OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 01:48:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 54 (15.7%)
No - 133 (38.6%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 345

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 344009 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5490 on: January 01, 2014, 10:19:31 AM »

Quote
It is with a terribly heavy heart that I write to tell you that Ian Barbour died on December 24th. Ian suffered a stroke at home in Northfield on Friday, Dec. 20th, and remained in a coma at Abbott Northwestern Hospital until his death. He was 90 years old. Ian came to Carleton in 1955 with the founding of the Religion department. In the 1970's, he co-founded of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy program at Carleton, which has since become ENTS (Environment and Technology Studies). He retired in 1986 as the Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and Society.  

Ian is widely credited with creating the contemporary field of science and religion. With his degrees in Theology and Physics, Ian explored the theological implications of science and methodological issues in both fields. He wrote or edited sixteen books. From 1989 to 1991, he gave the Gifford Lectures in Scotland, and in 1999, Ian was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.


Barbour is famous for having developed a four-fold typology (Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, Integration) for understanding the different ways that science and religion interact. Sometimes science and religion are in conflict (e.g., creationism; scientific materialism); are independent of one another ("Genesis is not a science text book", e.g.); are in dialogue (e.g., wave-particle duality of photon as an image for understanding the God-Human Person of Christ); or are integrated with each other (e.g., theistic evolution).
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 10:22:53 AM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5491 on: January 08, 2014, 08:27:29 PM »

Here are my questions i posted some of them a while ago but they are still not answered :

Assuming the TE is true and Theistic Evolution is the real deal

How exactly did God interfered in evolution  ? Did He just let the things happen through neo darwinian processes ? Did He knew that the human beings as we look today will come up at some point or He just waited for the first rational being to come up ?
If you say He didn`t knew then what is your base for making such claim ? If He did knew then why do you think ID movement is not science ? What makes you think that we cannot detect the "language of God " ?

What is your opinion about the second code discovered in the DNA ? It happened by chance too, through a different set of monkeys typing billions of ages ?

Do you believe there were people in this world that lived over 900 years ?

What is the basis for saying similarities in DNA or specialized cells/proteins can only mean common ancestor ? Indeed, they are good predictions, but aren`t these things good predictions for creation ? For example if you play 6 games made on the same engine you will notice a lot of similarities.

How exactly is the shared common ancestor calculated ? I mean let`s say between turtles and humans. What empirical evidence there is that mutations happen at a certain rate and have happened the same all these billions of years you believe in ? Is neodarwinism really a science ? I mean sometimes it happens fast, sometimes slow, sometimes back, sometimes forth and sometimes they don`t evolve at all. Anything is possible as long as the majority of the gang agrees with you. Doesn`t that make it unfalsifiable ?  
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:28:18 PM by davillas » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,067


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #5492 on: January 08, 2014, 08:35:53 PM »

How exactly did God interfered in evolution  ? Did He just let the things happen through neo darwinian processes ? Did He knew that the human beings as we look today will come up at some point or He just waited for the first rational being to come up ?
He knew what was going to happen, and he facilitated it happening.

If He did knew then why do you think ID movement is not science ? What makes you think that we cannot detect the "language of God " ?
Intelligent Design claims that there is observable scientific evidence of "tampering" in the processes that resulted in the diversification of life on the planet earth. While many proponents are Christians, this intelligence could be aliens, a group of gods, spirits, etc. All that I.D. proposes is that there is scientific evidence of tampering by some sort of intelligence, without which the diversification of life on this planet would not have been able to play out the way it did.

I believe that if a dust devil occurs in the middle of a particular patch of land in the Arizona desert, it was because God appointed that it would be so. However, I do not believe that the application of the scientific method would reveal evidence of intelligent tampering in the processes which led up to the formation of said dust devil. God is not a sloppy creator, and he does not waste his Divine Energies.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:37:09 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5493 on: January 08, 2014, 08:49:53 PM »

Anything is possible as long as the majority of the gang agrees with you. Doesn`t that make it unfalsifiable ?  
If fossils of modern humans were found that dated, say, 500 million years ago, and if no other mammal fossils were found at that early date, that would be one way to falsify evolutionary theory (of any sort, theistic or non-theistic). However, fossils of modern humans are only found within about 200,000 years before the present, not long after (or even during) the existence of the non-modern humans from which modern humans evolved.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,455



« Reply #5494 on: January 08, 2014, 09:10:58 PM »

Here are my questions i posted some of them a while ago but they are still not answered :

Assuming the TE is true and Theistic Evolution is the real deal

How exactly did God interfered in evolution  ? Did He just let the things happen through neo darwinian processes ? Did He knew that the human beings as we look today will come up at some point or He just waited for the first rational being to come up ?
If you say He didn`t knew then what is your base for making such claim ? If He did knew then why do you think ID movement is not science ? What makes you think that we cannot detect the "language of God " ?

What is your opinion about the second code discovered in the DNA ? It happened by chance too, through a different set of monkeys typing billions of ages ?

Do you believe there were people in this world that lived over 900 years ?

What is the basis for saying similarities in DNA or specialized cells/proteins can only mean common ancestor ? Indeed, they are good predictions, but aren`t these things good predictions for creation ? For example if you play 6 games made on the same engine you will notice a lot of similarities.

How exactly is the shared common ancestor calculated ? I mean let`s say between turtles and humans. What empirical evidence there is that mutations happen at a certain rate and have happened the same all these billions of years you believe in ? Is neodarwinism really a science ? I mean sometimes it happens fast, sometimes slow, sometimes back, sometimes forth and sometimes they don`t evolve at all. Anything is possible as long as the majority of the gang agrees with you. Doesn`t that make it unfalsifiable ?  
That is a lot of questions and I hate when posts end up going on forever because of tons of posts and counterposts to multiple questions, so I will only address a few. I don't think ID is science because it is not attempting to falsify any physical statement.  It may be true that there is an intelligent designer, but it isn't falsifiable.  The same is true about prayer.  I can't "prove" that prayer does anything, but I have faith and hope in God that it does.  For me to attempt to reduce prayer to a scientific proof cheapens what prayer is.  Likewise, attempting to "prove" that there is a God and He is Creator, cheapens the glory that is His.

Shared common ancestors are discovered by observing the small changes over long periods of time and identifying the species that would fit in at that time period.   You can see things on a much shorter time line by looking at dog breeding. A wolflike animal was the common ancestor, and from that, we have gotten all kinds of different dogs.  We classify them all as canines because it has only been going on for thousands of years, but if you stretch that over millions of years, the animal appearances will continue to diverge and no longer be recognizable as having a common ancestor unless you are able to track it through the fossil record.
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 #5495 on: January 08, 2014, 09:35:16 PM »


If fossils of modern humans were found that dated, say, 500 million years ago, and if no other mammal fossils were found at that early date, that would be one way to falsify evolutionary theory (of any sort, theistic or non-theistic). However, fossils of modern humans are only found within about 200,000 years before the present, not long after (or even during) the existence of the non-modern humans from which modern humans evolved.

I was talking about shared ancestor between 2 species. But you probably know that we also use assumptions in dating and assumptions when we claim that modern humans evolved from non modern humans.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:35:43 PM by davillas » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5496 on: January 08, 2014, 09:44:22 PM »


If fossils of modern humans were found that dated, say, 500 million years ago, and if no other mammal fossils were found at that early date, that would be one way to falsify evolutionary theory (of any sort, theistic or non-theistic). However, fossils of modern humans are only found within about 200,000 years before the present, not long after (or even during) the existence of the non-modern humans from which modern humans evolved.

I was talking about shared ancestor between 2 species. But you probably know that we also use assumptions in dating and assumptions when we claim that modern humans evolved from non modern humans.
How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5497 on: January 08, 2014, 09:49:00 PM »



That is a lot of questions and I hate when posts end up going on forever because of tons of posts and counterposts to multiple questions, so I will only address a few. I don't think ID is science because it is not attempting to falsify any physical statement.  It may be true that there is an intelligent designer, but it isn't falsifiable.  The same is true about prayer.  I can't "prove" that prayer does anything, but I have faith and hope in God that it does.  For me to attempt to reduce prayer to a scientific proof cheapens what prayer is.  Likewise, attempting to "prove" that there is a God and He is Creator, cheapens the glory that is His.

What do you mean is not falsibiable ? It is exacly like SETI program. If that is science then ID is science. If Lensky can make 10 different living beings coming from his bacterias and then we repeat the same experiment 3-4 times then ID is wrong and we cannot find evidence for creation. For me searching for the truth is more important than accepting the ideas of a majority. The truth doesn`t care about the majority, they already put Him on cross one time in the past.
Same answer for Nickolas.

Shared common ancestors are discovered by observing the small changes over long periods of time and identifying the species that would fit in at that time period.   You can see things on a much shorter time line by looking at dog breeding. A wolflike animal was the common ancestor, and from that, we have gotten all kinds of different dogs.  We classify them all as canines because it has only been going on for thousands of years, but if you stretch that over millions of years, the animal appearances will continue to diverge and no longer be recognizable as having a common ancestor unless you are able to track it through the fossil record.

To observe small changes over long periods of time at least you need that time. To compare dog breeding wich involves an intelligent agent and a purpose with evolution wich is blind and has no purpose it means to use bad arguments thinking that the person who asked the question can`t understand the difference. We classify them as canines because we created them. If we let them free most of them will die very fast and there is no way to know if the rest will turn into something else because we know from experience that canines only have canine offsprings. Smiley
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5498 on: January 08, 2014, 09:51:40 PM »


How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?

I gave you the example with the computer games. Warhammer Dawn of War si Company of Heroes are very similar, they are built using the same engine ( DNA ). Yet, one is with space marines and orcs and elders and sci fi weapons and the other one is with americans and nazis and WWII guns.  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:51:52 PM by davillas » Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5499 on: January 08, 2014, 10:05:09 PM »

How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?

Or when they are telling you the same genes are responsible for creating the same organ in different species. Humans are using the very same thing today, we create a mechanism and then use it to make all kinds of things. Or a part of a software and then use it to create different programs. So why is it much harder to believe that since we are made in the image of God and we can create things the same He created us exactly how we look today ? Why believing in chance when we already have a Creator ?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5500 on: January 08, 2014, 10:07:43 PM »


How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?

I gave you the example with the computer games. Warhammer Dawn of War si Company of Heroes are very similar, they are built using the same engine ( DNA ). Yet, one is with space marines and orcs and elders and sci fi weapons and the other one is with americans and nazis and WWII guns.  Smiley
So how would you explain the greater genetic similarity between chimps and gorillas, and the lesser genetic similarity between chimps and rabbits?
Logged

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

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5501 on: January 08, 2014, 10:10:23 PM »

How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?

Or when they are telling you the same genes are responsible for creating the same organ in different species. Humans are using the very same thing today, we create a mechanism and then use it to make all kinds of things. Or a part of a software and then use it to create different programs. So why is it much harder to believe that since we are made in the image of God and we can create things the same He created us exactly how we look today ? Why believing in chance when we already have a Creator ?
Belief in a Creator is certainly justifiable.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5502 on: January 08, 2014, 10:15:39 PM »


How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?

I gave you the example with the computer games. Warhammer Dawn of War si Company of Heroes are very similar, they are built using the same engine ( DNA ). Yet, one is with space marines and orcs and elders and sci fi weapons and the other one is with americans and nazis and WWII guns.  Smiley
So how would you explain the greater genetic similarity between chimps and gorillas, and the lesser genetic similarity between chimps and rabbits?

Cimps and Gorillas games have more similar lines of code when compared than Chimps and Rabbits have ?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,455



« Reply #5503 on: January 08, 2014, 10:19:44 PM »



That is a lot of questions and I hate when posts end up going on forever because of tons of posts and counterposts to multiple questions, so I will only address a few. I don't think ID is science because it is not attempting to falsify any physical statement.  It may be true that there is an intelligent designer, but it isn't falsifiable.  The same is true about prayer.  I can't "prove" that prayer does anything, but I have faith and hope in God that it does.  For me to attempt to reduce prayer to a scientific proof cheapens what prayer is.  Likewise, attempting to "prove" that there is a God and He is Creator, cheapens the glory that is His.

What do you mean is not falsibiable ? It is exacly like SETI program. If that is science then ID is science. If Lensky can make 10 different living beings coming from his bacterias and then we repeat the same experiment 3-4 times then ID is wrong and we cannot find evidence for creation. For me searching for the truth is more important than accepting the ideas of a majority. The truth doesn`t care about the majority, they already put Him on cross one time in the past.
Same answer for Nickolas.
I don't understand the reference to the SETI program.  SETI is just searching for radio waves.  How is that related to anything we are discussing?  Huh
Even if Lensky can make 10 different living beings, that doesn't mean creation is wrong any more than discovering that the world is not flat disproves God.
Quote
Shared common ancestors are discovered by observing the small changes over long periods of time and identifying the species that would fit in at that time period.   You can see things on a much shorter time line by looking at dog breeding. A wolflike animal was the common ancestor, and from that, we have gotten all kinds of different dogs.  We classify them all as canines because it has only been going on for thousands of years, but if you stretch that over millions of years, the animal appearances will continue to diverge and no longer be recognizable as having a common ancestor unless you are able to track it through the fossil record.

To observe small changes over long periods of time at least you need that time. To compare dog breeding wich involves an intelligent agent and a purpose with evolution wich is blind and has no purpose it means to use bad arguments thinking that the person who asked the question can`t understand the difference. We classify them as canines because we created them. If we let them free most of them will die very fast and there is no way to know if the rest will turn into something else because we know from experience that canines only have canine offsprings. Smiley
Uhhh, what? We created canines? When did this occur?
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 #5504 on: January 08, 2014, 10:24:59 PM »

Belief in a Creator is certainly justifiable.

I don`t question that, What i question is if evolution is really a fact beyong doubt. I mean look at this :

We know that guy Lensky is breeding bacterias for a lot of years. That is hardcore science. So all we need to do is to do the same experiment in 4-5 different labs. After 20 years we stop for a second and we count the mutations. From there we establish a rate of mutations/generation. Then we compare the genomes and we`ll see if the tree of evolution is real. You understand this ? This is science.
When you have an arbitrary rate of mutations, when you put more steps inside ( because " evolution doesn`t have a purpose " but in fact you already know where that specie should be in the tree  Smiley ) when all that matters is to agree with the majority or else you are bullied, that is no longer science.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5505 on: January 08, 2014, 10:29:00 PM »

I don't understand the reference to the SETI program.  SETI is just searching for radio waves.  How is that related to anything we are discussing?  Huh
Even if Lensky can make 10 different living beings, that doesn't mean creation is wrong any more than discovering that the world is not flat disproves God.


Who talked about creation being wrong ? We were talking about ID claims and you said they cannot be falsified. They can and then we can all bow down to theistic evolution...v2.0 because v1.0 was that with junk DNA and all that ...  Smiley
ID is even more scientifical than SETI, SETI really cannot be falsified unless we go on every planet from this universe.


Uhhh, what? We created canines? When did this occur?


All those different dogs are created by us for a purpose.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:31:36 PM by davillas » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,712


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


« Reply #5506 on: January 08, 2014, 10:36:03 PM »

Dear Davillas,

From what I can quickly gather from your explanation, instead of "natural selection", it's "divine selection" that drives the evolution of species?

That's very different from Intelligent Design as far as I can gather.  One can say that natural selection is an extension of the genius of the "divine selection".  He programmed nature to evolve in this manner.  So I don't see how your views would contradict evolution.

My main problem with "Intelligent Design" is not its concept, but in calling it "science".  I can tell you, by faith, I am a creationist and believe in "Intelligent Designer", the Designer being the Father in the Son by the Spirit.  But I can't call that science.  Science is a materialistic study, just as medicine or physics or geology are all materialistic studies.  Therefore, for someone to call "Intelligent Design" a "science", either you have to change the very definition of science (which would also include astrology, psychics, voodoo, and any and all imaginative speculations of the human mind) or you change the very definition of the divine nature, which would be blasphemous to say that we can "materialistically" define God.

I see in any materialistic process though a spiritual hand guiding all things, even if materialistically explained, and this can only be seen by faith.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:37:36 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,455



« Reply #5507 on: January 08, 2014, 10:39:01 PM »

SETI is a program, it isn't a scientific theory. You can't falsify a program.  The theory would be that extraterrestrials may communicate via radio waves.  SETI is just a program to see if they can find them.

Domesticated dogs we have bred, most canines developed in the wild. There are grey wolves, lycaons, foxes, coyotes, racoon dogs, any many, many more.  They are all canines, humans did not breed them that way and they have all descended from 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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5508 on: January 08, 2014, 10:40:36 PM »


How would you explain that some organisms are genetically more similar to other organisms?

I gave you the example with the computer games. Warhammer Dawn of War si Company of Heroes are very similar, they are built using the same engine ( DNA ). Yet, one is with space marines and orcs and elders and sci fi weapons and the other one is with americans and nazis and WWII guns.  Smiley
So how would you explain the greater genetic similarity between chimps and gorillas, and the lesser genetic similarity between chimps and rabbits?

Cimps and Gorillas games have more similar lines of code when compared than Chimps and Rabbits have ?
You might want to read up on something called "DNA".
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5509 on: January 08, 2014, 10:52:37 PM »

Dear Davillas,

From what I can quickly gather from your explanation, instead of "natural selection", it's "divine selection" that drives the evolution of species?

That's very different from Intelligent Design as far as I can gather.  One can say that natural selection is an extension of the genius of the "divine selection".  He programmed nature to evolve in this manner.  So I don't see how your views would contradict evolution.

My main problem with "Intelligent Design" is not its concept, but in calling it "science".  I can tell you, by faith, I am a creationist and believe in "Intelligent Designer", the Designer being the Father in the Son by the Spirit.  But I can't call that science.  Science is a materialistic study, just as medicine or physics or geology are all materialistic studies.  Therefore, for someone to call "Intelligent Design" a "science", either you have to change the very definition of science (which would also include astrology, psychics, voodoo, and any and all imaginative speculations of the human mind) or you change the very definition of the divine nature, which would be blasphemous to say that we can "materialistically" define God.

I see in any materialistic process though a spiritual hand guiding all things, even if materialistically explained, and this can only be seen by faith.


No, i believe they didn`t evolved at all, but i believe there is an agenda in the world today, (and it was in the world yesterday, those of you who live in the communist countries or who have friends who lived in the communist countries will remember that communists were using "science " against religious beliefs and i believe they build communism again in the western civilization ). And one of the points in this propaganda is that ID is not science. And i want to understand why ID is not science when compared with other things we are calling science today. Maybe it wasn`t our God, maybe it was another god or ET. Or maybe our God created the world through evolution and want us to understand that, and there are some hints hidden there. What exactly doesn`t make it a science ? All one needs to do is to prove that there is nothing random mutation and natural selection can`t do and that`s it.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:53:26 PM by davillas » Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5510 on: January 08, 2014, 10:56:11 PM »


Domesticated dogs we have bred, most canines developed in the wild. There are grey wolves, lycaons, foxes, coyotes, racoon dogs, any many, many more.  They are all canines, humans did not breed them that way and they have all descended from a common ancestor.

I agree with that but as long as we breed them ( and you gave the example with breeding ) we learnt that no matter how much we play with them they only have canine offsprings. So there is no reason to believe that time alone can make what we couldn`t.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5511 on: January 08, 2014, 11:01:04 PM »

You might want to read up on something called "DNA".

I did tried to read. That`s why i compared it with a computer game, because they are comparing it with computer code. The only difference is that we are playing bad games and nature created some great games by chance alone.  Smiley
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,455



« Reply #5512 on: January 08, 2014, 11:04:27 PM »


Domesticated dogs we have bred, most canines developed in the wild. There are grey wolves, lycaons, foxes, coyotes, racoon dogs, any many, many more.  They are all canines, humans did not breed them that way and they have all descended from a common ancestor.

I agree with that but as long as we breed them ( and you gave the example with breeding ) we learnt that no matter how much we play with them they only have canine offsprings. So there is no reason to believe that time alone can make what we couldn`t.
By breeding, I merely meant propagation and reproduction, not breeding as in dog breeders.

Canine is just a name we call the group.  It is no different than saying that animals can only have animal offspring. Foxes and dogs are both canines, but they cannot breed with each other. They are still similar enough to be in the same family.
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 #5513 on: January 08, 2014, 11:35:01 PM »

By breeding, I merely meant propagation and reproduction, not breeding as in dog breeders.

Canine is just a name we call the group.  It is no different than saying that animals can only have animal offspring. Foxes and dogs are both canines, but they cannot breed with each other. They are still similar enough to be in the same family.

We can call them cousins if you want or 2 degree cousins. The problem is when you start to read you will soon learn that the way the scientists are doing the maths leaves room to a lot of interpretation. It`s like they created their own "dark variables" and they are pushing them up and down in order to fit with what it is already written on the paper. And this is not the only problem, there are also assumptions that i heard or read ( for example about what is called cambrian explosion ) and these things made me to reject the entire theory. I don`t claim to be smarter than any of you, maybe i am too dumb to understand how evolution works but i feel ok not knowing something like this.

Look here another example, same type of reasoning : human appendix

- It`s vestigial
- No it is not, maybe it has a function.
- Ok, someone found a function.
- So it is no longer vestigial.
- Oh no, it is still vestigial. Just because it has a function today it doesn`t mean it had the same function in the past.

I mean come on people, can`t they just give up ? Why do you need to make such assumptions ? How can i even begin to consider something when they tell me such a thing ? Prove it did someting in the past and that`s it. If i need to believe in something then i have better things to believe in.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 11:37:13 PM by davillas » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,455



« Reply #5514 on: January 09, 2014, 12:17:12 AM »

The Cambrian explosion really isn't that big of an assumption.  If you look at the rock layers below the Cambrian, there are few fossils.  You get to the Cambrian and suddenly, there are many more.  By "explosion" they don't mean that suddenly there were a ton more organisms, it means that in a relatively shore geological time, organisms blossomed.  That relatively "short" time was millions of years.  Even if you were living during the Cambrian "explosion", you wouldn't realize there was an explosion.  It is only by looking back from our standpoint now do we realize that living organisms were flourishing during that time.

What about whale legs?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,067


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #5515 on: January 09, 2014, 12:42:27 AM »

Does anyone believe in Intelligent Design (the notion that there is scientific evidence of tampering by an intelligent agent) regarding ongoing weather systems, vulcanism, planetary orbit, etc?

If we examine a tornado closely enough, will we see that its formation is lacking in some way that is most likely explained by the action of an intelligent agent?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 12:42:45 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5516 on: January 09, 2014, 12:45:37 AM »

The Cambrian explosion really isn't that big of an assumption.  If you look at the rock layers below the Cambrian, there are few fossils.  You get to the Cambrian and suddenly, there are many more.  By "explosion" they don't mean that suddenly there were a ton more organisms, it means that in a relatively shore geological time, organisms blossomed.  That relatively "short" time was millions of years.  Even if you were living during the Cambrian "explosion", you wouldn't realize there was an explosion.  It is only by looking back from our standpoint now do we realize that living organisms were flourishing during that time.

I could understand this already. The problem is it evolutionary time it happened really fast considering what you can find in the lower layers. And the answers were : sometimes it happens fast or exactly like they are doing with the appendix " just because we don`t see some genes doing something today ... ".  
So i chose to believe in what i can`t see today. It`s just not their story.  Grin

What about whale legs?

What about them ? I`ve seen a mutant one with 2 heads and 2 tails yesterday,  do they got their legs back too ?  Smiley
They can make an article : Fukushima proves evolution.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 12:59:45 AM by davillas » Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5517 on: January 09, 2014, 12:59:14 AM »

Does anyone believe in Intelligent Design (the notion that there is scientific evidence of tampering by an intelligent agent) regarding ongoing weather systems, vulcanism, planetary orbit, etc?

If we examine a tornado closely enough, will we see that its formation is lacking in some way that is most likely explained by the action of an intelligent agent?

About planetary orbit :
If you read that interview with Krauss he is telling you that we cannot understand cosmology today so no one can tell you too many things. Of course if you believe that planets and stars have formed through evolution ( like i heard a theistic cosmoevolutionist saying that the universe is old because otherwise there was not enough time for all chemical elements to form  Grin ) you can still claim that you believe in a creator. Just don`t believe in what the Bible and the saints are telling you, that is bad and it was proven wrong by assumptions.

The spirit of today`s world want us to believe, he is encouraging us even to go to church because it is good for our brains, it keeps us calm. Just don`t believe anything you hear in there.

The problem with the weather system is that we only have one to study.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


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


« Reply #5518 on: January 09, 2014, 01:45:41 AM »


What about whale legs?

What about them ? I`ve seen a mutant one with 2 heads and 2 tails yesterday,  do they got their legs back too ?  Smiley
They can make an article : Fukushima proves evolution.

I think he is referring to vestigial structures such as the undeveloped hind legs that whales have.

Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5519 on: January 09, 2014, 07:06:52 AM »


What about whale legs?

What about them ? I`ve seen a mutant one with 2 heads and 2 tails yesterday,  do they got their legs back too ?  Smiley
They can make an article : Fukushima proves evolution.

I think he is referring to vestigial structures such as the undeveloped hind legs that whales have.



I know that, i was trying to avoid answering his question because i don`t have a good answer.  Grin
I think God created the whale more or less as it is today ( without any feet ). The reason we call those bones feet it`s because we have found a pile of bones in the dirt and some of those have feet, and we tought that if we put those bones above whale bones on paper we will fool some people into thinking the bones above really turned into the bones below.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,712


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


« Reply #5520 on: January 09, 2014, 12:57:31 PM »


What about whale legs?

What about them ? I`ve seen a mutant one with 2 heads and 2 tails yesterday,  do they got their legs back too ?  Smiley
They can make an article : Fukushima proves evolution.

I think he is referring to vestigial structures such as the undeveloped hind legs that whales have.



I know that, i was trying to avoid answering his question because i don`t have a good answer.  Grin
I think God created the whale more or less as it is today ( without any feet ). The reason we call those bones feet it`s because we have found a pile of bones in the dirt and some of those have feet, and we tought that if we put those bones above whale bones on paper we will fool some people into thinking the bones above really turned into the bones below.
"hmmmm...it looks empty in that part of my mammal fish, let's put foot bones there just for fun" says God Wink
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,562



« Reply #5521 on: January 09, 2014, 01:16:20 PM »


What about whale legs?

What about them ? I`ve seen a mutant one with 2 heads and 2 tails yesterday,  do they got their legs back too ?  Smiley
They can make an article : Fukushima proves evolution.

I think he is referring to vestigial structures such as the undeveloped hind legs that whales have.



I know that, i was trying to avoid answering his question because i don`t have a good answer.  Grin
I think God created the whale more or less as it is today ( without any feet ). The reason we call those bones feet it`s because we have found a pile of bones in the dirt and some of those have feet, and we tought that if we put those bones above whale bones on paper we will fool some people into thinking the bones above really turned into the bones below.
"hmmmm...it looks empty in that part of my mammal fish, let's put foot bones there just for fun" says God Wink

God tends to do that. Let's become incarnate as a human being just to mess with them, says God.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #5522 on: January 09, 2014, 01:21:09 PM »

Since the moderatorial staff is changing is there anyway we can get away from everything which has a wiff of evolution from being dumped into one thread?

Or can we at least do the same with every other subject?

Cause believe it or not few of the salient questions have been addressed in this thread and will not be able to be addressed as long as there is just OT post dumping by creationists. And who besides me has read this entire thread?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5523 on: January 09, 2014, 03:31:26 PM »


Cause believe it or not few of the salient questions have been addressed in this thread and will not be able to be addressed as long as there is just OT post dumping by creationists. And who besides me has read this entire thread?

I thought we are all creationists...well...most of us.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5524 on: January 09, 2014, 04:52:29 PM »

What about whale legs?

What about them ? I`ve seen a mutant one with 2 heads and 2 tails yesterday,  do they got their legs back too ?  Smiley
They can make an article : Fukushima proves evolution.

I think he is referring to vestigial structures such as the undeveloped hind legs that whales have.



I know that, i was trying to avoid answering his question because i don`t have a good answer.  Grin
I think God created the whale more or less as it is today ( without any feet ). The reason we call those bones feet it`s because we have found a pile of bones in the dirt and some of those have feet, and we tought that if we put those bones above whale bones on paper we will fool some people into thinking the bones above really turned into the bones below.
"hmmmm...it looks empty in that part of my mammal fish, let's put foot bones there just for fun" says God Wink

God tends to do that. Let's become incarnate as a human being just to mess with them, says God.

Do they need those bones or not ? That is the question. Also, can you post an image with the whole chain of evolution and tell us what made you believe the legs change and then almost dissapear ? What if at least one of those species in the chain never had any different offsprings and just dissapeared ?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #5525 on: January 09, 2014, 05:03:16 PM »


Cause believe it or not few of the salient questions have been addressed in this thread and will not be able to be addressed as long as there is just OT post dumping by creationists. And who besides me has read this entire thread?

I thought we are all creationists...well...most of us.

Nope. And really none are, no matter what they say. I've met no one who is truly believes in something like creation as such. People who are confused and cling to ridiculous ideas like creationism, yes.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,685


« Reply #5526 on: January 09, 2014, 05:05:04 PM »


Cause believe it or not few of the salient questions have been addressed in this thread and will not be able to be addressed as long as there is just OT post dumping by creationists. And who besides me has read this entire thread?

I thought we are all creationists...well...most of us.

Nope. And really none are, no matter what they say. I've met no one who is truly believes in something like creation as such. People who are confused and cling to ridiculous ideas like creationism, yes.

What does it mean to "truly believe in ... creation"?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,621



« Reply #5527 on: January 09, 2014, 05:13:43 PM »


Cause believe it or not few of the salient questions have been addressed in this thread and will not be able to be addressed as long as there is just OT post dumping by creationists. And who besides me has read this entire thread?

I thought we are all creationists...well...most of us.

Nope. And really none are, no matter what they say. I've met no one who is truly believes in something like creation as such. People who are confused and cling to ridiculous ideas like creationism, yes.

What does it mean to "truly believe in ... creation"?

Jonathan, you are one of the few posters here who actually poses interesting questions and raise the level of discourse to something of interest. I meant to note that on the one thread were you pointed out that perhaps immortality rather than mortality point toward something like a moral order or something.

Anyway, I have no fewer than five times have put forth what believe means here. I'll see if I can't find two of them for you. I also have a rule of not posting anything of real merit in this thread as long the board ruling regarding this subject has turned this thread, into well, what it is.

But I mean the word believe by what it means in the mean time. Not some ridiculous notion regarding subjective assent to a proposition. Really, once you are capable of forming anything in terms of a proposition, as understood in the usual sense, you have fallen from belief.

This is a decent explanation:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=belief

Though I attach more work to the be prefix than just an intensive.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #5528 on: January 09, 2014, 05:20:31 PM »

Do they need those bones or not ? That is the question.
No, they don't need them.  That's part of what makes them vestigial.  How frequently do you form such strong opinions on things you admittedly don't understand?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,685


« Reply #5529 on: January 09, 2014, 05:34:21 PM »


Cause believe it or not few of the salient questions have been addressed in this thread and will not be able to be addressed as long as there is just OT post dumping by creationists. And who besides me has read this entire thread?

I thought we are all creationists...well...most of us.

Nope. And really none are, no matter what they say. I've met no one who is truly believes in something like creation as such. People who are confused and cling to ridiculous ideas like creationism, yes.

What does it mean to "truly believe in ... creation"?

Jonathan, you are one of the few posters here who actually poses interesting questions and raise the level of discourse to something of interest. I meant to note that on the one thread were you pointed out that perhaps immortality rather than mortality point toward something like a moral order or something.

Anyway, I have no fewer than five times have put forth what believe means here. I'll see if I can't find two of them for you. I also have a rule of not posting anything of real merit in this thread as long the board ruling regarding this subject has turned this thread, into well, what it is.

But I mean the word believe by what it means in the mean time. Not some ridiculous notion regarding subjective assent to a proposition. Really, once you are capable of forming anything in terms of a proposition, as understood in the usual sense, you have fallen from belief.

This is a decent explanation:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=belief

Though I attach more work to the be prefix than just an intensive.

Thanks for the compliment, orthonorm; it means a lot coming from you (not being sarcastic).

I'm sorry if I missed your earlier explanations of the term, but I'm guessing you mean something along the lines of how Fr Michael Pomazansky explains faith in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

Quote
our Christian acknowledgment

of the existence of God is founded not upon rational grounds, not on proofs taken from

reason or received from the experience of our outward senses, but upon an inward, higher conviction

which has a moral foundation.

I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that expressing belief in a clearly formulated proposition entails lacking belief: in that case, formulating dogmatic statements would be self-defeating. But I agree that intellectually assenting to a proposition is not the same as believing in that proposition.

How would you tell if someone truly believed in creation, as you put it?
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5530 on: January 09, 2014, 06:17:11 PM »

Do they need those bones or not ? That is the question.
No, they don't need them.  That's part of what makes them vestigial.  How frequently do you form such strong opinions on things you admittedly don't understand?

Am i not allowed to ask or to have an opinion ( even a wrong or stupid one ) ? I was one of the few who read almost all this topic and i`ve seen all kinds of questions and answers, good and bad....people ask, we are not all brights.

But if you want me to tell you a secret, you can`t say if an animal needs an organ or not.  Smiley
Clearly the person who asked me this question believes it happened like they say it happened. But i refuse to believe that and when the only argument one gives you is "believe me " then you can call my refusal "argument from incredulity as much as you want. There is no reason to believe that the ancestor of whale walked on earth.

Well...there is some evidence. Whales were found in the middle of the desert in Chile so maybe they walked through the desert.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063973/Whales-desert-Prehistoric-bones-unearthed-Chiles-Atacama-desert.html
But i believe the story with the flood makes a lot much sense.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5531 on: January 17, 2014, 09:30:15 AM »

Oh, vestigial organs?
Yes. 50 years ago we humans had also such organs but now they are no longer vestigial. We have found their use.
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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5532 on: February 12, 2014, 08:00:41 PM »

(RNS) A new film charting Charles Darwin’s passage from Christian to nonbeliever propelled its maker on a similar journey.
....
[Antony] Thomas, who describes himself — as Darwin did — as an agnostic, said 20 years ago he prayed every day. But during the two years he shot the film [“Questioning Darwin,” a new, hourlong documentary airing on HBO throughout February], his exploration of Darwin’s diaries and personal correspondence, in which he spelled out his movement away from belief in a loving God, caused him to shift, too.
....
Yet in a twist, Thomas has come to identify with some of the creationists in his film. They, he said — like Darwin — realized they could not reconcile the randomness and cruelty of millions of years of evolution and survival of the fittest with the God of Genesis. But unlike Darwin and Thomas, they choose God over evolution.

“I would hope in a tiny way this film could contribute to a feeling from the creationist side that Darwin isn’t the devil,” he said. “Let us consider what he actually said. And from the other side, I would like to see recognition that these people [creationists, i.e.] are not idiots.”
Logged

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

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5533 on: February 13, 2014, 12:08:08 PM »

Ken Ham condemns "bathtub arks" as undermining faith:

Quote
Many times over the years, I have warned parents about using pictures of what we call “bathtub arks” with their children. Such pictures, usually with giraffes sticking out the top in a small unrealistic boat overloaded with animals, are sadly the norm in many Christian children’s books that deal with the topic of Noah and the Ark.

I have warned parents that such pictures are “cute but dangerous.” Why?

The secularists do all they can to mock God’s Word and in an effort to capture the hearts and minds of children so they will not believe the Bible and its saving message of the gospel. The secularists accuse Christians of believing fairy tales if they accept the Genesis account of Creation, Fall, and Flood as written—as true historical records. And really, when we allow children to think Noah’s Ark looked like one of these “bathtub Arks,” we are reinforcing the false idea that the account of the Ark was just a fairy tale.

Ironically, Ham doesn't seem to be aware that his claim that one must believe in Young-Earth Creationism to be a true Christian, likewise reinforces a false idea that one must reject many findings of modern science in order to be a real Christian.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 12:08:39 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic (Orthodox Inquirer)
Posts: 214



« Reply #5534 on: February 15, 2014, 05:20:35 PM »

My personal belief is that the soul is immortal while the body is ever-changing, leaving room for physical evolution.  Also, God gave us our intelligence to discern the world around us; to deny the overwhelming evidence of evolution almost disgraces those gifts.
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.172 seconds with 75 queries.