OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 11:21:28 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 332609 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4410 on: September 19, 2012, 06:26:24 PM »

Should be the easiest question to answer, but it isn't, especially due to the overwhelming lack of supporting evidence.  But people can believe what they want.  Everyone has a bunch of information which is inconclusive and doesn't agree with someone else's bunch of inconclusive information.  But we are still learning...right?  At least that's the usual cop out when "facts" are shown not to be so much as facts.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 06:28:49 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4411 on: September 19, 2012, 06:28:21 PM »

You missed his point completely.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4412 on: September 19, 2012, 06:43:41 PM »

You missed his point completely.
Me?  I miss very little.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4413 on: September 19, 2012, 06:46:03 PM »

Yeah, you did.

Seriously contemplate on the following post of yours:

Quote
We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4414 on: September 19, 2012, 06:53:48 PM »

Yeah, you did.

Seriously contemplate on the following post of yours:

Quote
We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.
I have a better idea.  Show I'm wrong.  This way it doesn't give the appearance you are trying to deflect the focus of what I said.

And perhaps you should contemplate on my post and see what you are missing.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 07:09:31 PM by Kerdy » Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4415 on: September 19, 2012, 10:05:49 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 10:08:09 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4416 on: September 19, 2012, 10:13:24 PM »

Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/creationists_and_dinosaurs_answers_in_genesis_teams_with_dissident_scientists_to_deny_feathered_dino_fossil_record.html
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4417 on: September 19, 2012, 11:12:09 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4418 on: September 19, 2012, 11:13:07 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...

Obviously EVERYTHING I JUST SAID WAS OVER YOUR HEAD?

That was a weak retort bro. Just saying. Atleast come up with creditable reasons why evolution is false. I'm not trying to be mean. Sad
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 11:14:43 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4419 on: September 19, 2012, 11:13:53 PM »

They don't us crazy, we just laugh when you guys contradict yourselves without ever admitting you were wrong, and then contradict yourselves again a few years later.  
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4420 on: September 19, 2012, 11:14:48 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...

Obviously EVERYTHING I JUST SAID WAS OVER YOUR HEAD?
So, you CAN'T answer the question.  No surprise.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4421 on: September 19, 2012, 11:16:07 PM »

And the quote, you thought was a mistake, clearly went over your head.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4422 on: September 19, 2012, 11:17:11 PM »

ativan, I'm not reading your posts to parse this out but can you tell me that if confronted with actual facts that evolution is true (hypothetically of course), would your faith remain the same?
There's no hypothetical chance that evolution is true. In fact I believe that God showed me His way through studying certain things carefully, including theory of evolution and its absurdity. I studied that theory and some basic logic before I even came back to Orthodoxy. Everything points to one: evolution is absurd and illogical hypothesis having no experimental bases. So, I don't even consider any hypothesis like that.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4423 on: September 19, 2012, 11:18:46 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...

Obviously EVERYTHING I JUST SAID WAS OVER YOUR HEAD?
So, you CAN'T answer the question.  No surprise.

You don't understand science at all.

You should probably leave this thread to people who can actually debate for Creationism that know something about science. No offence.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4424 on: September 19, 2012, 11:19:54 PM »

They don't us crazy, we just laugh when you guys contradict yourselves without ever admitting you were wrong, and then contradict yourselves again a few years later.  

Contradict? No. We admit we were wrong about a few things, and made a better theory, that's science. That's what you don't grasp.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4425 on: September 19, 2012, 11:22:57 PM »

They don't us crazy, we just laugh when you guys contradict yourselves without ever admitting you were wrong, and then contradict yourselves again a few years later.  

Contradict? No. We admit we were wrong about a few things, and made a better theory, that's science. That's what you don't grasp.

I don't grasp it because it doesn't happen.  In other words, you have been wrong so many times we can't keep count, but magically, this time you guys are right?  I have ocean front property in Arizona for sale too, if you're interested.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4426 on: September 19, 2012, 11:27:52 PM »

They don't us crazy, we just laugh when you guys contradict yourselves without ever admitting you were wrong, and then contradict yourselves again a few years later.  

Contradict? No. We admit we were wrong about a few things, and made a better theory, that's science. That's what you don't grasp.

I don't grasp it because it doesn't happen.  In other words, you have been wrong so many times we can't keep count, but magically, this time you guys are right?  I have ocean front property in Arizona for sale too, if you're interested.

Logged

Forgive my sins.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4427 on: September 19, 2012, 11:50:36 PM »

I beg you do not speak in the name of scientific evidence.
Further evidence of my claim.  Please don't speak of scientific evidence.  It contradicts that which I've already concluded.

All scientific evidence supports Darwin's theory of natural selection in explaining evolution.  If you are so certain the theory is false, then why had scientists proffered other theories to explain it prior to Darwin?  What observations were they attempting to reconcile?
No scientific evidence supports darwinism. The answer to your question (whatever it maybe) has nothing to do with darwinism being true theory.

Quote
The fact that no mammals appear early in the fossil record.  Animals existed, and were eating each other, for a lot of years before many of today's beasts of the field existed.
I've already answered this type of question and darwnists always miss it. That fallacy (called appeal to ignorance) does not make darwinism true. I may not have the answer to base my faith, still it means nothing about darwinism being true. That fact by itself strictly speaking means only one thing: no mammals have been found in early fossil records. That's it. There's huge gap from this point to assuming darwinism is true.

Second, most darwinists don't even understand how scientific theory works in general. Scientific claim is "modus ponens" claim. This is how it works: (P-->Q & P) --> Q. If "my theory is true" then we should expect "this and that". This further means that one can never ever prove that a given theory is true. Darwinists on the other hand make general fallacy of affirming the consequent: (P --> Q & Q) --> P. Which means since I find "this and that" consequently my theory is true. Darwinists instead of saying "so far evidence supports it" will say the their hypothesis is in fact a fact. First of all you have to clearly understand this.

Secondly, since scientific theories work under above argument form (P-->Q & P) --> Q, the theory can be invalidated if we find Q to be false, which is another valid argument of modus tollens in the form of (P-->Q & ~Q) --> ~ P. This is really true for darwinism since there are many things that darwinism predict to happen but is not the case. Those include but are not limited to: 1) Absence of innumerable form that should be in between simple and complex form (for example between see dwelling animal and land dwelling animal or visa versa); 2) Appearence of species almost instantaneously geologically speaking (like Cambrian explosion); 3) Darwinism predicts formation of new proteins with new function, but there's no experimental evidence of this. There's even not a logical framework for darwinism to solve this problem; 4) By extrapolation, darwinism predicts abyogenesis but there's even no logical support for this not to mention many failed experiments.

Any one of above will invalidate darwinistic hypothesis.

I have looked but I can't find it again.  What was the species supposedly immediatly prior to modern man?
How hard did you look?  This is pretty well documented.  Perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#H._sapiens is what you're after?
Do not just point to a link. Prove it. Prove that a given species was immediately prior to man. Prove it means "give us the reasoning on which your proof is based". If you can't do that then point to somebody's reasoning that you think has done the job.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4428 on: September 19, 2012, 11:54:48 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
Since you are in the field of evolutionary biology then give us the reasoning on which you make conclusion that Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis were predecessors of men. What evidence points to it?
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4429 on: September 19, 2012, 11:55:48 PM »

ativan, I'm not reading your posts to parse this out but can you tell me that if confronted with actual facts that evolution is true (hypothetically of course), would your faith remain the same?
There's no hypothetical chance that evolution is true. In fact I believe that God showed me His way through studying certain things carefully, including theory of evolution and its absurdity. I studied that theory and some basic logic before I even came back to Orthodoxy. Everything points to one: evolution is absurd and illogical hypothesis having no experimental bases. So, I don't even consider any hypothesis like that.
...

hypothetically speaking. Just get away from your dogmatic position for a moment and answer me yes or no.

IF evolution was proven true to you with facts, would it shake your faith? Yes or no.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4430 on: September 20, 2012, 12:00:45 AM »

ativan, I'm not reading your posts to parse this out but can you tell me that if confronted with actual facts that evolution is true (hypothetically of course), would your faith remain the same?
There's no hypothetical chance that evolution is true. In fact I believe that God showed me His way through studying certain things carefully, including theory of evolution and its absurdity. I studied that theory and some basic logic before I even came back to Orthodoxy. Everything points to one: evolution is absurd and illogical hypothesis having no experimental bases. So, I don't even consider any hypothesis like that.
...

hypothetically speaking. Just get away from your dogmatic position for a moment and answer me yes or no.

IF evolution was proven true to you with facts, would it shake your faith? Yes or no.
I already told you. The way I came to faith was partially due to the fact that science's answer's (including darwinism's) failed totally. I don't even consider that hypothesis. How could I answer that question? I can't imagine.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4431 on: September 20, 2012, 12:07:09 AM »

Dude.

Let's pretend that I showed you facts that proved evolution is true.

Would that affect your faith?

Yes or no?

EDIT: BTW I don't care about your rejection of evolution right now, I want to talk hypothetically for a moment.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:07:52 AM by Achronos » Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4432 on: September 20, 2012, 12:21:34 AM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...

Obviously EVERYTHING I JUST SAID WAS OVER YOUR HEAD?

That was a weak retort bro. Just saying. Atleast come up with creditable reasons why evolution is false. I'm not trying to be mean. Sad
Ok.  No proof.  Simple and accurate.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4433 on: September 20, 2012, 12:25:34 AM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...

Obviously EVERYTHING I JUST SAID WAS OVER YOUR HEAD?
So, you CAN'T answer the question.  No surprise.

You don't understand science at all.


And, there it is.  When backed into a corner with no answer, this is the standard response.  LOL!  So predictable.  No offense.

Again,  I'll hold out for proof before I trash what God told us.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4434 on: September 20, 2012, 12:28:35 AM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
Since you are in the field of evolutionary biology then give us the reasoning on which you make conclusion that Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis were predecessors of men. What evidence points to it?

I'd just like them to pick one and stick with it.  At least then they could start the basis of an argument instead of saying, " We don't know, but believe what we say."
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4435 on: September 20, 2012, 12:29:55 AM »

ativan, I'm not reading your posts to parse this out but can you tell me that if confronted with actual facts that evolution is true (hypothetically of course), would your faith remain the same?
There's no hypothetical chance that evolution is true. In fact I believe that God showed me His way through studying certain things carefully, including theory of evolution and its absurdity. I studied that theory and some basic logic before I even came back to Orthodoxy. Everything points to one: evolution is absurd and illogical hypothesis having no experimental bases. So, I don't even consider any hypothesis like that.
...

hypothetically speaking. Just get away from your dogmatic position for a moment and answer me yes or no.

IF evolution was proven true to you with facts, would it shake your faith? Yes or no.

You'll never prove it so we never have to worry about it.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4436 on: September 20, 2012, 12:32:28 AM »

Dude.

Let's pretend that I showed you facts that proved evolution.
What would be different than what evolutionists do every day?

I thought science dealt with cold hard facts, not pretend.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4437 on: September 20, 2012, 12:34:00 AM »

We. Are. Talking. Hypothetically.

Good grief.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4438 on: September 20, 2012, 12:35:13 AM »

I don't care about your rejection of evolution right now, I want to talk hypothetically for a moment.
We don't care about your rejection of creationism.  What will you do when you realize none of your possibilities turn out to be facts?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4439 on: September 20, 2012, 12:36:43 AM »

We. Are. Talking. Hypothetically.

Good grief.
Ok.  Hypothetically, let's talk ID.  When you find out Stargate isn't fiction and aliens put us here, how will it shake your faith?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:37:40 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4440 on: September 20, 2012, 12:38:55 AM »



I'm out until ativan replies.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4441 on: September 20, 2012, 12:53:23 AM »



I'm out until ativan replies.
I am genuinely interested in how you, and those who falsely believe as you do, make claim we don't understand simply because we dont buy into poor investments, yet, with all of your knowledge, which we don't have, can't answer the simplest of questions, and I only submitted one of many.  The easiest of many.  You fail to support your claims, but say we are the ones who just don't understand.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4442 on: September 20, 2012, 01:00:32 AM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
Since you are in the field of evolutionary biology then give us the reasoning on which you make conclusion that Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis were predecessors of men. What evidence points to it?

Homo erectus appears to have evolved in Africa about 1.8 million years ago. Migrations first to Asia and then to Europe. the species became extinct sometimes less than .5 million years ago. This timing places Homo erectus between Homo habilis and the earliest appearance of Homo sapiens. The time of migration out of Africa is unknown. Most scholars agreed migration occur about 1 million years ago but there is continue debate over how much earlier than this had begun.

Recently a Homo erectus lower jaw has been found in Georgia and said to be 1.6 million years ago. A number of important firsts were recorded during the Homo erectus’ existence.

-    The first appearance of hominids outside of Africa.
-    The first appearance of systematic hunting.
-    Tool making and use of fire.
-    First indication of extended childhood.
-    Homo erectus was capable of a more complex life.
-    The brain size was increased over halibis ranging between 850 and 1100 cm cube.
-    Body size also increased. Reaching close to 1.8 meters in male and 1.55 meters in females.
-    The cranium is long and low and somewhat flattened at the front and back.
-    The cranial bone being thicker than in earlier hominids.
-    The face is short but wide and the nasal aperture projected forward, suggesting the first appearance of the typical human external nose with the nostril facing downward.
-    Pronounced brow ridges are present above the orbits.
-    The postcranial skeleton is similar to that of modern man but its robust and was clearly heavily muscled.
-    Homo erectus evidently routinely experienced heavy physical exertion.

The main distinguishing features between Homo habilis and erectus included the increased brain size, the present of brow ridges, a shortened face, and the projecting nasal aperture. The structure of the nose allows for the condensation of moisture from exhales air. This would be beneficial in a species that pursued an active subsistence strategy in warm and arid habitats.
In the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the hole through which the spinal cord runs is significantly smaller than modern man-indicating a smaller demand for nerve signal traffic. The spines on all the vertebrae are longer and do not point as far back as modern human. The thighbone is unusual in that the femoral neck is long while the femoral head, which is part of the ball, and socket joint with the pelvis is large. This combination is something of a mix between modern human and australopithecine anatomy.

Modern human have a short femoral neck attached to a large head, while in australopithecines the neck is long and the head is small. The pelvis indicates that the birth canal was smaller than man, which implies that Homo erectus mother would have needed to continue fetal growth rate after birth. More extensive child care was inevitable due to a second altricial condition that the neonatal brain size will tripe in size compared with doubling in size of the ape. Tooth pattern created shift to modern human life history pattern. In apes, first molar eruption occurs over 3 years of age and 40 years lifespan. Humans are 5.9 years and 66 years.

The Turkana boy: a Homo erectus individual who died about 10 years of age, lived 1.6 million years ago west of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya. It is the most complete early human fossil discovered and includes many skeletal elements of Homo erectus nor previously known.

One hallmark of Homo erectus was a stone tool; the teardrop shaped handaxe. These implements which are usually called Acheulian handaxes appear 1.4 million years old deposits at Olduvai Gorge.

Significant behavioral changes than begun with habilis became further developed with erectus. Indicative of such a change was the reduction of body size dimorphism between the sexes. Sexual dimorphism in earlier hominids was large with male being almost twice as bulky as females. A situation that had several possible behavioral implications. It might imply significant competition between males for access to females. With Homo erectus, this ratio dropped considerably, with male only 20-30% larger than females, perhaps implying a significant reduction in competition between males. The greater complexity of Homo erectus lifeways included a degree of male-male cooperation? Whether they use a spoken language is a matter of speculation.Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned. Specifically, several investigators propose that many large brained fossil hominids from the Middle Pleistocene that traditionally have been assigned to Homo erectus in fact belong to several species of Homo, not just one. Homo erectus as currently defined from Asia would be one species which became extinct in the last half million years. The second would be populations similar to Homo erectus. This new and distinctly controversial-view stems from a cladistic analysis of the large collection of African and Asian fossils that traditionally have been assigned to Homo erectus.

The problem of defining Homo erectus is that it is viewed at present as a grade of human evolution intermediate between the small-brained early Pleistocene hominids and the large brained Homo sapiens. The term grade is used to encompass a population that has reached the same adaptive stage. It does not require that the organisms belong to the same group (species).  When the primitive characters are removed from the list of traditional Homo erectus, only a small number of derived characters remains. Significantly, these characters are found exclusively within Asian fossils leaving African fossils outside the group and they don’t form a link with Homo sapiens. In other words, the Asian Homo erectus population appears to be evolutionarily separated from those hominids of a similar grade in Africa, and eventually became extinct. The African populations would have other species names applied to them such as Homo ergaster and Homo leakeyi. One African species of the Homo erectus grade might have been ancestral first to European archaic sapiens and later to anatomically modern humans.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 01:07:36 AM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4443 on: September 20, 2012, 01:00:42 AM »



I'm out until ativan replies.
I am genuinely interested in how you, and those who falsely believe as you do, make claim we don't understand simply because we dont buy into poor investments, yet, with all of your knowledge, which we don't have, can't answer the simplest of questions, and I only submitted one of many.  The easiest of many.  You fail to support your claims, but say we are the ones who just don't understand.

I gave you a simple answer and you couldn't comprehend it. That is all that is going on here. You are not listening to us. I am practically spelling it out to you and you have your hands in ears going "LALALA! I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN, I'M A CREATIONIST"
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4444 on: September 20, 2012, 01:05:32 AM »



I'm out until ativan replies.
I am genuinely interested in how you, and those who falsely believe as you do, make claim we don't understand simply because we dont buy into poor investments, yet, with all of your knowledge, which we don't have, can't answer the simplest of questions, and I only submitted one of many.  The easiest of many.  You fail to support your claims, but say we are the ones who just don't understand.

Ok we have dinosaur fossils right? Do you believe that humans were there with dinosaurs? How about 6000 years ago?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,656


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #4445 on: September 20, 2012, 02:59:59 AM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.

i dont understand where people get this idea. here is what St. Luke says:

Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


Prooftexts are for Protestant Evangelicals and their ideological spawn.
Actually, this text does prove jckstraw's point that St. Luke of the Crimea said the exact opposite of what you attribute to him.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4446 on: September 20, 2012, 03:20:30 AM »



I'm out until ativan replies.
I am genuinely interested in how you, and those who falsely believe as you do, make claim we don't understand simply because we dont buy into poor investments, yet, with all of your knowledge, which we don't have, can't answer the simplest of questions, and I only submitted one of many.  The easiest of many.  You fail to support your claims, but say we are the ones who just don't understand.

I gave you a simple answer and you couldn't comprehend it. That is all that is going on here. You are not listening to us. I am practically spelling it out to you and you have your hands in ears going "LALALA! I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN, I'M A CREATIONIST"
No, you provide two possibilities, which others disagree on.  Nothing more.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4447 on: September 20, 2012, 03:24:19 AM »



I'm out until ativan replies.
I am genuinely interested in how you, and those who falsely believe as you do, make claim we don't understand simply because we dont buy into poor investments, yet, with all of your knowledge, which we don't have, can't answer the simplest of questions, and I only submitted one of many.  The easiest of many.  You fail to support your claims, but say we are the ones who just don't understand.

Ok we have dinosaur fossils right? Do you believe that humans were there with dinosaurs? How about 6000 years ago?
Rather than ask me more questions, as I'm not the one attempting to prove a theory, back up your beliefs with something concrete.  Otherwise, it's just hypothesis.  Too many "appears to have" and "possibly" statements to make claims of fact.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4448 on: September 20, 2012, 03:43:52 AM »

I honestly don't care if someone wants to buy into the whole evolution tales.  My problem is when people look down their noses and ridicule those who know better.  Believe it if it makes sense to you, just don't expect others to throw caution to the winds and jump on the fad wagon.
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: 12,116


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


WWW
« Reply #4449 on: September 20, 2012, 07:07:25 AM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...
Kerdy, either you might have asked the wrong question or you don't understand his answer.

Consider this.  When a Jehovah's Witness says "prove that the Bible talks about the Trinity" and you answer him with proofs, but he replies, "so no definitive answer?", that's when frustration comes in, and then ridicule, because JWs are very stubborn people, lack humility, and are already convinced of their beliefs simply because the word "Trinity" doesn't exist.

This is just an analogy to help you understand why people are hitting a brick wall with you.  You're simply another example of someone who took biology classes but because of your lack of interest and humility in the subject, did not care to comprehend the material.  Then accuse us of ridicule when in fact, you begin to ridicule is by saying "see, those evolutionists don't know what they're talking about."

Other people go further than ridicule.  They like to give a sweeping claim that evolutionists are demonic.  Let's be honest here.  You complain of ridicule but you don't think evolutionists are insulted, especially honest spiritual people like Fr Thomas Hopko, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr John Meyendorff, probably even Fr Alexander Schmemann with his academic background?

But I've been biting my tongue for some time now so that I don't get one of these, "AHA I knew evolutionists are nothing but ridiculers!!!"

« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 07:15:15 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4450 on: September 20, 2012, 07:40:26 AM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Apples and Oranges

We have tons of fossils of our ancestors. But you are talking of the scale of a few millions YO to a few thousand YO that they became human. Dinosaurs (non-Avian; technically birds are Dinosaurs) were around from 230 million YA to 65.5 million YA (a scale of 165 million years). There is a much larger time scale to collect fossil samples for dinosaurs.

Also, we collect samples of MANY different species of dinosaurs, we have not found nearly most of them. So to say, just because we haven't found the certain direct ancestor to man, that our science is flawed is...well, it means you are kind of uninformed on your end.

Recommendation: Learn about the subject matter before you debate it. A few biology classes doesn't make you automatically suited, especially if you go in with a closed mind.
Then you have a definitive answer?  I did not see it posted.  Until you have the answer...
Kerdy, either you might have asked the wrong question or you don't understand his answer.

Consider this.  When a Jehovah's Witness says "prove that the Bible talks about the Trinity" and you answer him with proofs, but he replies, "so no definitive answer?", that's when frustration comes in, and then ridicule, because JWs are very stubborn people, lack humility, and are already convinced of their beliefs simply because the word "Trinity" doesn't exist.

This is just an analogy to help you understand why people are hitting a brick wall with you.  You're simply another example of someone who took biology classes but because of your lack of interest and humility in the subject, did not care to comprehend the material.  Then accuse us of ridicule when in fact, you begin to ridicule is by saying "see, those evolutionists don't know what they're talking about."

Other people go further than ridicule.  They like to give a sweeping claim that evolutionists are demonic.  Let's be honest here.  You complain of ridicule but you don't think evolutionists are insulted, especially honest spiritual people like Fr Thomas Hopko, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr John Meyendorff, probably even Fr Alexander Schmemann with his academic background?

But I've been biting my tongue for some time now so that I don't get one of these, "AHA I knew evolutionists are nothing but ridiculers!!!"


I always enjoy reading your posts.  They are kind and well thought out; however, you are simply incorrect in your analysis.

I asked the right question and I understood his answer, but instead of dancing around he should have simply said he didn't know for certain.  He started off pretty well, then it spiraled out of control.  It's gets frustrating, I'm sure, when someone asks a 2 plus 2 type of question and it can't be answered.  

As I stated, there are more than one school of thought, each with its detailed yet inconclusive information trying to support it.  They all can't be right and likely none are if you look at the history of accuracy on such claims.  The data is too scattered with too many fill in the blanks to be taken seriously.  I even had someone tell me biology was part of evolution rather evolution being part of biology.  It's become a sea of insanity.  Multiple preconceived notions with people desperately trying to prove them.  But again, people are free to believe whatever they want.  I'm just a little bothered by the fact many of those people who are unable to prove those theories are shocked when someone disagrees, not doesnt understand, just doesn't believe the all the bondo on the body work is original and perfect.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 07:54:42 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4451 on: September 20, 2012, 08:03:42 AM »

Let's try another question.

Why did, after many years claiming man evolved from ape and the charts showing that development, did it all change to man evolved along side apes from a common ancestor?  Did they not claim their ideas were factual then?  They did, but quietly the old school of thought was replaced and now people will say, "we never taught that.". Additionally, I believe the order has also now changed.  

A tooth here and a partial jawbone there and poof, a new ancestor.  We have even seen claims of a new discovery of a forerunner to modern humans ends up being something entirely different.  How many times must a theory be shown wrong before people stop buying into it?  Let me put it this way.  If you know a person who has, for the last ten years, been wrong about pretty much everything he ever said, would you believe him today?  Me either.  So, if evolution is always changing which means it is always wrong, why would I believe anything claimed as fact today?  I wouldnt.  
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 08:04:25 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4452 on: September 20, 2012, 08:45:22 AM »

I wish I had my computer handy.  Once I get it back maybe I will put a more detailed post to better explain my position and give more clarity into how I found myself holding that position.

Until then I will wait to post more with this statement:  it is easy to say this person or that person doesn't understand, but when you have someone in the same field with the same education, training and experience who does understand and easily refutes evolution, that claim is invalid.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4453 on: September 20, 2012, 10:03:28 AM »

I honestly don't care if someone wants to buy into the whole evolution tales.  My problem is when people look down their noses and ridicule those who know better.  Believe it if it makes sense to you, just don't expect others to throw caution to the winds and jump on the fad wagon.

I don't look down on creationists, if I respect them, they are scientists in a sense (I've defended creationists on this site). But I do look down on people, evolutionary or creationist, who just ignore facts and don't want to listen, but would rather heckle. All you do is stick to your pre-conceived notions, you don't bring any information to the debate. So you aren't debating. YOU ARE A HECKLER.

People here would respect you if you brought information, rather than just say we are wrong. Prove we are wrong, because we are currently proving a lot more about our theory than you.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 10:06:32 AM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4454 on: September 20, 2012, 10:08:41 AM »

Why did, after many years claiming man evolved from ape and the charts showing that development, did it all change to man evolved along side apes from a common ancestor?  Did they not claim their ideas were factual then?  They did, but quietly the old school of thought was replaced and now people will say, "we never taught that.". Additionally, I believe the order has also now changed. 

Different species. There were different species of ape evolving along side for a LONG TIME. It isn't something that just happened when man came about. Also, we never say "We never thought that", that is you and your skewed view of science again.


A tooth here and a partial jawbone there and poof, a new ancestor.  We have even seen claims of a new discovery of a forerunner to modern humans ends up being something entirely different.  How many times must a theory be shown wrong before people stop buying into it?  Let me put it this way.  If you know a person who has, for the last ten years, been wrong about pretty much everything he ever said, would you believe him today?  Me either.  So, if evolution is always changing which means it is always wrong, why would I believe anything claimed as fact today?  I wouldnt. 

The theory was never proven wrong... It was just tweaked a bit.

If you change the bolt in your engine, do you have a new car? No? That's what I thought...
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 10:09:55 AM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
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 0.186 seconds with 75 queries.