OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 11:21:53 AM *
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 332187 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5220 on: August 11, 2013, 10:47:08 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.

I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.

This in response to, "For some people, yes."

It was more in response to Nikolaos Greek. Sorry, I shouldn't have included the later replies.

Okay.   Grin
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5221 on: August 12, 2013, 09:02:00 AM »

I knew I would eventually find it.  The March of Progress

Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #5222 on: August 12, 2013, 04:43:04 PM »

DNA changes and species evolves but not from one specie to another one.
Humans of previous generations had harder teeth but modern  with all this soft food have changed. Now humans have softer teeth since birth. This is evolution.
Not from fish to lizard or from ape to human but change in the borders of a specie.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #5223 on: August 12, 2013, 04:57:29 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
that is true

kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha
Logged

Peace.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5224 on: August 12, 2013, 08:00:33 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
that is true

kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha

I do, honestly, and I have attempted to return the favor.  Every interaction does not need to be an argument.  So, yes, I absolutely do appreciate your restraint.  We simply have differing opinions.  Not the end of the world. Cheesy
Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #5225 on: August 12, 2013, 08:02:33 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
that is true

kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha

I do, honestly, and I have attempted to return the favor.  Every interaction does not need to be an argument.  So, yes, I absolutely do appreciate your restraint.  We simply have differing opinions.  Not the end of the world. Cheesy
Grin
Logged

Peace.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,608



« Reply #5226 on: August 12, 2013, 11:39:34 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
that is true

kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha

I do, honestly, and I have attempted to return the favor.  Every interaction does not need to be an argument.  So, yes, I absolutely do appreciate your restraint.  We simply have differing opinions.  Not the end of the world. Cheesy

As you continue to post in this thread are you willing to get back to a discussion that never really started?

For me it starts here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg804008/topicseen.html#msg804008

Just checking.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5227 on: August 12, 2013, 11:51:46 PM »

No, I'm happy to let this thread die.  I see no point is running in circles with those who say you don't have to believe in evolution, but if you don't you're wrong and continue to propel idea after idea when none have been thoroughly and concretely verified.  I never attempted to prove I was right, on the other hand...

I only posted The March of Progress because some here pretend it was never taught.

You believe what you want, I believe what I want and we are both Orthodox.   angel
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5228 on: August 12, 2013, 11:56:01 PM »

I wish you had the option of changing your vote on this thread  police
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5229 on: August 15, 2013, 02:54:55 PM »

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....

I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5230 on: August 19, 2013, 09:56:19 AM »

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....

I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
You can track the mutations in mitochondrial DNA.  Because apes and humans have such similar DNA, scientists have been able to track when mutations have occurred and trace them back to a common ancestor.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5231 on: August 19, 2013, 10:21:02 AM »

Delete.  I didn't want to get involved again.  Sorry.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 10:22:09 AM by Kerdy » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5232 on: August 19, 2013, 10:25:45 AM »

Delete.  I didn't want to get involved again.  Sorry.
Aww crap.  I saw your name pop up and thought there might be another good hearted debate on the topic!

I just got back from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, so I'm up on all my latest heretical evolutionary teachings.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5233 on: August 19, 2013, 10:29:39 AM »

Delete.  I didn't want to get involved again.  Sorry.

That would be a great tagline for all of us at times! Nice use of self-restraint, Kerdy.  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5234 on: August 19, 2013, 01:31:03 PM »

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....

I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
You can track the mutations in mitochondrial DNA.  Because apes and humans have such similar DNA, scientists have been able to track when mutations have occurred and trace them back to a common ancestor.

So it is an estimation based on the scientists opinion on how often the mutations have occurred ? I can understand why it makes sense from an atheist point of view but where is God in this picture ? 
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5235 on: August 19, 2013, 01:34:57 PM »

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....

I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
You can track the mutations in mitochondrial DNA.  Because apes and humans have such similar DNA, scientists have been able to track when mutations have occurred and trace them back to a common ancestor.

So it is an estimation based on the scientists opinion on how often the mutations have occurred ? I can understand why it makes sense from an atheist point of view but where is God in this picture ? 
Where He always is: in control.  You don't have to be an atheist to believe in gene mutations.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5236 on: August 19, 2013, 01:58:22 PM »


Where He always is: in control.  You don't have to be an atheist to believe in gene mutations.

No, but you have to believe He wasn`t involved in any way in the "evolution of life", that is like a dogma for the religious supporters of evolution. I remember i heard someone ( and i agree with him ) saying that Dawkins is telling us "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose" , but there is no designer. Theistic evolutionists are telling us that things don`t look designed but there is a designer.

There is no way of knowing how often the gene are mutating because we don`t see that today. It`s all circular reasoning, it happened and it happened slowly so if we are 95% similar to chimps we go back in time assuming an arbitrary rate of gene mutation based on the evolutionary time and uniformitarianism.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 01:58:38 PM by davillas » Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5237 on: August 19, 2013, 02:00:14 PM »



There is no way of knowing how often the gene are mutating because we don`t see that today. It`s all circular reasoning, it happened and it happened slowly so if we are 95% similar to chimps we go back in time assuming an arbitrary rate of gene mutation based on the evolutionary time and uniformitarianism.


And when things don`t look too good we can say that sometimes evolution happens fast.  Smiley
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5238 on: August 19, 2013, 02:23:25 PM »


Where He always is: in control.  You don't have to be an atheist to believe in gene mutations.

No, but you have to believe He wasn`t involved in any way in the "evolution of life", that is like a dogma for the religious supporters of evolution. I remember i heard someone ( and i agree with him ) saying that Dawkins is telling us "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose" , but there is no designer. Theistic evolutionists are telling us that things don`t look designed but there is a designer.

There is no way of knowing how often the gene are mutating because we don`t see that today. It`s all circular reasoning, it happened and it happened slowly so if we are 95% similar to chimps we go back in time assuming an arbitrary rate of gene mutation based on the evolutionary time and uniformitarianism.

Where did you get the impression that we don't see genes mutating?  There is a whole branch of science called phylogenetics that tracks genetic changes.

While some may argue that God cannot be involved in the evolutionary process, it does not necessarily follow that God cannot be involved.  Who are we to say how God does and does not interact with genetic changes?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5239 on: August 19, 2013, 02:40:50 PM »


Where did you get the impression that we don't see genes mutating?  There is a whole branch of science called phylogenetics that tracks genetic changes.

While some may argue that God cannot be involved in the evolutionary process, it does not necessarily follow that God cannot be involved.  Who are we to say how God does and does not interact with genetic changes?

Exactly and phylogenetics works under the assumption that it happened and under the assumption of uniformitarianism. Which are maybe reasonable assumptions for an atheist who thinks this universe is all that there is. But here you are telling us that the common ancestor lived about 5-8 millions years ago. That already implies that God had no business in the evolution of man. And there is no evidence for that other than the assumption that it happened and it happened slowly.

Let me ask you this : The moon is moving away from Earth ( i believe it`s 3 cm / year ). Which means that sometimes in the past it was very close to Earth. Why don`t we apply uniformitarianism everywhere ? Why do we cherry pick only what fits with our holy theory ?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5240 on: August 19, 2013, 03:52:08 PM »


Where did you get the impression that we don't see genes mutating?  There is a whole branch of science called phylogenetics that tracks genetic changes.

While some may argue that God cannot be involved in the evolutionary process, it does not necessarily follow that God cannot be involved.  Who are we to say how God does and does not interact with genetic changes?

Exactly and phylogenetics works under the assumption that it happened and under the assumption of uniformitarianism. Which are maybe reasonable assumptions for an atheist who thinks this universe is all that there is. But here you are telling us that the common ancestor lived about 5-8 millions years ago. That already implies that God had no business in the evolution of man. And there is no evidence for that other than the assumption that it happened and it happened slowly.

Let me ask you this : The moon is moving away from Earth ( i believe it`s 3 cm / year ). Which means that sometimes in the past it was very close to Earth. Why don`t we apply uniformitarianism everywhere ? Why do we cherry pick only what fits with our holy theory ?

Again, perhaps I misunderstand you but am I to understand that you don't believe God existed 5-8 million years ago? Or are you saying He was not working 5-8 million years ago?  Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with it.  Commonly accepted theory says that there are periods of lower genetic changes and periods of faster genetic changes.  If we were to assume a uniform change, a 3 million years swing wouldn't be postulated. By matching our current understanding of DNA changes to the fossil record, we can identify when the species began to branch off. You can see the many branches of the homo species and see how the bone structures are similar but slightly different, but are also different from other primates.  You can't just look at DNA in a vaccuum and expect it all to fit, it must be compared with other evidence that has been uncovered.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5241 on: August 19, 2013, 04:24:08 PM »



Again, perhaps I misunderstand you but am I to understand that you don't believe God existed 5-8 million years ago? Or are you saying He was not working 5-8 million years ago?  Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with it.  Commonly accepted theory says that there are periods of lower genetic changes and periods of faster genetic changes.  If we were to assume a uniform change, a 3 million years swing wouldn't be postulated. By matching our current understanding of DNA changes to the fossil record, we can identify when the species began to branch off. You can see the many branches of the homo species and see how the bone structures are similar but slightly different, but are also different from other primates.  You can't just look at DNA in a vaccuum and expect it all to fit, it must be compared with other evidence that has been uncovered.


Again, the rate is based on the assumption that it happened and when it fits into evolutionary time it is assumed to have happened trough an uniformitarian process. It has nothing to do with the DNA changes we can observe, it has everything to do with the evolutionary time so they assign a certain percent of mutations to a certain period of time. When things go crazy like it happens with the Cambrian explosion then it is assumed that evolution happened at a very fast rate. So If the results fit into the holy theory it is lower rate, if not it is faster rate. God has no place in evolution so if you believe He exists then you need to keep Him away from the holy theory. Because these numbers are a materialistic explanation based on the assumption that no one interfered in the process.

For example let`s say aliens came to Earth 2.5 millions years ago. They have found an ape like creature and they transformed it into the modern human in 10 years. A god can make all the mutations in one second. The naturalistic explanation rejects these assumptions based on the fact that there is no evidence for aliens or a god. So it is absolutely normal to assume that mutations have happened slow during millions of years. Yet i believe in God. So because i believe in God i can at least say that it is possible that naturalistic explanation is wrong and our common ancestor didn`t lived 5-8 million years ago, even if i believe in evolution. But religious supporters of evolution leave no room for doubts and most of the time they are even more fanatical than the atheists when you suggest that there may be problems with the theory of evolution.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5242 on: August 19, 2013, 08:09:11 PM »

Delete.  I didn't want to get involved again.  Sorry.
Aww crap.  I saw your name pop up and thought there might be another good hearted debate on the topic!

I just got back from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, so I'm up on all my latest heretical evolutionary teachings.
There hasn't been one yet, why start now?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5243 on: August 20, 2013, 08:06:54 AM »


Again, the rate is based on the assumption that it happened and when it fits into evolutionary time it is assumed to have happened trough an uniformitarian process. It has nothing to do with the DNA changes we can observe, it has everything to do with the evolutionary time so they assign a certain percent of mutations to a certain period of time. When things go crazy like it happens with the Cambrian explosion then it is assumed that evolution happened at a very fast rate. So If the results fit into the holy theory it is lower rate, if not it is faster rate. God has no place in evolution so if you believe He exists then you need to keep Him away from the holy theory. Because these numbers are a materialistic explanation based on the assumption that no one interfered in the process.

For example let`s say aliens came to Earth 2.5 millions years ago. They have found an ape like creature and they transformed it into the modern human in 10 years. A god can make all the mutations in one second. The naturalistic explanation rejects these assumptions based on the fact that there is no evidence for aliens or a god. So it is absolutely normal to assume that mutations have happened slow during millions of years. Yet i believe in God. So because i believe in God i can at least say that it is possible that naturalistic explanation is wrong and our common ancestor didn`t lived 5-8 million years ago, even if i believe in evolution. But religious supporters of evolution leave no room for doubts and most of the time they are even more fanatical than the atheists when you suggest that there may be problems with the theory of evolution.
I don't quite understand your perspective that God has no place in evolution.  We see numbers and statistics on people who recover from various diseases and illnesses, yet we don't claim that that is a materialistic way at looking at healing and therefore we are making an assumption that no one interfered with the process.  We can assume that while God is the Great Healer of body and soul, medicine and natural means work in coordination with Him for the health of the body.  How is that different than evolution? I can easily say that God works with and through natural means to guide and direct the development of life on this planet.

I can agree with you that it is possible that evolutionary biology is wrong and we didn't have a common ancestor 5-8 million years ago. I have no problem admitting that it could all be wrong.  However, given the scientific research and discoveries that we have found, I don't think it is.  If it is wrong or right, it does not affect my faith in God as the Author and Creator of all things.  I was a six day creationist for most of my life, but after sitting down and actually reading Darwin, studying what evolutionary biology does and does not postulate, I came to the conclusion that I can not be intellectually honest and dismiss it as impossible.  I do, on the other hand, dismiss abiogenesis as I see no evidence for it, only a hypothesis with no support, but that is different than evolution. If I found evidence that I thought was credible that confirmed a literal interpretation of Genesis, I would have no problem changing my mind back to being a creationist, I just don't see anything convincing out there that would lead me in that direction.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5244 on: August 20, 2013, 12:41:22 PM »


I don't quite understand your perspective that God has no place in evolution.  We see numbers and statistics on people who recover from various diseases and illnesses, yet we don't claim that that is a materialistic way at looking at healing and therefore we are making an assumption that no one interfered with the process.  We can assume that while God is the Great Healer of body and soul, medicine and natural means work in coordination with Him for the health of the body.  How is that different than evolution? I can easily say that God works with and through natural means to guide and direct the development of life on this planet.

I can agree with you that it is possible that evolutionary biology is wrong and we didn't have a common ancestor 5-8 million years ago. I have no problem admitting that it could all be wrong.  However, given the scientific research and discoveries that we have found, I don't think it is.  If it is wrong or right, it does not affect my faith in God as the Author and Creator of all things.  I was a six day creationist for most of my life, but after sitting down and actually reading Darwin, studying what evolutionary biology does and does not postulate, I came to the conclusion that I can not be intellectually honest and dismiss it as impossible.  I do, on the other hand, dismiss abiogenesis as I see no evidence for it, only a hypothesis with no support, but that is different than evolution. If I found evidence that I thought was credible that confirmed a literal interpretation of Genesis, I would have no problem changing my mind back to being a creationist, I just don't see anything convincing out there that would lead me in that direction.

It is not what i say, it is what Theistic Evolutionists are saying. Someone suggested here that they are "useful idiots" (or something like this) for evolutionists. And while i agree with him, i think they believe in evolution a lot more than they believe in God.
The entire theory as it is today is based on the assumption that no one interfered at any moment. And while it is a good assumption for an atheist, for a person who believes in God this is a terrible assumption, you should at least think at the possibility that the entire process was guided by God or at least He interfered on major changes. But the Theistic Evolutionists are rejecting this assumption from the start, as i told you it is a dogma that even if God exists He didn`t interfered in the evolution of life in any way ( or at least in any way we can perceive ). This rejection from the start is based on absolutely no arguments and the only reason for why they are rejecting it is because otherwise they will lose their status of self made gurus.
I reject your view regarding abiogenesis. That is another god of the gaps. I believe we should see if we can find evidence for the God of the whole show. And i believe there are a lot of evidences for that.

I remember i`ve seen this Ayala vs Craig debate a while ago. Ayala is a Christian but as all TE supporters he rejects the possibility that God interfered in any way we can perceive. He is using theodicy as an argument, but i believe that is a bad argument because a God who does not interferes is as "evil" as a God who interferes. So it is my belief that the only reason for why he rejects such a possibility is because he cares more about his status inside the scientific community than he cares about his status inside the Christian community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfylw5okAag


« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 12:53:38 PM by davillas » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5245 on: August 20, 2013, 01:23:10 PM »

It is not what i say, it is what Theistic Evolutionists are saying. Someone suggested here that they are "useful idiots" (or something like this) for evolutionists. And while i agree with him, i think they believe in evolution a lot more than they believe in God.
The entire theory as it is today is based on the assumption that no one interfered at any moment. And while it is a good assumption for an atheist, for a person who believes in God this is a terrible assumption, you should at least think at the possibility that the entire process was guided by God or at least He interfered on major changes. But the Theistic Evolutionists are rejecting this assumption from the start, as i told you it is a dogma that even if God exists He didn`t interfered in the evolution of life in any way ( or at least in any way we can perceive ). This rejection from the start is based on absolutely no arguments and the only reason for why they are rejecting it is because otherwise they will lose their status of self made gurus.
I reject your view regarding abiogenesis. That is another god of the gaps. I believe we should see if we can find evidence for the God of the whole show. And i believe there are a lot of evidences for that.

I remember i`ve seen this Ayala vs Craig debate a while ago. Ayala is a Christian but as all TE supporters he rejects the possibility that God interfered in any way we can perceive. He is using theodicy as an argument, but i believe that is a bad argument because a God who does not interferes is as "evil" as a God who interferes. So it is my belief that the only reason for why he rejects such a possibility is because he cares more about his status inside the scientific community than he cares about his status inside the Christian community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfylw5okAag



You are setting up straw man arguments.  Whatever your contending TE say, that is not what I am arguing, so if you want to contest what I am saying, at least address my points, not what some other TE has said in the past. It is silly to postulate if God did or did not interfere.  Of course He didn't "interfere"  He is the First Cause, everything is here because of Him.  "Interference" implies there is some greater action and God merely meddles with it. I don't know of anyone that believes that and if they do, shame on them. There is no "dogma" in TE, there are theories and hypothesis, not dogma. As someone who seems the scientific validity of evolution and at the same time believes in God, I would happily discard evolution if a better theory came along. I don't hold any sentimental attachment to it.

Regarding abiogenesis, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  You are rejecting my disbelief in abiogenesis which means you do believe in abiogenesis?  That doesn't seem consistent with your overall position.  Or are you saying that my rejection of it is not internally consistent with my belief in evolution?  I don't see how that follows as abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.  That would be like me saying that you can't believe in astrophysics because you don't believe in evolution.  Huh  There is no God of the Gaps, I'm just saying that abiogenesis seems highly speculative and non-reproducible.  Since reproducibility is a pillar of the scientific method, I am free to discount it as mere speculation. DNA can be tested and retested.  Fossils can be tested and retested.  Abiogenesis cannot be.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5246 on: August 20, 2013, 02:28:57 PM »




You are setting up straw man arguments.  Whatever your contending TE say, that is not what I am arguing, so if you want to contest what I am saying, at least address my points, not what some other TE has said in the past. It is silly to postulate if God did or did not interfere.  Of course He didn't "interfere"  He is the First Cause, everything is here because of Him.  "Interference" implies there is some greater action and God merely meddles with it. I don't know of anyone that believes that and if they do, shame on them. There is no "dogma" in TE, there are theories and hypothesis, not dogma. As someone who seems the scientific validity of evolution and at the same time believes in God, I would happily discard evolution if a better theory came along. I don't hold any sentimental attachment to it.

Regarding abiogenesis, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  You are rejecting my disbelief in abiogenesis which means you do believe in abiogenesis?  That doesn't seem consistent with your overall position.  Or are you saying that my rejection of it is not internally consistent with my belief in evolution?  I don't see how that follows as abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.  That would be like me saying that you can't believe in astrophysics because you don't believe in evolution.  Huh  There is no God of the Gaps, I'm just saying that abiogenesis seems highly speculative and non-reproducible.  Since reproducibility is a pillar of the scientific method, I am free to discount it as mere speculation. DNA can be tested and retested.  Fossils can be tested and retested.  Abiogenesis cannot be.

It is no straw man, if you accept things like the 5-8 millions years saying that is hard to believe they may be wrong. Because such numbers are based only on the " methinks is like a weasel " ignoring the idea that someone can write it right from the first time, or at least someone can write a whole word one time.

Is God the first cause or He is only the first cause, that is the question.  Do you believe there is a possibility that He planned the whole life as it is today from the beginning and if so do you believe we can discover a part of His design ? Or it is hard to believe considering the evidence that He planned the whole thing and even if He planned the whole thing from the beginning there is no way we can discover that ?

I don`t believe in abiogenesis ( i don`t believe in evolution either but what i wrote here has nothing to do with what i believe, i was only trying to show you the weaknesses of the Theistic Evolution ). I don`t understand why you can`t see that abiogenesis and evolution being different things is a trick the evolutionists are using to get rid of a very big problem. Here is the problem :
 
"It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. "

It follows that the first life form came from previous life form. By separating the two notions they get rid of this problem because most of us don`t spend any time to think.
Think about why abiogenesis is god of the gaps : " Just because we don`t know that yet it doesn`t mean that some magical creature made it" ... "we`re not there yet but we are learning new things every day". Personally i believe they are happy if you accept the rest of the TE and you accept that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.


« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 02:30:23 PM by davillas » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5247 on: August 20, 2013, 03:49:23 PM »


It is no straw man, if you accept things like the 5-8 millions years saying that is hard to believe they may be wrong. Because such numbers are based only on the " methinks is like a weasel " ignoring the idea that someone can write it right from the first time, or at least someone can write a whole word one time.
Is God the first cause or He is only the first cause, that is the question.  Do you believe there is a possibility that He planned the whole life as it is today from the beginning and if so do you believe we can discover a part of His design ? Or it is hard to believe considering the evidence that He planned the whole thing and even if He planned the whole thing from the beginning there is no way we can discover that ?
I don`t believe in abiogenesis ( i don`t believe in evolution either but what i wrote here has nothing to do with what i believe, i was only trying to show you the weaknesses of the Theistic Evolution ). I don`t understand why you can`t see that abiogenesis and evolution being different things is a trick the evolutionists are using to get rid of a very big problem. Here is the problem :
 
"It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. "

It follows that the first life form came from previous life form. By separating the two notions they get rid of this problem because most of us don`t spend any time to think.
Think about why abiogenesis is god of the gaps : " Just because we don`t know that yet it doesn`t mean that some magical creature made it" ... "we`re not there yet but we are learning new things every day". Personally i believe they are happy if you accept the rest of the TE and you accept that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.


I'm not saying that someone can't write it down right the first time, of course God can.  I'm saying, I don't see evidence that demonstrates that He did.
I certainly believe in those possibilities. As I said, I don't hold to evolution as a dogmatic fact, but as an evolving theory.  (no pun intended) Given the evidence, I don't have a problem believe that God planned the entire evolutionary course.  Just because something appears natural to us does not mean that it wasn't directed by God.  Healing from sickness is natural, yet we know that God guides the healing.  God's interaction does not preclude natural systems working as they should. If God controls genetic variances between my parents and me, why are you unable to believe that he can do the same over millions of years?

I said I didn't believe in abiogenesis.  I did not speculate on how the first life form came to be.  You are again arguing a false dilemma.  There aren't only two options of either God spoke it into existence or abiogenesis.  There can be a multitude of different options including one that says, "I don't know, there is no scientific evidence to make any realistic hypothesis at this time".  Regardless of how life started, it doesn't change the fact that it's origin is God, just like just because there are evolving life forms doesn't preclude God from guiding and directing that process. You seem to have some impression that scientists goals are to secretly turn everyone atheist and they use evolution as a secret tool in their nefarious plot. If you study evolution and abiogenesis, evolution is the change in genetic makeup through a species. Abiogenesis is the change of organic compound into life.  Those are very different concepts.  I can see small bits of evolution through dog breeding.  I have never seen a lump of clay spontaneously become lifelike and start walking around.  Given the amount of organic compounds on Earth and its continual interactions with other organic compounds, we should expect to see it forming into primitive life at some point, yet it has never been observed. That is why I believe abiogenesis is unsubstantiated.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5248 on: August 20, 2013, 04:25:01 PM »


I'm not saying that someone can't write it down right the first time, of course God can.  I'm saying, I don't see evidence that demonstrates that He did.
I certainly believe in those possibilities. As I said, I don't hold to evolution as a dogmatic fact, but as an evolving theory.  (no pun intended) Given the evidence, I don't have a problem believe that God planned the entire evolutionary course.  Just because something appears natural to us does not mean that it wasn't directed by God.  Healing from sickness is natural, yet we know that God guides the healing.  God's interaction does not preclude natural systems working as they should. If God controls genetic variances between my parents and me, why are you unable to believe that he can do the same over millions of years?

I said I didn't believe in abiogenesis.  I did not speculate on how the first life form came to be.  You are again arguing a false dilemma.  There aren't only two options of either God spoke it into existence or abiogenesis.  There can be a multitude of different options including one that says, "I don't know, there is no scientific evidence to make any realistic hypothesis at this time".  Regardless of how life started, it doesn't change the fact that it's origin is God, just like just because there are evolving life forms doesn't preclude God from guiding and directing that process. You seem to have some impression that scientists goals are to secretly turn everyone atheist and they use evolution as a secret tool in their nefarious plot. If you study evolution and abiogenesis, evolution is the change in genetic makeup through a species. Abiogenesis is the change of organic compound into life.  Those are very different concepts.  I can see small bits of evolution through dog breeding.  I have never seen a lump of clay spontaneously become lifelike and start walking around.  Given the amount of organic compounds on Earth and its continual interactions with other organic compounds, we should expect to see it forming into primitive life at some point, yet it has never been observed. That is why I believe abiogenesis is unsubstantiated.

What is evidence ? Is it what scientific consensus considers to be evidence ?
"What really astounds me is the architecture of life. The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed." ..."There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me." - Gene Myers.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Human-Genome-Map-Has-Scientists-Talking-About-the-2950445.php

Can i consider this to be a piece of evidence ? Or do i have to wait until all the atheists will agree with him ?

How about this one ?
"As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed. The result of the work is an annotated road map of much of this DNA, noting what it is doing and how. It includes the system of switches that, acting like dimmer switches for lights, control which genes are used in a cell and when they are used, and determine, for instance, whether a cell becomes a liver cell or a neuron. "

"The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches. Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, “if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don’t think people would have believed you.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Do i have to wait before all atheists will agree that this is not the result of random mutation and natural selection ? Why not drawing the only logical conclusion from what we can observe, ( and that is that someone created life that way ) and leave the atheists to argue about time of the gaps ? You`ve never seen a dog turning into a cat either but you believe that if you wait long enough... That is the theory right now, it is time of the gaps.

There are no more options for the origin of life. Either someone made it, or it was abiogenesis. I don`t care if they are trying to hide it a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, in the end they need to come up with an explanation about how non organic material turned into life. Saying that abiogenesis and evolution are different things is just a trick they are using to get rid of problems.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5249 on: August 20, 2013, 04:33:25 PM »



You seem to have some impression that scientists goals are to secretly turn everyone atheist and they use evolution as a secret tool in their nefarious plot.

Yes because i believe the politics want us to believe that we are just animals, that there is nothing special about us and that we are not endowed by our Creator with alienable rights. And because i`ve seen how the scientific world reacted when the politics ordered that homosexuality is normal, and there is global warming.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5250 on: August 20, 2013, 04:45:42 PM »



You seem to have some impression that scientists goals are to secretly turn everyone atheist and they use evolution as a secret tool in their nefarious plot.

Yes because i believe the politics want us to believe that we are just animals, that there is nothing special about us and that we are not endowed by our Creator with alienable rights. And because i`ve seen how the scientific world reacted when the politics ordered that homosexuality is normal, and there is global warming.
For me, science has nothing to do with inalienable rights, whether we are animals, homosexuality or anything else.  It is just a matter of study the traces of the past and understanding how things work together.  Science is a tool used to improve knowledge and develop the world we live in so that we can be a better caretaker of what has been given to us. I don't glean any moral guidance from it and it does not impact my view of who God is. Perhaps others are incapable of making that distinction. Looking at the fossil record, it seems clear that the world is older than 10k years, but if I'm wrong on my beliefs about such things, I hope that He will show mercy on me.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 04:46:28 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5251 on: August 20, 2013, 04:55:42 PM »


For me, science has nothing to do with inalienable rights, whether we are animals, homosexuality or anything else.  It is just a matter of study the traces of the past and understanding how things work together.  Science is a tool used to improve knowledge and develop the world we live in so that we can be a better caretaker of what has been given to us. I don't glean any moral guidance from it and it does not impact my view of who God is. Perhaps others are incapable of making that distinction. Looking at the fossil record, it seems clear that the world is older than 10k years, but if I'm wrong on my beliefs about such things, I hope that He will show mercy on me.
Not science but politics. I believe the times when a scientist was willing to die poor in order to search for the truth have passed and today most scientists are serving the political interest. And i believe it is the political interest to turn us into animals and to convince us that there is no one up there.
I remember i read a time ago about a trial where many creationists where asked how old is the Earth. And one of them said : Between 6.5 k and 4.5kk  Grin
So, since i am an Orthodox and i have to agree with Bizantine chronology i will say that the world is between 7.6k and 4.5 kk years old.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5252 on: August 21, 2013, 07:59:07 AM »

Not science but politics. I believe the times when a scientist was willing to die poor in order to search for the truth have passed and today most scientists are serving the political interest. And i believe it is the political interest to turn us into animals and to convince us that there is no one up there.I remember i read a time ago about a trial where many creationists where asked how old is the Earth. And one of them said : Between 6.5 k and 4.5kk  Grin
So, since i am an Orthodox and i have to agree with Bizantine chronology i will say that the world is between 7.6k and 4.5 kk years old.

That is an interesting theory, but I don't see any basis for it. It sounds rather conspiracy theoryish to me. Obviously scientists require funding to do their work, but the type of equipment that is used now for scientific research is outside the scope of some poor guy working in his basement. Francis Bacon never had the opportunity to operate a Large Hadron Collider out of his personal laboratory.

The Church has never made a dogmatic statement on the age of the world, and I don't believe it ever will.  The age of the world really has nothing to do with matters of faith, so there is really no reason to address it.  I look to the Church for spiritual development, not to teach me science just like I look to scientific research to teach me about science and not my faith.

Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5253 on: August 21, 2013, 07:02:44 PM »


That is an interesting theory, but I don't see any basis for it. It sounds rather conspiracy theoryish to me. Obviously scientists require funding to do their work, but the type of equipment that is used now for scientific research is outside the scope of some poor guy working in his basement. Francis Bacon never had the opportunity to operate a Large Hadron Collider out of his personal laboratory.

The Church has never made a dogmatic statement on the age of the world, and I don't believe it ever will.  The age of the world really has nothing to do with matters of faith, so there is really no reason to address it.  I look to the Church for spiritual development, not to teach me science just like I look to scientific research to teach me about science and not my faith.


It has a conspiracy flavor i agree. But this is what i think seeing what happens in the world today, i believe we reached a point where the rulers of this world want to get rid of the Christianity. For example religion has its place even in the Declaration of Human Rights. Yet today the so called "sexual orientation" seems to be more important than religion. There is no "sexual orientation" in the Declaration of Human Rights, but in today`s world you are not allowed to have doubts about "sexual orientation" but you are allowed to interfere in or make fun of other people`s religious beliefs.

Then i see scientists like Michio Kaku or any other physicist or biologist. Every time i see them talking about nothing but having loads of expensive equipment at their disposal. And they are all very rich people. But a lot of the physicists today are wasting their time dreaming about the string / super string theory with absolutely no results. Same for the biologists. I heard scientists saying that science is not about truth but a system of inquiry that seeks to build falsifiable models of the physical world. Personally i believe they can define science whatever they want and play about science however they want but we are paying too much for this.

You are right that there is no dogma about the age of the earth or even about evolution. But no dogma means no dogma, it doesn`t mean i have to accept the other view.
The reason for why i have big problems with evolution is the poor quality of arguments they have. For example if i hear a protestant pastor saying : " Having stars 5 billions years away from earth doesn`t mean  the universe is old, maybe God created also the light so that will be visible from Earth ", i agree with him. As silly at it sounds, it makes sense for me, if the Earth is the central point of the creation then that is a good argument.
But here are some arguments i hear from the scientists : " Who created the creator ? " ( Stupid because not knowing that doesn`t mean we are not created ). " Universe is not fine tuned because in 5 million years X galaxy will collide with Milky Way."  "Universe is not fine tuned because life is not possible everywhere in the universe."  "Universe is old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for chemicals to evolve / planets to form " .  "Do you have a better explanation ? " ." It is false because the explanation is more complex than the thing you want to explain ".

I don`t remember all of them, there are hundreds of arguments like that and my mind refuses to spend more than 5 seconds on each one. All i can do is to put my faith in God and to hope that one day ( after i die ) i will find the truth. In the meantime i enjoy seeing how the atheist icons are taken down from walls :

This is news from this month
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802101900.htm

And notice that the non scientists from the Discovery institute were talking about this 2 years ago :

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html

"But the argument from junk DNA—also called “ancient repetitive elements” (AREs)— depends on the premise that no function will ever be discovered for AREs. Collins’s faith in Darwinian theory would be severely hamstrung if the premise were shown to be wrong. It is a faith based on gaps in scientific knowledge. Hence, “Darwin of the gaps.” "
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 07:09:39 PM by davillas » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5254 on: August 22, 2013, 08:50:52 AM »


That is an interesting theory, but I don't see any basis for it. It sounds rather conspiracy theoryish to me. Obviously scientists require funding to do their work, but the type of equipment that is used now for scientific research is outside the scope of some poor guy working in his basement. Francis Bacon never had the opportunity to operate a Large Hadron Collider out of his personal laboratory.

The Church has never made a dogmatic statement on the age of the world, and I don't believe it ever will.  The age of the world really has nothing to do with matters of faith, so there is really no reason to address it.  I look to the Church for spiritual development, not to teach me science just like I look to scientific research to teach me about science and not my faith.


It has a conspiracy flavor i agree. But this is what i think seeing what happens in the world today, i believe we reached a point where the rulers of this world want to get rid of the Christianity. For example religion has its place even in the Declaration of Human Rights. Yet today the so called "sexual orientation" seems to be more important than religion. There is no "sexual orientation" in the Declaration of Human Rights, but in today`s world you are not allowed to have doubts about "sexual orientation" but you are allowed to interfere in or make fun of other people`s religious beliefs.

Then i see scientists like Michio Kaku or any other physicist or biologist. Every time i see them talking about nothing but having loads of expensive equipment at their disposal. And they are all very rich people. But a lot of the physicists today are wasting their time dreaming about the string / super string theory with absolutely no results. Same for the biologists. I heard scientists saying that science is not about truth but a system of inquiry that seeks to build falsifiable models of the physical world. Personally i believe they can define science whatever they want and play about science however they want but we are paying too much for this.

You are right that there is no dogma about the age of the earth or even about evolution. But no dogma means no dogma, it doesn`t mean i have to accept the other view.
The reason for why i have big problems with evolution is the poor quality of arguments they have. For example if i hear a protestant pastor saying : " Having stars 5 billions years away from earth doesn`t mean  the universe is old, maybe God created also the light so that will be visible from Earth ", i agree with him. As silly at it sounds, it makes sense for me, if the Earth is the central point of the creation then that is a good argument.
But here are some arguments i hear from the scientists : " Who created the creator ? " ( Stupid because not knowing that doesn`t mean we are not created ). " Universe is not fine tuned because in 5 million years X galaxy will collide with Milky Way."  "Universe is not fine tuned because life is not possible everywhere in the universe."  "Universe is old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for chemicals to evolve / planets to form " .  "Do you have a better explanation ? " ." It is false because the explanation is more complex than the thing you want to explain ".

I don`t remember all of them, there are hundreds of arguments like that and my mind refuses to spend more than 5 seconds on each one. All i can do is to put my faith in God and to hope that one day ( after i die ) i will find the truth. In the meantime i enjoy seeing how the atheist icons are taken down from walls :

This is news from this month
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802101900.htm

And notice that the non scientists from the Discovery institute were talking about this 2 years ago :

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html

"But the argument from junk DNA—also called “ancient repetitive elements” (AREs)— depends on the premise that no function will ever be discovered for AREs. Collins’s faith in Darwinian theory would be severely hamstrung if the premise were shown to be wrong. It is a faith based on gaps in scientific knowledge. Hence, “Darwin of the gaps.” "
They may not have any results now, but investigating it is one way of ruling out possibilities and learning more.  Scientists investigate things because the are trying to learn stuff they don't know.  If they study string theory and discover it is valid or discover is is all washed up, we still have gained a better understanding of physics.

If any scientist did tell me he was looking for truth, I would tell him that he is looking in the wrong place.  Science is about finding what works, not what is truth. Understanding evolution better can assist us in developing better drugs to combat every changing viral mutations. Accepting a 6 day creation theory doesn't help us in any way other than to satisfy a religious idea.  It doesn't even do that well because I worship God for who He is regardless if He created the world over billions of years or over 6 days.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5255 on: August 22, 2013, 11:22:07 AM »

They may not have any results now, but investigating it is one way of ruling out possibilities and learning more.  Scientists investigate things because the are trying to learn stuff they don't know.  If they study string theory and discover it is valid or discover is is all washed up, we still have gained a better understanding of physics.

If any scientist did tell me he was looking for truth, I would tell him that he is looking in the wrong place.  Science is about finding what works, not what is truth. Understanding evolution better can assist us in developing better drugs to combat every changing viral mutations. Accepting a 6 day creation theory doesn't help us in any way other than to satisfy a religious idea.  It doesn't even do that well because I worship God for who He is regardless if He created the world over billions of years or over 6 days.

There is a good argument for the existence of aliens:  Considering how huge is the universe it will be foolish to believe that life exists only on Earth. And it is a good argument from a naturalistic point of view. But for a believer this is not such a great argument, the Earth can be very well the only planet where life exists. The universe is not that huge anymore, it was created so that we can admire it and see glimps of the glory of our Creator. The aliens can still exist, maybe our Creator made other living beings, but this is no longer an argument.

It is the same for evolution. As long as you accept that the existence of a Creator can change pretty much everything you know, including the age of universe/Earth, i see no problem in accepting evolution. The problem is that when we debate with other believers we should be careful when we use naturalistic arguments and always have some doubts.

The problem with today`s scientists is that they go to metaphysics too often, talking about multiverse and extra dimensions. There is a lot of criticism because a lot of them already wasted their career ( and a lot of money ) arguing about nothing. If you scratch the surface you will see that the science is turning from bringing evidence for to lack of evidence against. ( i believe even Hawking is arguing about this on The grand design, something like " if it`s possible then it is a good theory, we don`t have to bring evidence for it ".
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5256 on: August 22, 2013, 11:37:29 AM »

They may not have any results now, but investigating it is one way of ruling out possibilities and learning more.  Scientists investigate things because the are trying to learn stuff they don't know.  If they study string theory and discover it is valid or discover is is all washed up, we still have gained a better understanding of physics.

If any scientist did tell me he was looking for truth, I would tell him that he is looking in the wrong place.  Science is about finding what works, not what is truth. Understanding evolution better can assist us in developing better drugs to combat every changing viral mutations. Accepting a 6 day creation theory doesn't help us in any way other than to satisfy a religious idea.  It doesn't even do that well because I worship God for who He is regardless if He created the world over billions of years or over 6 days.

There is a good argument for the existence of aliens:  Considering how huge is the universe it will be foolish to believe that life exists only on Earth. And it is a good argument from a naturalistic point of view. But for a believer this is not such a great argument, the Earth can be very well the only planet where life exists. The universe is not that huge anymore, it was created so that we can admire it and see glimps of the glory of our Creator. The aliens can still exist, maybe our Creator made other living beings, but this is no longer an argument.

It is the same for evolution. As long as you accept that the existence of a Creator can change pretty much everything you know, including the age of universe/Earth, i see no problem in accepting evolution. The problem is that when we debate with other believers we should be careful when we use naturalistic arguments and always have some doubts.

The problem with today`s scientists is that they go to metaphysics too often, talking about multiverse and extra dimensions. There is a lot of criticism because a lot of them already wasted their career ( and a lot of money ) arguing about nothing. If you scratch the surface you will see that the science is turning from bringing evidence for to lack of evidence against. ( i believe even Hawking is arguing about this on The grand design, something like " if it`s possible then it is a good theory, we don`t have to bring evidence for it ".
We are in agreement then. I have no problem believe that God may have done an immediate creation with apparent age, I just don't think that he did. I don't see a compelling reason to believe the Genesis account as literal, but I don't fault those who do. I think the multiverse hypothesis is a tad silly, but I am certainly open to string theory. I would be very surpised if there were not extra dimensions that we have been incapable to date of observing.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5257 on: August 22, 2013, 12:22:43 PM »


We are in agreement then. I have no problem believe that God may have done an immediate creation with apparent age, I just don't think that he did. I don't see a compelling reason to believe the Genesis account as literal, but I don't fault those who do. I think the multiverse hypothesis is a tad silly, but I am certainly open to string theory. I would be very surpised if there were not extra dimensions that we have been incapable to date of observing.

I have a better option, i think one can open a computer game and learn a lot more about universe than he learns in 10 years reading about string theory. I don`t know what exists at the lowest level in our world but i believe there is information stored in another universe just like the information for a computer game is stored in our universe ( we can see it as strings, particles or God knows what but i believe it looks like a code just like DNA looks ). I believe some physicists will come up with simulation / matrix like theories in the future, ( they already started it ), and they will still ignore the only obvious option : That we can see some similarities between our created universes and our universe but we can`t say for sure how our universe was created. Fortunately for us we will die sometime and we will find the truth... "We`re not there yet but one day ...  Grin "
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5258 on: August 24, 2013, 04:45:50 PM »

For example what does "material " means ? If we manage one day to create AI inside a computer simulation will that simulation look "material " for the AI inside ? Will it look different for the AI inside than it looks for us from outside that universe ? ( I believe St. John Damascene has an extraordinary intuition when he talks about degrees of material )
Imagine a game like Gothic and put yourself inside that universe, imagine you live inside it and you know nothing else but what you can experience there. You can see trees, rocks, animals etc. There are even laws like you can`t walk through doors or you can`t fly. Your universe is as big as it was created, there is nothing outside that universe. It doesn`t matter if you have 50 Gb free space on your hard drive. That space doesn`t exist in Gothic universe.
What can you see from comparing a computer game with our universe ? Well, you can see that doing a miracle is as easy as cheating on a computer game. A miracle is a law made by the creator to which only he has access which is exactly what the Orthodox teaching is: Only God can perform miracles. Sometimes Himself, sometimes through saints or holy relics or whatever but only He can do it.
You can see that heaven and hell are possible . It`s like moving to the next chapter of the game, another universe similar (or not) with this one. It is written in the Revelation : "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. "

What you can`t say when you compare them ? You can`t say that God is using a computer, that will be silly, how He created the universe it is a mystery. But a part of scientists will look into that direction. Unfortunately since they have a prior commitment to atheism  they will see things like this : "The idea that we may be simulations, the imaginings of an advanced post-human simulation is pretty interesting, if mind-boggling, stuff." Which is terrible because even if it`s true it doesn`t solves the big questions, it only moves them one step up.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,696



« Reply #5259 on: August 24, 2013, 10:28:29 PM »

I don't disagree one wit with anything you just wrote.  That being said,  if you are the guy in the computer program, discovering you are part of a computer program does not benefit you in any way.  If you can study your simulated world and come to conclusions about gravity and physics and chemistry, you can improve your simulated life in the simulated world even if it is just a simulated gravity and physics, and chemistry.  I believe in evolution because it works, not because it has any metaphysical meaning for me.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,608



« Reply #5260 on: August 25, 2013, 12:27:26 AM »

They may not have any results now, but investigating it is one way of ruling out possibilities and learning more.  Scientists investigate things because the are trying to learn stuff they don't know.  If they study string theory and discover it is valid or discover is is all washed up, we still have gained a better understanding of physics.

If any scientist did tell me he was looking for truth, I would tell him that he is looking in the wrong place.  Science is about finding what works, not what is truth. Understanding evolution better can assist us in developing better drugs to combat every changing viral mutations. Accepting a 6 day creation theory doesn't help us in any way other than to satisfy a religious idea.  It doesn't even do that well because I worship God for who He is regardless if He created the world over billions of years or over 6 days.

There is a good argument for the existence of aliens:  Considering how huge is the universe it will be foolish to believe that life exists only on Earth.


There is not a good argument since there is no justifiable mechanism as to  how this could occur.

[/quote]
Quote
It is the same for evolution. As long as you accept that the existence of a Creator can change pretty much everything you know, including the age of universe/Earth, i see no problem in accepting evolution. The problem is that when we debate with other believers we should be careful when we use naturalistic arguments and always have some doubts.

It is not the same for evolution.

Quote
The problem with today`s scientists is that they go to metaphysics too often, talking about multiverse and extra dimensions. There is a lot of criticism because a lot of them already wasted their career ( and a lot of money ) arguing about nothing. If you scratch the surface you will see that the science is turning from bringing evidence for to lack of evidence against. ( i believe even Hawking is arguing about this on The grand design, something like " if it`s possible then it is a good theory, we don`t have to bring evidence for it ".

I am a today's scientist. I do not go into metaphysics at all (as far as I know, I will let Asteriktos be my judge on that). I accept your arguing about nothing statement. The same happens here.

What I would like is your example of bringing evidence for the lack of evidence against. It does happen, but the lab's reputation suffers because of it. What does happen often is that a young lab presents convincing evidence but are asked to do additional experiments which have no bearing on the results they present.  This unfortunately is much more common than what you are complaining about
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5261 on: August 25, 2013, 02:10:09 AM »

Why are we still discussing this?  Oh, that’s right.  There are still a few people who haven’t assimilated into the scientism of evolution.  Gotta get them before it’s too late.  We are Borg.  Attack!
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,608



« Reply #5262 on: August 25, 2013, 02:36:45 AM »

Why are we still discussing this?
Because no one has read this entire thread.
Quote
Oh, that’s right.  There are still a few people who haven’t assimilated into the scientism of evolution.  Gotta get them before it’s too late.  We are Borg.  Attack!
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5263 on: August 25, 2013, 02:56:08 AM »

There are two kinds of people: those who have read this entire thread and found the answer to all these questions somewhere around page 88, and those who haven't read the thread in it's entirety yet.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 02:56:21 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #5264 on: August 25, 2013, 08:11:36 AM »

There are two kinds of people: those who have read this entire thread and found the answer to all these questions somewhere around page 88, and those who haven't read the thread in it's entirety yet.

And with that, the novice achieved enlightenment.
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 0.187 seconds with 74 queries.