OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 06:03:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 326351 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3060 on: April 06, 2011, 08:01:55 PM »

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.

going off of this, ive heard some evolutionary atheists arguing that therefore man has no true free will, since everything is just natural and you're therefore just programmed to respond to everything in a specific way. have you ever heard of this?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3061 on: April 06, 2011, 08:39:53 PM »

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.

going off of this, ive heard some evolutionary atheists arguing that therefore man has no true free will, since everything is just natural and you're therefore just programmed to respond to everything in a specific way. have you ever heard of this?
Yes, some evolutionary atheists reject free will. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel laureate, wrote in The Astonishing Hypothesis "although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that."

However, evolutionary theory itself does not reject free will.
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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,414


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


WWW
« Reply #3062 on: April 06, 2011, 09:31:29 PM »

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.

going off of this, ive heard some evolutionary atheists arguing that therefore man has no true free will, since everything is just natural and you're therefore just programmed to respond to everything in a specific way. have you ever heard of this?

I never really understood this point.  I think either they don't understand what "free will" really is under our definition or they're making a statement about how we can't battle our instincts.

I think it's very clear if we were to allow ourselves to be ruled by our instincts, by our flesh, then we truly are not free.  But when we struggle and fight against the desires of the flesh, then it's very clear to me our spirits are freeing our will.
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 #3063 on: April 06, 2011, 09:35:51 PM »

i think its because they explain everything about man through evolution, as Jetavan said. so anything we see as spiritual aspects of man they explain as something biological.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,414


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


WWW
« Reply #3064 on: April 06, 2011, 09:46:41 PM »

i think its because they explain everything about man through evolution, as Jetavan said. so anything we see as spiritual aspects of man they explain as something biological.

Indeed.  By the very definition of atheism, they are fatalists.  They must explain themselves as nothing but organic computers that will cease to exist one day and they live each day reminding themselves that that's okay.

Our brains have a sense of plasticity.  In other words, somehow we can change the wiring of our brains.  We can't download things down (I wish), but we work hard at understanding things.  If we can change our brain, then we can be free.
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 #3065 on: April 07, 2011, 01:38:52 AM »

Evolution is the most credible theory for the life sciences, according to all evidence found by now. If you have evidence that disproves evolution.
Theologically it's terrible blasphemy. Scientifically it's nonscientific nonsense. I have evidence that Darwin's hypothesis is flawed and unsubstantiated. I've not seen anybody responded to what I've asked so far other than Mina giving hypothesis after hypothesis. Others have not even put out hypothesis.

Quote
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this.
You don't know but you believe. Knowledge is a big word. I don't know either what Saint is but I believe (rather I have 100 % faith in this) they are something that human mind can't even imagine. They are beyond any logic. Have you ever met any Saint?

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
I have heard about one great living Saint and Prophet has said it too. When I read that story I was excited.

Indeed!  I made the argument earlier that virtually the first 300 hundred years of the Church, all the Church fathers believed that angels can have intercourse with humans.  Later on, the Church seemed to have changed over the course understanding either a different interpretation or an allegory of the Nephilim.  The question that comes to mind, and very crucially, does it really change the central faith of the Church.  The answer was no.  So despite the unanimous Church going along with the idea of the Nephilim as being sons of fallen angels, the later Church fathers keeping up with the scientific understanding of their times found it to be prudent to disagree.
Sons of fallen angels or sons of God? Old testament in old Georgian language mentions "Sons of God". One living Saint was asked who were Sons of God ("Nephilim" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4). The Saint, who sees anybody's heart and soul from top to bottom and who know anybody's life more than a person can know about himself, answered something like this: It's early for you to know this, you won't understand it anyways. I'll tell you though they are everywhere around us but to see them one has to be Son of God himself; one has to be pure in his heart.

So, there're Saints who see Sons of God and they're not talking from the books. Here our only role is either to deny their words (call them lairs) or have faith in them as much as we have faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.

BTW, even Great saints from the past are here, walking on the earth. I read amazing sermon on that from the same Saint but I was really surprised when I read same statement from another great Saint of 20th century Elder Ambrose of Dadiou. This is what Blessed Elder Ambrose said:
Quote
In 1990, he had said that the Lord will soon start revealing his Saints in front of people, because He wishes to strengthen mankind. Since temptations will be great and the trials unbearable, the Lord will instruct his Saints to show up, especially great Saints like Saint Demetrios or Saint George. People will hear that this Saint appeared in Crete this week, next week in Macedonia, the other one there, etc.

I don't doubt even smallest grain of their word. These people are God's people and they don't talk from the book. They are examples of living God on the Earth and living Faith. Problem with faith today is its rationalization and its modernization. Part of this rationalization is to sneak into it all the heretic studies disguised under the name of science including Darwinian evolution.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #3066 on: April 09, 2011, 05:57:04 PM »

I asked for your definition of a species in order to have a productive conversation because it can vary even among scientists. Some scientists consider Helacyton gartleri, derived from Helen Lacks 60 years ago, as a new species, others say it is still Homo sapien.
HeLa cells are 1) derived from human cells in lab and not by evolution. Thus it contributes nothing to evolution through random mutation. 2) If such a cell is a new human species then every single specialized (as well as stem) cell in human body is a new human species and I must be composed of about 300 hundred different species each one containing billions of individuals.

I think it is possible you missed the point. HeLa cells are distinctly different.  For example, HeLa ATCC-CCL2 is variably multiploid with 51-179 total chromosomes. Chromosome 3 does not exist.  The long arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 1; the short arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 5. The small arm of chromosome 5 is duplicated at the other side of the centromere to form a small isochromosome. The long arm of chromosome 11 is fused to an arm of chromosome 19. And these changes are the gross ones that can be observed in a light microscope (Lavappa et al, 1976) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v259/n5540/abs/259211a0.html).

Quote
That is exactly what I said in previous pot: evolutionary scientists don't even have a clearly defined notion of species. How can you talk about species evolution if you don't know what species is? That is not my problem. It adds to your problem. I already gave you how I would change my reasoning by simple introducing clear terms, without ever referring to vagueness of "species", to which you gave me wrong answer.

This is not a problem. Genetic isolation (absence of interbreeding) in higher organisms and slow gene transference in lower organisms (either genetic or geographical isolation) suffices. You are the one that brought up species:
Quote
For sure, there has never been any observation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.

But you clearly do not want this statement challenged, so I won't.

Quote
Problem with your reasoning is twofold at least: 1) If you giving me such examples as an examples of evolution, then huge changes (like acquiring genes for flagella) occur in a matter of minutes or hours, or however long it takes for different e.coli to exchange genetic material. If such changes happen so fast we should be seeing all species turning into different species in a matter of days or months (of course this reasoning only is extrapolation of your reasoning by bringing in these examples).

There is no reasoning on my part. I just stated the facts. Your problem (not mine) is that you have no definition for a species that you are willing to accept so there is no response possible, only facts. There is substantial and rapid exchange of genetic information (like the genes necessary for the formation of flagella) between E. coli because these individual cells are not genetically or physically isolated from each other.  However there is also substantial, but slow, exchange of genes between different "species", "genera" and "classes" of bacteria. For example the transducing bacteriophage SN-T infects bacteria belonging to the class Gammaproteobacteria (Shigella flexneri, Proteus vulgaris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli), Alphaproteobacteria (Rhodospirillum rubrum) and class Betaproteobacteria (Sphaerotilus natans). (Transducing bacteriophage  occasionally package bacterial DNA into their capsids, usually by mistake, which of course doesn't kill the next host when they inject the non-viral DNA.) (Source for SN-T info: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317401/)  There are also broad-range plasmids that are compatible with a wide range of bacteria and gene transfer between the kingdoms bacteria and archaea is also evident (Source: http://preview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19271200). Current estimates are that approximately 70% of genes in any given bacterium arrived by horizontal gene transfer.

Your question about all species turning into different species can't be answered because species is not defined. You should not be dogmatic about how evolution works.  Prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria) exchange genetic information promiscuously with cohabitation being a major component in regard to the rate of exchange.

I think you will like this quote from Eugene Koonin (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/),  "The biological universe seen through the lens of genomics is a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by ‘primitive’ life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology. Above all, it is an extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT (viruses, plasmids, transposons and more) are ubiquitous. We now think of the entire world of prokaryotes as a single, huge network of interconnected gene pools, and the notion of the prokaryotic pangenome is definitely here to stay. Although HGT is partially curtailed in eukaryotes, especially, the multicellular plants and animals, multiple endosymbioses accompanied by massive gene transfer were key to the evolution and indeed the very origin of eukaryotes. Moreover, most eukaryotic genomes teem with mobile elements which make them no less dynamic than the prokaryotic pangenome. The discovery of the all-encompassing genomic mobility puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life that has to be replaced by a network of vertical and horizontal gene fluxes. It is important to note, however, that evolution of individual genes still can be represented with trees, and search for trends in the ‘Forest of Life’ comprised of these gene trees could still reveal order in the historic flow of genetic information."

Also please look at Table 1 in the above cited paper: "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". This conversation should be about evolution and not Darwinism.

Quote
So I will ask you: why don't we see humans change for say 5000 years? Your answer is, it's not enough time for a human to transform into a new species? I ask again: did you not just gave me examples of unicellular things turning into multicelllar in a blink? Well, you should not have brought this examples at all.

Not a blink exactly, but I believe this question is now addressed above.

 
Quote
2) Of course you gave me examples where things happen as a result of very very cleverly designed structure of cell communication and exchange of genetic material. If you've paid attention I was actually saying you can't get such cellular communication and exchange of genetic material in cells that did not have all these to start with. Now you have to explain not only how one bacteria without flagella evolved into bacteria with flagella but also how bacteria acquired the property of genetic material exchange within the species and across the species which in turn requires lots of genes working in amazing cooperation. Can you do that?

The first part of point (2) has been answered in one aspect, all prokaryotes have the ability to obtain genetic information from their surroundings. As far as how the first flagellum arose, I probably could specify a pathway for evolution from protein homologues and my thoughts about it. But I am not particularly interested in how flagella evolved into being. You might want to read "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella" in Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (2006) http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html.

The other reason that I feel answering this question is a waste of my time is that I have seen no convincing or suggestive scenario for the creation of life on earth (abiogenesis).
See my prior posts for my thoughts on this topic:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg534740.html#msg534740
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg535055.html#msg535055
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg535427.html#msg535427

Quote
N, not that. Simply put the problem is this: obligate intracellular parasites, I say, must have evolved through simplification of already existing facultative cell who could exist outside acell. And of course the whole my assumption is based on anther assumption that Darwinism is true.  Mina is saying this assumption is not right and he's doing this to avoid artificially introduced notion of "evolving, going up the ladder".  If my assumption is not right then obligate intracellular cell evolved (got more and more complex) inside a cell. I'd like to hear how.

I am not sure what you are asking here and I do not have time to go back to previous posts to figure out what you are getting at. I can only again suggest looking at Table 1. "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". Darwinism is only partially correct.  From the cited table: "There is no consistent trend towards increasing complexity and no progress in evolution".

Pardon the typos if you find any.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3067 on: April 10, 2011, 04:49:46 AM »

I think it is possible you missed the point. HeLa cells are distinctly different.  For example, HeLa ATCC-CCL2 is variably multiploid with 51-179 total chromosomes. Chromosome 3 does not exist.  The long arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 1; the short arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 5. The small arm of chromosome 5 is duplicated at the other side of the centromere to form a small isochromosome. The long arm of chromosome 11 is fused to an arm of chromosome 19. And these changes are the gross ones that can be observed in a light microscope (Lavappa et al, 1976) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v259/n5540/abs/259211a0.html).
It is definitely possible I missed the point. Not to miss it again can you tell me why are you exactly bringing this example in? What's the purpose? Are you telling this cell is a new species?

Quote
Quote
That is exactly what I said in previous pot: evolutionary scientists don't even have a clearly defined notion of species. How can you talk about species evolution if you don't know what species is? That is not my problem. It adds to your problem. I already gave you how I would change my reasoning by simple introducing clear terms, without ever referring to vagueness of "species", to which you gave me wrong answer.

This is not a problem. Genetic isolation (absence of interbreeding) in higher organisms and slow gene transference in lower organisms (either genetic or geographical isolation) suffices.
Then I want to now: 1) Were American Indians and Europeans different species long before Europeans found there way into America? 2) Are they different species now? 3) What you mean by slow gene transference? 4) Are tigers and lions different species and if yes based on what? If tigers and lions are different species then what about liger - I mean, can different species be interbreeding?

Quote
You are the one that brought up species:
Quote
For sure, there has never been any observation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.

But you clearly do not want this statement challenged, so I won't.
Fair enough. I will rephrase it: In spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans cats are cats, dogs are dogs, no cat turned into dogs, no dogs turned into ducks etc.

Quote
Quote
Problem with your reasoning is twofold at least: 1) If you giving me such examples as an examples of evolution, then huge changes (like acquiring genes for flagella) occur in a matter of minutes or hours, or however long it takes for different e.coli to exchange genetic material. If such changes happen so fast we should be seeing all species turning into different species in a matter of days or months (of course this reasoning only is extrapolation of your reasoning by bringing in these examples).

There is no reasoning on my part. I just stated the facts. Your problem (not mine) is that you have no definition for a species that you are willing to accept so there is no response possible, only facts.
I don't need to define species. I'm gonna go back and quote you again:
Quote
Bacteria lacking flagella acquire it all the time. Some E. coli have flagella, some don't, they lost the functional genes. But they get it back by mating with another E. coli, where they become partially diploid for a while, or by being infected with a transducing lysogenic bacteriophage.
This you brought as a response to my statement that it is impossible to get a cell with flagella from a cell without flagella. Did you bring this example as a support of evolution of a non-flagellar cell into flagellar cell? If not then my point is still valid and you can't bring such examples. So it makes sense to continue this line of reasoning if you did bring this example as a supportive case for evolution.

Quote
Your question about all species turning into different species can't be answered because species is not defined. You should not be dogmatic about how evolution works.  Prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria) exchange genetic information promiscuously with cohabitation being a major component in regard to the rate of exchange.
Again, no need for species definition.

1) Let's go back to your own species definition and quantify please slow vs. rapid exchange of genetic material.

2) I can completely understand what you say and even agree with you that bacterial "species" can be formed the way you mentioned. Intresting questions are though. Horizontal transfer of genes is a complex and geniusly designed mechanisms of forming "new species". As I said, I'm completely OK to agree with you on that. But A) Can you get those species without this mechanism by just random mutations like Darwinism claims? This is the real problem and your examples are to explain away the problem. There's nothing evolutionary at all in those examples in Darwinian sense; After all, if such mechanisms can explain new species formation you don't need Darwinism, it's redundant. B) How, in the first place, this geniusly designed mechanism came to be when it did not exist some time?

As a remote possibility, there could be some very complex (not random but absolutely intelligent) mechanism(s) of genetic information transfer and very complex plasmids/genes that, by working on prokaryotes through such mechanisms, could convert prokaryote into esukaryote. But even if we found such thing it will help none to Darwinism - Darwinism needs random mutations int genome!

Quote
Quote
So I will ask you: why don't we see humans change for say 5000 years? Your answer is, it's not enough time for a human to transform into a new species? I ask again: did you not just gave me examples of unicellular things turning into multicelllar in a blink? Well, you should not have brought this examples at all.

Not a blink exactly, but I believe this question is now addressed above.
I did not read your article yet but do you mean you adressed question in your statements or its addressed in that article?

Quote
Quote
2) Of course you gave me examples where things happen as a result of very very cleverly designed structure of cell communication and exchange of genetic material. If you've paid attention I was actually saying you can't get such cellular communication and exchange of genetic material in cells that did not have all these to start with. Now you have to explain not only how one bacteria without flagella evolved into bacteria with flagella but also how bacteria acquired the property of genetic material exchange within the species and across the species which in turn requires lots of genes working in amazing cooperation. Can you do that?

The first part of point (2) has been answered in one aspect, all prokaryotes have the ability to obtain genetic information from their surroundings. As far as how the first flagellum arose, I probably could specify a pathway for evolution from protein homologues and my thoughts about it. But I am not particularly interested in how flagella evolved into being. You might want to read "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella" in Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (2006) http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html.
No, you did not answer anything at all with regards to my question. All you said make problems worse. First of all, if all prokaryotes have the ability to obtain genetic information from their surroundings, they must have happened in prokaryotes that did not have this mechanisms to start with. If you want to say there was never a time when prokaryotes did not have this mechanism then you are completely denying abiogenesis even in the wildest imaginary theory, since there was never a protocell without such genetic information uptake from the surroundings. I doubt you say this. I'm sure you must admit sometime there was an organism without being able to transfer/uptake genetic information. And if you admit the existence of such cells you just have to imagine them since there's none in the nature which give you no choice but offer unsubstantiated hypothesis. Therefore you still have to give me a hypothesis with minimum scientific rational.


Quote
The other reason that I feel answering this question is a waste of my time is that I have seen no convincing or suggestive scenario for the creation of life on earth (abiogenesis).
Why have we not seen no convincing or suggestive scenario for the creation of life on earth? Is there problems with us or its just impossible to come up with such scenarios? And when you have not seen such hypothesis for over a century do you rally think anybody ever will come up with it?

Quote
I am not sure what you are asking here and I do not have time to go back to previous posts to figure out what you are getting at. I can only again suggest looking at Table 1. "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". Darwinism is only partially correct.  From the cited table: "There is no consistent trend towards increasing complexity and no progress in evolution".
No I'm saying something very different. I say, if you can get eukaryote from prokaryote then you can get prokaryote from eukaryote. If you can get a human from an ape, then you can get an ape from human and so on. This leads to further consequences. Here's a quote from my previous posts:
Quote
By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3068 on: April 10, 2011, 05:04:59 AM »

Quote
I think you will like this quote from Eugene Koonin (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/),  "The biological universe seen through the lens of genomics is a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by ‘primitive’ life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology. Above all, it is an extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT (viruses, plasmids, transposons and more) are ubiquitous. We now think of the entire world of prokaryotes as a single, huge network of interconnected gene pools, and the notion of the prokaryotic pangenome is definitely here to stay. Although HGT is partially curtailed in eukaryotes, especially, the multicellular plants and animals, multiple endosymbioses accompanied by massive gene transfer were key to the evolution and indeed the very origin of eukaryotes. Moreover, most eukaryotic genomes teem with mobile elements which make them no less dynamic than the prokaryotic pangenome. The discovery of the all-encompassing genomic mobility puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life that has to be replaced by a network of vertical and horizontal gene fluxes. It is important to note, however, that evolution of individual genes still can be represented with trees, and search for trends in the ‘Forest of Life’ comprised of these gene trees could still reveal order in the historic flow of genetic information."

Also please look at Table 1 in the above cited paper: "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". This conversation should be about evolution and not Darwinism.
I'm sorry I did not read it. It does sound very interesting. I just glanced through a table. Certainly it is much intelligent theory paying dues to genious of life but it still has some of the same problems of Dariwnism which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

Can we agree now that Darwinism is wrong? If we can then we can continue towards this theory.

Sorry again, my response above might have been unnecessary.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3069 on: April 10, 2011, 03:42:40 PM »

...which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory.
And this is exactly why your views are unscientific.  Call them theology, call them philosophy; call them whatever you'd like, but don't call them science.  You start with your conclusions (nothing is random),  and then you attempt to fit the data to your conclusions.  That's not science.  That's the difference.

Quote
And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.
No scientific theory takes God out of any picture.  If you choose to look at a theory and remark that "Hey, that means there's no need for God", then that's your choice.  But don't assign the blame to science.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3070 on: April 10, 2011, 05:29:37 PM »

...which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory.
And this is exactly why your views are unscientific.  Call them theology, call them philosophy; call them whatever you'd like, but don't call them science.  You start with your conclusions (nothing is random),  and then you attempt to fit the data to your conclusions.  That's not science.  That's the difference.

well then the question is - whats so great about science, if it insists on being open to possibilities that we know are not true because of our faith?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2011, 05:30:12 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #3071 on: April 10, 2011, 06:19:04 PM »

"know" or believe?

Science looks at the physical world and things as they are and has found lots of things that are real that some didn't agree with. Things like germs that caused disease and ways of prevention or ways to ease pain that some said should not be done.  Or plate tectonics which was controversial because it meant that the earth wasn't all solid and unchanging.  But it's True and it gave knowledge and understanding of things like earthquakes and tsunamis and so forth. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3072 on: April 10, 2011, 07:20:57 PM »

...which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory.
And this is exactly why your views are unscientific.  Call them theology, call them philosophy; call them whatever you'd like, but don't call them science.  You start with your conclusions (nothing is random),  and then you attempt to fit the data to your conclusions.  That's not science.  That's the difference.
Did I ever claim my faith was scientific? I do not call my faith science but you do call your faith (faith in Darwinism) science. And when questions come to purely scientific explanations you make most general statements like the one you did know. Show me where's science in Darwinism. When I refute Darwinian claims I do not use faith, I play the same game as science does. Anyways, You've got the opportunity to prove Darwinism as scientific theory by answering the question that were asked.

Quote
Quote
And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.
No scientific theory takes God out of any picture.  If you choose to look at a theory and remark that "Hey, that means there's no need for God", then that's your choice.  But don't assign the blame to science.
Yes it does. And as you think it doesn't I'm sure it does. As you want somebody to hear you and take your advice I want same. Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3073 on: April 11, 2011, 03:49:57 AM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3074 on: April 11, 2011, 09:25:15 AM »

there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #3075 on: April 11, 2011, 12:13:37 PM »

there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?

As long as you believe that these "random" collisions are directed by Divine Providence, there shouldn't be a problem. "Chance" is simply shorthand for "we don't know the reasons why this happened". The problem arises when people jump from "we don't know" to "we can't know". Then they deify Chance (Goddess Fortuna), and thereby deny Providence.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3076 on: April 11, 2011, 12:59:51 PM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  Roll Eyes
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?

Rufus
Quote
So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
Jonathan Gress read my mind. I agree with him completely.
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3077 on: April 11, 2011, 01:06:15 PM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  Roll Eyes
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?

You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?

A knife can cut some wood, but also throats. It's up to you to decide how to use it. The maker of the knife is nowhere to blame if you go on rampant mode and start killing everyone. Same goes for Science. It's up to you to believe in God, while also taking medicine or not.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 01:09:25 PM by Dimitrios-Georgios » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #3078 on: April 11, 2011, 01:12:10 PM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  Roll Eyes
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?

You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?

Interesting. I don't remember ever seeing such a thing in an Orthodox confession guide, but I wouldn't say that makes this suspect. If you refuse treatment out of pride, then it's sinful and must be confessed. Honestly, however, I would have thought the most common sin now would be to forget God completely when you're sick, and put your faith entirely in the doctors. The proper way, of course, is to pray first to God for help in your sickness, and then to go seek appropriate treatment.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3079 on: April 11, 2011, 01:13:44 PM »

You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?
No, it was merely you misreading me and wrong conclusion. I did not say when one gets sick not to seek treatment! I said almost nobody puts his hope in God anymore. It's only science, medicine, doctors etc who cure us and who we hope in. And surely if we sincerely and strongly hope in God why we need anything else? Do you not know multiple stories from the lives of Saints cured by God alone when they have faith? I do.
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3080 on: April 11, 2011, 01:14:19 PM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  Roll Eyes
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?

You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?

Interesting. I don't remember ever seeing such a thing in an Orthodox confession guide, but I wouldn't say that makes this suspect. If you refuse treatment out of pride, then it's sinful and must be confessed. Honestly, however, I would have thought the most common sin now would be to forget God completely when you're sick, and put your faith entirely in the doctors. The proper way, of course, is to pray first to God for help in your sickness, and then to go seek appropriate treatment.
For me, it's both at the same time, but everyone's free to choose.

You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?
No, it was merely you misreading me and wrong conclusion. I did not say when one gets sick not to seek treatment! I said almost nobody puts his hope in God anymore. It's only science, medicine, doctors etc who cure us and who we hope in. And surely if we sincerely and strongly hope in God why we need anything else? Do you not know multiple stories from the lives of Saints cured by God alone when they have faith? I do.
That's a problem of the age we are living at. Don't look at science, everywhere from running at Championship level to getting straight As on a national level, people are forgetting God. Without science, you wouldn't have anything different, just more deaths at a younger age. If people do not want to get to God, that's because perhaps none has spoken to them about God, or shown them how the Church is not here to put dos and donots, but how to help everyone of us achieve the best outcome that the Father planned for us - theosis.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 01:18:36 PM by Dimitrios-Georgios » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #3081 on: April 11, 2011, 01:42:07 PM »

Actually, I think the order in which we do things, e.g. prayer and action, are important. When we are hungry, we should not satisfy our hunger first, and then only thank God after. It is important first to seek God's blessing on our food, and only then to eat. Likewise, when sick, we should look first to God, Who provides us with everything we need, and then only after we have prayed, to seek professional help.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3082 on: April 11, 2011, 08:27:17 PM »

"Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you", by Karl Giberson. Karl W. Giberson, Ph.D., is vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and is the author or coauthor of seven books, including The Language of Science and Faith.

Quote
Jesus once famously said, “I am the Truth.”
....
We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3083 on: April 11, 2011, 08:30:33 PM »

"Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you", by Karl Giberson. Karl W. Giberson, Ph.D., is vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and is the author or coauthor of seven books, including The Language of Science and Faith.

Quote
Jesus once famously said, “I am the Truth.”
....
We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.

good thing Darwin came along to open Jesus' eyes!
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3084 on: April 12, 2011, 01:39:57 AM »

Actually, I think the order in which we do things, e.g. prayer and action, are important. When we are hungry, we should not satisfy our hunger first, and then only thank God after. It is important first to seek God's blessing on our food, and only then to eat. Likewise, when sick, we should look first to God, Who provides us with everything we need, and then only after we have prayed, to seek professional help.
There are some diseases which require instant and specific treatment. For example, last year around that time I had a very rare disease (only 50 adults in Europe in the last 20 years), which requires treatment within the first 10 days of fever. This disease is so rare, that the doctors in the hospital where I was taken didn't know it. Also, there are no de facto signs that prove you have this disease. A doctor will understand this is the case, if other treatments don't work and only then. After ten to fifteen days of fever, the fever will drop and everything will look normal again. However, you are in serious trouble then. The disease has damaged the arteries of the heart and at any time you may have a heart attack and die, even at 25 years old, without anyone knowing why.

Fortunately, the doctors gave me the right treatment at exactly the tenth day and we prevented further complications. I'm having ultrasound examinations every nine months now, but the doctors say that no arteries are harmed, thankfully.

My point: Pray to God and at the same time visit a doctor. Otherwise, chances are that you might lose valuable time.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3085 on: April 12, 2011, 05:22:57 AM »

Actually, I think the order in which we do things, e.g. prayer and action, are important. When we are hungry, we should not satisfy our hunger first, and then only thank God after. It is important first to seek God's blessing on our food, and only then to eat. Likewise, when sick, we should look first to God, Who provides us with everything we need, and then only after we have prayed, to seek professional help.
Nicely said.  However, it's important to note that when we pray before eating, we are not asking God to nourish our bodies in lieu of eating; we're asking his blessing of the food we are about to consume.  Likewise, if we are to encourage praying before going to the doctor, that is fine; but let's make sure we're not praying for healing in lieu of seeking medical attention.  Let's ask his blessing of the care we are about to receive.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3086 on: April 12, 2011, 05:31:37 AM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God.
Okay, this comment is so patently absurd that I'm sorely tempted to break forum rules and decorum in replying to it.  Science's only purpose is to prove there's no need for God!?  Its only purpose?  Really?  Where in God's green creation do you come up with such drivel?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3087 on: April 12, 2011, 08:37:21 AM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God.
Okay, this comment is so patently absurd that I'm sorely tempted to break forum rules and decorum in replying to it.  Science's only purpose is to prove there's no need for God!?  Its only purpose?  Really?  Where in God's green creation do you come up with such drivel?

methinks it was most probably hyperbole. that seems like a pretty logical reading of the statement.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3088 on: April 12, 2011, 02:14:10 PM »

there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?

As long as you believe that these "random" collisions are directed by Divine Providence, there shouldn't be a problem. "Chance" is simply shorthand for "we don't know the reasons why this happened". The problem arises when people jump from "we don't know" to "we can't know". Then they deify Chance (Goddess Fortuna), and thereby deny Providence.

So if I strike a match  and it lights, it's only because God willed it to light? and on the off chance that it does not light, it's bacause God willed it not to light? Obviously God is involved in the process either way, but it sounds like you are saying that God's will directly determines every cause and effect. I believe this is a belief of Islamic philosophy, properly called fatalism.

I think we would agree that the laws and existence of the universe subsist in God's Energies. That is not the same as saying that natural processes don't exist.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3089 on: April 12, 2011, 02:22:00 PM »

"Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you", by Karl Giberson. Karl W. Giberson, Ph.D., is vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and is the author or coauthor of seven books, including The Language of Science and Faith.

Quote
Jesus once famously said, “I am the Truth.”
....
We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.

good thing Darwin came along to open Jesus' eyes!

According to St. Athanasius, Jesus, in His humanity, took on limited knowledge. See the following post:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28594.msg456615.html#msg456615

I would not be surprised if Jesus, in His time on earth, did not know that the Earth goes around the Sun. It would not persuade me do dismiss Copernicus out of hand (although Martin Luther did).

EDIT: fixed the link.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 02:23:39 PM by Rufus » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #3090 on: April 12, 2011, 02:27:59 PM »

there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?

As long as you believe that these "random" collisions are directed by Divine Providence, there shouldn't be a problem. "Chance" is simply shorthand for "we don't know the reasons why this happened". The problem arises when people jump from "we don't know" to "we can't know". Then they deify Chance (Goddess Fortuna), and thereby deny Providence.

So if I strike a match  and it lights, it's only because God willed it to light? and on the off chance that it does not light, it's bacause God willed it not to light? Obviously God is involved in the process either way, but it sounds like you are saying that God's will directly determines every cause and effect. I believe this is a belief of Islamic philosophy, properly called fatalism.

I think we would agree that the laws and existence of the universe subsist in God's Energies. That is not the same as saying that natural processes don't exist.

I understood God as maintaining the whole natural world, with all of its laws, by His will, so in that sense, yes, every natural cause is also caused by God. At the same time, there are evil forces in the world, not necessarily only caused by humans, but also by fallen angels, which God nevertheless allows to operate. The general corruption of the world seems to be an aspect of this, since we are taught that the world became corrupted by being subjected to the devil's reign due to Adam's transgression. But on top of this, God causes certain things to happen against the course of nature, or he permits the angels or saints to do things against the course of nature.

The distinction between what is natural and supernatural, then, doesn't reflect the presence or absence of God in its operation, but rather between whether or not we are able to predict the outcome of events by the application of our reason.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3091 on: April 12, 2011, 07:13:18 PM »

there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?

As long as you believe that these "random" collisions are directed by Divine Providence, there shouldn't be a problem. "Chance" is simply shorthand for "we don't know the reasons why this happened". The problem arises when people jump from "we don't know" to "we can't know". Then they deify Chance (Goddess Fortuna), and thereby deny Providence.

So if I strike a match  and it lights, it's only because God willed it to light? and on the off chance that it does not light, it's bacause God willed it not to light? Obviously God is involved in the process either way, but it sounds like you are saying that God's will directly determines every cause and effect. I believe this is a belief of Islamic philosophy, properly called fatalism.

I think we would agree that the laws and existence of the universe subsist in God's Energies. That is not the same as saying that natural processes don't exist.

I understood God as maintaining the whole natural world, with all of its laws, by His will, so in that sense, yes, every natural cause is also caused by God. At the same time, there are evil forces in the world, not necessarily only caused by humans, but also by fallen angels, which God nevertheless allows to operate. The general corruption of the world seems to be an aspect of this, since we are taught that the world became corrupted by being subjected to the devil's reign due to Adam's transgression. But on top of this, God causes certain things to happen against the course of nature, or he permits the angels or saints to do things against the course of nature.

The distinction between what is natural and supernatural, then, doesn't reflect the presence or absence of God in its operation, but rather between whether or not we are able to predict the outcome of events by the application of our reason.

I agree that the presence of God is part of any natural process, but I am not sure what your point is when you say that "the distinction between what is natural and supernatural. . . [reflects] whether or not we are able to predict the outcome of events by the application of our reason." Of course, one can predict the result of a natural action (within our normal experience), and one cannot predict the outcome of a supernatural action. What does this mean to you?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 07:13:37 PM by Rufus » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #3092 on: April 12, 2011, 08:15:49 PM »

What do you mean by asking whether God directly wills a match to light or not? Isn't God omnipresent and omnipotent? Or do you imagine God really has no direct involvement with the "everyday" workings of nature?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3093 on: April 13, 2011, 01:46:11 AM »

Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God.
Okay, this comment is so patently absurd that I'm sorely tempted to break forum rules and decorum in replying to it.  Science's only purpose is to prove there's no need for God!?  Its only purpose?  Really?  Where in God's green creation do you come up with such drivel?
Sorry, I did not know you wanted exact statements on science. Then I'd like to hear from you proofs of Darwinian faith.

Meanwhile I'll say, yes, in science many things are done. In science many theories are developed. Science can give us comfort in daily chores from which we should be running away as Orthodox faithful but the opposite is true that we like science exactly because it makes us comfortable.

Now the facts: 1) I haven't seen any scientific article or book that starts with "In the name of the Father, of the Sun and of the Holy Spirit"; I don't see scientist praising God for the discoveries they make; 2) Since Laplace nobody needs anymore theories that has God in it; All science is materialistic from top to bottom in spite of the fact that this materialistic science is stuck exactly because of its materialistic nature; Though they don't want to abandon it; 3) I don't see anything thought in schools and universities (the pillars of science teaching) about Almighty One who is the Lord of All; 4) People are taken to courts just because they teach children how to reason and critically approach to unscientific theory of Darwinism and so on and so on. Is that enough reason for me (I don't know about you) to make the statement I made? 
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3094 on: April 13, 2011, 07:39:22 AM »

... Is that enough reason for me to make the statement I made?
Wow.  I guess all I can say is yes, this seems like plenty enough reason for you to say the things you say.  Fair enough.

Quote from: jckstraw72
methinks it was most probably hyperbole. that seems like a pretty logical reading of the statement.
Still sound like hyperbole to you?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3095 on: April 13, 2011, 11:44:58 AM »

... Is that enough reason for me to make the statement I made?
Wow.  I guess all I can say is yes, this seems like plenty enough reason for you to say the things you say.  Fair enough.
Now you got my point. Can you , please, elaborate a little bit on how science today helps us to come closer to God. Is there any reason to believe so?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3096 on: April 13, 2011, 03:54:05 PM »

Can you , please, elaborate a little bit on how science today helps us to come closer to God.
Well, if personal experience is of any value, I never would have found Orthodoxy if it were not for evolution.  When I realized the lunacy of those who rejected a scientific theory on shaky theological grounds, I realized that the church I was in had very little to do with truth.  My subsequent search ultimately ended with my finding the Orthodox Church.  Does that count?
Edited once to remove superfluous verbiage.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 04:22:21 PM by chrevbel » Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3097 on: April 13, 2011, 11:23:38 PM »

Can you , please, elaborate a little bit on how science today helps us to come closer to God.
Well, if personal experience is of any value, I never would have found Orthodoxy if it were not for evolution.  When I realized the lunacy of those who rejected a scientific theory on shaky theological grounds, I realized that the church I was in had very little to do with truth.  My subsequent search ultimately ended with my finding the Orthodox Church.  Does that count?
Edited once to remove superfluous verbiage.
I don't think it was science that brought you in the Church. Based on your story, you were looking for a church which would lend support to your preconcieved idea of evolution. You could have found another church, say Catholic or some Protestant denomination, by reading some priest or preacher who supported evolution. Is it not possible? It definitely is. Do all Protestants and Catholics hold the same view on evolution? Of course not. Many are supporters of it. Actually Catholic church has very modern idea on that. So, can you tell me frankly if it's not to personal for you 1) Why would you choose Orthodoxy over these Churches if it was only search for a church supporting evolutionary view? 2) And if you did not find any Orthodox priest/bishop/archbishop whould you subscribe to Orthodoxy? 3) What happens if all of a sudden Orthodox Church unanimously proclaim heresy of Darwinism?

Now I'm one of those lunatics who rejects Darwinism partially on the theological grounds and I think this ground is quite sturdy. Can you do favor to lunatics like us and show how is Darwinism not a faith and unsubstantiated theory? I've asked question on Darwinism and if there's no answer to those Darwinism can't have any support whatsoever. Don't even think I'm looking for apology from you. I don't care what you call me seriously. I only care you could show me Darwinism's validity. Answer just one question only please.

Thanks and God bless
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3098 on: April 14, 2011, 06:35:49 AM »

Answer just one question only please.
It's a bit hard to know which one you actually want me to answer.  You ask six questions in this post, and refer to at least one more.  But I'll try this one...
Quote from: ativan
What happens if all of a sudden Orthodox Church unanimously proclaim heresy of Darwinism?
I would definitely question whether our Church was still seeking God's truth; that's for sure.  But I'd apply the same standard in numerous other areas, as well.  If the Church were to dogmatically insist that Pi was rational, against all well-established mathematical thinking, I'd have some serious doubts about us.  If our Church were to denounce the Copernican model of the solar system, I'd have some serious doubts about us.  If our Church were dogmatically to deny the role of hydrogen bonds in chemical substances, I'd have doubts.  Etc.  Why are you not up in arms about these areas, as well?  In each case, they attempt to explain what we observe solely through an appeal to science, and not an appeal to the divine.

In the field of mathematics, we do not know whether the Goldbach Conjecture is true or not.  It's very basic; it's very straightforward; it's comprehensible by a fifth grader.  But we don't know wheter it's true or false.  Question: do you think the answer is more likely to come from rigorous mathematical inquiry, or from divine revelation through the Church?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3099 on: April 14, 2011, 04:01:59 PM »

What do you mean by asking whether God directly wills a match to light or not? Isn't God omnipresent and omnipotent? Or do you imagine God really has no direct involvement with the "everyday" workings of nature?

Of course God is involved. I do not pretend to know how God is involved. However, it is absurd to say that we must reject natural explanations of phenomena simply because "God did it." Lighting a match might be a perfect example of a process that is ultimately willed by God and simultaneously a natural process not requiring supernatural interference.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3100 on: April 14, 2011, 04:08:57 PM »

Answer just one question only please.
It's a bit hard to know which one you actually want me to answer.  You ask six questions in this post, and refer to at least one more.  But I'll try this one...
I meant any of the questions related to Dariwninian theory itself. This one for example will do: Evolutionists claim that certain type of analogy in between human chromosome #2 and apes chromosome N and M (I just artificially chose the names) proves the chromosome #2 is the result of fusion of chromosomes N and M. And they go so far that call this even a fact. This is blatantly wrong. You can't prove this and you can't even come up with credible theory that would explain how the population of new individuals with 23 diploid set could be isolated from the parent 24 diploid set. My questions on this issue is open and have not been answered. To answer this question is only a drop in the ocean Darwinism needs to claim something. But even this drop is out of reach for Darwinism. Minasoliman gave me hypothetical answer which doesn't work. Here's that link and show me how that is done, if you can at all.

Quote from: ativan
Quote
What happens if all of a sudden Orthodox Church unanimously proclaim heresy of Darwinism?
I would definitely question whether our Church was still seeking God's truth; that's for sure.
That's my point and you proved it. Today science (which is the total of scientific establishment, general materialistic approach in science and materialistic theories)  does not bring a man to God but makes him forget it. Surely If The Lord Jesus Christ told you through his Saints you are wrong  you would leave the Church. Why? Because science put an idea in you that logic and observation is good to make conclusions; It told you that scientific theories are right and undeniable (at least some of them); You will deny Christ himself if he appeared before you and told you what you've learned is all wrong, because you already know by education science is valid. You just said it. This happens. The Lord does talk to us through his Saints and He has said it too. We're back to square one; How does science help you? It doesn't. Many people say same thing. They want actually the Church of the Lord take there advise and listen to them rather take Church's advice on all matters. It does not work that way.

One young man had revelation from God to go to Monastery and become monk. He talked his parents. They were against it and didn't give him blessing. They asked him at least to study and finish university and if at the end of study he decided he still wanted to become a monk they would bless him. After 5 years of study (during this time he never forgot his true vocation) was through he came to his parents and reminded them their promise. So they blessed him and he went to a monastery. He became true man of God. He once retold this story to others and they were amazed and asked: you lost 5 years and listened to you parents despite of you wanting recluse life so much? He answered, he actually lost 10 years, 5 years to study and 5 years to forget what he has learned.

Quote
But I'd apply the same standard in numerous other areas, as well.  If the Church were to dogmatically insist that Pi was rational, against all well-established mathematical thinking, I'd have some serious doubts about us.  If our Church were to denounce the Copernican model of the solar system, I'd have some serious doubts about us.  If our Church were dogmatically to deny the role of hydrogen bonds in chemical substances, I'd have doubts.  Etc.  Why are you not up in arms about these areas, as well?
Who said I'm not? All of the science in the end is wrong and has nothing to do with reality not to say that all of them contributes none to man's call to Almighty. Is that good enough? Notwithstanding there are really bad and worhtles theories (pretty much anything trying to answer origins of universe and the life) and there are some that have utility in daily life. Darwinism though is especially important and belongs to category of "bad and worthless". Origin and essence of life (which need soul to be alive) is the hardest (in fact impossible) problems to find answers for. And once there came this notion of "we can explain" life without God atheism really took off. People need faith in something. They can't leave without it. Moreover they need their faith be called rational and logical. They don't like to be called stupid and lunatics. Although they are ready to call others same thing while holding worse. So they find "rational theories" to feel secure. However painful it might be to admit it seems to be a fact. I haven't seen a single scientist who'll say "my theory is just a theory and I'm ready to throw away it any time even if it's not refuted". Darwinism is especially dear to many people.

Quote
In the field of mathematics, we do not know whether the Goldbach Conjecture is true or not.  It's very basic; it's very straightforward; it's comprehensible by a fifth grader.  But we don't know whether it's true or false.  Question: do you think the answer is more likely to come from rigorous mathematical inquiry, or from divine revelation through the Church?
I won't deny what you said here but Mathematics is completely other world. Math is just a game. You can change the rules and play new games. You may have a rule that says "I want to choose other rule so that they along with inference rules do not produce contradictions" or you can even sacrifice this rule and still play (like paraconsistent logic). And there're some cases when genius mathematicians (like Ramanujan) get their ideas through a kind of "revelation".

P.S. Whole my reasoning is also my opinion and I do not claim they are absolute truth. But I do have faith in them and I do believe there's no other way then totally surrendering to God's will.

Glory to Almighty God, Glory to Him, The Creator of All visible and invisible.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 04:09:55 PM by ativan » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #3101 on: April 14, 2011, 05:41:13 PM »

What do you mean by asking whether God directly wills a match to light or not? Isn't God omnipresent and omnipotent? Or do you imagine God really has no direct involvement with the "everyday" workings of nature?

Of course God is involved. I do not pretend to know how God is involved. However, it is absurd to say that we must reject natural explanations of phenomena simply because "God did it." Lighting a match might be a perfect example of a process that is ultimately willed by God and simultaneously a natural process not requiring supernatural interference.

Why are you putting words into my mouth? And I think you have a strange concept of the "natural/supernatural" distinction. It's almost as if you believe there is a separate force called "Nature" which acts independently of God. On the contrary, natural law is simply what we call one way in which God works in the world. Through natural law, God makes Himself known to us through our ability to reason and discern such a law. We see how everything in the universe follows its appropriate order and are thereby led to worship the Creator of that order. But the order itself is not some independent actor.

The point of our discussion originally was that you appeared to be attributing some kind of objective reality to "chance". However, in Orthodoxy we do not believe in chance, i.e. that there is any true randomness. There may be phenomena appearing to be random, but the randomness is simply a failure of our ability to understand the actual causes behind it. In reality, we believe everything is determined by God, with the exception of those things determined by the wills of rational creatures, whether men or angels.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3102 on: April 14, 2011, 08:01:46 PM »

All of the science in the end is wrong and has nothing to do with reality
All of science is wrong?  And has nothing to do with reality?  Nothing?

Is this a tenet of the Orthodox Church?
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #3103 on: April 15, 2011, 01:18:23 AM »

Answer just one question only please.
It's a bit hard to know which one you actually want me to answer.  You ask six questions in this post, and refer to at least one more.  But I'll try this one...
I meant any of the questions related to Dariwninian theory itself. This one for example will do: Evolutionists claim that certain type of analogy in between human chromosome #2 and apes chromosome N and M (I just artificially chose the names) proves the chromosome #2 is the result of fusion of chromosomes N and M. And they go so far that call this even a fact. This is blatantly wrong. You can't prove this and you can't even come up with credible theory that would explain how the population of new individuals with 23 diploid set could be isolated from the parent 24 diploid set. My questions on this issue is open and have not been answered. To answer this question is only a drop in the ocean Darwinism needs to claim something. But even this drop is out of reach for Darwinism. Minasoliman gave me hypothetical answer which doesn't work. Here's that link and show me how that is done, if you can at all.

I do not understand why you keep harping about 19th century Darwinism. Perhaps you should leave it to the 21st century scientists to deal with the orthodox Darwinsists that remain. I am pretty sure your attitude would be counter productive to the task.

I think it is possible you missed the point. HeLa cells are distinctly different.  For example, HeLa ATCC-CCL2 is variably multiploid with 51-179 total chromosomes. Chromosome 3 does not exist.  The long arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 1; the short arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 5. The small arm of chromosome 5 is duplicated at the other side of the centromere to form a small isochromosome. The long arm of chromosome 11 is fused to an arm of chromosome 19. And these changes are the gross ones that can be observed in a light microscope (Lavappa et al, 1976) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v259/n5540/abs/259211a0.html).
It is definitely possible I missed the point. Not to miss it again can you tell me why are you exactly bringing this example in? What's the purpose? Are you telling this cell is a new species?

From my perspective, HeLa cells are not a new species since, at least on a microscopic level, the original genetic information remains intact (although it may not in reality and I would change my answer if so). Your quote above is the reason why I chose HeLa cells in regard to what is a species, yet you made the statement in the above quote without seeing it. Chromosome 3 no longer exists in HeLa cells. This is an example of what can happen if a virus gets into the germ line. Doesn't this show you how loss of a chromosome can occur circa 1950? I plan to respond to your prior post that responds to mine more fully after Easter

there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?

As long as you believe that these "random" collisions are directed by Divine Providence, there shouldn't be a problem. "Chance" is simply shorthand for "we don't know the reasons why this happened". The problem arises when people jump from "we don't know" to "we can't know". Then they deify Chance (Goddess Fortuna), and thereby deny Providence.

Seems like a reasonable response to me Jonathan. I also think the comment of Rufus about the role of random collisions in enzymatic reactions puts to rest the denial that the universe created by God is incompatible with random events. I wish I thought of it myself. Perhaps when Ativan is done with attacking 19th century ultra-Darwinists (yes Ativan they do exist, but they are a minority) he might focus his thoughts on the role of random events in both chemical and enzymatic reactions in a thread that has nothing to do with evolution.
 
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3104 on: April 15, 2011, 02:23:39 AM »

All of the science in the end is wrong and has nothing to do with reality
All of science is wrong?  And has nothing to do with reality?  Nothing?

Is this a tenet of the Orthodox Church?
In agreement with what chrevbel says:

Really? How about not taking any medicine next time you're sick, since science is wrong? If antibiotics, painkillers and other drugs have nothing to do with reality whatsoever, why don't you stick to your words and refuse them the next time you're sick, huh?
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 0.237 seconds with 75 queries.