OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 05:45:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 331952 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5265 on: August 25, 2013, 02:32:08 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.

Of course you can and probably one of the things your creator wants from you is to seek for the truth. That means the truth and not "falsifiable models of the physical world". Otherwise he may get bored, quit the game and start playing Solitaire.  Smiley
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5266 on: August 25, 2013, 03:13:19 PM »


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.


Since this universe is all there is they probably appeared the same way we appeared. We just don`t know that yet.
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 ".

Quote
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

You say it`s not the same for evolution. If you believe in God then you believe He only created the first life form ? Is it possible that He guided the evolution and is it possible for us to see traces of intelligence studying biology ? Or He created the first life form and then random mutation and natural selection did the whole job, then He came, picked a couple of primates and gave them what we call a soul ?

For example this article is saying : "In the 75 million years since divergence from their common ancestor with humans, the rodent line has accumulated substitutions at a faster clip than the human line--almost 3 to 1,"
What is behind those 75 million years ? Where from do you get such a number ? I mean for an atheist it is easy, he creates some algorithms based on the evolutionary time, fossil record etc. and then from comparing the genomes he can come up with any number. But if you believe in God you should at least think that there is a possibility that He guided the whole process.

Then there are "miracles " like this one : http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109_muscle.html  - 18 million years old soft tissue ( muscle ) discovered. When i see such a thing, allow me to be skeptical about the "billions of years" . What i believe doesn`t matter anyway, there are millions of people who believe the universe is young.

Seeing how people like Alan Feduccia or Thomas Nagel are bullied because they dare to question parts of the dogma i will say it is even worse in evolution.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 03:14:13 PM by davillas » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,604



« Reply #5267 on: August 25, 2013, 08:07:13 PM »

You say it`s not the same for evolution. If you believe in God then you believe He only created the first life form ? Is it possible that He guided the evolution and is it possible for us to see traces of intelligence studying biology ? Or He created the first life form and then random mutation and natural selection did the whole job, then He came, picked a couple of primates and gave them what we call a soul ?

Interesting question but I have no opinion as to what occurred. God created all things. The first life form is included in that. How things turned out may be merely a matter of timing of the event and where. Evolution likely had an extensive period of vulnerability (that is until, there was a diverse population of bacteria or archaea). I can imagine things were directed by foreseeing. I do not know.

Quote
For example this article is saying : "In the 75 million years since divergence from their common ancestor with humans, the rodent line has accumulated substitutions at a faster clip than the human line--almost 3 to 1,"
What is behind those 75 million years ? Where from do you get such a number ? I mean for an atheist it is easy, he creates some algorithms based on the evolutionary time, fossil record etc. and then from comparing the genomes he can come up with any number. But if you believe in God you should at least think that there is a possibility that He guided the whole process.

I am not sure of the question. In my mind why is the difference only 3:1. I do not know the numbers here, but as an example, if mice start reproducing at age two and human at age 14 (on average), and if for some reason the litter size was equivalent, then the divergence rate should be more like 7:1. This of course only takes into account the equivalent error rate of the human and murine DNA polymerases, with the repair DNA polymerase having an error rate of ~1/1000 bp and DNA Pol III (the replicative DNA polymerase) somewhere around 1/1000000 give or take a factor of 10. I think we need an mammalian physiologist to answer this question. I can come up with a number of hypotheses, but for the fun of it I would like to blame bananas and the resultant preferential ingestion of radioactive potassium by primates.

Quote

Then there are "miracles " like this one : http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109_muscle.html  - 18 million years old soft tissue ( muscle ) discovered. When i see such a thing, allow me to be skeptical about the "billions of years" . What i believe doesn`t matter anyway, there are millions of people who believe the universe is young.

Seeing how people like Alan Feduccia or Thomas Nagel are bullied because they dare to question parts of the dogma i will say it is even worse in evolution.

I did not look at this.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5268 on: August 27, 2013, 03:16:05 AM »

Even when I was not baptized I believed not in evolution. I see no truth there.
After all if there were men and animals before Adam then there would have been death before Adam. So it would be a lie that death came through the sin of Adam. So the whole theology goes wrong. So accepting evolution leads to denying the Truth.
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.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5269 on: August 27, 2013, 03:48:33 AM »





I am not sure of the question. In my mind why is the difference only 3:1. I do not know the numbers here, but as an example, if mice start reproducing at age two and human at age 14 (on average), and if for some reason the litter size was equivalent, then the divergence rate should be more like 7:1. This of course only takes into account the equivalent error rate of the human and murine DNA polymerases, with the repair DNA polymerase having an error rate of ~1/1000 bp and DNA Pol III (the replicative DNA polymerase) somewhere around 1/1000000 give or take a factor of 10. I think we need an mammalian physiologist to answer this question. I can come up with a number of hypotheses, but for the fun of it I would like to blame bananas and the resultant preferential ingestion of radioactive potassium by primates.


The question was about the 75 million years back, when the common ancestor lived. Where from do you get 75 millions years ?

That thing with 18 millions years muscle tissue was not from a creationist website, i believe it is from the biggest university in Ireland. The problem is that according with what we know it should`t be there and yet it is. Which means that there may be an error on their system of dating the rocks . Because if for example the muscle tissue only lasts 20 thousands years and you find one that is 30 thousands years old that is acceptable for me. But if it only lasts 500 thousands years and you find one that is 18 millions years old then that is unacceptable. It should not be there.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 03:51:10 AM by davillas » Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 916



« Reply #5270 on: August 27, 2013, 07:06:42 PM »

Are these numbers made up? My mother considers that I and others who doubt evolution are stupid, but I believe that humans are too complex to have evolved. At least the difference between humans having an immortal soul and other species not having immortal souls cannot be accounted for by science.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5271 on: August 28, 2013, 05:59:48 AM »

It has be proven that the ways that they see how old is something up to now is wrong.  New ways have shown that the earth is only some thousand years old. Wink
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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5272 on: August 28, 2013, 12:08:52 PM »

My mother considers that I and others who doubt evolution are stupid,

I think this is very unfair. Many people who believe in creationism are not stupid, they are just grossly misinformed or underinformed.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:09:13 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #5273 on: August 31, 2013, 10:05:49 AM »

It has be proven that the ways that they see how old is something up to now is wrong.  New ways have shown that the earth is only some thousand years old. Wink

Would you please give some information as to just who may have claimed to proven this?  What "new ways" have you knowledge of about such a young age for the Earth? "Some thousand years" could be used to describe billions of years in other terms after all.  Smiley
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5274 on: September 08, 2013, 04:56:48 AM »

Well let me explain.
They count the age of the earth in many ways. For example Uranium is the most used way to coutn age. Via making it "break'' they see how old soemthing is. Yet in the last years there has something seen that proves is wrong. The change of the netronians at the atmosphere change and the number. So the number is never the same. On one second it says the earth is 4.5 bilion years old and at the other second it can arrive to say that is one second.
Calium has the same problem but with different numbers. Also this is the proof, that the ways results to different numbers ( and not by a little difference). Hawaii for example ahs been counted as 160 million years old to 6 billion(older than the earth).
C14 proves the atmosphere is still developing.  And the atmosphere to be complete a planet must be at least 30.000 years old.  With C14  which is the newest method to determiante age earth is shown to be maximum 10.000 and minimum a little less.
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.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,604



« Reply #5275 on: September 08, 2013, 06:12:50 PM »

Well let me explain.
They count the age of the earth in many ways. For example Uranium is the most used way to coutn age. Via making it "break'' they see how old soemthing is. Yet in the last years there has something seen that proves is wrong. The change of the netronians at the atmosphere change and the number. So the number is never the same. On one second it says the earth is 4.5 bilion years old and at the other second it can arrive to say that is one second.
Calium has the same problem but with different numbers. Also this is the proof, that the ways results to different numbers ( and not by a little difference). Hawaii for example ahs been counted as 160 million years old to 6 billion(older than the earth).
C14 proves the atmosphere is still developing.  And the atmosphere to be complete a planet must be at least 30.000 years old.  With C14  which is the newest method to determiante age earth is shown to be maximum 10.000 and minimum a little less.

It would be lovely to have a link for your statements, or a traditional citation will be fine.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #5276 on: September 08, 2013, 07:02:05 PM »

Well let me explain.
They count the age of the earth in many ways. For example Uranium is the most used way to coutn age. Via making it "break'' they see how old soemthing is. Yet in the last years there has something seen that proves is wrong. The change of the netronians at the atmosphere change and the number. So the number is never the same. On one second it says the earth is 4.5 bilion years old and at the other second it can arrive to say that is one second.
Calium has the same problem but with different numbers. Also this is the proof, that the ways results to different numbers ( and not by a little difference). Hawaii for example ahs been counted as 160 million years old to 6 billion(older than the earth).
C14 proves the atmosphere is still developing.  And the atmosphere to be complete a planet must be at least 30.000 years old.  With C14  which is the newest method to determiante age earth is shown to be maximum 10.000 and minimum a little less.

That's funny. Now try something from science class.  Cheesy
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #5277 on: September 08, 2013, 09:09:29 PM »

It is the supernatural power of God that created the natural.

Since no man was there and knows anything about the supernatural that took place to create the natural, then you have the only true witness that is the Genesis account.

However today prophesying Christians unwittingly deny the past, present and future supernatural power of God by trying to apply naturalistic causality to what was immaterial to begin with.

God is Spirit (John 4:24) and is omnipresent and when his Holy Spirit put into action the natural processes that operate as clock work then we need to agree that the immaterial brought about the material. So if the immaterial brought about the material how then can you use the material equation of naturalistic and deterministic approach to arrive at the truth of the matter?

It is obvious the material, naturalistic view that is dependant on a deterministic approach cannot not venture into explaining what is immaterial, because as far as the naturalistic equation is concerned the immaterial does not exist if it cannot be weighted and quantified according to atoms, molecules and sub molecular particles.

Therefore to deny the Genesis account is to unwittingly deny God's past, present and future power and to side with the materialists.

This is a rebuke for all those prophesying Christians to awaken their senses to the futile direction they are heading with this deterministic approach to God's supernatural power that created the heavens, stars, earth, beast and man.

Next thing they are going to say is God created everything using evolution. This is a lie!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 09:38:26 PM by Serpentslayer » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5278 on: September 09, 2013, 04:40:51 AM »

I saw the author of this book interviewed on C-SPAN's "Book Notes" last night. Excellent stuff. I doubt if the evolutionist zealots will be persuaded by any of his scientific arguments, but those who are open minded will find this very informative and enlightening.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #5279 on: September 09, 2013, 06:04:36 AM »

There is for me, and please don't hector me as a science ignoramus, a problem with the theory of evolution. I cannot accept that we, whether animal or plant, simply evolved into the great interconnected complexities that we are and are simply the end of a long chain of evolving processes. Adaptation, yes. Evolution as demonstrated so far no.

Adaptation and evolution from a base of some primeval soup are two very different kettles of fish. Evolutionary Theory is, I suggest, a philosophical and not scientific fact. Indeed as a theory it appears to have as many questions as answers.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 06:05:45 AM by Santagranddad » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5280 on: September 09, 2013, 06:07:42 AM »

There is for me, and please don't hector me as a science ignoramus, a problem with the theory of evolution. I cannot accept that we, whether animal or plant, simply evolved into the great interconnected complexities that we are and are simply the end of a long chain of evolving processes. Adaptation, yes. Evolution as demonstrated so far no.

Adaptation and evolution from a base of some primeval soup are two very different kettles of fish. Evolutionary Theory is, I suggest, a philosophical and not scientific fact. Indeed as a theory it appears to have as many questions as answers.

+1


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,253



« Reply #5281 on: September 09, 2013, 07:35:29 AM »

I saw the author of this book interviewed on C-SPAN's "Book Notes" last night. Excellent stuff. I doubt if the evolutionist zealots will be persuaded by any of his scientific arguments, but those who are open minded will find this very informative and enlightening.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475


Selam

I am intrigued and excited to read this book, believe it or not!
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
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #5282 on: September 09, 2013, 09:49:49 AM »

I saw the author of this book interviewed on C-SPAN's "Book Notes" last night. Excellent stuff. I doubt if the evolutionist zealots will be persuaded by any of his scientific arguments, but those who are open minded will find this very informative and enlightening.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475


Selam

I am intrigued and excited to read this book, believe it or not!

Me too.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #5283 on: September 09, 2013, 01:55:07 PM »

There is for me, and please don't hector me as a science ignoramus, a problem with the theory of evolution. I cannot accept that we, whether animal or plant, simply evolved into the great interconnected complexities that we are and are simply the end of a long chain of evolving processes. Adaptation, yes. Evolution as demonstrated so far no.

Adaptation and evolution from a base of some primeval soup are two very different kettles of fish. Evolutionary Theory is, I suggest, a philosophical and not scientific fact. Indeed as a theory it appears to have as many questions as answers.

A lot of people have a very vague notion of natural selection, as if it somehow explains all of biology. Natural selection can account for why one biological form wins out over another under certain conditions, but it doesn't explain where the form comes from or what all the constraints on biological form might be. Natural selection can explain, in other words, why an organism is adapted to its environment, but doesn't explain why that particular form exists, out of all the logically possible adaptive forms that otherwise might exist. Biological form is constrained not just by natural selection but by deeper physical and chemical properties.

For example, natural selection might explain why humans have opposable thumbs while other primates do not, but it doesn't explain why we have five digits on each hand, when four digits would be functionally equivalent. That must be explained by some deeper design feature in nature that emerges during evolution.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #5284 on: September 09, 2013, 02:02:11 PM »

There is for me, and please don't hector me as a science ignoramus, a problem with the theory of evolution. I cannot accept that we, whether animal or plant, simply evolved into the great interconnected complexities that we are and are simply the end of a long chain of evolving processes. Adaptation, yes. Evolution as demonstrated so far no.

Adaptation and evolution from a base of some primeval soup are two very different kettles of fish. Evolutionary Theory is, I suggest, a philosophical and not scientific fact. Indeed as a theory it appears to have as many questions as answers.

A lot of people have a very vague notion of natural selection, as if it somehow explains all of biology. Natural selection can account for why one biological form wins out over another under certain conditions, but it doesn't explain where the form comes from or what all the constraints on biological form might be. Natural selection can explain, in other words, why an organism is adapted to its environment, but doesn't explain why that particular form exists, out of all the logically possible adaptive forms that otherwise might exist. Biological form is constrained not just by natural selection but by deeper physical and chemical properties.

For example, natural selection might explain why humans have opposable thumbs while other primates do not, but it doesn't explain why we have five digits on each hand, when four digits would be functionally equivalent. That must be explained by some deeper design feature in nature that emerges during evolution.
Nope, it doesn't.  Lots of animal have different numbers of digits both today and in the fossil record. It could be any number of reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that maybe 5 digits was more attractive to potential mates or some other more mundane reason. There is nothing sacred about the number 5.  We could just have easily had 3,4,6 or 9.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5285 on: September 09, 2013, 02:03:57 PM »


I may end up picking this up. "Know your enemy" and all that  angel
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #5286 on: September 09, 2013, 02:14:52 PM »

There is for me, and please don't hector me as a science ignoramus, a problem with the theory of evolution. I cannot accept that we, whether animal or plant, simply evolved into the great interconnected complexities that we are and are simply the end of a long chain of evolving processes. Adaptation, yes. Evolution as demonstrated so far no.

Adaptation and evolution from a base of some primeval soup are two very different kettles of fish. Evolutionary Theory is, I suggest, a philosophical and not scientific fact. Indeed as a theory it appears to have as many questions as answers.

A lot of people have a very vague notion of natural selection, as if it somehow explains all of biology. Natural selection can account for why one biological form wins out over another under certain conditions, but it doesn't explain where the form comes from or what all the constraints on biological form might be. Natural selection can explain, in other words, why an organism is adapted to its environment, but doesn't explain why that particular form exists, out of all the logically possible adaptive forms that otherwise might exist. Biological form is constrained not just by natural selection but by deeper physical and chemical properties.

For example, natural selection might explain why humans have opposable thumbs while other primates do not, but it doesn't explain why we have five digits on each hand, when four digits would be functionally equivalent. That must be explained by some deeper design feature in nature that emerges during evolution.
Nope, it doesn't.  Lots of animal have different numbers of digits both today and in the fossil record. It could be any number of reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that maybe 5 digits was more attractive to potential mates or some other more mundane reason. There is nothing sacred about the number 5.  We could just have easily had 3,4,6 or 9.

Number of digits or other appendages, like flower petals, is generally confined to the Fibonacci sequence. You find 2, 3, 5, 8, but not 4, 6, 9 etc. In terms of function, there is no reason why we don't find an unbounded range of numbers, so there must be a design feature underlying all biology. Explaining it by sexual selection doesn't help unless you explain what is intrinsically attractive about a certain set of numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#In_nature
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #5287 on: September 09, 2013, 02:23:30 PM »

So were animals like these in violation of the design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega - seven digits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulerpeton - six digits
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #5288 on: September 09, 2013, 03:18:06 PM »

So were animals like these in violation of the design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega - seven digits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulerpeton - six digits

As they say, the exception proves the rule. Wink

So some animals have other numbers of digits. The question is, why do we still find a tendency for Fibonacci numbers to emerge? Fibonacci numbers themselves don't confer a plausible selective advantage, so there's something else going on. Natural selection doesn't explain everything.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #5289 on: September 09, 2013, 03:25:38 PM »

So were animals like these in violation of the design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega - seven digits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulerpeton - six digits

As they say, the exception proves the rule. Wink

So some animals have other numbers of digits. The question is, why do we still find a tendency for Fibonacci numbers to emerge? Fibonacci numbers themselves don't confer a plausible selective advantage, so there's something else going on. Natural selection doesn't explain everything.
You can't really say it is fibonacci number, because how many animals do you know with 8, 13 or 21 digits?

You animals with one, like a hoof, you have animals with 2 like a cloven hoof, you have animals with three like rhinos, animals with 4 like birds amphibians and some dinosaurs, animals with 5 like most mammals and then outliers like I mentioned earlier.  There have probably been more animals historically with 4 digits than 3 which kinda blows your "exception" out of the water.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #5290 on: September 09, 2013, 03:51:17 PM »

So were animals like these in violation of the design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega - seven digits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulerpeton - six digits

As they say, the exception proves the rule. Wink

So some animals have other numbers of digits. The question is, why do we still find a tendency for Fibonacci numbers to emerge? Fibonacci numbers themselves don't confer a plausible selective advantage, so there's something else going on. Natural selection doesn't explain everything.
You can't really say it is fibonacci number, because how many animals do you know with 8, 13 or 21 digits?

You animals with one, like a hoof, you have animals with 2 like a cloven hoof, you have animals with three like rhinos, animals with 4 like birds amphibians and some dinosaurs, animals with 5 like most mammals and then outliers like I mentioned earlier.  There have probably been more animals historically with 4 digits than 3 which kinda blows your "exception" out of the water.


It all depends on the statistical preponderance, but actually you could be right about animal digits. The preponderance of Fibonacci numbers in other aspects of biological form, like flower petals, is not disputed, however.

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/parveen/fib_nature.htm

The point is simply that a folk view of natural selection has a kind of Lucretian chaos spontaneously generating forms, without any definite constraints on what forms emerge. This is not the full picture.
Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #5291 on: September 09, 2013, 05:19:01 PM »

So were animals like these in violation of the design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega - seven digits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulerpeton - six digits

As they say, the exception proves the rule. Wink

So some animals have other numbers of digits. The question is, why do we still find a tendency for Fibonacci numbers to emerge? Fibonacci numbers themselves don't confer a plausible selective advantage, so there's something else going on. Natural selection doesn't explain everything.
You can't really say it is fibonacci number, because how many animals do you know with 8, 13 or 21 digits?

You animals with one, like a hoof, you have animals with 2 like a cloven hoof, you have animals with three like rhinos, animals with 4 like birds amphibians and some dinosaurs, animals with 5 like most mammals and then outliers like I mentioned earlier.  There have probably been more animals historically with 4 digits than 3 which kinda blows your "exception" out of the water.


It all depends on the statistical preponderance, but actually you could be right about animal digits. The preponderance of Fibonacci numbers in other aspects of biological form, like flower petals, is not disputed, however.

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/parveen/fib_nature.htm

The point is simply that a folk view of natural selection has a kind of Lucretian chaos spontaneously generating forms, without any definite constraints on what forms emerge. This is not the full picture.

Of course in life there are always constraints but spontaneous generation of life and forms?

I am sorry but to ask us to believe that all the vast variety of life forms somehow 'evolved' from a primeval soup stretches credulity. From basic constituents to life abundant in forms almost with count, and from the relatively simple to the most complex, and to say nought of the interdependence of these many forms. A philosophical notion, yes. Scientific fact, I don't think so.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #5292 on: September 09, 2013, 05:34:58 PM »

You are now referencing abiogenesis which is different from evolution.  I agree with you that there has been no evidence to date to demonstrate abiogenesis, but evolutionary theory can be accepted without adhering to abiogenesis.
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #5293 on: September 09, 2013, 11:46:24 PM »

You can't use the equation for a circle to prove a square.

That would be a SQUARE-CLR

The affirmation of creation according to the Genesis account is conveyed clearly by Christ, Saint Peter and Saint Paul:

Quote
Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

If Christ says that male and female were made AT the beginning then there is no significant time gap between when the earth was formed supernaturally to when the first man and women were created. Simply they were made AT the beginning and not some millions of years after in a primitive evolved state requiring millions of years to be perfected.

Every day that God creates something it is confirmed with a good meaning perfect for it required no perfecting with time as the material evolution suggests on the contrary. In fact the days are both numbered and the evening and the morning used to separated the numbered days.

The fact is that the world is deteriorating and not evolving as we see mass extinctions around the world before our eyes. Are the evolutionist scientists going to come up with devolution. Notice both EVILution and DEVILution have one thing in common they originate from the same author of evil, the father of lies, Satan.

So Satan has found his way into our schools by educating our children to worship the material world rather than God who created the heavens, stars, earth and man.

It is a form of idolatry on a global scale. This is the Satan's doing and those who support evolution and do not believe on faith alone the Genesis account, then how can they believe the remaining witnesses testimony of God in all the Old Testament and New Testament scripture.

It flies in the face of truth that only a hypocritical mind would believe the contents of a book and any book in that matter published by an author without believing in its introduction.

How could a prophesying Christian in their rightful mind NOT ENDORSE THE GENSIS ONE ACCOUNT as the introduction to the author of the remaining content of the book called the Holy Bible.

It is a hypocritical lie in believing the content of the book but not the author that authored it. This is the statement that is unwittingly been made by many prophesying Christians who do not testify to the truth of GENESIS one account but hold into high esteem creeds of Christendom with more stout and zealousness to the death. This is most baffling.

If you can't believe what God who is the author of Genesis account testified of himself, then how can you believe the contents of the remainder of the book that is written by the same author. What a confused and mixed up society this Luke warm Christian generation has become in not giving credit to where it counts and that is to God who made the heaven, and the stars, and the earth, the beasts and man.

 
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #5294 on: September 10, 2013, 12:52:26 AM »

Thank you for demonstrating how silly someone can sound by viewing Genesis as a literal account.  Fortunately, not all young earth creationists don't sound as ridiculous as you.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,272


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #5295 on: September 10, 2013, 09:04:38 AM »

God Himself did not physically write down the book of Genesis.  Nor did He or an angel tell Moses (believing tradition that he authored the Torah) precisely what to write, like how the Muslims believe Mohammad received the Koran from Allah via "Gabriel".  What you write, Serpentslayer, baffles me.  Gah!

Quote
It is a hypocritical lie in believing the content of the book but not the author that authored it. This is the statement that is unwittingly been made by many prophesying Christians who do not testify to the truth of GENESIS one account but hold into high esteem creeds of Christendom with more stout and zealousness to the death. This is most baffling.

If you can't believe what God who is the author of Genesis account testified of himself, then how can you believe the contents of the remainder of the book that is written by the same author. What a confused and mixed up society this Luke warm Christian generation has become in not giving credit to where it counts and that is to God who made the heaven, and the stars, and the earth, the beasts and man.

Logged

Serpentslayer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christ
Posts: 63


« Reply #5296 on: September 11, 2013, 12:48:52 AM »

There is every reason to believe owing to the misguided attitude of people that I have come across thus far who try to deflect the issues at heart by attacking any witness whose testimony is not in line with theirs.

This hypocritical behaviour is not the way Jesus instructed his disciples to carry themselves. Yet very prefoundly he did warn the body of believers that you will know them (counterfeits) by their works.

All good works are from God and they are:

Quote
Galatians 5:22-24
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Quote
Galatians 5:25-26
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

As far as those who pervert the course of justice by attacking the true witnesses of Christ these have another spirit that manifests the following characteristic attributes:

Quote
Galatians 5:17-21
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

As a born again by the Spirit of God can discern these fruits of those who manifest these fleshly attributes. Their posts puts on display their weaknesses in attacking those who are guided by the Holy Spirit of God, for the fruits of a born again believer as Christ taught us would be as highlighted in Galatians 5:22-24.

We Christians tend to forget that not all those that call themselves Christians live as Christians and when we see such attacks on a personal level upon those that don't toe their line, their lawless attitude is to go on a character assignation campaign to spiritually murder the righteous by slandering and all sorts of false labellings.

If we truly consider facts of what I have testified is that as Christians we follow the Spirit of God by faith of things not seen, so the Genesis account becomes the issue of faith at heart where those who weren't even there would argue with the written testimony of Genesis account and side with the materialist and evolutionist in discrediting the God of the Holy Bible by imposing naturalist laws upon God as to say that God had to have created the natural world naturally and not supernaturally.

What does scripture in Old and New Testament testify to this issue at heart:

Quote
Hebrews 11:1
King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What these trouble makers do is denigrate the supernatural God who is immaterial and not dictated by the material realm to that of the naturalistic material equation, by placing him under an obligation to comply with the natural deterministic THEORY.

If this is the case then also all the miraculous performed by the supernatural must also be conforming to their naturalistic equation. Jesus healing the lepers, the blind, the cripple and raising the dead must all be metaphors in their naturalistic equations because the more and more they witness as false witnesses the more you can see this is liberal theology from the Pitt of hell where even the miraculous virgin birth and the resurrection is in question. Maybe if they applied their naturalistic deterministic equation they can turn all the supernatural into a metaphor.

Because a naturalist materialistic equation declares that there is no supernatural immaterial power who is God.

Since they were not there and the only source of evidence is from Moses, who was told by his family right from Adam who God told. Therefore the testimony of this generations is a 100% false witness and falls short of the God's glory, by discrediting these true Biblical witnesses who were right there with God when humanity just started to flourish, yet these deceivers want to preach another gospel of naturalistic liberal theology that denies the supernatural power of God past, present and future.

You as intelliigent Christian have a God given mind to think past these lies and attacks perpetrated against God by these disobedient fraudulent workmen.


« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 12:52:12 AM by Serpentslayer » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5297 on: September 11, 2013, 01:16:38 AM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs



Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5298 on: September 11, 2013, 01:54:30 AM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs

Selam

Thoughts?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #5299 on: September 11, 2013, 08:27:34 AM »

Converted from evolution?  Cheesy

Is that like being converted from atomic physics or chemistry?
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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,604



« Reply #5300 on: September 11, 2013, 10:12:31 AM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs

Selam

Thoughts?

I am at work (Youtube=inappropriate). What I could find text-wise was that a female student confronted him with the question as to how abiogenesis (creating a gene by random assortment) could occur. I guess the thought never occurred to him. I am not sure how this led him to reject evolution (that line of reasoning was not in the text that I read).
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5301 on: September 11, 2013, 04:27:33 PM »

Opus 118 I ahve the text but is only in Greece and having sciense terms there would be many mistakes to translate it complete.
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.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5302 on: September 12, 2013, 12:10:09 AM »

Converted from evolution?  Cheesy

Is that like being converted from atomic physics or chemistry?

Converted from "evolutionism," not evolution.



Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,409


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #5303 on: September 14, 2013, 04:21:32 PM »

Logged

Silly Stars
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5304 on: September 14, 2013, 04:32:02 PM »

Ball State University.

Am I right?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Jord
Det växer hår i mina näsborrar.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Swedish Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Romanian Orthodox Diocese Of Northern Europe
Posts: 76



« Reply #5305 on: September 14, 2013, 04:48:10 PM »

I do not see how the poll question is related to the topic. Neither do I think that Creationism and Orthodoxy can figure in conjunction in any way whatsoever. Creationism is fallacious and it cannot have anything at all to do with Christian doctrine. As a supposed science, it is worthless. In my opinion, Creationism is nothing but an error. I believe that almost any idea can be useful in some way for as long as it is not a bold faced lie. Creationism however is not a basic idea, but a mess of ideas arranged in such an absurd way that it is much better to reject it as a whole than to try to work with it.
Logged
That person
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 1,158


Long live Commie Superman


« Reply #5306 on: September 14, 2013, 06:51:19 PM »

Converted from evolution?  Cheesy

Is that like being converted from atomic physics or chemistry?

Converted from "evolutionism," not evolution.



Selam
Is that like atomic physicism or chemistrism?
Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Movie reviews you can trust.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,604



« Reply #5307 on: September 14, 2013, 11:17:38 PM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs

Selam

Thoughts?

I am at work (Youtube=inappropriate). What I could find text-wise was that a female student confronted him with the question as to how abiogenesis (creating a gene by random assortment) could occur. I guess the thought never occurred to him. I am not sure how this led him to reject evolution (that line of reasoning was not in the text that I read).

I watched the video. It is incoherent. The issues are obscured and mixed up based on what I read as the account. Richard Lumsden died in 1997 and cannot comment.

Fact: Evolution cannot explain the creation of life.
Fact: Evolution can explain adaptation of pre-existing proteins to gain or lose function. It is simple.

Fact: Everything else is hype.

Where is the little red headed girl when I need her.


Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5308 on: September 15, 2013, 01:53:10 AM »

Converted from evolution?  Cheesy

Is that like being converted from atomic physics or chemistry?

Converted from "evolutionism," not evolution.



Selam
Is that like atomic physicism or chemistrism?

No. It's more like alchemy or astrology. Intriguing ideas, just not empirical science.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5309 on: September 15, 2013, 02:01:07 AM »

It's interesting that you bring up alchemy, as I was going to mention that earlier, and how even smart people can believe silly things, like Isaac Newton with alchemy. That's why I asked you earlier for your thoughts on the video you posted. I didn't want to just have a knee-jerk reaction dismissal of it, but at the same time I'm not sure what it really means that 20 years ago a guy I've never heard of decided that he had more questions about evolution than he realized... so... thoughts?  Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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 0.191 seconds with 74 queries.