OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 03:54:09 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 - 54 (15.6%)
No - 134 (38.7%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.7%)
Total Voters: 346

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 347961 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4950 on: February 16, 2013, 08:04:30 PM »

Sciō ergo sum.
My Latin isn't scholarly, but I'll take a jab at it.

I know; therefore, I am?

I have for you.

Quamdiu in mundo sum lux sum mund
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 08:06:50 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4951 on: February 16, 2013, 08:10:13 PM »

hic est generationis Adam in die qua creavit Deus hominem ad similitudinem Dei fecit illu
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4952 on: February 16, 2013, 08:26:27 PM »

Sciō ergo sum.
My Latin isn't scholarly, but I'll take a jab at it.

I know; therefore, I am?
Correctomundo.

Quote
I have for you.

Quamdiu in mundo sum lux sum mund
John 9:5. Excellent choice. Is this "lux" the same "lux" of Genesis 1:3?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,958


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


« Reply #4953 on: February 16, 2013, 10:00:42 PM »

People can read.  It's all here in this thread. 

Perhaps you can read, but it seems you're unable to make a distinction between disproving the null hypothesis of a particular theory, and inability to even test a theory.
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.
Android_Rewster
Raving fanatic of Jesus Christ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not a Protsetant anymore
Posts: 43


I need you so much closer


« Reply #4954 on: February 16, 2013, 10:12:44 PM »

 I apologize if I worded it poorly in my last post, but I can't really see any problems with it.

 The problem with your example is that Science works to come to a conclusion based on facts, and not the other way around. No-one can prove or disprove your example because it is not even a proper thesis to begin with. There must be supporting facts that we are able to test and observe over a period of time.

 The Scientific Method of Inquiry consists of 5 simple steps:
1) Question
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Test
5) Analysis

 Unfortunately, the scientific method for young earth creationism is nearly backwards, and missing multiple steps as well.
1) Analysis
2) Test
3) Hypothesis

 ^The above method is called "Null Hypothesis".
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 10:16:07 PM by Android_Rewster » Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4955 on: February 16, 2013, 10:29:27 PM »

People can read.  It's all here in this thread. 

Perhaps you can read, but it seems you're unable to make a distinction between disproving the null hypothesis of a particular theory, and inability to even test a theory.
But what you guys have said consistently throughout this entire thread is a claim is valid and fact until it is proven wrong.  Not my words, I disagree completely.  I imagine its a creepy feeling not being able to respond without contradicting previous statements.  But, if you want to say its wrong, be my guest.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4956 on: February 16, 2013, 10:31:43 PM »

Science works to come to a conclusion based on facts, and not the other way around.
Well, it sure is supposed to do this.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,958


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


« Reply #4957 on: February 17, 2013, 12:12:57 AM »

People can read.  It's all here in this thread. 

Perhaps you can read, but it seems you're unable to make a distinction between disproving the null hypothesis of a particular theory, and inability to even test a theory.
But what you guys have said consistently throughout this entire thread is a claim is valid and fact until it is proven wrong.  Not my words, I disagree completely.  I imagine its a creepy feeling not being able to respond without contradicting previous statements.  But, if you want to say its wrong, be my guest.
Kerdy,
What we've been saying all along isn't wrong.  It's just misunderstood.  I acknowledge first and foremost that the wording may be poor, just as the wording for "theory" has been misused and poorly understood.  I personally am not contradicting anything I've said before.  I clarified it for you.  When we say "unable to disprove", it means that the null hypothesis was tested, and it's false.  "Unable to disprove" does not equate "unable to test" in scientific understanding.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 12:17:18 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Posts: 596



« Reply #4958 on: February 17, 2013, 12:15:11 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4959 on: February 17, 2013, 12:47:31 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Android_Rewster
Raving fanatic of Jesus Christ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not a Protsetant anymore
Posts: 43


I need you so much closer


« Reply #4960 on: February 17, 2013, 03:29:22 AM »

Science works to come to a conclusion based on facts, and not the other way around.
Well, it sure is supposed to do this.
I think you've misunderstood me. Smiley I was saying that, we find the facts first and then come to our conclusion, and not the other way around.

 This is getting a bit redundant, is it not?
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4961 on: February 17, 2013, 04:07:52 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4962 on: February 17, 2013, 04:20:46 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.


I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4963 on: February 17, 2013, 05:01:41 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura.  

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.”  


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.


I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)


Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophical leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 05:07:10 AM by NightOwl » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4964 on: February 17, 2013, 05:08:03 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.


I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)


Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.



Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4965 on: February 17, 2013, 05:21:32 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura.  

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.”  


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.


I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)


Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.



Selam

We have already observed in this thread dramatic cumulative change in the short run with a population of Italian wall lizard. Taken to the long run, that would be peripatric speciation ("macroevolution") and reproductive isolation caused by extensive geographical separation from the original population. It is exactly the type of morphological change observed in that isolated population that leads to reproductive isolation again in the long run.

It is better to talk in terms of populations rather than "individual species", because, as we have observed, the dramatic morphological changes discussed above occured in an isolated POPULATION, not the entire species.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 05:25:33 AM by NightOwl » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4966 on: February 17, 2013, 06:23:53 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura.  

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.”  


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.


I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)


Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.



Selam

We have already observed in this thread dramatic cumulative change in the short run with a population of Italian wall lizard. Taken to the long run, that would be peripatric speciation ("macroevolution") and reproductive isolation caused by extensive geographical separation from the original population. It is exactly the type of morphological change observed in that isolated population that leads to reproductive isolation again in the long run.

It is better to talk in terms of populations rather than "individual species", because, as we have observed, the dramatic morphological changes discussed above occured in an isolated POPULATION, not the entire species.



Jesse Jackson would be proud of you.  Wink



Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #4967 on: February 17, 2013, 08:07:26 AM »

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.
Selam


"...Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 08:10:21 AM by stavros_388 » 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
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4968 on: February 17, 2013, 10:27:41 AM »

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura.  

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.”  


No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.



Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.


I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)


Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.



Selam

We have already observed in this thread dramatic cumulative change in the short run with a population of Italian wall lizard. Taken to the long run, that would be peripatric speciation ("macroevolution") and reproductive isolation caused by extensive geographical separation from the original population. It is exactly the type of morphological change observed in that isolated population that leads to reproductive isolation again in the long run.

It is better to talk in terms of populations rather than "individual species", because, as we have observed, the dramatic morphological changes discussed above occured in an isolated POPULATION, not the entire species.



Jesse Jackson would be proud of you.  Wink



Selam

Sorry, I missed that one, could you explain?  angel
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4969 on: February 17, 2013, 01:30:12 PM »

I found an informative look at what one type of speciation or macroevolution actually entails, as applicable to the earlier-discussed lizard study:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1cPeripatric.shtml

The article mentions that their scenario is "hypothetical," but it's also something that has been directly observed in scientific studies with the same Drosophila fruit flies. The island lizards would be somewhere around stage 4.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 01:34:43 PM by NightOwl » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,679



WWW
« Reply #4970 on: February 17, 2013, 05:48:33 PM »

Quote from: NightOwl


Sorry, I missed that one, could you explain?  angel

Rhyming everything, especially with '-ation' at the end.
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4971 on: February 17, 2013, 06:07:47 PM »

Quote from: NightOwl


Sorry, I missed that one, could you explain?  angel

Rhyming everything, especially with '-ation' at the end.

Lol okay.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,703



« Reply #4972 on: February 17, 2013, 06:53:34 PM »

Quote from: NightOwl


Sorry, I missed that one, could you explain?  angel

Rhyming everything, especially with '-ation' at the end.

I missed this as well Biro since the terms are unavoidable. Thanks. +1 for Gebre for seeing this accidental relationship.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4973 on: February 17, 2013, 11:58:40 PM »

Quote from: NightOwl


Sorry, I missed that one, could you explain?  angel

Rhyming everything, especially with '-ation' at the end.

I missed this as well Biro since the terms are unavoidable. Thanks. +1 for Gebre for seeing this accidental relationship.
Is that the worlds greatest dancer in your avatar?  Fred Astaire and his sister, Adele?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 12:01:37 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,703



« Reply #4974 on: February 18, 2013, 12:56:17 AM »

Quote from: NightOwl


Sorry, I missed that one, could you explain?  angel

Rhyming everything, especially with '-ation' at the end.

I missed this as well Biro since the terms are unavoidable. Thanks. +1 for Gebre for seeing this accidental relationship.
Is that the worlds greatest dancer in your avatar?  Fred Astaire and his sister, Adele?

Yes Kerdy, it is. I was in tears a couple of days ago thinking about my sister and how much I love her and appreciate her. Not too many people would recognize Adele, even though she was more famous at the time. Fred wore the ring she gave him all of his life and honed his skills as a dancer so as not to drag her down.

On the evolution front, I am starting a new in vitro evolution project.

Logged
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #4975 on: February 18, 2013, 09:44:57 AM »

You should dispute that with St. Paul, not me. I think what he says in Romans 11 is clear as daylight and cannot be misconstrued to mean what you would like it to mean.
I don't have a problem with Paul, just your misinterpretation of him. This is what I mean: As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; Romans 11:28

He never said that salvation is from the Hellenes/Hellas. That's for sure.

He said better...20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip...with a request. “Sir...we would like to see Jesus.” 22 ...Philip...told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified"

...other Fathers actually thought Plato was plagiarizing Moses (who had the privilege of antiquity over all Greek philosophers).
Yeah well Plato is an actual historical figure, we accept the existence of Moses on faith only, so objective literary precedence falls to Plato Wink
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 09:45:58 AM by Pericles » Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #4976 on: February 18, 2013, 10:19:01 AM »

You should dispute that with St. Paul, not me. I think what he says in Romans 11 is clear as daylight and cannot be misconstrued to mean what you would like it to mean.
I don't have a problem with Paul, just your misinterpretation of him. This is what I mean: As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; Romans 11:28

St. Paul saw the rejection of Christ by the majority (not all) of the Jews as a temporary grace bestowed by God to the "pet dogs", i.e. Gentiles. That's why he urges the latter not to be arrogant. Philhellenes like yourself had better heed that piece of advice.

He never said that salvation is from the Hellenes/Hellas. That's for sure.

He said better...20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip...with a request. “Sir...we would like to see Jesus.” 22 ...Philip...told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified"

In John's language this meant it was time for him to die - his ministry in the flesh to Israel had been completed, once the Gentiles were inquiring about him. "Glorification" and "exaltation" mean crucifixion for the Evangelist, not being praised by the Greeks.

...other Fathers actually thought Plato was plagiarizing Moses (who had the privilege of antiquity over all Greek philosophers).
Yeah well Plato is an actual historical figure, we accept the existence of Moses on faith only, so objective literary precedence falls to Plato Wink

Some tried to argue the same about Jesus himself.
Logged
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #4977 on: February 18, 2013, 10:38:05 AM »

St. Paul saw the rejection of Christ by the majority (not all) of the Jews as a temporary grace bestowed by God to the "pet dogs", i.e. Gentiles. That's why he urges the latter not to be arrogant. Philhellenes like yourself had better heed that piece of advice.
first, you don't have an insight into the workings of Pauls mind; Second, Paul does not ever or anywhere refer to gentiles as 'pet-dogs'  "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise..." Romans 9:8
Judaizers like yourself should heed that advice

Some tried to argue the same about Jesus himself.
You could argue that, which is why we need to start with the writings of Paul and not the Gospels, as they take literary precedence in the NT.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #4978 on: February 18, 2013, 10:54:29 AM »

Paul does not ever or anywhere refer to gentiles as 'pet-dogs' 

Our Lord does - St. Paul is echoing that in Romans 11. Instead of "pet-dogs" he calls the Gentiles "branches of wild olive trees".

Judaizers like yourself should heed that advice

To be Orthodox is to avoid both the extreme of Judaic phyletism and Gentile arrogance. Orthodox εὐσεβεία is to give to each his own: ”to the Jew first, then also to the Gentile.” (Rom. 1:16) 

Some tried to argue the same about Jesus himself.
You could argue that, which is why we need to start with the writings of Paul and not the Gospels, as they take literary precedence in the NT.


The Church always starts from Matthew - the "Jewish" Gospel. That's the canonical order and it's reflected in all traditional catechesis.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 11:11:57 AM by Romaios » Logged
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #4979 on: February 19, 2013, 05:00:44 AM »

To be Orthodox is to avoid both the extreme of Judaic phyletism and Gentile arrogance.
Thats absurd you are either a Jew or you're a Christian. You are a Gentile (Greek) and nothing you say will ever change that. However much you argue to the contrary Christianity is not Judaism. Get over it. Grin
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 05:01:48 AM by Pericles » Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #4980 on: February 19, 2013, 10:53:35 AM »

To be Orthodox is to avoid both the extreme of Judaic phyletism and Gentile arrogance.
Thats absurd you are either a Jew or you're a Christian. You are a Gentile (Greek) and nothing you say will ever change that. However much you argue to the contrary Christianity is not Judaism. Get over it. Grin

I am not arguing that Christianity is Judaism any more than it is Hellenism - it is the superior synthesis of the two:

Quote
So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

Ephesians 2:11-22
Logged
Android_Rewster
Raving fanatic of Jesus Christ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not a Protsetant anymore
Posts: 43


I need you so much closer


« Reply #4981 on: February 19, 2013, 01:35:36 PM »

Science works to come to a conclusion based on facts, and not the other way around.
Well, it sure is supposed to do this.
I think you've misunderstood me. Smiley I was saying that, we find the facts first and then come to our conclusion, and not the other way around.

 This is getting a bit redundant, is it not?
I haven't had this addressed yet. Sad Sad panda, bro. Sad panda...
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #4982 on: February 20, 2013, 12:20:31 AM »

Hey Romaios, what's the significance of the Gospels' order?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4983 on: February 20, 2013, 05:54:57 AM »

Science works to come to a conclusion based on facts, and not the other way around.
Well, it sure is supposed to do this.
I think you've misunderstood me. Smiley I was saying that, we find the facts first and then come to our conclusion, and not the other way around.

 This is getting a bit redundant, is it not?
I haven't had this addressed yet. Sad Sad panda, bro. Sad panda...
What people say they do and what they actually do are not always the same.  Then again, it usually depends on the subject being discussed.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4984 on: February 20, 2013, 06:45:52 AM »

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media. The louder the mainstream media proclaims how objective they are, the more they reveal their bias. And the fact that they militantly attack any alternative media source discloses their liberal agenda. Similarly, the louder the evolutionists scream about how their pet theory is an empircally verifiable fact, the more they reveal how tenous it really is. And the fact that they seek to silence any competing scientific theory about the origins of life discloses the reality that they are not promoting science so much as a philosophical agenda. In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."




Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #4985 on: February 20, 2013, 08:35:14 AM »

Hey Romaios, what's the significance of the Gospels' order?

Well, Matthew is first because - through the genealogy - it provides the link between the Old and the New Testaments, presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. St. Paul's Gospel starts from there, too: "the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh"; "the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1).

Mark and Luke are addressed to the Gentiles.

John is the last chronologically, but also theologically because it delves into the mystery of Christ's divinity.

(Maybe these posts which are off-topic here could be moved to one of the threads Pericles started.)
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4986 on: February 20, 2013, 08:52:37 AM »

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media...  In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The parallel is deeper even than that.  Commonly, creationists will cite something from science without either understanding it or bothering to get it correct.  "The lady protests too much, methinks," is the correct quote.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4987 on: February 20, 2013, 08:56:40 AM »

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media...  In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The parallel is deeper even than that.  Commonly, creationists will cite something from science without either understanding it or bothering to get it correct.  "The lady protests too much, methinks," is the correct quote.


I think I need to coin a "Godwin's Law" of the evolution debate, which would describe the law that whenever evolutionists are challenged they immediately invoke the "you just don't understand science" card.



Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #4988 on: February 20, 2013, 09:26:31 AM »


I think I need to coin a "Godwin's Law" of the evolution debate, which would describe the law that whenever evolutionists are challenged they immediately invoke the "you just don't understand science" card.

Selam

Maybe there is something to that oft-invoked card.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,958


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


« Reply #4989 on: February 20, 2013, 11:09:35 AM »

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media...  In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The parallel is deeper even than that.  Commonly, creationists will cite something from science without either understanding it or bothering to get it correct.  "The lady protests too much, methinks," is the correct quote.


I think I need to coin a "Godwin's Law" of the evolution debate, which would describe the law that whenever evolutionists are challenged they immediately invoke the "you just don't understand science" card.



Selam
As opposed to the "this is a demonic philosophy, not science" card?

I think before judging what evolutionists do, let's remove the plank off our own eyes.  I've been trying for the past couple of posts to be eirinic, and I still get the same responses.  Sounds more like a persecutory complex that covers up ignorance of the science.

I've also been shown to be ignorant of the field of detective work.  I got burned in that.  No longer am I going to use detective work as an analogy.  I admit the ignorance.  And I won't call that line of work "demonic philosophy" either, although I could cry out how so many were framed for a crime they didnt commit.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 11:10:23 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #4990 on: February 20, 2013, 11:37:08 AM »


Selam
I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?


Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  
So how much evidence would there have to be for you to accept it?


I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830838317


Selam

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.  
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 11:37:29 AM by stavros_388 » 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
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #4991 on: February 20, 2013, 03:03:37 PM »


Selam
I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?


Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  
So how much evidence would there have to be for you to accept it?


I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830838317


Selam

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.  

If the author of that book has as much little knowledge of the evolutionary process (even as it's presented by the "atheist scientists" creationists love to demonize) as Seraphim Rose in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, I think I'll pass.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 03:15:13 PM by NightOwl » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,958


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


« Reply #4992 on: February 20, 2013, 03:09:22 PM »


Selam
I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?


Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam 
So how much evidence would there have to be for you to accept it?


I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830838317


Selam

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can. 

If the author of that book has as much little knowledge of the evolutionary process (even as it's presented by the "atheist scientists" they demonize) as Seraphim Rose in Creation, Genesis, and Early Man, I think I'll pass.

Or just don't say anything.  At least if you want to engage in this discussion, take Gebre seriously and read the book.

Forgive me for the harsh tone, but I don't want anymore "evolutionists are calling us ignorant" excuses
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 03:18:37 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Posts: 596



« Reply #4993 on: February 20, 2013, 03:11:06 PM »


Selam
I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?


Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  
So how much evidence would there have to be for you to accept it?


I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830838317


Selam

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.  

If the author of that book has as much little knowledge of the evolutionary process (even as it's presented by the "atheist scientists" they demonize) as Seraphim Rose in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, I think I'll pass.

Or just don't say anything.  At least if you want to engage in this discussion, take Gebre seriously and read the book.

You didn't answer my question: Does it contain significantly different arguments from Genesis, Creation, and Early Man? If not, I feel perfectly justified in engaging in this discussion.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 03:18:11 PM by NightOwl » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,489



« Reply #4994 on: February 20, 2013, 03:17:43 PM »

You didn't answer my question: Does it contain significantly different arguments from Genesis, Creation, and Early Man?

Different? Yes, completely (yes, I've read it). Persuasive? No...
Logged

An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
A Rough Overview of What a Handful of Greek-Speaking Christians Wrote in the 4th-7th Centuries
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   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 0.206 seconds with 75 queries.