidence points that way. Firstly, Scripture tells us that God formed us out of clay. And the chemical elements we are made of do seem to be common to other substances. What does this have to do with the law of entropy, which is the primary evidence that the natural order is the product of deliberate creation, rather than spontaneous generation?

Nature is the substrate and the product of creation, and their interactions with each other is not spontaneous but governed by the laws of nature that exists in physics, chemistry, and biology.
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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2845 on: February 22, 2011, 09:46:17 PM »


On an overall scale, creation doesn't originate itself, but instead is reformed into other forms of creation.  So in any case, your statement is not contradicted here, and neither does it contradict the science of evolution.

Yes, creation is changing. As the pagan philosopher Heraclitus observed, all things are in flux. However, the fact of change does not justify the belief of Heraclitus and his modern followers, that change accounts for the existence of all things. This is because the change we observe proceeds in one direction, from order to disorder, indicating that order is the original state of things.

How does one prevent, or at the very least slow down disorder?

Good question. The answer depends on what you are studying, but with life, the mechanisms that act against entropy are the energy conservation mechanisms whereby living organisms sustain life in the face of the implacable forces of entropy that act to destroy life, and the genetic code, combined with the mechanism of reproduction, whereby the program for producing life is preserved beyond the death of the organism.


Good.  So, pretty much, whatever materials in creation there is, these materials have been used to create us.  Correct?

Certainly the evidence points that way. Firstly, Scripture tells us that God formed us out of clay. And the chemical elements we are made of do seem to be common to other substances. What does this have to do with the law of entropy, which is the primary evidence that the natural order is the product of deliberate creation, rather than spontaneous generation?

Nature is the substrate and the product of creation, and their interactions with each other is not spontaneous but governed by the laws of nature that exists in physics, chemistry, and biology.

Correct. And these laws tell us that order, or to be more precise, organized complexity, does not arise spontaneously in the natural course of events.
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2846 on: February 22, 2011, 10:21:17 PM »

Good question. The answer depends on what you are studying, but with life, the mechanisms that act against entropy are the energy conservation mechanisms whereby living organisms sustain life in the face of the implacable forces of entropy that act to destroy life, and the genetic code, combined with the mechanism of reproduction, whereby the program for producing life is preserved beyond the death of the organism.

What mechanism is that?  Do you mean that energy is added to the system to maintain life and reproduction?
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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2847 on: February 22, 2011, 10:53:09 PM »

Good question. The answer depends on what you are studying, but with life, the mechanisms that act against entropy are the energy conservation mechanisms whereby living organisms sustain life in the face of the implacable forces of entropy that act to destroy life, and the genetic code, combined with the mechanism of reproduction, whereby the program for producing life is preserved beyond the death of the organism.

What mechanism is that?  Do you mean that energy is added to the system to maintain life and reproduction?

I mean that there is a mechanism by which the energy may be conserved and converted into useful work, i.e. maintenance of life. You could say that, in physical terms, life is a system of high organized complexity, and it is only by the energy conservation and conversion mechanisms that this system is maintained in the face of the entropic forces that reduce complexity.

I suspect you are trying to insinuate that simply pouring a bunch of energy into inanimate, disorganized matter is going to make it spontaneously gain complexity and result in life. But energy alone does not have this effect; there has to be a previously designed mechanism for conserving and converting the energy for the relevant work of gaining complexity, and a program for directing the energy towards that end.

Perhaps the laws of physics were different billions of years ago. Perhaps in those days inanimate matter did possess some mysterious inherent tendency to combine into ever more complex systems, provided only a little sunlight was added to the mixture. But, tell me, at what point in history did the laws of physics change?
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2848 on: February 22, 2011, 11:28:51 PM »

Good question. The answer depends on what you are studying, but with life, the mechanisms that act against entropy are the energy conservation mechanisms whereby living organisms sustain life in the face of the implacable forces of entropy that act to destroy life, and the genetic code, combined with the mechanism of reproduction, whereby the program for producing life is preserved beyond the death of the organism.

What mechanism is that?  Do you mean that energy is added to the system to maintain life and reproduction?

I mean that there is a mechanism by which the energy may be conserved and converted into useful work, i.e. maintenance of life. You could say that, in physical terms, life is a system of high organized complexity, and it is only by the energy conservation and conversion mechanisms that this system is maintained in the face of the entropic forces that reduce complexity.

Okay, how exactly is the energy conserved and converted to avoid entropy?  And how does an organism grow to avoid its own natural entropy?

Quote
I suspect you are trying to insinuate that simply pouring a bunch of energy into inanimate, disorganized matter is going to make it spontaneously gain complexity and result in life.

I thought we established that:

Nature is the substrate and the product of creation, and their interactions with each other is not spontaneous but governed by the laws of nature that exists in physics, chemistry, and biology.

Quote
But energy alone does not have this effect; there has to be a previously designed mechanism for conserving and converting the energy for the relevant work of gaining complexity, and a program for directing the energy towards that end.

Correct!  Mechanism and the program are all in the substrate, the nature of this substrate, and the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology governing how the substrate will change.

Quote
Perhaps the laws of physics were different billions of years ago.

Nope.  They're the same laws.

Quote
Perhaps in those days inanimate matter did possess some mysterious inherent tendency to combine into ever more complex systems,

So long as the system had energy put into it, and the proper substrates were combined, and the unchanging laws of nature controlling it.

Quote
provided only a little sunlight was added to the mixture. But, tell me, at what point in history did the laws of physics change?

Never said such a thing.
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 #2849 on: February 22, 2011, 11:33:45 PM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.

good post. you'll prolly get ignored or maligned though, just saying.
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2850 on: February 22, 2011, 11:41:19 PM »

How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places?

What makes you think a Christian does not see mystery and awe in other places, even in science, even in evolution?
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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2851 on: February 22, 2011, 11:41:43 PM »

I'm not sure why you are quizzing me on the exact mechanisms of energy conservation that living systems employ. When did this discussion turn into a biochemistry exam? If you will explain to me what the purpose of this line of questioning is, then maybe I will try to answer you to the best of my ability.

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by invoking this mysterious term "substrate". It sounds to me like you are promoting the same idea I had tentatively attributed to you previously: a mystifying belief in some inherent self-organizing property of inanimate matter, against all the available evidence. The only organized matter, in the sense of living matter, is generated out of previously organized, i.e. living, matter. There is no observed instance of disorganized, i.e. dead, matter self-organizing into living matter.

My question concerning changes in the laws of physics was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Apologies if the barb missed you.  Wink
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2852 on: February 22, 2011, 11:51:11 PM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make in your first paragraph. If the debate only concerned the mechanism by which the universal order, including life, came about, I think you would be right to say that this is not related to dogma and is not a matter of faith. However, I believe this issue is very important for Orthodox Christians because it touches on some important dogmas, like the dogma that God did not create death, as Solomon instructed us (Wisdom 1):

Quote
13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: 15 (For righteousness is immortal:) 16 But ungodly men with their works and words called it to them: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it.

For this and other reasons, I don't think the issue can be ignored by those, like myself, who are able to investigate the truth of things and establish what the natural order of creation can actual teach us about the Creation and the Creator. This brings me to the point you raise in your second paragraph, about the need to recognize mystery where it exists, and humble ourselves enough to accept that there are areas of knowledge where we cannot expect to find an answer through our own efforts. The origin of the world and of life, and particularly of human life, I believe falls into this category.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 11:55:23 PM by Jonathan Gress » 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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2853 on: February 22, 2011, 11:53:49 PM »

The only organized matter, in the sense of living matter, is generated out of previously organized, i.e. living, matter. There is no observed instance of disorganized, i.e. dead, matter self-organizing into living matter.

Then your beef is with abiogenesis, not evolution, a science that is not yet fully developed to achieve any real and lively discussion.  There are many theories of abiogenesis, but only one theory of evolution, which requires the formation of life out of life.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 11:57:53 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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2854 on: February 23, 2011, 12:03:31 AM »

The only organized matter, in the sense of living matter, is generated out of previously organized, i.e. living, matter. There is no observed instance of disorganized, i.e. dead, matter self-organizing into living matter.

Then your beef is with abiogenesis, not evolution, a science that is not yet fully developed to achieve any real and lively discussion.  There are many theories of abiogenesis, but only one theory of evolution.

Yes, I have a "beef" with abiogenesis, but also with evolution, at least the kind of evolution you are promoting. Hasn't it been obvious I've been arguing against both? Spontaneous increase in complexity concerns your beloved Darwinism as much as it does abiogenesis. Human beings are more complex than bacteria, so that the evolution from the latter to the former must be explained by successive stages of random, information-adding and complexity-gaining mutations. We do not see these kinds of changes in nature, nor do we expect them, because these are changes at the chemical, molecular level, where we expect the laws of entropy to apply. Whatever mutations that occur will inevitably destroy complexity, not increase it.
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2855 on: February 23, 2011, 12:11:59 AM »

The only organized matter, in the sense of living matter, is generated out of previously organized, i.e. living, matter. There is no observed instance of disorganized, i.e. dead, matter self-organizing into living matter.

Then your beef is with abiogenesis, not evolution, a science that is not yet fully developed to achieve any real and lively discussion.  There are many theories of abiogenesis, but only one theory of evolution.

Yes, I have a "beef" with abiogenesis, but also with evolution, at least the kind of evolution you are promoting. Hasn't it been obvious I've been arguing against both? Spontaneous increase in complexity concerns your beloved Darwinism as much as it does abiogenesis. Human beings are more complex than bacteria, so that the evolution from the latter to the former must be explained by successive stages of random, information-adding and complexity-gaining mutations. We do not see these kinds of changes in nature, nor do we expect them, because these are changes at the chemical, molecular level, where we expect the laws of entropy to apply. Whatever mutations that occur will inevitably destroy complexity, not increase it.

It's not spontaneous.  All life is programmed to evolve.  And despite the idea that you think these kinds of changes don't occur, the fact is that we have actually observed these changes occurring.  For instance, we have found a group of people through certain women in Africa who have a certain gene for T-Cell receptors that became mutated.  The benefit of this mutation had a great effect that they were no longer prone to HIV infection.

The point of the biochemistry lesson is to show you how much you proved evolution to be possible despite entropy.  Thus, there's really no need to waste my time reading your links.  Everyone I've talked to that seems to argue against evolution is really trying to argue against abiogenesis.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 12:12:41 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.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2856 on: February 23, 2011, 12:26:05 AM »

The only organized matter, in the sense of living matter, is generated out of previously organized, i.e. living, matter. There is no observed instance of disorganized, i.e. dead, matter self-organizing into living matter.

Then your beef is with abiogenesis, not evolution, a science that is not yet fully developed to achieve any real and lively discussion.  There are many theories of abiogenesis, but only one theory of evolution.

Yes, I have a "beef" with abiogenesis, but also with evolution, at least the kind of evolution you are promoting. Hasn't it been obvious I've been arguing against both? Spontaneous increase in complexity concerns your beloved Darwinism as much as it does abiogenesis. Human beings are more complex than bacteria, so that the evolution from the latter to the former must be explained by successive stages of random, information-adding and complexity-gaining mutations. We do not see these kinds of changes in nature, nor do we expect them, because these are changes at the chemical, molecular level, where we expect the laws of entropy to apply. Whatever mutations that occur will inevitably destroy complexity, not increase it.

It's not spontaneous.  All life is programmed to evolve.  And despite the idea that you think these kinds of changes don't occur, the fact is that we have actually observed these changes occurring.  For instance, we have found a group of people through certain women in Africa who have a certain gene for T-Cell receptors that became mutated.  The benefit of this mutation had a great effect that they were no longer prone to HIV infection.

The point of the biochemistry lesson is to show you how much you proved evolution to be possible despite entropy.  Thus, there's really no need to waste my time reading your links.  Everyone I've talked to that seems to argue against evolution is really trying to argue against abiogenesis.

A mutation may be beneficial even if it involves some actual chemical degradation. This article by Kevin Anderson explains how such degrading mutations can increase the fitness of bacteria in certain environments:

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

The point is, humans and other multi-cellular organisms are not simply "fitter" than bacteria (itself a debatable proposition), but more complex. You need mutations that increase complexity to get Darwinian evolution to work. In other words, you need entropy and the laws of physics NOT to work in order for Darwinism to work. Good luck with that!

I don't particularly care if you read those articles or not. I imagine you would suffer considerable loss of face if you had to acknowledge the rationality of creationism and the irrationality of Darwinism, and so I understand if you are reluctant to expose yourself to strong creationist arguments. But I link to these articles for the benefit of neutral readers who may be genuinely interested in finding the truth, wherever the facts lead them.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2857 on: February 23, 2011, 12:43:45 AM »

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.

While I'm not willing to defend a lot of the things that Mina has recently said, I have to say that that your statement doesn't seem to be very carefully thought out. As many people have already pointed out on this thread, virtually all of modern medicine was created on the principles of modern science. Medicine has historically been an extremely important part of Christian ministry, and medical science is certainly not based on Scriptures, patristics, et cetera. What this means is that there are things outside of the sphere of divine revelation that are very, very important to us. Science versus reveation is not a dichotomy or a dualism: science can be an important and fully valid part of Christianity.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2858 on: February 23, 2011, 12:45:59 AM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.

good post. you'll prolly get ignored or maligned though, just saying.

Why do you feel the need to poison the well?
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: 10,186


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


WWW
« Reply #2859 on: February 23, 2011, 01:00:50 AM »

The point is, humans and other multi-cellular organisms are not simply "fitter" than bacteria (itself a debatable proposition), but more complex. You need mutations that increase complexity to get Darwinian evolution to work. In other words, you need entropy and the laws of physics NOT to work in order for Darwinism to work.

But you've shown by your very own how you can avoid entropy.  Evolution is no different.  For you to talk about mechanisms of mutation and not understand the fundamentals of entropy first, the fact that you pick and choose what works and what doesn't shows how much science you don't understand (the fact that you continually argue against abiogenesis instead of evolution), and how much double standard you have.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:02:22 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 #2860 on: February 23, 2011, 01:15:38 AM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.

good post. you'll prolly get ignored or maligned though, just saying.

Why do you feel the need to poison the well?

this well has been poison since the get-go
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2861 on: February 23, 2011, 01:23:42 AM »

The point is, humans and other multi-cellular organisms are not simply "fitter" than bacteria (itself a debatable proposition), but more complex. You need mutations that increase complexity to get Darwinian evolution to work. In other words, you need entropy and the laws of physics NOT to work in order for Darwinism to work.

But you've shown by your very own how you can avoid entropy.  Evolution is no different.  For you to talk about mechanisms of mutation and not understand the fundamentals of entropy first, the fact that you pick and choose what works and what doesn't shows how much science you don't understand (the fact that you continually argue against abiogenesis instead of evolution), and how much double standard you have.

I think we have been talking at cross purposes. I certainly agree that there are inbuilt mechanisms for adapting to new environments, which do not involve entropic degradation of genetic information. But these are all part of the inherent design of organisms, and do not reflect change from one kind of organism to another. To get Darwinian evolution, you need mutations that cause fundamental alterations in the genetic code, which ALSO must introduce greater overall complexity, in order to get multi-celled organisms out of bacteria, sexually reproducing creatures out of asexual ones, and so on up the chain. These mutations are obviously not part of the inherent design of the organism. Note what Anderson says in the abstract of his article:

Quote
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change.  However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption.  Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer.  Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria.  Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution.  Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems.  While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria.  A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions.  Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

The entropy-avoiding mechanisms of life extend as far as preventing loss of complexity and information where possible. Obviously, these mechanisms are not completely successful, because organisms all die, and mutations do occur (this is the "curse"). For the most part, these mutations are harmful, but even where occasionally they happen to be beneficial, they do not represent increased complexity. But entropy-avoidance does not extend to increasing the complexity of the organism beyond its original design. I could imagine over hundreds of millions of years a human lineage degrading into bacteria, but not bacteria evolving into human beings.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2862 on: February 23, 2011, 01:44:37 AM »

We've heard quite a few people arguing that evolution, or "Darwinism," or whatever you want to call it, is false. It would be interesting to hear what exactly you do believe, or consider to be within the limits of acceptable belief. Otherwise, it's like debating with a fish--OK, bad metaphor--it's like trying to catch a fish with your hands. It's impossible to ascertain what position you're trying to maintain against evolution. I've seen people here taking positions ranging from "evolution is OK, as long as it's not Darwinian," to Iconodule's esoteric theory, to flat-out Evangelical-style Young-Earth Creationism. It would help turn this into a two-way discussion if we knew what exactly you think is true, rather than just what you think is false.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2863 on: February 23, 2011, 01:55:13 AM »

We've heard quite a few people arguing that evolution, or "Darwinism," or whatever you want to call it, is false. It would be interesting to hear what exactly you do believe, or consider to be within the limits of acceptable belief. Otherwise, it's like debating with a fish--OK, bad metaphor--it's like trying to catch a fish with your hands. It's impossible to ascertain what position you're trying to maintain against evolution. I've seen people here taking positions ranging from "evolution is OK, as long as it's not Darwinian," to Iconodule's esoteric theory, to flat-out Evangelical-style Young-Earth Creationism. It would help turn this into a two-way discussion if we knew what exactly you think is true, rather than just what you think is false.

What I think is true is that God created the world in six days, by some process not revealed to us and that lies beyond our ability to understand with the scientific and logical tools we have. Most importantly, the world as it was created was "very good", i.e. there was no death or corruption, meaning no entropy. The order of the universe was protected from degradation by the Grace of God. After the Fall, God withdrew His protecting Grace and the world became subject to corruption (entropy), although at the same time God continues to uphold the laws of nature that protect the order of the world against corruption, albeit imperfectly. But the trend is relentlessly downhill: the only natural change we are seeing now is towards greater disorganization.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,252

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2864 on: February 23, 2011, 02:31:34 AM »

So, as Rufus put it, "flat-out Evangelical-style Young-Earth Creationism."
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #2865 on: February 23, 2011, 02:39:36 AM »

So are you one of the "security" guards at the Creation Museum in Kentucky that has to correct anyone who utters against a young earth creation idea or are you Ken Ham himself?
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
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2866 on: February 23, 2011, 02:56:26 AM »

I certainly hope Rufus' purpose in asking this question was not simply to slap some convenient label on me and thereby hope to avoid addressing my actual arguments. "Oh we don't have to pay any attention to him, he's a Young Earth Creationist!" As I said earlier, I do not propose any alternative "scientific" theory of Creation, because I believe Creation lies outside the bounds of scientific inquiry.

Anyway, I do take Genesis "literally", following the interpretation of the Fathers, although I think we should all remember that the words of Moses are still in some way a condescension to our limited understanding. But one of the purposes of my recent contributions to this thread has been to show that science itself also points to Creation (although not necessarily to the Six Days), for the simple reason that the organized complexity we see in living and non-living things, but especially in living things, is not spontaneously self-generating. If it were, evolutionism would be more plausible. You wouldn't need a Creator to account for order, because you could observe order making itself. As it happens, however, order does not make itself, but something, Someone, else has to make it.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2867 on: February 23, 2011, 03:07:44 AM »

I certainly hope Rufus' purpose in asking this question was not simply to slap some convenient label on me and thereby hope to avoid addressing my actual arguments. "Oh we don't have to pay any attention to him, he's a Young Earth Creationist!"

No, that was not my intention. I was using the term to describe extreme literalism. I am glad that most (unfortunately not all) of the posters here are free from the rationalist approach to Genesis (e.g. "Scientific Creationism"). That being said, I am hoping we can talk about this without calling each other atheists or stupid.

Quote
Anyway, I do take Genesis "literally", following the interpretation of the Fathers, although I think we should all remember that the words of Moses are still in some way a condescension to our limited understanding.

And that is the essence of the allegorical interpretation I have been advocating.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2868 on: February 23, 2011, 03:13:05 AM »

I certainly hope Rufus' purpose in asking this question was not simply to slap some convenient label on me and thereby hope to avoid addressing my actual arguments. "Oh we don't have to pay any attention to him, he's a Young Earth Creationist!"

No, that was not my intention. I was using the term to describe extreme literalism. I am glad that most (unfortunately not all) of the posters here are free from the rationalist approach to Genesis (e.g. "Scientific Creationism"). That being said, I am hoping we can talk about this without calling each other atheists or stupid.

Quote
Anyway, I do take Genesis "literally", following the interpretation of the Fathers, although I think we should all remember that the words of Moses are still in some way a condescension to our limited understanding.

And that is the essence of the allegorical interpretation I have been advocating.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "allegorical" I take it that you mean "not literally true". In that case, your approach is in conflict with the interpretation of the Fathers and therefore I can't say it is Orthodox. The Fathers frequently attributed allegorical interpretations to passages of Genesis, but these are always intended to supplement, not supplant, the literal interpretation, as Fr Seraphim Rose demonstrated in his essay.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2869 on: February 23, 2011, 11:06:08 AM »

I certainly hope Rufus' purpose in asking this question was not simply to slap some convenient label on me and thereby hope to avoid addressing my actual arguments. "Oh we don't have to pay any attention to him, he's a Young Earth Creationist!"

No, that was not my intention. I was using the term to describe extreme literalism. I am glad that most (unfortunately not all) of the posters here are free from the rationalist approach to Genesis (e.g. "Scientific Creationism"). That being said, I am hoping we can talk about this without calling each other atheists or stupid.

Quote
Anyway, I do take Genesis "literally", following the interpretation of the Fathers, although I think we should all remember that the words of Moses are still in some way a condescension to our limited understanding.

And that is the essence of the allegorical interpretation I have been advocating.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "allegorical" I take it that you mean "not literally true". In that case, your approach is in conflict with the interpretation of the Fathers and therefore I can't say it is Orthodox. The Fathers frequently attributed allegorical interpretations to passages of Genesis, but these are always intended to supplement, not supplant, the literal interpretation, as Fr Seraphim Rose demonstrated in his essay.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

the Orthodox Fathers never founded dogmas on the allegorical level of Scripture - that was used to supplement and edify. dogmas are always derived from the literal level of Scripture. to found dogmas on the allegorical level began in the west in 13th Century.

you are correct, the literal and allegorical go hand-in-hand, they are not mutually exclusive. even the most exalted mystics such as St. Isaac and St. Symeon, and even the Alexandrian fathers who are well known for their allegories accepted the literal level of Genesis. this was true of the ancient east and west. Both Sts. Augustine and the Venerable Bede explicitly state that allegory is ok, as long as its not used to deny the historical truth of Scripture. St. John of Kronstadt says that every person and event in Scripture is true, and to deny that is to deny the whole of Scripture.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2870 on: February 23, 2011, 11:08:21 AM »

I certainly hope Rufus' purpose in asking this question was not simply to slap some convenient label on me and thereby hope to avoid addressing my actual arguments. "Oh we don't have to pay any attention to him, he's a Young Earth Creationist!"

No, that was not my intention. I was using the term to describe extreme literalism. I am glad that most (unfortunately not all) of the posters here are free from the rationalist approach to Genesis (e.g. "Scientific Creationism"). That being said, I am hoping we can talk about this without calling each other atheists or stupid.

Quote
Anyway, I do take Genesis "literally", following the interpretation of the Fathers, although I think we should all remember that the words of Moses are still in some way a condescension to our limited understanding.

And that is the essence of the allegorical interpretation I have been advocating.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "allegorical" I take it that you mean "not literally true". In that case, your approach is in conflict with the interpretation of the Fathers and therefore I can't say it is Orthodox. The Fathers frequently attributed allegorical interpretations to passages of Genesis, but these are always intended to supplement, not supplant, the literal interpretation, as Fr Seraphim Rose demonstrated in his essay.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

it is good to see someone else in this thread who recognizes that the Fathers do in fact have a clear teaching on this subject, and that that is what we should look to. for the most part this thread is pretty unevenly balanced towards a fixation on secular science, even though the poll shows a majority believing in the literal level of Genesis.
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #2871 on: February 23, 2011, 11:12:12 AM »

How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places?

What makes you think a Christian does not see mystery and awe in other places, even in science, even in evolution?

Nothing makes me say that, I don't think/didn't say that. I myself am very interested in science. Math, biology, physics; these are all the languages of God. He created and erected them as foundations. I keep fish tanks and love to see the mystery of scientific life played out in a little cube in my house. Smiley
All I'm saying is why embrace in one area and not the other. You embrace the mystery of science, yet not the greatest scientific action ever, the creation of our world? This conversation, like jgress said, can teach us about our creator and His creation but I notice most of the time it turns into heated words and pejorative name calling like 'young earth creationist.' And I'm not fond of people saying their side is more backed by science than another's, with a sneer. Not accusing anyone of these things just general thoughts on the creation vs evo debate.

I believe the earth was created in six days and God rested on the seventh. This not only created the world but helped set the flow of life; from day to night and from week to week. God did a weeks worth of work then rested as an example for us. This young earth was lush with plants and fruit was common to almost all  plants. The earth didn't rain but was watered via underground wells. Increased vegetation allowed for sustainment for the many more animals and species living there. Adam and Eve sinned and thus the earth began changing with sin unleashed upon it. Man now had to plow and work/toil with the ground to produce fruit. Vegetation started to shrink and animals I assume died off as a result (yes dinos and what not). The planet saw its first rain with the flood. This flood began our current system of weather as the underground wells were up-heaved. The flood also drastically changed the landscape and look our the land on earth. This time also produce many of the geological oddities that can not be explained by an evolutionary narrative (ie sea shells on mt.everest). Over time the earth has become more dry and desolate via sin and species have died off to where we are today.
Can other conclusions be drawn from what we find on earth? Yes. But I think there is a story of God and a story of this time, place, and earth, and the narrative of creation as found in the bible works. For me, I'm not going to use God's constructs (scientific languages) to try and debase the story he delivered to me. It satisfies me scientifically.
 
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2872 on: February 23, 2011, 11:17:27 AM »

I think the more secularly inclined here have a materialistic conception of what "literal" means- that by "literal", it means in the reductionistic, carnal sense that flows from an empiricist conception of the world. (To be fair, many "fundamentalists" think of it this way too). What is really literal, though, is spiritual reality. The changing, corruptible material world is not literal- it is a window to contemplation, a symbol and a matrix of symbols. It's not taking Genesis literally that's the problem- it's taking the material world literally. When we do so, we not only fail to perceive the spiritual truths represented in creation, we misunderstand the creation itself. Hence St. Nikolai Velimirovich compares these material literalists to someone studying letters of the alphabet and words on a page, without being able to read them and discern their meaning. 
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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #2873 on: February 23, 2011, 11:21:06 AM »

I think the more secularly inclined here have a materialistic conception of what "literal" means- that by "literal", it means in the reductionistic, carnal sense that flows from an empiricist conception of the world. (To be fair, many "fundamentalists" think of it this way too). What is really literal, though, is spiritual reality. The changing, corruptible material world is not literal- it is a window to contemplation, a symbol and a matrix of symbols. It's not taking Genesis literally that's the problem- it's taking the material world literally. When we do so, we not only fail to perceive the spiritual truths represented in creation, we misunderstand the creation itself. Hence St. Nikolai Velimirovich compares these material literalists to someone studying letters of the alphabet and words on a page, without being able to read them and discern their meaning. 
Is your name Plato?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2874 on: February 23, 2011, 04:04:28 PM »

I think the more secularly inclined here have a materialistic conception of what "literal" means- that by "literal", it means in the reductionistic, carnal sense that flows from an empiricist conception of the world. (To be fair, many "fundamentalists" think of it this way too). What is really literal, though, is spiritual reality. The changing, corruptible material world is not literal- it is a window to contemplation, a symbol and a matrix of symbols. It's not taking Genesis literally that's the problem- it's taking the material world literally. When we do so, we not only fail to perceive the spiritual truths represented in creation, we misunderstand the creation itself. Hence St. Nikolai Velimirovich compares these material literalists to someone studying letters of the alphabet and words on a page, without being able to read them and discern their meaning.  
Is your name Plato?

He is indeed extremely Platonic. This sort of thinking seems to view the material world as an emanation or shadow of Plato's "noetic hypostases," which is not an indefensible position, and certainly has a strong element of truth to it--to an extent, I even agree with it, semi-gnostic as it is--but to dismiss everything we know about ancient history, paleontology, biology, geology, astrophysics, and linguistics on the basis that they don't accurately represent reality I find absurd. It's quite a coincidence that all these disciplines lead to the same conclusion, isn't it?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 04:05:46 PM by Rufus » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2875 on: February 23, 2011, 04:12:40 PM »

i wouldnt say the material world isnt literal, but overall it sounds to me like he's talking about the logoi
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2876 on: February 23, 2011, 04:20:38 PM »

the Orthodox Fathers never founded dogmas on the allegorical level of Scripture - that was used to supplement and edify. dogmas are always derived from the literal level of Scripture. to found dogmas on the allegorical level began in the west in 13th Century.

Examples?

Quote
you are correct, the literal and allegorical go hand-in-hand, they are not mutually exclusive. even the most exalted mystics such as St. Isaac and St. Symeon, and even the Alexandrian fathers who are well known for their allegories accepted the literal level of Genesis. this was true of the ancient east and west. Both Sts. Augustine and the Venerable Bede explicitly state that allegory is ok, as long as its not used to deny the historical truth of Scripture. St. John of Kronstadt says that every person and event in Scripture is true, and to deny that is to deny the whole of Scripture.

Can you provide examples from the Alexandrian Fathers? So far, every Patristic quotation I have heard on the necessity of a literal interpretation of Genesis has come from representatives of the school of Antioch and their followers in Byzantium. Antioch's school was essentially founded on the principle of the (re?)-establishment of the primacy of literal interpretation--what rabbinical tradition calls Pashat.
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #2877 on: February 23, 2011, 04:29:49 PM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.

good post. you'll prolly get ignored or maligned though, just saying.

Why do you feel the need to poison the well?

I'm unsure if this was pointed at my post or the response to my post, but either way I don't understand. How/why did I poison the well? I apologize if I sound daft.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #2878 on: February 23, 2011, 04:30:04 PM »

I think the more secularly inclined here have a materialistic conception of what "literal" means- that by "literal", it means in the reductionistic, carnal sense that flows from an empiricist conception of the world. (To be fair, many "fundamentalists" think of it this way too). What is really literal, though, is spiritual reality. The changing, corruptible material world is not literal- it is a window to contemplation, a symbol and a matrix of symbols. It's not taking Genesis literally that's the problem- it's taking the material world literally. When we do so, we not only fail to perceive the spiritual truths represented in creation, we misunderstand the creation itself. Hence St. Nikolai Velimirovich compares these material literalists to someone studying letters of the alphabet and words on a page, without being able to read them and discern their meaning.  
Is your name Plato?

He is indeed extremely Platonic. This sort of thinking seems to view the material world as an emanation or shadow of Plato's "noetic hypostases," which is not an indefensible position, and certainly has a strong element of truth to it--to an extent, I even agree with it, semi-gnostic as it is--but to dismiss everything we know about ancient history, paleontology, biology, geology, astrophysics, and linguistics on the basis that they don't accurately represent reality I find absurd. It's quite a coincidence that all these disciplines lead to the same conclusion, isn't it?

If you are saying that all these scientific disciplines agree in showing Genesis to be false, I have to disagree with you there. I imagine you are thinking in particular of the allegedly enormous depths of time projected into the past by the proponents of evolution. You may be interested to know that these enormous time depths are not independently confirmed by other disciplines, such as geology and astrophysics. On the contrary, both these fields of study return abundant evidence for a much younger universe and a younger earth (as well as events like the Great Flood), but this evidence is always rejected on the grounds that it is incompatible with Darwinian evolution. Take away evolution and you take away the only reason to reject the evidence for a younger world. The article below lays out the dependence of astronomical dating on geology, and the dependence of geological dating on the large time depths required by evolutionary theory:

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

As I have now said many times, the unambiguous trend we see for organized complexity to degenerate into disorganized simplicity is on its own irrefutable proof that evolutionary models, which depend on disorganization spontaneously transforming into organization, are false on the grounds of violating known scientific universals. To me this entails that the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to prove their case, by means of some overwhelming evidence that the current laws of entropy have not always applied. Since I am not satisfied with the evidence they have presented, there is no longer an a priori cause for believing in a very old universe. Without a very old universe, the case for evolution in turn becomes even weaker.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2879 on: February 23, 2011, 04:32:04 PM »

Personally I'm of the opinion that the whole Creation vs Evolution debate is quite meaningless. I vehemently believe that at the very very beginning whatever was created, was created by God. Whether something else become what we see today, or as the exact narrative in the book of Genesis, if it all starts with God I don't see a point other than conversation (usually arguing really). If a person denies God then creation vs evolution doesn't matter does it? The true debate is God vs. no God.
 I believe the Genesis story because it fits better than evolution. As a person I am markedly different than an animal (ie having a soul and a corruptible nature) so I don't see how I evolved from an animal. God set us apart and put us as the rulers of animals. Plus I acknowledge how horridly huge is effect sin has on life and on earth. I believe the earth created in Genesis looked and acted much different than our current earth. We live in the shadow of what earth was like before sin ravaged it. Sin is literally death and it has destroyed our world to the point we can not recognize it as the same world found in Genesis. I believe in the flood and happen to think that also drastically changed our planet. My real question is to a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you believe in the mystery of the sacraments yet reject mystery in other places? As much as we may like to, we can't think and theorize ourselves back to the moments of creation. It behooves us to practice trust in God in as many ways as possible.

good post. you'll prolly get ignored or maligned though, just saying.

Why do you feel the need to poison the well?

I'm unsure if this was pointed at my post or the response to my post, but either way I don't understand. How/why did I poison the well? I apologize if I sound daft.

It was not directed at your post. It was directed at the attempt to pre-emptively cast any replies to your post as "maligning."
Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.238 seconds with 75 queries.