OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 10:30:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.3%)
both metaphorically and literally - 155 (46%)
Total Voters: 337

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 319043 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #2970 on: March 15, 2011, 02:52:15 AM »

I think my head just exploded.

My side split from laughing.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #2971 on: March 15, 2011, 12:34:23 PM »

I'm officially fasting from this thread for lent...and possibly for the foreseeable future as well Wink
Smiley  An inspiration to me.
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.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2972 on: March 15, 2011, 09:05:07 PM »

Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

I think my head just exploded.

My hair is on fire.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2973 on: March 15, 2011, 10:07:03 PM »

Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #2974 on: March 15, 2011, 10:58:57 PM »

 Cheesy Come on now, you have to admit that the whole theory/hypothesis thing got a chuckle out of you. Fess up!
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 11:01:08 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2975 on: March 16, 2011, 02:48:06 AM »

Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
Thanks Smiley I knew I'll get responses like those. Besides I said their (Darwinist's) arguments are ad hominem. I do understand non-Orthodox people believing in Darwin's bible but I am always confused when somebody claims to be an orthodox and at the same time believes in this nonsense from Orthodox point of view (as well as scientific point of view).

As for me, I'll tell you this: I have debated many Darwinists (including professional) biologists on this issue. My statements always starts like what I did above. You get ridiculed and when you start debating them it turns out that majority of them have no slightest ideas in biological sciences. All of them finally quit to debate: non-professionals after couple responses and biologists after a little bit more. When I said above, I did not say it without having no idea in biology. Actually my profession is based on biology and I have pretty good basis in biological sciences (including molecular biology, immunology, genetics, physiology, pharmacology etc). I have read many articles on this issue (ID vs Evolution debate) and several important books as well as watched debates. I can stand by my words. I wonder the mockers how much they know in biology?

It is pity that this evil is thought in the schools without critical approach to it. This already shows that it is an ideology. Since it is an ideology and on top of that it is Godless and atheistic ideology, then what purpose it serves? Children are brainwashed. They are not allowed to even think about the problems of the "theory". They have to accept it without questioning. One time a school boy, an atheist (funny isn't it? 16 y/o and already atheist), was arguing with me. From very first statement it was clear he did not know anything really in biology, Darwinism and its problems. When I pointed to theory's problems, wanting him just to start thinking and do not fall victim of this nonsense, he responded me (I'm repeating it almost word for word): "I am not a scientist and I know nothing about Darwinism but I'm sure there's an answer to the question you posed." And Darwinian biologists promote this type of thinking in kids (as well as adults).

God bless still everybody including mockers Smiley
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2976 on: March 16, 2011, 02:51:58 AM »

Cheesy Come on now, you have to admit that the whole theory/hypothesis thing got a chuckle out of you. Fess up!
Exactly which part of it was funny? And why it was funny?
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,583



« Reply #2977 on: March 17, 2011, 03:12:04 PM »

All I know is that this is one heck of a thread; great ideas and arguments, all expressed so well. It will take me a second and third reading, and lots of pondering, to understand it all. In the meantime, I am looking forward to more discussion with Ativan.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #2978 on: March 17, 2011, 04:05:05 PM »

The only reason to check into this thread is to watch the evolution of the tags. They are full lulz.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2979 on: March 17, 2011, 09:32:08 PM »

Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
Thanks Smiley I knew I'll get responses like those. Besides I said their (Darwinist's) arguments are ad hominem. I do understand non-Orthodox people believing in Darwin's bible but I am always confused when somebody claims to be an orthodox and at the same time believes in this nonsense from Orthodox point of view (as well as scientific point of view).

As for me, I'll tell you this: I have debated many Darwinists (including professional) biologists on this issue. My statements always starts like what I did above. You get ridiculed and when you start debating them it turns out that majority of them have no slightest ideas in biological sciences. All of them finally quit to debate: non-professionals after couple responses and biologists after a little bit more. When I said above, I did not say it without having no idea in biology. Actually my profession is based on biology and I have pretty good basis in biological sciences (including molecular biology, immunology, genetics, physiology, pharmacology etc). I have read many articles on this issue (ID vs Evolution debate) and several important books as well as watched debates. I can stand by my words. I wonder the mockers how much they know in biology?

It is pity that this evil is thought in the schools without critical approach to it. This already shows that it is an ideology. Since it is an ideology and on top of that it is Godless and atheistic ideology, then what purpose it serves? Children are brainwashed. They are not allowed to even think about the problems of the "theory". They have to accept it without questioning. One time a school boy, an atheist (funny isn't it? 16 y/o and already atheist), was arguing with me. From very first statement it was clear he did not know anything really in biology, Darwinism and its problems. When I pointed to theory's problems, wanting him just to start thinking and do not fall victim of this nonsense, he responded me (I'm repeating it almost word for word): "I am not a scientist and I know nothing about Darwinism but I'm sure there's an answer to the question you posed." And Darwinian biologists promote this type of thinking in kids (as well as adults).

God bless still everybody including mockers Smiley

What would the problems with the theory be?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2980 on: March 17, 2011, 09:35:24 PM »

Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.

...yet he does not believe in a literal account of Genesis.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2981 on: March 17, 2011, 09:40:25 PM »

Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.

...yet he does not believe in a literal account of Genesis.

yah i know. thats why i didnt quote that part, i wasnt supporting that part.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2982 on: March 18, 2011, 04:17:13 AM »

What would the problems with the theory be?
1) It is never compatible with Orthodox teachings. Orthodox teaching says God created and supports everything visible and invisible. Everything that happens happens for reason and saying that something is random (genetic mutations) has only one purpose: taking God out of the story. Otherwise we have to specify that randomness/chance is not at all randomness in a sense that random events just happen, but they are God's acts which we just can't comprehend. Evolution theory will not allow this presicely because its one and only purpose is to show possibility of life coming into being and then developing without the need of the Almighty God. This per se is not any weakness for the theory from the scientific point of view. But it clearly shows that it's not compatible with Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition.

Now in general Darwin's bad hypothesis are problematic for the following reasons:
1) Fossil records simply does not support any evidence for such a hypothesis;

2) Other than most general mantra of darwinism, that new species are formed by random genetic mutations which then if favorable can be selected and transferred to next generation, there is no explanation of specific mechanisms (which are important for the theory) involved that transforms genome of species A into genome of species B. Here Darwinists make so lame claims that it is not even laughable. I will point later by using specific examples what I mean by this;

3) As a more specific case of #2 there's no explanation how so called irreducibly complex systems are evolved. One can even devise General arguments that it is impossible to get such systems other then through special forms of "evolution", which allows for big jumps, generally knows as saltations, systemic mutations or hopeful monsters. These latter are miraculous acts. This is why Darwinism does not allow such theories and this is why Darwinists mocked at Richard Goldshmidt, very famous geneticists, who first formulated the theory of such systemic mutations. And he is not alone.

4) Darwinists try to dispose with the impossibility of abiogenesis and say that theory of evolution does not try to explain the origin of life. Well, yes, but here's what is the problem with this type of thinking: if it is proved that abiogenesis is impossible (and it can be proved so), then you don't have much options left that explains life's origin. It could be Creation by the Almighty God which is mystery (which should be the only way we, Orthodox christians, should be looking at it)  of life's origin through ID by some intelligent beings. In both of these cases (second of which is actually even theoretically possible to show in experiments) evolution is completely redundant. Since a cell can be devised, created or whatever, then such a designer is more likely to design any type of cells including somatic cells and gametes.

There are other problems but these are enough to undermine the whole "theory" of evolution.

Quote
...yet he does not believe in a literal account of Genesis.
But this is trivial and unimportant thing. I don't think it matters much whether you take literal account of Genesis or not. As long as we know God is the sole creator and sustainer of this world, as long as we know we are sinful and we should repent and follow Orthodox way it makes no difference whether we take General account of Genesis or not. At least this seems to be case for me. Besides I have no problem of accepting the possibility of Genesis's literal account - after all God is omniscient and omnipotent. On the other hand Darwinism is a different bird. Its purpose is to destroy faith.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2983 on: March 18, 2011, 04:35:18 AM »

I forgot to mention one important thing. Evolutionary theory wants to say that everything started from single celled organisms and got more and more complex over time going upward on evolutionary tree. But this is inconsistent with other premises of the theory. The theory does not require at all that development of the species went from simple to complex. All it requires is that genetic mutations that happened in a given species be favorable in a certain environment and this way it can be selected. This mutation does not have to make original species more complex. It just has to be stable and produce new species with survival benefit(s). As long as it is stable and gives survival benefit to the new species it could be making the genome of a new species less complex. Consequently it is not expected at all that evolution of species be moving from simple to complex. it could be moving from complex to simple. The latter means that in any geological strata one should have species that appear anew and are more simple then species that appeared much longer time ago. We should see the evidence of involution along the evolution.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2984 on: March 18, 2011, 06:56:49 AM »

On the other hand Darwinism is a different bird. Its purpose is to destroy faith.
And where have you seen this purpose elaborated?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2985 on: March 18, 2011, 09:39:47 AM »

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2986 on: March 19, 2011, 12:03:07 PM »

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." -- Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: News of the Month in Perspective, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p.19
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 12:10:32 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #2987 on: March 19, 2011, 12:30:50 PM »

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31

Dr. Lewontin seems to be a pompous materialistic jackass who boldly claims that even if science does no help to the world, he would still follow it, like he would follow a religion.

Of course, Dr. Lewontin doesn't seem to say science had no affect on human progress, but merely wants to push a few buttons.  Dr. Collins answers it pretty well in my opinion in his answer to Coyne's same argument:

http://biologos.org/blog/god-or-matter/
Quote
Coyne's objections are really just the traditional objections to belief in God repackaged as scientific objections. Traditional theism -- which is the foundation for a majority of people's worldviews, including scientists -- is a richer and more complex version of reality than materialism. As a theist with a deep respect for science, I believe in all the same remarkable laws and particles that undergird the worldviews of scientists. But I also believe this reality is rooted in the creative and sustaining activity of God. God can act in the world and provide a larger understanding of the way things are.
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 #2988 on: March 19, 2011, 12:44:35 PM »

i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #2989 on: March 19, 2011, 01:06:24 PM »

i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.

I agree he's not.  But if Lewonton's quote becomes a well-professed creed among atheists, well, this could show a weakness in their arguments, that in fact, they are no longer atheists, but worship the the gods of nature around them without care to intellectual or charitable advancement.
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #2990 on: March 19, 2011, 01:30:58 PM »

I have to add this as well.  Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, an astronomer and Christian, tells us how studying science can be a form of worship:

Quote
Wiseman doesn’t leave us with the problems, though: she commends four specific ways in which science can magnify our worship and equip the Church in practical ways. First, from a perspective of faith, studying the details and mechanisms of nature can reveal the character of God more clearly. We can see God’s faithfulness, for instance, in considering the regularity of natural processes and the fine tuning of our universe. Second, science informs how we can be better stewards of our world and one another. Not only does scientific comprehension shape the way we live, work, and serve, but it guides our decisions about how new technologies should be used. Third, understanding the natural world gives us a profoundly expanded view of Jesus Christ as Lord, when we consider that he is Lord of all space and time—over billions of galaxies and billions of years. He is quite a King indeed! Finally, science can instruct us about what it means to be human and how we are to relate to all other living things. Research has revealed many fascinating similarities between humans and other species, and rather than threatening our uniqueness or status before God, these discoveries tell us how much God loves and cares for everything he has made. That God has entrusted us to do the same should fill us with a deep and humble sense of responsibility.

http://biologos.org/blog/jennifer-wiseman-on-science-as-an-instrument-of-worship/

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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #2991 on: March 19, 2011, 02:07:40 PM »

i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.

I agree he's not.  But if Lewonton's quote becomes a well-professed creed among atheists, well, this could show a weakness in their arguments, that in fact, they are no longer atheists, but worship the the gods of nature around them without care to intellectual or charitable advancement.

Nothing wrong with an atheist being a religious naturalist Smiley
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,311


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2992 on: March 19, 2011, 02:20:21 PM »

i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
All these quotes are well and good, but Ativan specifically argued about "Darwinism" and that Darwinism's purpose is "to destroy faith." Lewontin, no matter how good a scientist he may be, is not "Darwinism".
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 02:20:42 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #2993 on: March 19, 2011, 03:05:42 PM »

i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.

I agree he's not.  But if Lewonton's quote becomes a well-professed creed among atheists, well, this could show a weakness in their arguments, that in fact, they are no longer atheists, but worship the the gods of nature around them without care to intellectual or charitable advancement.

Nothing wrong with an atheist being a religious naturalist Smiley

But I have a feeling that Richard Dawkins is in dire disagreement with that passage (at least vocally).  It doesn't sound like something a careful, well-thought out atheist would say.  It sounds like someone who admits that faith is the underlying reason of his atheism.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 03:06:28 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.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2994 on: March 20, 2011, 01:05:19 AM »

On the other hand Darwinism is a different bird. Its purpose is to destroy faith.
And where have you seen this purpose elaborated?
In many facts:

1) Darwinism is thought to kids without questioning its big problems. Darwinian hypothesis is totally false and non-scientific, though it's thought along such subjects as physics and chemistry and even multiple large books are printed to cure this incurable hypothesis;

2) Darwinists have tried to fudge data and put false information in biology books and elsewhere deliberately (famous Haeckel's embryo drawings, Piltdown Man);

3) No alternative ideas, including creationism (where I mean just one thing: everything, living world included, has been created by Almighty and not young earth creationism specifically), are allowed;

4) If biology teacher teaches children alternative ideas, then this is taken to courts and Darwinists win;

These are enough for me to be sure about Darwinists agenda.

If you asking me to produce some type of manifesto Darwinist have written that explicitly states their aim and purpose, then I, of course, can't present it Smiley
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #2995 on: March 20, 2011, 01:41:11 AM »

Dear Ativan,

Is there a list you can elucidate similar to what you have here that shows what you find wrong with creationism?
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.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2996 on: March 20, 2011, 03:15:42 AM »

Dear Ativan,

Is there a list you can elucidate similar to what you have here that shows what you find wrong with creationism?
I want to make two points here: if your question pertains to a list that shows creationism as an ideology fighting against Darwinism, I guess, we could simply agree on this point without a list. Secondly, if you are asking me to give you a list showing creationism's "non-scientificness", its problems as a scientific theory, again I never said or will say that Creationism (simply meaning God creating the life) is a science. Anybody who wants to show us its scientific validity based on logic and particular type of interpretation of data, is wrong. It should be accepted as a matter of faith. Though there's always certain type of logic to accept this faith as there's certain type of logic to accept Darwinian faith.

And in the end creationism (here meaning that new life forms can be designed intelligently) does have some experimental support. The irony is this: On one hand we have never seen a new life form spring up from non-life or one life form evolved into another - we simply do not have any experiment/observation supporting this claim. On the other hand humans have gone so far as to manipulating genes and embryos and creating organisms with new properties as well as trying to experiment with new non-carbon based life forms, the creation of which will be direct evidence of possibility that life can be intelligently designed from scratch. Still though many believe in Darwinism and do not believe in ID. Where's logic in here? If a man can create or change life, can't Almighty do the same thing, if one believes in All-Powerful and Omniscient God? And if one believes in such God then why he/she needs anything else than the Idea God created everything and supports everything from instant to instant?

P.S. I'm going to critique one particular example of the non-sense which Darwinists put out as a proof of Darwin's theory. This false argument was actually linked by you. It's on the very first page of this thread. Here's this argument in support of Darwinism. Before I point to very crude fallacies made in this argument could you list please, if you don't mind, the points that made you like Ken Miller's talk and that made you accept this argument as one of the supporting evidence for Darwinism?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2997 on: March 21, 2011, 07:22:07 AM »

These are enough for me to be sure about Darwinists agenda.
Has this global conspiracy extended its reach into other areas of knowledge?  If I were in charge of this attack on faith, I would pursue it on multiple fronts.  Are there physicists, for example, who have proffered an explanation for some natural phenomenon that is known to be false, and which is aimed at destroying faith?

Is there any principle of mathematics which you know to be untrue, but on which mathematicians continue to insist in order to undermine faith?

Are there any formulas used in engineering which are known to be false, but which engineers continue to promote?

How about any non-evolutionary ideas within biology?  I remember learning about the Krebs Cycle, about cellular mitosis, and about the way pistils and stamens allow sexual reproduction in plants, for example.  Should I consider any of these ideas suspect, running counter to the truth?

Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2998 on: March 21, 2011, 01:04:01 PM »

Wow, are we cynical?

In case you are not, then read:
Quote
Has this global conspiracy extended its reach into other areas of knowledge?
Yes

Quote
If I were in charge of this attack on faith, I would pursue it on multiple fronts.
Good for you!

Quote
Are there physicists, for example, who have proffered an explanation for some natural phenomenon that is known to be false, and which is aimed at destroying faith?
yes, but question is outside of the topic.

Quote
Is there any principle of mathematics which you know to be untrue, but on which mathematicians continue to insist in order to undermine faith?
Wrong question. In math principles aren't true or false. As long as system is consistent it's OK (and one can even construct some inconstancy tolerant logical systems)

Quote
Are there any formulas used in engineering which are known to be false, but which engineers continue to promote?
Probably not, though have no clue about engineering. Also, question is outside the scope of the topic.

Quote
How about any non-evolutionary ideas within biology?  I remember learning about the Krebs Cycle, about cellular mitosis, and about the way pistils and stamens allow sexual reproduction in plants, for example.  Should I consider any of these ideas suspect, running counter to the truth?
No, you can safely accept this ideas. They don't run against faith.

Hopefully I quenched your curiosity Smiley
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #2999 on: March 21, 2011, 02:53:40 PM »

chrevbel
If I may I have several questions. I'm curious what your attitude, as of an Orthodox Christian, is towards this:

1) Do Satan and Antichrist exist?

2) If they do, then do they work here, on this very earth, and now to tempt humans?

3) If they do, what would that work be in General? Or how Satan would work to lure men's souls?
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3000 on: March 21, 2011, 06:38:35 PM »

After months of absence from OC.net, I had to chuckle to see this thread still alive and twitching. It sure is one determined dead horse!  laugh

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #3001 on: March 21, 2011, 07:51:28 PM »

After months of absence from OC.net, I had to chuckle to see this thread still alive and twitching. It sure is one determined dead horselaugh



Not heroin worthy yet, but it has recently been developing an ativan habit . . .

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #3002 on: March 21, 2011, 10:35:01 PM »

Dear Ativan,

Is there a list you can elucidate similar to what you have here that shows what you find wrong with creationism?
I want to make two points here: if your question pertains to a list that shows creationism as an ideology fighting against Darwinism, I guess, we could simply agree on this point without a list. Secondly, if you are asking me to give you a list showing creationism's "non-scientificness", its problems as a scientific theory, again I never said or will say that Creationism (simply meaning God creating the life) is a science. Anybody who wants to show us its scientific validity based on logic and particular type of interpretation of data, is wrong. It should be accepted as a matter of faith. Though there's always certain type of logic to accept this faith as there's certain type of logic to accept Darwinian faith.

And in the end creationism (here meaning that new life forms can be designed intelligently) does have some experimental support. The irony is this: On one hand we have never seen a new life form spring up from non-life or one life form evolved into another - we simply do not have any experiment/observation supporting this claim. On the other hand humans have gone so far as to manipulating genes and embryos and creating organisms with new properties as well as trying to experiment with new non-carbon based life forms, the creation of which will be direct evidence of possibility that life can be intelligently designed from scratch. Still though many believe in Darwinism and do not believe in ID. Where's logic in here? If a man can create or change life, can't Almighty do the same thing, if one believes in All-Powerful and Omniscient God? And if one believes in such God then why he/she needs anything else than the Idea God created everything and supports everything from instant to instant?

P.S. I'm going to critique one particular example of the non-sense which Darwinists put out as a proof of Darwin's theory. This false argument was actually linked by you. It's on the very first page of this thread. Here's this argument in support of Darwinism. Before I point to very crude fallacies made in this argument could you list please, if you don't mind, the points that made you like Ken Miller's talk and that made you accept this argument as one of the supporting evidence for Darwinism?

I only asked the question because I was curious to hear how you would disprove creationism and IDism, since you claimed earlier that they're not even "science."  You are pretty unique.  You are an anti-evolutionist and an anti-creationist.  So this is why I wanted to see what your arguments against creationism would be.  That's all.

As to Dr. Miller's video.  What did I like about it?  I like the fact that it's very consistent.  It showed that not only do we have the fusion of two chromosomes, but also two centromeric areas, with one being deactivated, and a large telomeric area in the middle, which really is quite the proof in my opinion.  I cannot ignore that.  One of two options had to have occurred.  One, that we evolved from an ape ancestor that's common to the chimpanzee, or two, that God himself took the ape genes, assembled two chromosomes together and did some tweaking and made man.  Either way, we share a common ancestry with the chimpanzee genetically.  But I already elucidated this argument earlier.  So why do you want me to repeat what I said?

But yes, its consistency is remarkable and that's why I like pretty much of any science.  That the laws of nature has a certain consistency in them gives us reason to believe in the creative consistency of the Logos.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 10:36:26 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.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3003 on: March 22, 2011, 12:16:18 AM »

chrevbel  If I may I have several questions.
1) Do Satan and Antichrist exist?
Yes.
Quote from: ativan
2) If they do, then do they work here, on this very earth, and now to tempt humans?
Yes.
Quote from: ativan
3) If they do, what would that work be in General? Or how Satan would work to lure men's souls?
A number of ways, I believe (though I'm not qualified to give an exhaustive answer, by any means).  Through causing us to doubt his existence.  Through creating doubt about his presence in our daily lives.  By fomenting doubt concerning his guidance and direction.  One particular way he does this is through believers, themselves.  Sometimes, they create false dichotomies, with creationism being a perfect example.  Seeing how effectively this set of false doctrines is turning people from the church, I am ashamed to have once been a part of it.

Ashamed.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3004 on: March 22, 2011, 01:47:59 AM »

After months of absence from OC.net, I had to chuckle to see this thread still alive and twitching. It sure is one determined dead horselaugh

Not heroin worthy yet, but it has recently been developing an ativan habit . . .
LOL this thread needs a little ativanization Cheesy

minasoliman
Quote
I only asked the question because I was curious to hear how you would disprove creationism and IDism, since you claimed earlier that they're not even "science."  You are pretty unique.  You are an anti-evolutionist and an anti-creationist.  So this is why I wanted to see what your arguments against creationism would be.  That's all.
I'm not anti-creationist. The word "creationist" and "creationism" has different meanings and it is used with different meanings often times. I have indicated couple of its meanings in the brackets. If by "creationism" it is meant that God has created everything and is supporting everything, then I am creationists. If you narrow the meaning to only young earth creationism, then I'm not young earth creationist. For me whole creation is mystery as are many other things.

Quote
As to Dr. Miller's video.  What did I like about it?  I like the fact that it's very consistent.  It showed that not only do we have the fusion of two chromosomes, but also two centromeric areas, with one being deactivated, and a large telomeric area in the middle, which really is quite the proof in my opinion.  I cannot ignore that.  One of two options had to have occurred.  One, that we evolved from an ape ancestor that's common to the chimpanzee, or two, that God himself took the ape genes, assembled two chromosomes together and did some tweaking and made man.  Either way, we share a common ancestry with the chimpanzee genetically.  But I already elucidated this argument earlier.  So why do you want me to repeat what I said?

But yes, its consistency is remarkable and that's why I like pretty much of any science.  That the laws of nature has a certain consistency in them gives us reason to believe in the creative consistency of the Logos.
1) I like science too but I do not like bedtime stories sold as a science. No what Dr. Miller says is OK as a bedtime story but I'm not satisfied with that at all. I have valid suspicions against it and maybe you can clear some of those. So here are those: A) Chromosomal fusion can't be a random event. Fusion is going to require a lot of thing to happen at the same time in order to get right ends fused, to translate tertiary structure of a fused chromosome into a readable linear structure of a fused DNA; Show me as a minimum first that it is possible at all chromosomes can be fused and the ends of fused chromosomes are not going to affect structural genes, that are responsible for important functions; B) How is one of the centromere supposed to be deactivated? Is it possible at all? And remember, this deactivation should happen in one event along the chromosomal fusion, so that 2 centromeres do not interfere with normal DNA functioning or otherwise show me that cells can maintain normal functioning with two centromeres;

These are minimum things you will have to answer. Science is not a gapping logic where you say this happened and then that happened. That's OK to tell babies. I need more to know. Hopefully you have answers.

2) Let's look at this page. Here we see that American beaver has 40 chromosomes and Eurasian beaver has 48. Certainly these two species are much close two each other than chimpanzee and human. Following Millers logic their ancestors should have had 48 chromosomes which through the process of fusion (and not through loss of the chromosome(s), since loss of chromosome is detrimental) and centrosomal deactivation transformed 40 chromosomes. There should be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, such examples. Have we shown that type of evidence in this (these) cases?

3) Now, most important thing which is characteristic of Darwinian gap logic. I say no, common ancestor in this case did not have 48 chromosome but 46. One of the chromosomes was much bigger, like ours, and it broke into 2 parts both of which acquired a little more telomeric regions and on of these parts acquired a centromere. How is this logic any different from Miller's logic? Why is this type of process not possible but the one described by Miller is possible? I can make many of this type of argument which has huge chasms in it like Miller's does.

I want answers on all of this questions. Do you think these questions do not deserve answers? Or do you think without at least having answers to this questions it is possible at all to call that argument scientific?

P.S. I like science too, when it is science. I'm sorry if you had to repeat your argument, but I have not read this thread entirely so far - it's quite lengthy.

chrevbel
chrevbel  If I may I have several questions.
1) Do Satan and Antichrist exist?
Yes.
Quote from: ativan
2) If they do, then do they work here, on this very earth, and now to tempt humans?
Yes.
Quote from: ativan
3) If they do, what would that work be in General? Or how Satan would work to lure men's souls?
A number of ways, I believe (though I'm not qualified to give an exhaustive answer, by any means).  Through causing us to doubt his existence.  Through creating doubt about his presence in our daily lives.  By fomenting doubt concerning his guidance and direction.  One particular way he does this is through believers, themselves.  Sometimes, they create false dichotomies, with creationism being a perfect example.  Seeing how effectively this set of false doctrines is turning people from the church, I am ashamed to have once been a part of it.

Ashamed.
Then this Darwinism, whoever brought this teaching good one or evil one, does it cause us to doubt in God's existence? Does it help us to draw near Him? None of these? Both of these?

And if you are cynical again, know then, I do not judge anybody, including you, and I do not put myself above anybody. I'm as sinful as many others are. When I criticize idea I do not criticize people carrying this particular idea. I apologize though if it appears anywhere otherwise or if at times I do happen to judge others.
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: 10,429


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


WWW
« Reply #3005 on: March 22, 2011, 08:08:10 PM »

Quote
Chromosomal fusion can't be a random event. Fusion is going to require a lot of thing to happen at the same time in order to get right ends fused, to translate tertiary structure of a fused chromosome into a readable linear structure of a fused DNA; Show me as a minimum first that it is possible at all chromosomes can be fused and the ends of fused chromosomes are not going to affect structural genes, that are responsible for important functions

You're right.  They're not random as in not any chromosome can fuse with another.  It has to be at least one acrocentric chromosome to fuse with another chromosome for this to happen.  And once again, you're absolutely right.  Usually, fused chromosomes will mean the absence of some vital genes.  Luckily, because acrocentric genes are the most to be used in fusions, the p regions of these chromosomes have genes for nucleolar structure and synthesis, and the good news is that we have plenty of acrocentric chromosomes, which means plenty of copies of the same gene.  We also have studies that show that fusions of chromosomes happen many times, such as the famous Robertsonian translocation that predispose females to give birth to Down Syndrome babies, and the famous Philadelphia chromosomes that results in a new fusion gene BCR-ABL that occurs in many cancers, most commonly in CML.  Interestingly enough, as it turns out, the chromosomes that were fused into the present chromosome 2 we have today were both acrocentric chromosomes.  This confirms in a consistent manner the behavior of chromosomes in at least hominids.

Quote
How is one of the centromere supposed to be deactivated? Is it possible at all? And remember, this deactivation should happen in one event along the chromosomal fusion, so that 2 centromeres do not interfere with normal DNA functioning or otherwise show me that cells can maintain normal functioning with two centromeres;

To be honest, I don't know how a centromere can be deactivated.  But I know there are ways to deactivate genes.  Methylation may be one way.  Another way is significant mutation of the gene.  We also know that there are ways of deactivating randomly extra X chromosomes that is still yet to be fully understood, but it depends on the presence of another X chromosome it seems.  So if anything, could the centromeric deactivation occur because another exists?  That's a possibility to look at.  Then you have the mystery of mitosis.  How do centromeres simply just let go?  I confess, I haven't delved into that area, and perhaps there's more research to be done there.  But the fact is that somehow the "extra centromere" lost its function, and that's a fact proven by the fact that it has a centromeric sequence, but it doesn't function as a real centromere.  Centromeric inactivation also occurs as I mentioned in other known chromosomal fusions, so this is not the only time centromeric inactivation was studied and known.  Here's a paper I found online that might answer the question though, and it seems to be related various ways DNA sequence modification, as I had predicted earlier:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1015713/

As for the "bedtime story," I must say, what other explanation is there for two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions that make this chromosome so unique?  I don't know, but the evidence of a telomeric center, and two centromeric regions, along with a chromosome that has an almost identical sequence as two chimp chromosomes has to really say something.  This is the same technology we use to determine whether you're related to someone or not.  But we don't call your relatives' consistency with the genetics a bedtime story unless the technology loses massive sensitivity or specificity of determination, which has never been the case thus far.

Quote
2) Let's look at this page. Here we see that American beaver has 40 chromosomes and Eurasian beaver has 48. Certainly these two species are much close two each other than chimpanzee and human. Following Millers logic their ancestors should have had 48 chromosomes which through the process of fusion (and not through loss of the chromosome(s), since loss of chromosome is detrimental) and centrosomal deactivation transformed 40 chromosomes. There should be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, such examples. Have we shown that type of evidence in this (these) cases?

I don't know much about beavers, but that's interesting nevertheless.  So I did a search online and I found this article that confirms your question:

http://teora.hit.no/dspace/bitstream/2282/351/1/Wildlifebiology.pdf

Quote
The two extant species of the genus Castor, the Eurasian beaver C. fiber and the North American beaver C. canadensis, are similar both morphologically and behaviourally (e.g. Wilsson 1971, Patenaude 1984, Novak 1987) and were once classified as one species (Hill 1982). The two-species status was finally established after Lavrov & Orlov (1973) found that the diploid chromosome number is 48 in C.  fiber and 40 in C. canadensis, following Robertsonian fusion of eight chromosome pairs in C. canadensis.

Very consistent indeed that the species within a genus that differ chromosomally may not even differ much in sequencing, but chromosomal arrangements.  So thanks to Lavrov and Orlov, whose paper is unfortunately written in Russian, it seems to have been proven (in 1973 no less).  I wonder though if this is a typo by the author or not, as I would assume the number is four pairs of fusion, not eight (that leads to eight chromosomal fusions nevertheless).

Quote
3) Now, most important thing which is characteristic of Darwinian gap logic. I say no, common ancestor in this case did not have 48 chromosome but 46. One of the chromosomes was much bigger, like ours, and it broke into 2 parts both of which acquired a little more telomeric regions and on of these parts acquired a centromere. How is this logic any different from Miller's logic? Why is this type of process not possible but the one described by Miller is possible? I can make many of this type of argument which has huge chasms in it like Miller's does.

Well, first off I'm a bit confused.  You say you're anti-evolution, but then you also say you believe our common ancestor had 46, with one chromosome that later split into two and acquired centromeric and telomeric regions.  Or maybe you're simply asking why is the ancestor 48 and not 46?

Well, I can say that it is highly unlikely that chromosomal splits occur.  Chromosomal fusions occur more commonly, and more commonly with acrocentric chromosomes.  Also, the development of a centromere after a split is very highly unlikely, as this would require that the chromosome mutate to an unfathomably high rate so as to achieve a certain stability for replication, not to mention the acquiring of telomeres is a process that needs time.  If a chromosome splits and then acquires telomeres, that means that the ends of the chromosome degenerated, and we would have missing genes.  In the case of chromosome 2, nothing really was missing in comparison to 2p and 2q in a chimp.  Therefore, the evidence shows that there is a very high probability that the ancestors had to have had 24 pairs, not 23, and so far, we find that evidence to be consistent with the predicted findings of ancient hominid DNA when we're lucky to even find them.

Quote
I want answers on all of this questions. Do you think these questions do not deserve answers? Or do you think without at least having answers to this questions it is possible at all to call that argument scientific?

I think you asked some great questions, and that is what science does.  After they find something out, they continue to ask more questions, and develop more research to answer these questions.  The more questions asked that are answered, the more new questions that will be generated that will lead to more research, which makes science a very fascinating field to be engaged in.

God bless and I hope I sufficiently answered your questions without confusing you.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 08:24:06 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.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3006 on: March 24, 2011, 02:12:48 AM »

You're right.  They're not random as in not any chromosome can fuse with another.  It has to be at least one acrocentric chromosome to fuse with another chromosome for this to happen.  And once again, you're absolutely right.  Usually, fused chromosomes will mean the absence of some vital genes.  Luckily, because acrocentric genes are the most to be used in fusions, the p regions of these chromosomes have genes for nucleolar structure and synthesis, and the good news is that we have plenty of acrocentric chromosomes, which means plenty of copies of the same gene.  We also have studies that show that fusions of chromosomes happen many times, such as the famous Robertsonian translocation that predispose females to give birth to Down Syndrome babies, and the famous Philadelphia chromosomes that results in a new fusion gene BCR-ABL that occurs in many cancers, most commonly in CML.  Interestingly enough, as it turns out, the chromosomes that were fused into the present chromosome 2 we have today were both acrocentric chromosomes.  This confirms in a consistent manner the behavior of chromosomes in at least hominids.
Let's do not call the argument in question as supporting evidence for Darwinian theory. That is not fair. So far that argument is only hypothesis and it is far from being a supporting one. We need more explanations beforehand. I'm sure you know the difference between Robertsonian translocation and and chromosomal fusion. Fusion would require more steps and I do not know if it is observed in the nature. I will give you the point and say let's assume it is possible. This fused chromosome in the end is going to behave as a Robertsonian translocation (RT). So further discussion can be limited to RT. Here's very nice discussion and diagram as to what happens when this RTs affect gametes. What is lacking in this discussion and what we need is the case when 2 gametes with 22 haploid complex, each one containing t(14, 22), meet. In these case we would get a fertilized egg with 22 pairs of chromosomes, one pair being homologous t(14, 22)s. Thus we will have reduction in diploidy of the human karyotype. Something exactly like this should have happened to those supposed common ancestors (CA). Let's say that something like this happened to CAs and new karyotype with 23 pairs of chromosome formed. So far we have these facts: 1) t(14, 21) is compatible with life unless along this chromosome we have 1 pair of 14 or 21 which will give you trisomy. 2) We have no subpopulation of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome in spite of #1 being a fact.

So, why would you expect in CAs that such RT (or fusion) will give rise to a population of individuals with 23 pairs  of chromosomes?


Quote
Well, first off I'm a bit confused.  You say you're anti-evolution, but then you also say you believe our common ancestor had 46, with one chromosome that later split into two and acquired centromeric and telomeric regions.  Or maybe you're simply asking why is the ancestor 48 and not 46?
I'm not assuming at all that evolution is true. I brought this argument to show the original argument is fallacious. It makes fallacy of Affirming the consequent. The fact that consequent is true does not mean that antecedent (in this case the premise of two chromosomes fused) is true. So I brought counter example. Once argument is wrong, new arguments need to be advanced.

Quote
Well, I can say that it is highly unlikely that chromosomal splits occur.
Why not unlikely? Doesn't chromosome brake up before part of it is translocated to another chromosome? How do we know that such parts cannot acquire independent "existence"?

Quote
Also, the development of a centromere after a split is very highly unlikely, as this would require that the chromosome mutate to an unfathomably high rate so as to achieve a certain stability for replication
Why? Would it not need exactly as many mutation as it would take for an active centromere to become deactivated. These mutations have to be just in opposite directions (say, if in one case it took 3 insertions and 2 deletions to deactivate chromosome in the other case it would take 3 deletions and 2 insertions to activate it - in this case though I assume that that second sequence bearing close resemblance to centromere is a chance thing and not deactivated centromere)? Thus if deactivation did not take that high rate why should "activation" need it? Besides, one could certainly come up with the mechanisms of acquiring telomeric sequences using know processes or further hypothesize some unknown process. Thats' what Darwinists do - Darwinism is all hypothesis anyways.



I want to mention several more things with regards to the argument that claims human chromosome 2 is the result of fusion of ancestral acrocentric chromosomes. What that argument claims in the terms of formal logic is this: "structure of chromosome 2 is possible if and only if it is formed by fusion of 2 acrocentric chromosomes. In order to claim this at least partially you will have to show me several things: 1) there's no place in DNA (not just in humans but in the whole living world) where we have sequences that are close to centromeric sequences and is not derived from centromere. You basically say that all such sequences must be derived from centromeric deactivation. So, if I find in human genome (or in any genome) sequences that by composition are close to centromeric sequences but clearly are in the locations that would not be possible to explain but centromeric deactivation, then whole argument is wrong; 2) Same can be said about telomeric sequences located in between the actual centromere and supposedly deactivated centromere; 3) If we find a functional gene (or genes) between active and and supposedly deactivated centromeres which are not present on short arms of ape's acrocentric chromosomes (those that got fused) then we have a great problem that invalidates given hypothesis. Are all this premises met?



And finally one last but not least point:
Quote
As for the "bedtime story," I must say, what other explanation is there for two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions that make this chromosome so unique?  I don't know, but the evidence of a telomeric center, and two centromeric regions, along with a chromosome that has an almost identical sequence as two chimp chromosomes has to really say something.
First, I've just mentioned what criteria should be met so that your argument is not compromised. Second, suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.

Glory to God and God bless us all
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 02:13:38 AM by ativan » Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3007 on: March 26, 2011, 12:31:50 AM »

I want to put here one quote from Blessed Paisius the Athonite. I'm reading a book about his teachings in Georgian. The book is in the Q and A format ad its title can be translated as "About humans with love and pain". In chapter 4 there are topics related to the Church and its teaching nowadays. This chapter is called "The Church in our epoch". I will be quoting this Holy man [emphasis' are mine]:
Quote
What nonsense they teach today in schools! Darwin's theory and nonsense like it... They themselves who teach this stupidity do not believe in this theory. But all this is imposed on poor children to plant this sickness in them and break them off the Church. One such scholar started to tell me this baby stories: "Let's assume that the earth contains different ingredients and microorganisms, using of which God created a human-like creature"... "So, if all this did not exist God could have not been able to create man? Can you imagine that?!" - I said. Then that scholar continues: "But what if we assumed God took an ape and perfected it through evolution?" I said again: "OK, could not God create human without first creating an ape? After all it took him whole one day to create man! Or you first he had to collect some material first? Read the prophecy of Job which as you said you listen in the Church on Great Thursdays' matins." These stories about the apes are refuted even by scientists today. How many years have passed since the man landed on the moon? Apes, on the other hand, for the duration of this supposed evolution can't even skate,  not to mention that apes have not invented bicycle and have not ridden it. Have you ever seen apes skating? It's quite different thing that apes can be taught to ride bicycle." "Yes - continued anxiously the scholar, but if we assume there's a chance..." "Don't assume anything anymore. Better if you keep quiet. You'll gain more by keeping quiet" - I stopped him.

So was formulated theory of evolution by that professor of an university. One day I told him: "If you take good care of planted beans it will get better over time. Same is true for eggplants. By feeding and training apes they will become better apes nevertheless they remain still apes." And if you think a little more you will see that our Lord Jesus Christ was born from a human, Al pure  Theotokos. So then what are we saying? Christ's ancestors were apes? What a blasphemy! But the follower of this theory don't see that they commit blasphemy.

Then these divinely wise elder continues:
Quote
They throw stones and don't even care at whom these stones hit and brake heads. Moreover they brag: "I threw stones better!" Today everybody is occupied exactly with this. That one who threw furthest is glorified more but nobody thinks about those who's heads are broken.
Who comes in the mind here? Dawkins? Hitchens? Non-scepticaly and religious  sceptic Shermer and the likes? Aren't these the idols who are glorified and who had broken many many heads?


after this elder is asked: "Holy father, some think that by the aid of such theories it is planned to draw marxists closer to the Church."

And the Holy Father answers:
Quote
Initially marxist really can draw closer to the Church but later they will penetrate the Church and they will start to dictate when to go to the Church and when not to. They will attempt to controll everything and finally they will say: "Who told you God exists? Priesthood lie to everybody". This is exactly how marxists find use of supporters and followers of evolutionary theory and this is how the want to reach their goal. They don't understand this.

Can't be said any better. I can understand atheists, even Protestants and Catholics but an Orthodox believer believing Darwinism? That I can't get. I can't get how an Orthodox (who should be seeing God everywhere and in everything and praising him day and night) beliver can accept a theory where The Lord eternal Life-giver is out of the picture about the origin and development of the Life.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #3008 on: March 26, 2011, 12:58:13 AM »

I always liked this quote by the Most Reverend Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:

“There need not be any conflict with religion and science…I don’t care very much for the theory of Intelligent Design…for myself as an Orthodox Christian I have no difficulty in accepting the evolutionary picture of the universe presented by modern science.  And I think we shouldn’t say evolution is merely a theory or speculation, the evidence is very powerful.  I don’t have a problem there for my faith as an Orthodox Christian…but we do wish to affirm that human beings have a unique status in the universe because they are made in the image and likeness of God.”
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3009 on: March 26, 2011, 11:05:30 AM »

the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 11:12:19 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #3010 on: March 26, 2011, 02:49:57 PM »

the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.

I couldn't tell you how Met. Kallistos reconciles them, but I can tell you how I do so. I've posted this in this thread before, but I think it's a great summation. This is from John Polkinghorne's Quarks, Chaos & Christianity:

I would like to suggest, respectfully, that when God came to create the world, the Creator faced a dilemma.  God is faithful, and the natural gift of the faithful God will be reliability in the operation of creation.  However, reliability by itself could harden into mere rigidity, leading to a clockwork world in which nothing really new ever happened.  God is also loving, and the natural gift of the loving God will be an independence granted to creation.  Independence on its own, however, could degenerate into mere license, leading to a world of disorderly chaos.

I believe that the God who is both loving and faithful has given to creation the twin gifts of independence and reliability.  These find their reflection in the fruitful interplay of chance and necessity in evolving cosmic history.  Such an account gives a much more positive understanding of the role of chance.  Monod and Dawkins like to apply to chance the adjective “blind,” suggestive of purposelessness and meaninglessness, but we do not need to be beguiled by their tendentious choice of words.  The shuffling operations of happenstance are a way of exploring and bringing to light the deep anthropic fruitfulness with which the physical world has been endowed.  Chance is “the search radar of God, sweeping through all possible targets of its probing.”

We must find a balance to the unacceptable views of God as divine puppeteer, pulling every string and making creatures dance to the divine tune alone and God as divine spectator who just set it all going and left the universe to get on with it.  An evolutionary world is to be understood theologically as a world allowed by the Creator to make itself to a large degree.  Yet this self-making takes place in a setting of finely tuned potentiality.  Creation is not the starting off of something that is produced ready-made; rather, it is a continuous process.

Because continuous creation allows room for creaturly freedom within this process, the consequences will be lots of things that have come about “by chance” in the course of history.  I do not believe that it was laid down from the foundation of the world that humankind should have five fingers - it just worked out that way - but I by no means believe it is pure accident that beings capable of self-conciousness and of worship have emerged in the course of cosmic history.  In other words, there is a general overall purpose being fulfilled in what is going on, but the details of what actually occurs are left to the contingencies of history (this happening rather than that).  The picture is of a world endowed with fruitfulness, guided by its Creator, but allowed an ability to realize this fruitfulness in its own particular ways.  Chance is a sign of freedom, not blind purposelessness.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,583



« Reply #3011 on: March 26, 2011, 02:51:37 PM »

the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.

Don't you think that the Fathers lived in a different context than we? Is it possible that had they lived today, their writings may have been more like Metropolitan Kallistos'?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3012 on: March 26, 2011, 03:33:51 PM »

the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.

Don't you think that the Fathers lived in a different context than we? Is it possible that had they lived today, their writings may have been more like Metropolitan Kallistos'?

couldnt we ask that about everything they taught then?

Protestants could say the Fathers only believed in those weird sacrament things because they were too influenced by the pagan mystery cults. if they were writing today they'd of course realize how silly it is to say you're eating flesh and blood.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3013 on: March 26, 2011, 03:58:07 PM »

Evolution is of the devil.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #3014 on: March 26, 2011, 05:34:38 PM »

It is definitely the work of Santa.
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 0.21 seconds with 75 queries.