OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 08:59:34 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 326067 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4500 on: September 22, 2012, 02:36:05 AM »

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.
I'm sorry, I know I said I would wait until I had my computer, but I can't pass this over without a reply.  First,  how do you expect to claim anything is fact without proof?  Apparently, YOU do not understand how science works.  Secondly, you say leave assumptions at the door, but without proof, that's all you have, assumptions.  So, which is it?  Proof or assumptions?  Stop riding the fence.

Ok, now I will wait for my computer.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,412


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


WWW
« Reply #4501 on: September 22, 2012, 11:07:16 AM »

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. 

That should say "I still believe in God despite truth or falsity of evolution".
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,412


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


WWW
« Reply #4502 on: September 22, 2012, 11:15:40 AM »

BTW, How do you know you will keep your faith?

I've been through a lot.  I think you could say my faith gets stronger everyday.  I've had my doubts in the past, but they're in the past.  But that still doesn't answer your question though.  The best way to answer this is "by the grace of God."  So long as I keep my spiritual practices, and I continue to believe correctly in obedience to my Church, I feel I am able to keep my faith.  I always try to remind myself to "count it all joy" when I enter into tribulations.

I too feel unworthy, worst sinner of all, and in recent days have been more open to saints who I was critical of simply because I see myself no better than even Judas the betrayer, and I ask God for his undying mercy on my miserable soul.  Perhaps this feeling, I suppose it's called humility although I tend to see it as reality, more than anything helps me in my faith.

I still am typing a reply to your previous post to me.  I haven't forgotten.  Also, your statement about scientists and anti-evolutionists, I'll just say I disagree and keep it at that.
Logged

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

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

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4503 on: September 22, 2012, 09:10:07 PM »

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.
Wich part was funny?

This:
Quote
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.

or

This:
Quote
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.

or both?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4504 on: September 22, 2012, 09:25:14 PM »

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.

Read these links and see how many times "random" mutations are mentioned including by evolutionary biologists:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_random_muta061221.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-random-mutations
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

Anyways, I don't want to argue about what evolutionists themselves haven't understood clearly, I will assume that there's nothing random about evolution. Then, tell me what it means to be "random" and based on your definition of randomness how this randomness/non-randomness relates to evolution.

Quote
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.
You have not read what I've said. I will copy it:
Quote
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?

Now, if you have read this think about what it says and answer the question, if you can: 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.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4505 on: September 22, 2012, 09:38:43 PM »

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.
It's funny that you say that. My logic clearly shows the problem of your thinking which is actually generic evolutionists thinking. I'm going to chew it for you. You, evolutionists, assert that: "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." I just showed to you that given observation can be explained easily without even invoking any evolution. I make a claim that things we see are due to events I described. You telling me that I can't do that but you can do the same thing. Instead of showing me that my hypothesis is ruled out because of some observation (which is absolutely necessary but not enough for your theory to be true) come out and tell me what you just told me. Is that because certain courts ruled against ID and creation proponents or you are some type of special creation? Seriously.

Quote
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.
OK, maybe you're right. I truly like to understand what they've discovered over the past centuries. Can you explain me what is that? I promise I will leave my assumptions behind until I understand those discoveries. Help me out, please.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 09:40:42 PM by ativan » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,881


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4506 on: September 23, 2012, 01:24:36 AM »

No mutation is random.

Something random cannot be traced to a cause. Every mutation can be traced to a cause. If pop science articles have bad quotes about this, it's a real shame that the public is being misled in such a way.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4507 on: September 23, 2012, 11:36:19 PM »

No mutation is random.

Something random cannot be traced to a cause. Every mutation can be traced to a cause. If pop science articles have bad quotes about this, it's a real shame that the public is being misled in such a way.
You may define randomness whatever way you want but randomness and random even has its own definition. We should not be arguing for an obvious things. I will just give you links so that you can read and understand concept of randomness and random event. Wikipedia is quite good source for a starting point. Here's how random event is defined:
Quote
In probability theory, an event is a set of outcomes (a subset of the sample space) to which a probability is assigned.
There's a total number of mutations (set of outcomes) and each given mutation has a probability. Links provided to you has nothing to do with pop science. Here's what Dawkins (accepted as non-pop-scientists) has to say about mutations:  "Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random" Mutations are random. It's that simple.

Besides by your definition of randomness things that are obviously random (like, outcomes of thrown dice) are not random since it can be definitely traced to a cause.

Again, I will take your definition and wont call mutation random event and call it whatever you desire. You have to answer more important question: How does that cause, to which mutations are traced, choose where in the DNA make change(s)? Does this cause think this and that spot in DNA is good spot to make this and that type of change?

And don't forget more important things which you so obviously try to avoid. To 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" you replied this: "Ancestors which show a gradient of transition from something unlike us to something more like us." But I gave you another possible explanation and asked questions. You still have to respond to those:
Quote
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?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 11:36:59 PM by ativan » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,556


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4508 on: September 24, 2012, 02:55:45 PM »

Reading Genesis after Darwin, eds. Stephen Barton and David Wilkinson

Quote
Bringing together contributions from biblical scholars, historians and contemporary theologians, it is demonstrated that both Jewish and Christian scholars read Genesis in a non-literal way long before Darwin. Even during the nineteenth century, there was a wide range of responses from religious believers towards evolution, many of them very positive. Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson argue that being receptive to the continuing relevance of Genesis today regarding questions of gender, cosmology, and the environment is a lively option.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,881


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4509 on: September 24, 2012, 05:28:55 PM »

Ativan, regarding randomness:

A mutation occurs because of various traceable causes. So it ain't random in the sense of "by pure chance". It's not like evolution is flipping some cosmic coin with these mutations.

How does that cause, to which mutations are traced, choose where in the DNA make change(s)? Does this cause think this and that spot in DNA is good spot to make this and that type of change?
No, the change is not engineered, it occurs based on errors in copying DNA. Some of these errors end up resulting in changes which give that organism an advantage in its environment, which is how adaptation works over several generations.

And don't forget more important things which you so obviously try to avoid.
Not trying to avoid anything, I just skim through this thread.

You still have to respond to those: 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.
Paleontologists do take into account that a given fossil may be an already existing species, may be a genetic mutation of an already existing species. There are several ways a paleontologist or paleoanthropologist can determine whether or not this is the case.

For example, certain changes in skeletal structure cannot occur with only one generation's mutation; that is, a genetic disorder. For such changes to occur, multiple mutations and adaptations have to "stack" onto each other over multiple generations.

A sea anemone, for example, is not going to sprout an advanced eye in one generation, because the mutation which produces a cluster of basic light-sensitive cells must come first before any advanced eye may evolve.

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.
That would be jumping to a conclusion if you truly believe that you are dealing with inconclusive evidence.

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?
For one, because we can date fossils. Another, because those surviving primate species closest to humans show divergence from the hominid line which could only occur over an amount of time which would demonstrate they were not pre-human ancestors.
In other words, they show excessive divergence from our common ancestor away from us, which prevents them from being eligible to be ours.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 05:42:06 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4510 on: September 24, 2012, 06:27:24 PM »

Reading Genesis after Darwin, eds. Stephen Barton and David Wilkinson

Quote
Bringing together contributions from biblical scholars, historians and contemporary theologians, it is demonstrated that both Jewish and Christian scholars read Genesis in a non-literal way long before Darwin. Even during the nineteenth century, there was a wide range of responses from religious believers towards evolution, many of them very positive. Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson argue that being receptive to the continuing relevance of Genesis today regarding questions of gender, cosmology, and the environment is a lively option.
Of course, this is referring to Protestant theologians who, as we know, never got anything wrong.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4511 on: September 24, 2012, 06:33:46 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4512 on: September 24, 2012, 06:37:39 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4513 on: September 24, 2012, 06:44:23 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 06:50:31 PM by Kerdy » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4514 on: September 24, 2012, 06:56:06 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4515 on: September 24, 2012, 07:35:34 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
It's a matter of opinion, not fact.  But if evolution is not random mutation, it has a purpose.  What is that purpose?  That explanation seems to have changed. Let's also not ignore the difference between adaptation and evolution, since I pointed it out.

And to answer your question, because the folks on this thread aren't the first field experts I spoken with, it's been said evolution is change, even of manipulated by man, which of course is bunk.  So, there is no difference is lab manipulation or nuclear fallout.  If it forces mutations, some experts believe its evolution, which is supposed to occur all on its own.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 07:39:05 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4516 on: September 24, 2012, 07:44:51 PM »

I once thought it would be difficult to debate evolution with its staunch supporters, then I realized their own words are their downfall.  When one person says A and I point that out to a person who says B, the second person always, without fail, says no one ever said A and of they did they did t know what they were talking about, even though they were experts on both ends.  Evolutionists, if left alone in a room together for a period would argue like Republican and Democrats.  They can't agree, yet they all know the right answer and were supposed to believe each of them, even when they contradict one another or their self.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4517 on: September 24, 2012, 07:48:58 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
This also doesn't explain genetic disease, which should, according to evolution, not continue to exist.  That is, unless your definition is inaccurate. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 07:50:42 PM by Kerdy » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4518 on: September 24, 2012, 08:04:43 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
This also doesn't explain genetic disease, which should, according to evolution, not continue to exist.  That is, unless your definition is inaccurate. 
No, your definition of evolution is inaccurate. Mutations are the RANDOM errors in copying DNA. These errors can be beneficial, such as melanin in sun drenched areas, or can be harmful and lead to genetic diseases. No scientists has ever claimed that evolution precludes genetic disease.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4519 on: September 24, 2012, 08:11:08 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
This also doesn't explain genetic disease, which should, according to evolution, not continue to exist.  That is, unless your definition is inaccurate. 
No, your definition of evolution is inaccurate. Mutations are the RANDOM errors in copying DNA. These errors can be beneficial, such as melanin in sun drenched areas, or can be harmful and lead to genetic diseases. No scientists has ever claimed that evolution precludes genetic disease.

I'll let the dozens of biologists and field expert who provided the definition know they are wrong.  Also, you just did exactly what everyone else does by saying no one says (blank).  Predictability is also a weakness in evolutionists.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4520 on: September 24, 2012, 08:12:38 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
This also doesn't explain genetic disease, which should, according to evolution, not continue to exist.  That is, unless your definition is inaccurate. 
No, your definition of evolution is inaccurate. Mutations are the RANDOM errors in copying DNA. These errors can be beneficial, such as melanin in sun drenched areas, or can be harmful and lead to genetic diseases. No scientists has ever claimed that evolution precludes genetic disease.

You also failed to answer my question, but I knew that would happen before I asked.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4521 on: September 24, 2012, 08:15:05 PM »

What was your question?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 08:15:15 PM by sheenj » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4522 on: September 24, 2012, 08:17:07 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you seen children born with no arms and no legs?  What about people with genetic diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.  

But you speak about adaptation, which has foolishly been lumped into evolution as the same thing.  It also seems pollutants, etc, have influenced its adaptation, or in this case genetic manupulation, which still isn't evolution.  That's is unless you consider nuking an area evolution.
Huh What does that have to do with anything? Mutations are totally random errors in copying DNA, meaning tons of weird stuff can happen. Evolution on the other hand, is the process by which populations with beneficial mutations survive to pass on their genes. Mutations are random, Evolution is not.
But you already changed what you just said.  See what I mean about using their own words against them.  First, definitive, then change to fit the argument at hand.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4523 on: September 24, 2012, 08:28:31 PM »

Two quick things.

1. If an individual with a genetic disease manages to live long enough to pass on his genes, guess what? The disease gets passed along too. It's all about which genes get passed along to the next generation. That's one way genetic diseases survive.

2. New mutations occur ALL THE FREAKING TIME - sorry for the yelling but this point needs to be made. Genes pools are not exactly stable. This means even if all previous genetic diseases have been wiped out, new ones can still occur.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4524 on: September 24, 2012, 09:30:57 PM »

Reading Genesis after Darwin, eds. Stephen Barton and David Wilkinson

Quote
Bringing together contributions from biblical scholars, historians and contemporary theologians, it is demonstrated that both Jewish and Christian scholars read Genesis in a non-literal way long before Darwin. Even during the nineteenth century, there was a wide range of responses from religious believers towards evolution, many of them very positive. Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson argue that being receptive to the continuing relevance of Genesis today regarding questions of gender, cosmology, and the environment is a lively option.
Straw man arguments. Nobody denies that there are allegorical stories in the Bible. You are degrading all important argument. We say that none of the Church Fathers ever said that creation of Life and man by God is allegorical. If Augustine said creation story was allegorical he said that God created everything at one instance. But you use all these so out of context that it is very interesting why would you do so.
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,223



« Reply #4525 on: September 24, 2012, 09:42:17 PM »

Reading Genesis after Darwin, eds. Stephen Barton and David Wilkinson

Quote
Bringing together contributions from biblical scholars, historians and contemporary theologians, it is demonstrated that both Jewish and Christian scholars read Genesis in a non-literal way long before Darwin. Even during the nineteenth century, there was a wide range of responses from religious believers towards evolution, many of them very positive. Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson argue that being receptive to the continuing relevance of Genesis today regarding questions of gender, cosmology, and the environment is a lively option.
Straw man arguments. Nobody denies that there are allegorical stories in the Bible. You are degrading all important argument. We say that none of the Church Fathers ever said that creation of Life and man by God is allegorical. If Augustine said creation story was allegorical he said that God created everything at one instance. But you use all these so out of context that it is very interesting why would you do so.

Easy, there. I don't think Jetavan is "degrading all important argument" or using a straw man argument by posting a relevant article for others' consideration.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4526 on: September 24, 2012, 09:43:11 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you read it yourself? Peppered moth never mutated. There existed dark colored peppered moths. All there happened was that dark colored moths were selected. This has nothing to do with mutation. And there comes another twist of darwinism: all of a sudden they redefine evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool". OK, that's fine with us. But how on the earth change in the allele frequency is ever going to produce new gene? All it can do is to shuffle existing genes.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4527 on: September 24, 2012, 09:54:42 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you read it yourself? Peppered moth never mutated. There existed dark colored peppered moths. All there happened was that dark colored moths were selected. This has nothing to do with mutation. And there comes another twist of darwinism: all of a sudden they redefine evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool". OK, that's fine with us. But how on the earth change in the allele frequency is ever going to produce new gene? All it can do is to shuffle existing genes.
Where do you think the dark colored pepper moth come from?
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4528 on: September 24, 2012, 09:58:57 PM »

Also, new genes come about through errors in copying DNA, as I think has already been discussed.

Edit: The Wikipedia article about Mutagenesis goes into greater detail.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 10:07:01 PM by sheenj » Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4529 on: September 24, 2012, 10:47:41 PM »

Ativan, regarding randomness:

A mutation occurs because of various traceable causes. So it ain't random in the sense of "by pure chance". It's not like evolution is flipping some cosmic coin with these mutations.
An outcome of dice throws occurs because of various traceable causes. Is it a random event? Yes, it is. Exactly same is true for mutations. Mutations are no way different from flipping coins. All evolutionists who understand the concept of random event will confirm this. BTW, which evolutionist says otherwise, can you point him/her?

I did not say though that evolution is random. This is quite different thing (in theory) which of course has it's unresolvable problems. In evolution natural selection act on random mutations to drive the process. Now they say natural selection (NS) is not random process. The questions are: 1) Is it an abstract concept having no reality behind it or is it something (or somethings) that is real, measurable entity? 2) And how does this NS selects form existing individuals? Does it look at them and say this is the individual I like and it's going to be left? Does it look at them and say this is the ugly individual not fit to my taste and I don't like it and it's going to be destroyed? Or how does it do selection?

Quote
How does that cause, to which mutations are traced, choose where in the DNA make change(s)? Does this cause think this and that spot in DNA is good spot to make this and that type of change?
No, the change is not engineered, it occurs based on errors in copying DNA. Some of these errors end up resulting in changes which give that organism an advantage in its environment, which is how adaptation works over several generations.
That is exactly why mutations (i.e. errors in copying DNA) are said to be random.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4530 on: September 24, 2012, 10:53:54 PM »

Also, new genes come about through errors in copying DNA, as I think has already been discussed.

Edit: The Wikipedia article about Mutagenesis goes into greater detail.
You linked to irrelevant example which was not a proof of beneficial mutation but an example of selection.

As far as this statement of yours go bring only one example when a new gene was formed through the process of mutation. By new gene I mean a gene with completely new function not a variety (allele) of the same gene.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4531 on: September 24, 2012, 10:55:49 PM »

We have seen countless mutations of a species in my lifetime, none of which were beneficial to that species or lasted very long.  With no positive mutations documented (two headed snakes and goats that pass out when scared are very positive for survival) evolution seems a stretch for survival.  Which leads me to another question.  It was once taught that evolution happened to allow a species to survive.  However, when pointed out species still survived even having been evolved since, it was changed.  So, if it's no longer for survival, what is the point?  There is no need for it.

I know, I'm waiting for my computer, but it's tough.

I know one posted told me people don't teach what I said they do, but that person is wrong.  Very wrong.
No beneficial mutations? Have you read about the Peppered Moth Evolution?
Have you read it yourself? Peppered moth never mutated. There existed dark colored peppered moths. All there happened was that dark colored moths were selected. This has nothing to do with mutation. And there comes another twist of darwinism: all of a sudden they redefine evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool". OK, that's fine with us. But how on the earth change in the allele frequency is ever going to produce new gene? All it can do is to shuffle existing genes.
Where do you think the dark colored pepper moth come from?
You tell me how the color in this species is inherited and we will go from there.
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4532 on: September 24, 2012, 11:42:37 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4533 on: September 25, 2012, 12:25:40 AM »

You still have to respond to those: 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.
Paleontologists do take into account that a given fossil may be an already existing species, may be a genetic mutation of an already existing species. There are several ways a paleontologist or paleoanthropologist can determine whether or not this is the case.

For example, certain changes in skeletal structure cannot occur with only one generation's mutation; that is, a genetic disorder. For such changes to occur, multiple mutations and adaptations have to "stack" onto each other over multiple generations.

A sea anemone, for example, is not going to sprout an advanced eye in one generation, because the mutation which produces a cluster of basic light-sensitive cells must come first before any advanced eye may evolve.
Let's start from the very fallacy of circular reasoning you make. In order to bring the evidence of evolution being true you already assume it is true (saying "sea anemone, for example, is not going to sprout an advanced eye in one generation, because the mutation which produces a cluster of basic light-sensitive cells must come first before any advanced eye may evolve" already assumes evolution being true) which is the final point to prove. So, it will be nice if you do not bring such argument anymore. Same is true for statement "certain changes in skeletal structure cannot occur with only one generation's mutation; that is, a genetic disorder. For such changes to occur, multiple mutations and adaptations have to "stack" onto each other over multiple generations" if by these you refer to the process of evolution. If in this last case you have any specific example, please, provide that example.


Here's an image:

What animal is depicted on this image and how many mutations (if it is genetic disorder) it took to get to this skeleton?

Quote
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?
For one, because we can date fossils. Another, because those surviving primate species closest to humans show divergence from the hominid line which could only occur over an amount of time which would demonstrate they were not pre-human ancestors.
In other words, they show excessive divergence from our common ancestor away from us, which prevents them from being eligible to be ours.
Again, you bringing in circular argument here assuming that evolution is true and it would lead to certain result. If you want to prove impossibility of such an occurrence do not refer evolution itself. So far the only one thing theoretically valid would be "we can date fossils" thing. But how the dating would rule out the possibility of that?

Can you point out to 1 paper where author(s) evolution discusses other possible explanations and at least tries to refute alternative explanations (particularly the ones that I have mentioned)?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4534 on: September 25, 2012, 04:50:07 AM »

Personally, I'm digging the ID theory over evolution.  I find it more plausible that an advanced race put us here to see if we could survive, making us not part of the already existing indigenous life.  Maybe they saw the dinosaurs as a threat to their experiment and killed them off.  I heard someone say a few days ago it was for slave labor.

Still, I wonder how we can find 100 year old boots fossilized but find pliable Dino flesh after millions of years.  It just seems perhaps our entire dating system is a little off.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 05:00:41 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,556


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4535 on: September 25, 2012, 08:20:08 AM »

Personally, I'm digging the ID theory over evolution.  I find it more plausible that an advanced race put us here to see if we could survive, making us not part of the already existing indigenous life.  Maybe they saw the dinosaurs as a threat to their experiment and killed them off.  I heard someone say a few days ago it was for slave labor.
Yeah, they wanted us to work in some garden. Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4536 on: September 25, 2012, 08:26:56 AM »

Personally, I'm digging the ID theory over evolution.  I find it more plausible that an advanced race put us here to see if we could survive, making us not part of the already existing indigenous life.  Maybe they saw the dinosaurs as a threat to their experiment and killed them off.  I heard someone say a few days ago it was for slave labor.
Yeah, they wanted us to work in some garden. Roll Eyes
Don't roll eyes when the theory is just as plausible and people can take the same size fragments of information and develop all sorts of ideas around those fragments (like evolutionists), unless you want them to call you all closed minded with preconceived ideas, like you folks say about Creationists.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 08:28:47 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,556


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4537 on: September 25, 2012, 09:08:28 AM »

Personally, I'm digging the ID theory over evolution.  I find it more plausible that an advanced race put us here to see if we could survive, making us not part of the already existing indigenous life.  Maybe they saw the dinosaurs as a threat to their experiment and killed them off.  I heard someone say a few days ago it was for slave labor.
Yeah, they wanted us to work in some garden. Roll Eyes
Don't roll eyes when the theory is just as plausible and people can take the same size fragments of information and develop all sorts of ideas around those fragments (like evolutionists), unless you want them to call you all closed minded with preconceived ideas, like you folks say about Creationists.
To posit the role of "an advanced race" in creating Homo sapiens (through genetic engineering, perhaps?) still raises the question: how did that advanced race itself come into being? Did it evolve? Or was it created by yet another advanced race?
Logged

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

Posts: 596



« Reply #4538 on: September 25, 2012, 02:20:16 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,087


« Reply #4539 on: September 25, 2012, 02:26:13 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley

Not in my experience. Frequently I see a compromise, whereby the common descent of all humans from one couple is maintained, while the possibility is allowed that this first human couple was descended from non-human ancestors. I'm not sure what biology has to say about a single first couple, though I remember reading somewhere that current genetic variation is not compatible with this.

Mina, do you know any more about this?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:27:25 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #4540 on: September 25, 2012, 02:29:48 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

The real is only properly understood symbolically.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,412


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


WWW
« Reply #4541 on: September 25, 2012, 07:11:44 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley

Not in my experience. Frequently I see a compromise, whereby the common descent of all humans from one couple is maintained, while the possibility is allowed that this first human couple was descended from non-human ancestors. I'm not sure what biology has to say about a single first couple, though I remember reading somewhere that current genetic variation is not compatible with this.

Mina, do you know any more about this?
Some people maintain allegory of their persons without literality.  Others maintain allegory of their story, but acknowledge their actual existence.  Some believe they weren't the only 2 that existed, but 2 that were ordained to enjoy the paradisical life.  Some believe they were the first 2 that lead to other humans in paradise to fall with them.

As for me, I simply don't know.  I tend to believe they existed, whereas the story that surrounded them is allegorical.  I believe that in their childlike naivety and selfishness for seeking to be like God out of their own selves, they disobeyed God in a way I don't understand, and fell.  Whether there were others with them who fell or not, I don't know.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,087


« Reply #4542 on: September 25, 2012, 07:33:36 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley

Not in my experience. Frequently I see a compromise, whereby the common descent of all humans from one couple is maintained, while the possibility is allowed that this first human couple was descended from non-human ancestors. I'm not sure what biology has to say about a single first couple, though I remember reading somewhere that current genetic variation is not compatible with this.

Mina, do you know any more about this?
Some people maintain allegory of their persons without literality.  Others maintain allegory of their story, but acknowledge their actual existence.  Some believe they weren't the only 2 that existed, but 2 that were ordained to enjoy the paradisical life.  Some believe they were the first 2 that lead to other humans in paradise to fall with them.

As for me, I simply don't know.  I tend to believe they existed, whereas the story that surrounded them is allegorical.  I believe that in their childlike naivety and selfishness for seeking to be like God out of their own selves, they disobeyed God in a way I don't understand, and fell.  Whether there were others with them who fell or not, I don't know.

OK. So you're not aware of genetic evidence that would undermine the idea that we are all descended from a single ancestral couple?
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #4543 on: September 25, 2012, 08:15:21 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley

Not in my experience. Frequently I see a compromise, whereby the common descent of all humans from one couple is maintained, while the possibility is allowed that this first human couple was descended from non-human ancestors. I'm not sure what biology has to say about a single first couple, though I remember reading somewhere that current genetic variation is not compatible with this.

Mina, do you know any more about this?
Some people maintain allegory of their persons without literality.  Others maintain allegory of their story, but acknowledge their actual existence.  Some believe they weren't the only 2 that existed, but 2 that were ordained to enjoy the paradisical life.  Some believe they were the first 2 that lead to other humans in paradise to fall with them.

As for me, I simply don't know.  I tend to believe they existed, whereas the story that surrounded them is allegorical.  I believe that in their childlike naivety and selfishness for seeking to be like God out of their own selves, they disobeyed God in a way I don't understand, and fell.  Whether there were others with them who fell or not, I don't know.

OK. So you're not aware of genetic evidence that would undermine the idea that we are all descended from a single ancestral couple?
I think Heorhij mentioned quite a few pages back that that the genetic evidence strongly precludes a single ancestral couple.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4544 on: September 25, 2012, 08:26:25 PM »

Personally, I'm digging the ID theory over evolution.  I find it more plausible that an advanced race put us here to see if we could survive, making us not part of the already existing indigenous life.  Maybe they saw the dinosaurs as a threat to their experiment and killed them off.  I heard someone say a few days ago it was for slave labor.
Yeah, they wanted us to work in some garden. Roll Eyes
Don't roll eyes when the theory is just as plausible and people can take the same size fragments of information and develop all sorts of ideas around those fragments (like evolutionists), unless you want them to call you all closed minded with preconceived ideas, like you folks say about Creationists.
To posit the role of "an advanced race" in creating Homo sapiens (through genetic engineering, perhaps?) still raises the question: how did that advanced race itself come into being? Did it evolve? Or was it created by yet another advanced race?

Good questions, but we didn't have to be created or evolved.  Maybe they just moved us here.  Who knows.  The theory has gaps and holes like evolution. 
Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 75 queries.