Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[NicholasMyra]

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:

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.

I must be missing the 'evil' part. Plus, the entirety of the article is more balanced.

[jckstraw72]

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:

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.

I must be missing the 'evil' part. Plus, the entirety of the article is more balanced.

who said anything about evil? the point was only that St. Luke is not an evolutionist.

[NicholasMyra]

who said anything about evil? the point was only that St. Luke is not an evolutionist.

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?

[jckstraw72]

who said anything about evil? the point was only that St. Luke is not an evolutionist.

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?

aah ok, forgive me my mistake.

[ativan]

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:

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.

I must be missing the 'evil' part. Plus, the entirety of the article is more balanced.

I'll quote the Saint again:

By the way, it is timely to mention that Darwin who tried to show man's origin from apes did distance himself from his misconceptions and humbly repented before God.

This is clear evidence for me that Saint was saying Darwin's theory was evil.

[Shiny]

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.

Waiting for your reply ativan...

[Jetavan]

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:

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.

I must be missing the 'evil' part. Plus, the entirety of the article is more balanced.

I'll quote the Saint again:

By the way, it is timely to mention that Darwin who tried to show man's origin from apes did distance himself from his misconceptions and humbly repented before God.

This is clear evidence for me that Saint was saying Darwin's theory was evil.

Luckily, Darwin's theory of descent by natural selection, based as it is on a naturalistic view of the cosmos, is only one class of evolutionary theory; other evolutionary theories are not naturalistic.

[ativan]

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?

Now, read my question again and then read what you have provided and then show me where exactly your article answers my question. Where's in that article the reasoning which simply attempts (forget about proving) to show that anything mentioned in it was a predecessor of man because of this and that?

Second question will be such: all scientific theories predict something. Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

[ativan]

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.

Waiting for your reply ativan...

I've already replied to you. You have asked me whether my faith would change if scientists proved 2 x 2 is 5. I said that question is not right since 2 x 2 is 4 and I know it.

But to make you happier I will tell this: My faith in God and in his creation will not change (I beg God to give me this power since I myself can't do anything without his Grace) even if the whole world became darwinists and concocted their "evidence" whatever way they wanted it. Hopefully this enough answer for you

[Shiny]

I've already replied to you. You have asked me whether my faith would change if scientists proved 2 x 2 is 5. I said that question is not right since 2 x 2 is 4 and I know it.

But to make you happier I will tell this: My faith in God and in his creation will not change (I beg God to give me this power since I myself can't do anything without his Grace) even if the whole world became darwinists and concocted their "evidence" whatever way they wanted it. Hopefully this enough answer for you

Ok, look ativan, I honestly do appreciate your valiant attempts to remain stalwart in what you believe in. I have no issue with that, and admire your ability to remain headstrong, eventhough it would be better if you remained agnostic on evolution which is a little more teneable than outright rejection of evolution.

But ativan you have to understand that there are those who have the same faith in God that you have, but believe that God used evolution during the "creation" process. What makes you different from them?

So hypothetically, ativan, if you were confronted with utter, undeniable proof that evolution is true what would that do to your faith? What it remain unchanged? Answer the question, no more dodging, yes or no.

[sheenj]

Second question will be such: all scientific theories predict something. Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

Try this artice. It explains a little more why we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor.

[Jetavan]

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?

Now, read my question again and then read what you have provided and then show me where exactly your article answers my question. Where's in that article the reasoning which simply attempts (forget about proving) to show that anything mentioned in it was a predecessor of man because of this and that?

Second question will be such: all scientific theories predict something. Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

Genetically, man's closest living relative is the chimpanzee, genus Pan. You can get a measure of relatedness by comparing similarity of proteins or (better) DNA. Thus, we can conclude that Homo sapiens (as well as the immediate ancestors of Homo sapiens) and the chimpanzee shared a common ancestor, about 6 million years ago. This common ancestor would be an ape species that is now extinct, but that undoubtedly looked more like a chimpanzee than a human.

[Asteriktos]

We are now on page 100 of the never-ending thread!

[Jetavan]

We are now on page 100 of the never-ending thread!

Wax on. Wax off. Wax on. Wax off.....

[Ashman618]

Second question will be such: all scientific theories predict something. Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

Try this artice. It explains a little more why we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor.

So is this article telling me that a being with a body soul and spirit mated witha being with just body and soul to make??? This biology stuff is confusing, just what the heck am I?

[ativan]

I've already replied to you. You have asked me whether my faith would change if scientists proved 2 x 2 is 5. I said that question is not right since 2 x 2 is 4 and I know it.

But to make you happier I will tell this: My faith in God and in his creation will not change (I beg God to give me this power since I myself can't do anything without his Grace) even if the whole world became darwinists and concocted their "evidence" whatever way they wanted it. Hopefully this enough answer for you

Ok, look ativan, I honestly do appreciate your valiant attempts to remain stalwart in what you believe in. I have no issue with that, and admire your ability to remain headstrong, eventhough it would be better if you remained agnostic on evolution which is a little more teneable than outright rejection of evolution.

No, it is clear-cut that evolution is totally false.

But ativan you have to understand that there are those who have the same faith in God that you have, but believe that God used evolution during the "creation" process. What makes you different from them?

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

So hypothetically, ativan, if you were confronted with utter, undeniable proof that evolution is true what would that do to your faith? What it remain unchanged? Answer the question, no more dodging, yes or no.

I did not dodge anything. You got my answer. Now I will ask you question: hypothetically speaking, what if I answered to your question "yes" or what if I answered to your question "no", what conclusion would you make in each case? Just hypothetically speaking.

[ativan]

Second question will be such: all scientific theories predict something. Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

Try this artice. It explains a little more why we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor.

My question was not why we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor. I will repeat my question: all scientific theories predict something. Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

Since you did not answer my question I will ask other questions: does darwinism predict that we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor? If it predicts then how it predicts so? And if darwinism can't predict an exact human ancestor's features can it predict any of man's ancestor's features (however down on the evolution line this ancestor might have appeared)? And if it does, how does it do so? What is the logic behind it?

[Shiny]

No, it is clear-cut that evolution is totally false.

If so, then why do people accept evolution as true?

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

So if someone who is a member of the Orthodox Church but believes in evolution, they are not of the same faith? How?

I did not dodge anything. You got my answer. Now I will ask you question: hypothetically speaking, what if I answered to your question "yes" or what if I answered to your question "no", what conclusion would you make in each case? Just hypothetically speaking.

You did dodge it because again I was asking HYPOTHETICALLY and it doesn't matter if the question actually is true or false.

So AGAIN, hypothetically speaking.

IF EVOLUTION IS FOUND TO BE TRUE AND SHOWN WITH FACTS WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR FAITH? YES OR NO.

Once you answer that, then I can answer the question you just asked.

[ativan]

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!!!"

This "Other people" definitely includes me in your opinion Let me clarify couple things for you. First, I said the theory of evolution is evil theory and it has the purpose to degrade man. I did not say those who believe in it are demonic. In fact those who are demonic and spread this theory does not believe in it at all. But those who really believe in it (even if they believe in God) they are lost and confused. No offense intended.

Secondly, you can ridicule me as much as you want. I don't care much. What I care though is your scientific answers to the questions posed. So far, you have nothing logical and no evidence at all. BTW, appeal to ridicule is very common way of evolutionists to "prove" their point. But I have to point that I've not seen one from your side.

[ativan]

No, it is clear-cut that evolution is totally false.

If so, then why do people accept evolution as true?

Different people have different reason for this. But none of them have logical reason and none of them use scientific method when dealing with theory of evolution. This does not mean though none of them know logic or have basic understanding of science.

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

So if someone who is a member of the Orthodox Church but believes in evolution, they are not of the same faith? How?

They are not in the same faith. Because Orthodox faith also incorporates faith in God's creation instantaneously without any evolution. We may share part of the faith but we are not of the same faith.

I did not dodge anything. You got my answer. Now I will ask you question: hypothetically speaking, what if I answered to your question "yes" or what if I answered to your question "no", what conclusion would you make in each case? Just hypothetically speaking.

You did dodge it because again I was asking HYPOTHETICALLY and it doesn't matter if the question actually is true or false.

So AGAIN, hypothetically speaking.

IF EVOLUTION IS FOUND TO BE TRUE AND SHOWN WITH FACTS WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR FAITH? YES OR NO.

Whatever you want to call it (dodging or not), fine with me. Now, could you answer my questions please: Now I will ask you question: hypothetically speaking, what if I answered to your question "yes" or what if I answered to your question "no", what conclusion would you make in each case? In short, what is the purpose of your question?

[NicholasMyra]

all scientific theories predict something.

Observation comes first in the scientific method.

And all Evolution would be expected to predict in this situation is: Man had ancestors that experienced selection pressures which produced anatomically modern humans.

So far we have evidence for multiple hominid ancestors showing progressively more human-like traits in response to various selection pressures, which is what you would expect to find.

[ZealousZeal]

But ativan you have to understand that there are those who have the same faith in God that you have, but believe that God used evolution during the "creation" process. What makes you different from them?

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

How? An Orthodox Christian that believes that God is the Creator of all, but that evolution is the process that He used, has an entirely different faith than you?

How does belief in evolution qualitatively change the faith so that it is "not the same faith"?

[minasoliman]

But ativan you have to understand that there are those who have the same faith in God that you have, but believe that God used evolution during the "creation" process. What makes you different from them?

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

How? An Orthodox Christian that believes that God is the Creator of all, but that evolution is the process that He used, has an entirely different faith than you?

How does belief in evolution qualitatively change the faith so that it is "not the same faith"?

He believes in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Age to come, and the eradication of evolution.  I believe in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Age to come.  If you ask him what would happen if hypothetically evolution was true, he would say it will never be true.  If you ask me what would happen if evolution was proven false, I would say, "so what? I still believe in God despite truth or falsity of God.". But for Ativan, it is a necessary tenet of faith to condemn evolution.  His faith in God does not rely on God, but on the rejection of a minuscule issue.

I know people who rejected evolution and is able to have such a strong faith to simply say "if evolution is proven to be true to me, my faith in God would not sway one bit.". That is a sign of true faith grounded in hard rock established by Christ, and not in the guesses of men, scientists or anti-evolutionists. 

[chrevbel]

Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

 does darwinism predict that we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor? If it predicts then how it predicts so? And if darwinism can't predict an exact human ancestor's features can it predict any of man's ancestor's features (however down on the evolution line this ancestor might have appeared)? And if it does, how does it do so? What is the logic behind it?

Evolution has done this very thing several times.  Darwin himself predicted that we should find fossils in Africa that shared ape features and human features.  His logic?  He surmised that the physical resemblance of humans and great apes indicated that they probably share a relatively recent common ancestor.  Great apes occur naturally in Africa, so he predicted that we would find them there.  From Darwin to Leakey (and beyond), scientists refined this hypothesis, adding others, and what we have discovered is exactly what they predicted.

[DavidH]

Humans and chimps also share a huge amount of DNA with bananas. Perhaps our common ancestor did not just live IN trees, he (and at least one she) also lived ON trees?

[chrevbel]

Humans and chimps also share a huge amount of DNA with bananas. Perhaps our common ancestor did not just live IN trees, he (and at least one she) also lived ON trees?

Actually, one common ancestor was effectively a tree -- all life shares a common ancestor.

[Jetavan]

Humans and chimps also share a huge amount of DNA with bananas.

Not nearly as much as they share with each other.

[orthonorm]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

[Manalive]

Humans and chimps also share a huge amount of DNA with bananas. Perhaps our common ancestor did not just live IN trees, he (and at least one she) also lived ON trees?

Actually, one common ancestor was effectively a tree -- all life shares a common ancestor.

Your momma might have come from a tree, but mine didn't.

[DavidH]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

[Jetavan]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

Also,  the dinosauria have existed for 230 million years, and hominids only for 7 million years, increasing the chances of finding dinosauria fossils compared to those of hominids.

[Aindriú]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

Also,  the dinosauria have existed for 230 million years, and hominids only for 7 million years, increasing the chances of finding dinosauria fossils compared to those of hominids.

As a total, but not individual species.

[Rufus]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

Also,  the dinosauria have existed for 230 million years, and hominids only for 7 million years, increasing the chances of finding dinosauria fossils compared to those of hominids.

As a total, but not individual species.

So?

The quantity of dinosaurs that existed is immensely, immensely greater than the number of one transitional human species. Ergo, they would leave that many more fossils.

[Rufus]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

Also, more importantly, the fossilization process itself involves minerals replacing the biological remains. Most people don't realize that fossils are not old bones. They are rocks that are shaped like bones.

Cataclysmic events help, but they aren't necessary.

[Rufus]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Interesting upbringing.

[Aindriú]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

Also,  the dinosauria have existed for 230 million years, and hominids only for 7 million years, increasing the chances of finding dinosauria fossils compared to those of hominids.

As a total, but not individual species.

So?

The quantity of dinosaurs that existed is immensely, immensely greater than the number of one transitional human species. Ergo, they would leave that many more fossils.

They are not proportional comparisons. It's like asking why can't we find T-Rex when we see all these mammal fossils.

[Shiny]

They are not in the same faith. Because Orthodox faith also incorporates faith in God's creation instantaneously without any evolution. We may share part of the faith but we are not of the same faith.

Different people have different reason for this. But none of them have logical reason and none of them use scientific method when dealing with theory of evolution. This does not mean though none of them know logic or have basic understanding of science.

[stavros_388]

They are not in the same faith. Because Orthodox faith also incorporates faith in God's creation instantaneously without any evolution. We may share part of the faith but we are not of the same faith.

Different people have different reason for this. But none of them have logical reason and none of them use scientific method when dealing with theory of evolution. This does not mean though none of them know logic or have basic understanding of science.

This succinctly expresses how I feel nearly every time I open this thread.

[Rufus]

You missed his point completely.

Me?  I miss very little.

I hate science. I hate biological sciences even more.

I did take some biology when I was 12 or something. And something about rocks as well.

Do you know how most "fossils" are formed?

If you do, could you construct a decent explanation why we have more fossil of "dinos" than man's "forerunner"?

This seemed an obviously to me at that age even though I was taught creationism and that fossils were temptations of the devil not to believe in the Koran, er Bible.

If Celticfan wants to break all this down for you, he can have at it.

Fossils are formed from once living creatures when they are quickly buried and put under pressure as in a cataclysmic natural event. Otherwise they rot or their carcasses get eaten and fossils cannot be formed from carnivore farts no matter how much gastro-intestinal pressure is involved.

Perhaps more dinos died under cataclysmic circumstances (e.g. massive flooding and landslides) than early humans did?

Also,  the dinosauria have existed for 230 million years, and hominids only for 7 million years, increasing the chances of finding dinosauria fossils compared to those of hominids.

As a total, but not individual species.

So?

The quantity of dinosaurs that existed is immensely, immensely greater than the number of one transitional human species. Ergo, they would leave that many more fossils.

They are not proportional comparisons. It's like asking why can't we find T-Rex when we see all these mammal fossils.

I think we're saying the same thing, right?

[ativan]

But ativan you have to understand that there are those who have the same faith in God that you have, but believe that God used evolution during the "creation" process. What makes you different from them?

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

How? An Orthodox Christian that believes that God is the Creator of all, but that evolution is the process that He used, has an entirely different faith than you?

How does belief in evolution qualitatively change the faith so that it is "not the same faith"?

He believes in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Age to come, and the eradication of evolution.  I believe in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Age to come.  If you ask him what would happen if hypothetically evolution was true, he would say it will never be true.  If you ask me what would happen if evolution was proven false, I would say, "so what? I still believe in God despite truth or falsity of God.". But for Ativan, it is a necessary tenet of faith to condemn evolution.  His faith in God does not rely on God, but on the rejection of a minuscule issue.

I'm a sinner. In fact I don't deserve to be that lucky one to whom God bestowed faith. Faith is Lord's gift to me. I did not buy it. I did not earned it. And I don't know if I will keep it. Only thing I can do is thank to the Lord and pray that I don't loose it and it becomes stronger. One of the greatest disciples of the Lord Saint peter told to the Lord that he would never deny Him but he did. Why? So, I don't care about the loaded questions you ask. I gave him the answer and my position was quite clear. BTW, How do you know you will keep your faith?

I know people who rejected evolution and is able to have such a strong faith to simply say "if evolution is proven to be true to me, my faith in God would not sway one bit.". That is a sign of true faith grounded in hard rock established by Christ, and not in the guesses of men, scientists or anti-evolutionists.

Scientists and anti-evolutionists? Scientists=new age gurus without reason, blindly believing or teaching theory of evolution. Anti-evolutionists=those who have enough reason to refute evolutionist's absurd claims.

[ativan]

But ativan you have to understand that there are those who have the same faith in God that you have, but believe that God used evolution during the "creation" process. What makes you different from them?

We don't have same faith. If somebody shares evolutionary view he has not the same faith.

How? An Orthodox Christian that believes that God is the Creator of all, but that evolution is the process that He used, has an entirely different faith than you?

How does belief in evolution qualitatively change the faith so that it is "not the same faith"?

On previous paged I've explained that enough while discussing this issue with minasoliman. It changes faith as any other heresy does.

[ativan]

all scientific theories predict something.

Observation comes first in the scientific method.

And all Evolution would be expected to predict in this situation is: Man had ancestors that experienced selection pressures which produced anatomically modern humans.

We go on circles. I repeat my question: give me the logic (or refer me to the logic) that predicts what type of ancestors are we supposed to have based on that theory.

So far we have evidence for multiple hominid ancestors showing progressively more human-like traits in response to various selection pressures, which is what you would expect to find.

You again beg the question. So far we may have evidence that there are species some of that are closer to humans and some of them are further to humans. This could mean a lot of different things which you have not ruled out yet. Did you prove that none of those fossils are the fossils of currently existing species? Did you prove that some of the fossils could be a rare type of genetic disorders of modern species? Did you prove that some of the fossils could be a rare type of genetic disorders of modern humans? If you did then give me the proof of these. If you did not then I can always assume that those fossils are nothing but the fossils of current human or ape species that have not been studied well.

Let's go to the next questions: today if have many different primates. Some of them have much more resemblance to humans then others. Still more are quite distant from us. All of these are discrete species that are not human ancestors for sure. Now a cataclysm happens (or for some other unknown reasons) and many of the species die out. Some of them survive. 50 000 years pass and there's this renewal of darwinian heresy. Scientists find the bones of those species. Surely, some of them are closer to humans and some of them are further in their skeletal anatomy. There are also species from our time that has survived cataclysm. Now some scientists make clearly fallacious claim based on the living and dead species anatomy and he makes this false conclusion exactly because of the same reasoning that you did. Now if you understand what is said here how can you assure me that given findings is not due to similar event?

Another question: I have several objects that are clearly man made, even though you and I have not seen that it was made by men. Say this objects are computers of newer and older generation. Computers of older generation share some properties with computers of newer generation. Besides there are multiple different types of computers of older generation. Some of them are much closer with new computers and some of them are further. Then I took you in a desert and showed you a piece of land. I dug it out and found more computers of older generation with different level of resemblance with newer computers. Based on the evidence I conclude that newer computers were formed by evolution of older computers without any intelligent production of these items. Based on your logic this is the only conclusion I can make. But it is clear that these things are designed by intelligence. This is immediate conclusion. Do you see the problem in evolutionist's reasoning? How on the earth you conclude that given finding is necessarily the consequence of blind random evolutionary process and not out of intelligent design?

[ativan]

Darwinism too should predict (before we even find specimen) what type of animal was preceding the man. What type of animal is predicted to be man's immediate ancestor and based on what logic?

 does darwinism predict that we can't pinpoint an exact human ancestor? If it predicts then how it predicts so? And if darwinism can't predict an exact human ancestor's features can it predict any of man's ancestor's features (however down on the evolution line this ancestor might have appeared)? And if it does, how does it do so? What is the logic behind it?

Evolution has done this very thing several times.  Darwin himself predicted that we should find fossils in Africa that shared ape features and human features.  His logic?  He surmised that the physical resemblance of humans and great apes indicated that they probably share a relatively recent common ancestor.  Great apes occur naturally in Africa, so he predicted that we would find them there.  From Darwin to Leakey (and beyond), scientists refined this hypothesis, adding others, and what we have discovered is exactly what they predicted.

You again beg the question. So far we may have evidence that there are species some of that are closer to humans and some of them are further to humans. This could mean a lot of different things which you have not ruled out yet. Did you prove that none of those fossils are the fossils of currently existing species? Did you prove that some of the fossils could be a rare type of genetic disorders of modern species? Did you prove that some of the fossils could be a rare type of genetic disorders of modern humans? If you did then give me the proof of these. If you did not then I can always assume that those fossils are nothing but the fossils of current human or ape species that have not been studied well.

Let's go to the next questions: today if have many different primates. Some of them have much more resemblance to humans then others. Still more are quite distant from us. All of these are discrete species that are not human ancestors for sure. Now a cataclysm happens (or for some other unknown reasons) and many of the species die out. Some of them survive. 50 000 years pass and there's this renewal of darwinian heresy. Scientists find the bones of those species. Surely, some of them are closer to humans and some of them are further in their skeletal anatomy. There are also species from our time that has survived cataclysm. Now some scientists make clearly fallacious claim based on the living and dead species anatomy and he makes this false conclusion exactly because of the same reasoning that you did. Now if you understand what is said here how can you assure me that given findings is not due to similar event?

Another question: I have several objects that are clearly man made, even though you and I have not seen that it was made by men. Say this objects are computers of newer and older generation. Computers of older generation share some properties with computers of newer generation. Besides there are multiple different types of computers of older generation. Some of them are much closer with new computers and some of them are further. Then I took you in a desert and showed you a piece of land. I dug it out and found more computers of older generation with different level of resemblance with newer computers. Based on the evidence I conclude that newer computers were formed by evolution of older computers without any intelligent production of these items. Based on your logic this is the only conclusion I can make. But it is clear that these things are designed by intelligence. This is immediate conclusion. Do you see the problem in evolutionist's reasoning? How on the earth you conclude that given finding is necessarily the consequence of blind random evolutionary process and not out of intelligent design?

[NicholasMyra]

Do you see the problem in evolutionist's reasoning? How on the earth you conclude that given finding is necessarily the consequence of blind random evolutionary process and not out of intelligent design?

There is nothing random about Evolution, and no evolutionary biologist worth his salt would say so after giving it any amount of thought.

I repeat my question: give me the logic (or refer me to the logic) that predicts what type of ancestors are we supposed to have based on that theory.

Ancestors which show a gradient of transition from something unlike us to something more like us.

[chrevbel]

Did you prove...? Did you prove...? Did you prove...?
...how can you assure me...?[/b]

Your persistent need for proof and assurance betrays your lack of understanding of how science works.

If you did not [prove it] then I can always assume...

Yes, you could always assume.  That's not how scientists do things, however.  If you'd truly like to understand what they've discovered over the past centuries, you'll need to leave your assumptions behind.