OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 03:40:59 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 326330 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #765 on: April 27, 2009, 12:17:55 AM »

I don't know if this has been posted yet because I have not yet read through the entire thread, but it came out about six months ago, and looks like an interesting read.  Certainly pertinent to the topic:



Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 12:19:00 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #766 on: April 27, 2009, 12:18:38 AM »

Papa John.



Great pizza!

But is it the product of evolution?!?!
Perhaps the cows from which they sliced the pepperonis are the product of evolution.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #767 on: April 27, 2009, 12:34:31 AM »

Papa John.



Great pizza!

But is it the product of evolution?!?!
Perhaps the cows from which they sliced the pepperonis are the product of evolution.

And the wheat they made the dough from and the tomatos they got the sauce from and the cows they got the cheese from...but it's still not bad pizza for a chain Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #768 on: April 27, 2009, 12:42:06 AM »

And the wheat they made the dough from and the tomatos they got the sauce from and the cows they got the cheese from...but it's still not bad pizza for a chain Wink

Ah, the apostate and the catechumen, holding hands in laughter!  laugh

Perhaps we represent the circle of life!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #769 on: April 27, 2009, 12:55:52 AM »

And the wheat they made the dough from and the tomatos they got the sauce from and the cows they got the cheese from...but it's still not bad pizza for a chain Wink

Ah, the apostate and the catechumen, holding hands in laughter!  laugh

Perhaps we represent the circle of life!

LOL...maybe, maybe not...but we can at least get together for pizza and, perhaps, beer. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #770 on: April 27, 2009, 12:59:31 AM »

LOL...maybe, maybe not...but we can at least get together for pizza and, perhaps, beer. Wink

Scandalous!
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: 11,414


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


WWW
« Reply #771 on: April 27, 2009, 02:18:02 AM »

and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.

also St. Gregory Palamas says in his 150 Chapters in chap. 38:

it is shown to men of understanding that man's spirit, the life-giving power in his body, is intellectual love; it is from the mind and the word, and exists in the word and the mind, and possesses both the word and the mind within itself Through it the soul naturally possesses such a bond of love with its own body that it never wishes to leave it and will not do so at all unless force is brought to bear on it externally from some very serious disease or trauma.

he would seem to say that the image of  God definitely involves the body, which is naturally connected to the soul -- not something implanted into a body that has been in the works for millions of years.


I don't think that contradicts what I just said.  It would seem to you, but this can definitely be interpreted differently.  He obviously alludes to the dual nature of man, while talks about the wholeness and essence of man himself, how it is unnatural for a separation between the two.  He clearly talks about the importance of the spirit of man, and how that spirit benefits and is bound to the body.  In other words, man is an intelligent animal, just as Christ bears a Life-Giving humanity.  Rings music to my ears, and does not contradict my scientific understandings.

I like that quote you gave, and I'm going to add this to the excellent quote you gave:

Quote from: Athanasius--On the Incarnation
Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise.

God bless.
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.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #772 on: April 27, 2009, 03:11:30 AM »

and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #773 on: April 27, 2009, 05:01:53 PM »

Quote
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.

i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...


are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #774 on: April 27, 2009, 05:19:03 PM »



Not necessarily. Depending upon how one defines "human", it is possible that within a population of pre-humans, the first one or two "true humans" were born.

how would you define human to make this possible? im not exactly sure what you're saying by that.

Me too. From the point of view of pure biology, "first humans," "first oaks," "first amoebas," etc. is nonsense. The evolution of life simply doesn't work that way. Two divergently evolving populations become two truly separate biological species very slowly and inconspicuously, so that there is no single "defining moment" when the new species (including Homo sapiens) is "born."

If that was the case then how can all humans wordwide procreate with one another? There has to be "first humans" somewhere or else we all would be different in the sense of pro-creation.

Also you seem very dogmatic about something you "can't" observe. Yes we evolve slowly as human beings. Religion evolves slowly too, but Christianity will never evolve into Islam, and Islam will never evolve into Buddhism.

To assume that humans worldwide evolved from different monkeys worldwide is a belief you shouldn't be dogmatic about. For how can all humans pro-create if we all came from different monkeys?

And how can we all pro-create if "evolution" is mindless? In school we were forced fed that evolution was progressive, but why can't it be regressive? why can't we believe in "devolution"? Why can't evolution be "relative" according to the observer? For what may be evolution to you might be devolution to somone else.





JNORM888

JNORM, please take a biology class. The theory of biological evolution is not philosophy. You don't really philosophize about the work of the car engine, right? So why is biology supposed to be different from mechanics, physics?

As far as the biological side of us humans is concerned, we are not any kind of exception from the universal law of biological evolution. So no, there were never any "first" humans (again, this is explained in very much detail in a college or even high school biology course).
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #775 on: April 27, 2009, 05:23:13 PM »

Quote
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.

i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...


are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?

I believe that Christ rose from the dead not because I read about it in the Bible or in the writings of the Fathers - rather, because there exists this whole thing called the Church.

As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #776 on: April 27, 2009, 06:01:40 PM »

Quote
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.

i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...
But I'm not talking about interpreting the Scriptures through the eyes of science; rather, I'm talking about using the Bible or various patristic interpretations of the Bible as the basis for quasi-scientific proclamations.

are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
There are scientists who will acknowledge that science is incapable of speaking on supernatural exceptions to the normal laws of creation.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #777 on: April 27, 2009, 06:03:40 PM »

are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
There are scientists who will acknowledge that science is incapable of speaking on supernatural exceptions to the normal laws of creation.

Well said. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #778 on: April 27, 2009, 08:43:23 PM »

Quote
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.

i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...


are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?

I believe that Christ rose from the dead not because I read about it in the Bible or in the writings of the Fathers - rather, because there exists this whole thing called the Church.

As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
And all 100 can be found in those four. Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #779 on: April 28, 2009, 11:20:18 AM »



Not necessarily. Depending upon how one defines "human", it is possible that within a population of pre-humans, the first one or two "true humans" were born.

how would you define human to make this possible? im not exactly sure what you're saying by that.

Me too. From the point of view of pure biology, "first humans," "first oaks," "first amoebas," etc. is nonsense. The evolution of life simply doesn't work that way. Two divergently evolving populations become two truly separate biological species very slowly and inconspicuously, so that there is no single "defining moment" when the new species (including Homo sapiens) is "born."

If that was the case then how can all humans wordwide procreate with one another? There has to be "first humans" somewhere or else we all would be different in the sense of pro-creation.

Also you seem very dogmatic about something you "can't" observe. Yes we evolve slowly as human beings. Religion evolves slowly too, but Christianity will never evolve into Islam, and Islam will never evolve into Buddhism.

To assume that humans worldwide evolved from different monkeys worldwide is a belief you shouldn't be dogmatic about. For how can all humans pro-create if we all came from different monkeys?

And how can we all pro-create if "evolution" is mindless? In school we were forced fed that evolution was progressive, but why can't it be regressive? why can't we believe in "devolution"? Why can't evolution be "relative" according to the observer? For what may be evolution to you might be devolution to somone else.





JNORM888

JNORM, please take a biology class. The theory of biological evolution is not philosophy. You don't really philosophize about the work of the car engine, right? So why is biology supposed to be different from mechanics, physics?

As far as the biological side of us humans is concerned, we are not any kind of exception from the universal law of biological evolution. So no, there were never any "first" humans (again, this is explained in very much detail in a college or even high school biology course).



You still didn't answer my questions. Good teachers are those that can explain things in laymen terms. If you can't do that then maybe you don't understand biology as much as you think you do.

And yes there is philosophy in everything......including bio. Everything must be explained through the lens of Naturalism........and that is philosophical.

So instead of taking arrogant jabs, why not answer simple questions. If you can't answer them........just say so.

There is nothing wrong in admitting you don't know the answer to something. People learn by asking questions......you should actually like that.

And since when did Biological evultion from one species(whatever that means...for there isn't universal agreement on what is and isn't a species....but you will ignore this and continue to talk down on people, instead of actually doing some research to see if it's true or false) to another become a "universal law"? I believe in universal laws, but this ain't one of them.

Why don't you explain right now, why there could never be no first humans? If you can't explain it, and if I'm not allowed to ask questions and question it, then why in the world should I believe it? Alot of things were tought in school that are now passe for some new idea........so why must I embrace everything I was tought in school. No, I only embrace all the hard sciences I was tought in school. I only embrace the hard emperical evidence stuff. Everything else must be re-interpreted.

So whatever "facts" you have.....that are truely facts/hard evidence........I will embrace. Whatever assumptions you have I will always questions. If you don't like that.......too bad.

For this is how I learn. I don't just eat up what everyone says.........teachers included.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 11:38:37 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #780 on: April 28, 2009, 11:29:50 AM »

Quote
As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
And all 100 can be found in those four. Wink

ermmm,  oh?  Most of the trans-uranium elements are not found to occur naturally.


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.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #781 on: April 28, 2009, 11:33:48 AM »



Not necessarily. Depending upon how one defines "human", it is possible that within a population of pre-humans, the first one or two "true humans" were born.

how would you define human to make this possible? im not exactly sure what you're saying by that.

Me too. From the point of view of pure biology, "first humans," "first oaks," "first amoebas," etc. is nonsense. The evolution of life simply doesn't work that way. Two divergently evolving populations become two truly separate biological species very slowly and inconspicuously, so that there is no single "defining moment" when the new species (including Homo sapiens) is "born."

If that was the case then how can all humans wordwide procreate with one another? There has to be "first humans" somewhere or else we all would be different in the sense of pro-creation.

Also you seem very dogmatic about something you "can't" observe. Yes we evolve slowly as human beings. Religion evolves slowly too, but Christianity will never evolve into Islam, and Islam will never evolve into Buddhism.

To assume that humans worldwide evolved from different monkeys worldwide is a belief you shouldn't be dogmatic about. For how can all humans pro-create if we all came from different monkeys?

And how can we all pro-create if "evolution" is mindless? In school we were forced fed that evolution was progressive, but why can't it be regressive? why can't we believe in "devolution"? Why can't evolution be "relative" according to the observer? For what may be evolution to you might be devolution to somone else.





JNORM888

JNORM, please take a biology class. The theory of biological evolution is not philosophy. You don't really philosophize about the work of the car engine, right? So why is biology supposed to be different from mechanics, physics?

As far as the biological side of us humans is concerned, we are not any kind of exception from the universal law of biological evolution. So no, there were never any "first" humans (again, this is explained in very much detail in a college or even high school biology course).



You still didn't answer my questions. Good teachers are those that can explain things in laymen terms. If you can't do that then maybe you don't understand biology as much as you think you do.

And yes there is philosophy in everything......including bio. Everything must be explained through the lens of Naturalism........and that is philosophical.

So instead of taking arrogant jabs, why not answer simple questions. If you can't answer them........just say so.

There is nothing wrong in admitting you don't know the answer to something. People learn by asking questions......you should actually like that.







JNORM888

OK, to answer your question about how humans procreated: they just did. There was an erection in a male, and copulation, and ejaculation, and fertilization of the egg of the female, and the growth of the embryo, and then the childbirth.

When the species Homo sapiens had not exist yet, the participants in the above series of events belonged to some other species (e.g. Homo erectus).

When exactly the species Homo sapiens forms, nobody knows, and it is impossible to establish, because speciation is a very slow, inconspicuous process that takes millions of years.

Mating preferences also change very gradually and slowly. It's not like "today my wife and I are both Homo erectus, but tomorrow I am already Homo sapiens, so I can't mate with her anymore." Smiley

More details in biology textbooks and more interaction on this subject after your enrollemnt in a biology class. Smiley

No, there is no philosophy in "everything" - that a very wrong understanding of philosophy.Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #782 on: April 28, 2009, 12:02:57 PM »

Quote
As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
And all 100 can be found in those four. Wink

ermmm,  oh?  Most of the trans-uranium elements are not found to occur naturally.

technically they do, even on earth. their half-life is much shorter than the age of the earth. That would make them undetectable by now. Since sunlight is a form of fire, they most probably would be found on the sun.


Fixed quote
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 12:03:38 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #783 on: April 28, 2009, 12:19:08 PM »

Quote
OK, to answer your question about how humans procreated: they just did. There was an erection in a male, and copulation, and ejaculation, and fertilization of the egg of the female, and the growth of the embryo, and then the childbirth.

Wait a second. You said not too long ago that there is no such thing as "first humans". Now you are starting with humans procreating? No no no, lets start with monkey's and Apes, because this is what they teach in school.

So You are making it seem as if the procreation of multiple Apes & Monkeys eventually(over million and millions of years) became the procreation of multiple humans. You make it seem as if there was no line of demarcation of where monkies stopped being monkies and humans began being humans.

Is this what you are saying? If so why? When a monkey dies we can dig it up and tell that it is still a monkey. When a human dies we can dig the person up and tell that so and so was human. So why are you saying that we can't "see" transitions? Why not?


Quote
When the species Homo sapiens had not exist yet, the participants in the above series of events belonged to some other species (e.g. Homo erectus).

Oh ok, I see what you are saying. You started your post with humans first, instead of with Homo erectus.


Quote
When exactly the species Homo sapiens forms, nobody knows, and it is impossible to establish, because speciation is a very slow, inconspicuous process that takes millions of years.


Then what is all this talk of a "missing link"?


Quote
Mating preferences also change very gradually and slowly. It's not like "today my wife and I are both Homo erectus, but tomorrow I am already Homo sapiens, so I can't mate with her anymore."

If it's about gene mutations(variations) then why can't their be a "first human"? You make it seem as if multiple homo-erectus had the same variations over millions of years to eventually form multiple homo-sapiens. If mindless evolution is true then there would have to be all kinds of different variations. Homo-Sapian couldn't of been the only variant descendant. If it took millions of years then there would of been tens to hundreds of different variants. Thus Homo-Sapians would of had tens to thousands of different competitors.

Can I ask you a question? Can all monkies & Apes procreate with one another? If not then how can all the homo-erectus & homo-Sapians pro-create.

If we had millions of years to mutate then why didn't a mutation happen that would prevent some humans from procreating with other types of humans? Why did it happen to monkies & Apes but not us?

And why didn't other human like beings evolve from other Apes & Monkies? They were around for millions of years too, yet we don't see other human like beings on this planet. Also, why do monkies and Apes still look like monkies and Apes if they were mutating for millions of years too? Why are they still mostly the same?



Quote
More details in biology textbooks and more interaction on this subject after your enrollemnt in a biology class.


I already took human bio in college. And plant bio in high school. When I was in middle school and questioned my step dad.....who believes like you. He told me the samething... He told me that I would have to take Chemistry and Bio and then I would understand. Well, I did all that, and still disagree. I give the answers teachers want to hear in order to pass, but I still disagree. So no amount of Bio will change my mind. I have a Seventhday Adventist friend who is a creationist like me, and he has a Doctorate in veterinian medicene or something like that. He is a vet. And he took bio for ....what 8 years? 4 years in undergrad and 4 years in grad......yeah 8 years, and it didn't change his mind either.

So you can stop with all the Bio classes crap. For that's not the problem.

In middle school, I bought into theistic evolution until I read a young earth creationist book I found in my step dad's library, I think my mom put it in their or something, and that's when I started questioning my step dad.

So bio isn't the problem. The problem is one's worldview, and philosophy.

Also this man took alot of bio classes, so bio is not the problem!!!

http://media.ctvn.org/Origins/OR817.wmv



Quote
No, there is no philosophy in "everything" - that a very wrong understanding of philosophy.

There is philosophy in everything. Whenever we have to interpret evidence, we are using "philosophy".







JNORM888
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 12:48:49 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #784 on: April 28, 2009, 01:35:34 PM »

Quote
OK, to answer your question about how humans procreated: they just did. There was an erection in a male, and copulation, and ejaculation, and fertilization of the egg of the female, and the growth of the embryo, and then the childbirth.

Wait a second. You said not too long ago that there is no such thing as "first humans". Now you are starting with humans procreating? No no no, lets start with monkey's and Apes, because this is what they teach in school.

Whoever is procreating, is procreating. Monkeys and apes procreate. Species that are between the apes (hominids) and humans procreate. Humans procreate. My point is, the exact minute, hour, day, month, year, decade, century etc. when something "appears" and we say about this "something," here, there is a human, no longer a hominid - cannot be traced. Evolution is a slow and inconspicuous process that concerns large poulations of individuals (not individuals per se - I do not "evolve," you do not "evolve"; only "we," a very large population of human beings, evolves).


So You are making it seem as if the procreation of multiple Apes & Monkeys eventually(over million and millions of years) became the procreation of multiple humans. You make it seem as if there was no line of demarcation of where monkies stopped being monkies and humans began being humans.

Is this what you are saying? If so why? When a monkey dies we can dig it up and tell that it is still a monkey. When a human dies we can dig the person up and tell that so and so was human. So why are you saying that we can't "see" transitions? Why not?

Because these transitions are gradual. And they do not apply to all individual members of a population at once. Rather, within populations, there are various genetic "alleles" (products of genetic mutations). These allelic genes control traits, creating a certain "variance," the existence of very many distinct variants of the "phenotype"(appearence). In a population of, say, 346000 apes some 234 might have a slightly shorter tail, some 65 a slightly more upright posture, some 31 a bigger size of the cranial cavity, etc. The variants that fit their environment better are "reproductively successful," i.e. live longer and have more children. This, plus phenomena like gene flow and genetic drift, cause changes in the populations. For example, in a certain environment the subset of apes with a bigger size of the cranial cavioty may expand, and a subset with a longer tail shrink, etc.

Can I ask you a question? Can all monkies & Apes procreate with one another? If not then how can all the homo-erectus & homo-Sapians pro-create.

Why and how the reproductive barriers form is rather difficult to say. Wolves and domestic dogs interbreed. On the other hand, there are populations of birds that look exactly the same, and yet never interbreed.

If we had millions of years to mutate then why didn't a mutation happen that would prevent some humans from procreating with other types of humans? Why did it happen to monkies & Apes but not us?

There must be certain divergence to account for reproductive barriers, and this divergence might take literally many millions of years. Who knows what would happen with two human populations that are entirely isolated from each other for many millions of years...


And why didn't other human like beings evolve from other Apes & Monkies? They were around for millions of years too, yet we don't see other human like beings on this planet. Also, why do monkies and Apes still look like monkies and Apes if they were mutating for millions of years too? Why are they still mostly the same?

Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent.

I already took human bio in college. And plant bio in high school. When I was in middle school and questioned my step dad.....who believes like you. He told me the samething... He told me that I would have to take Chemistry and Bio and then I would understand. Well, I did all that, and still disagree. I give the answers teachers want to hear in order to pass, but I still disagree. So no amount of Bio will change my mind. I have a Seventhday Adventist friend who is a creationist like me, and he has a Doctorate in veterinian medicene or something like that. He is a vet. And he took bio for ....what 8 years? 4 years in undergrad and 4 years in grad......yeah 8 years, and it didn't change his mind either.

It's not a matter of beliefs, actually. I believe that Christ rose from the dead, but I KNOW - not "believe" but KNOW - that genes exist and mutate, that the natural selection and other processes do change the genetic makeup of populations, etc. So I KNOW that life really evolves pretty much like Darwin postulated.

So you can stop with all the Bio classes crap. For that's not the problem.

No, that's exactly THE problem. Biology is not taught well in the USA. I have kids in my freshman non-major Human Physiology and Microbiology classes who do not understand the difference between a cell and a molecule, or have no idea what does it mean, "sequence of nucleotides." They do not visualize processes like mutation, allele frequency, etc. No wonder they ask questions of the type you are asking. No foundation in biology. And yes, unfortunately, in the US one can have a higher education without having a secondary school foundation in anything... Sad
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 01:36:01 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #785 on: April 28, 2009, 01:47:44 PM »



No, that's exactly THE problem. Biology is not taught well in the USA. I have kids in my freshman non-major Human Physiology and Microbiology classes who do not understand the difference between a cell and a molecule, or have no idea what does it mean, "sequence of nucleotides." They do not visualize processes like mutation, allele frequency, etc. No wonder they ask questions of the type you are asking. No foundation in biology. And yes, unfortunately, in the US one can have a higher education without having a secondary school foundation in anything... Sad

I don't think this is the fault of the schools so much as every teacher I know is hard working and dedicated. Rather, this is a fault of a society that has taught children to be lazy and demand instant gratification. They no longer understand the concept that anything worth having takes work and that includes education. Further, parent don't instill in their children the value of education. Its quite a battlefield out there in education. Until students can be taught to respect their teachers, parents, etc and to work hard, they will continue to be ignorant and uneducated.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #786 on: April 28, 2009, 01:54:56 PM »

<wince>  I'm not even a specialist, but I know the difference between a cell and a molecule. 

I promise you. Heorhji, our two older kids are being and will continue to be taught things properly and with serious information. 

Ebor
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.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #787 on: April 28, 2009, 01:56:24 PM »

Quote
As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
And all 100 can be found in those four. Wink

ermmm,  oh?  Most of the trans-uranium elements are not found to occur naturally.

technically they do, even on earth. their half-life is much shorter than the age of the earth. That would make them undetectable by now. Since sunlight is a form of fire, they most probably would be found on the sun.


Fixed quote

Technically?  Most of the trans-uranium elements have been created in the lab.  "Probably" isn't the same as "does". 
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.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #788 on: April 28, 2009, 02:24:24 PM »

Quote
As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
And all 100 can be found in those four. Wink

ermmm,  oh?  Most of the trans-uranium elements are not found to occur naturally.

technically they do, even on earth. their half-life is much shorter than the age of the earth. That would make them undetectable by now. Since sunlight is a form of fire, they most probably would be found on the sun.


Fixed quote

Technically?  Most of the trans-uranium elements have been created in the lab.  "Probably" isn't the same as "does". 

Recreating a phenomena that already exists in nature isn't a new creation. It's just proof that it exists and I'm sure that through advances in science, new elements that are now unknown can be added to the charts as our knowledge becomes greater.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #789 on: April 28, 2009, 03:19:26 PM »

Quote
Whoever is procreating, is procreating. Monkeys and apes procreate. Species that are between the apes (hominids) and humans procreate. Humans procreate. My point is, the exact minute, hour, day, month, year, decade, century etc. when something "appears" and we say about this "something," here, there is a human, no longer a hominid - cannot be traced. Evolution is a slow and inconspicuous process that concerns large poulations of individuals (not individuals per se - I do not "evolve," you do not "evolve"; only "we," a very large population of human beings, evolves).

I agree with you that we may slighty change from generation to generation. But before I tell you where I agree and dissagree, I would first like to know for sure what you are saying. So I will repeat what you said in my own words. ok, here it goes:

So from large populations of Monkies procreating for millions of years came the hominids, and through a large population of hominids procreating for millions of years came humans. And no one will be able to trace the first individual hominid and human because we change as groups not as individuals. And since these changes are slow, it will take millions of years to see a huge difference.....from group to group.

Is this what you are saying?


Quote
Because these transitions are gradual. And they do not apply to all individual members of a population at once. Rather, within populations, there are various genetic "alleles" (products of genetic mutations). These allelic genes control traits, creating a certain "variance," the existence of very many distinct variants of the "phenotype"(appearence). In a population of, say, 346000 apes some 234 might have a slightly shorter tail, some 65 a slightly more upright posture, some 31 a bigger size of the cranial cavity, etc. The variants that fit their environment better are "reproductively successful," i.e. live longer and have more children. This, plus phenomena like gene flow and genetic drift, cause changes in the populations. For example, in a certain environment the subset of apes with a bigger size of the cranial cavioty may expand, and a subset with a longer tail shrink, etc.


Ok, yeah I agree with all this. Infact, most modern YEC's(Young Earth Creationist) will as well. We don't see a problem with this. And what you said above is what I was tought in public school. Well, it's what is tought in American public schools in general. I think what bothers YEC's and maybe some OEC's(Old Earth Creationists) is when you use this process to explain the existence of hominids and humans from Apes. But we are in 100% agreement in what you said here.



Quote
Why and how the reproductive barriers form is rather difficult to say. Wolves and domestic dogs interbreed. On the other hand, there are populations of birds that look exactly the same, and yet never interbreed.


Understood, and thanks for answering.



Quote
There must be certain divergence to account for reproductive barriers, and this divergence might take literally many millions of years. Who knows what would happen with two human populations that are entirely isolated from each other for many millions of years...


Understood



Quote
Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent.


What about the mutations that are caused by the Sun? The type that damage our DNA? If this happened over millions of years then wouldn't that make everything look different?


Quote
It's not a matter of beliefs, actually. I believe that Christ rose from the dead, but I KNOW - not "believe" but KNOW - that genes exist and mutate, that the natural selection and other processes do change the genetic makeup of populations, etc. So I KNOW that life really evolves pretty much like Darwin postulated.


Modern creationists are all over the map when it comes to how Darwin is viewed. Theistic Evolutionists love him and defend him all the time against other creationists. I don't know what modern Old Earthers think of him. I know they had a hard time with it when Darwin first wrote his book. His two professors were Old Earthers, but since then most Old Earthers eventually became Theistic Evolutionists or Atheists and Agnostics. Modern Young Earth Creationism was brought back to life around 1960 something. It existed in the 16 and 17 hundreds, but back then they were mainly arguing over rocks and geology. For the Old Earth Creationists view (at least in the protestant western world) started around the 16 and 17 hundreds. I embraced YEC(Young Earth Creationism) in middleschool....all the way up until a few years ago. I am still a creationist, just no longer a strict Y.E.C.....I guess I am more O.E.C.(Old Earth Creationism) now. But I don't know yet, I am still trying to figure it out and be right on both sides......both Faith/Theology & Science. I think Theistic Evolution gives in too much to whatever the Atheistic and Agnostic scientists say. They don't question everything like the Y.E.C.'s do.

And this is why I liked and embraced Y.E.C. (at one time)

 Y.E.C's are not afraid to question every move and every thought of mainstream science.

I see that as a good thing, for if you don't question it then you may accept something that maybe mere speculation.

So in my book, questioning mainstream science can only advance science.....for it will make people look at the details.



Quote
No, that's exactly THE problem. Biology is not taught well in the USA. I have kids in my freshman non-major Human Physiology and Microbiology classes who do not understand the difference between a cell and a molecule,

I know the difference. I was tought that in plant bio and chemistry in highschool.....and I had to learn it again in college.
 A molecule is a collection of atoms. And a cell is a collection of molecules in the form of lipids, proteins, and uhm? I forgot.......it's been years. But yeah, you are right, some public schools don't know how to teach certain things correctly.....or they teach it to students pretty late. like instead of teaching Geometry in the 7nth and 8th grades, they might do it in the 10nth or 11nth grades. Whereas in other public schools you learn Trig 2 and Calculus in the 11nth and 12th grades. So yeah, it all depends on the public school.

But no, I dissagree. It is not about Biology. It is about certain beliefs we can't see and observe......thus it is about philosophy.



Quote
or have no idea what does it mean, "sequence of nucleotides." They do not visualize processes like mutation, allele frequency, etc. No wonder they ask questions of the type you are asking. No foundation in biology. And yes, unfortunately, in the US one can have a higher education without having a secondary school foundation in anything... Sad


Just because they ask the same questions I ask, doesn't mean I don't know about cell division, mutations........ect. I use to know alot about that stuff.


Like I said, the problem is about "time". It's about making dogmatic statements about things we can't see and observe. I don't have a problem with "micro" evolution.

And you don't have to tell me that there is no such thing as "micro-evolution". This term was made up by scientists back in the 1920's. And it is something Y.E.C.'s make use of. It is not a term most secular scientists use today. So I already know. I am only saying it so that you will stop saying that "Biology" is the problem. I believe in mutations. I just reject the idea that I "must believe", must "embrace" monkeys turning into humans over millions of years.

Even you said:

"Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent."

So why must I embrace what you and most mainstream scientists embrace if this can be the case for alot of monkies in their environment? You all say that I must make that jump, but I don't see why I must. I understand it. I understand why you believe what you believe, but I don't understand why I must make that leap of faith too.

Why? I can still believe in mutations....even over milllions of years and not make that jump for human beings.
I'm not attacking you for believing the way you do. Nor am I calling you names.

I just feel that "Macro-Evolution" is a theory......and yes, I know that you will say that there is no such thing as "Macro-evolution".


Neither you nor I will live for millions of years to see this "possible" change from one group to the next. So I would just like to see it as a theory........and not as a fact or universal law. 20 years ago.....it was ok for people to call it a theory.....at least in Pittsburgh.....but now.....it seems as if there is pressure to make everyone believe in it as a fact.

And all I am saying is..........no.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 03:23:24 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #790 on: April 28, 2009, 03:32:47 PM »

Quote
As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... Smiley
And all 100 can be found in those four. Wink

ermmm,  oh?  Most of the trans-uranium elements are not found to occur naturally.

technically they do, even on earth. their half-life is much shorter than the age of the earth. That would make them undetectable by now. Since sunlight is a form of fire, they most probably would be found on the sun.


Fixed quote

Technically?  Most of the trans-uranium elements have been created in the lab.  "Probably" isn't the same as "does". 

Recreating a phenomena that already exists in nature isn't a new creation. It's just proof that it exists and I'm sure that through advances in science, new elements that are now unknown can be added to the charts as our knowledge becomes greater.

I agree. For why must every element be found on Planet Earth in order for it to exist? Why can't other elements exist off the planet? Space is a place of extremes so other elements that are missing on our Chemistry chart.....might exist somewhere else.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 03:35:23 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #791 on: April 28, 2009, 04:07:27 PM »

Quote
Whoever is procreating, is procreating. Monkeys and apes procreate. Species that are between the apes (hominids) and humans procreate. Humans procreate. My point is, the exact minute, hour, day, month, year, decade, century etc. when something "appears" and we say about this "something," here, there is a human, no longer a hominid - cannot be traced. Evolution is a slow and inconspicuous process that concerns large poulations of individuals (not individuals per se - I do not "evolve," you do not "evolve"; only "we," a very large population of human beings, evolves).

I agree with you that we may slighty change from generation to generation. But before I tell you where I agree and dissagree, I would first like to know for sure what you are saying. So I will repeat what you said in my own words. ok, here it goes:

So from large populations of Monkies procreating for millions of years came the hominids, and through a large population of hominids procreating for millions of years came humans. And no one will be able to trace the first individual hominid and human because we change as groups not as individuals. And since these changes are slow, it will take millions of years to see a huge difference.....from group to group.

Is this what you are saying?

Yes. Evolution is something that happens to POPULATIONS of living organisms. Evolution is not what happens to me or you or a dog or a tree. It's a phenomenon of change of the genetic makeup of populations. In any population, there exists a certain array of allelic forms of genes: for example, gene A exists as allele A1, allele A2, allele A3, etc. These allelic forms have their shares, or frequency: for A1, it can be, say, 43%, for B - 11%, for C - 46%. We say that a population evolves when there is a change in these frequencies: for example, the frequency of B rose from 11% to 25%, etc. Simply because populations experience generational change and fluctuate in size, these frequencies cannot change, they remain constant (a law known as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium). But when there is a certain pressure on the genetic makeup from the environment (e.g. when carriers of allele B have a certain advantage - like in Darwnian finches with long and sharp beaks) - then the distribution of frequencies changes and we say that the population has evolved. Essentially all real populations on our planet evolve. But when exactly the two evolving and diverging populations become two new species (one ape and the other human), is simply impossible to say.

Quote
Because these transitions are gradual. And they do not apply to all individual members of a population at once. Rather, within populations, there are various genetic "alleles" (products of genetic mutations). These allelic genes control traits, creating a certain "variance," the existence of very many distinct variants of the "phenotype"(appearence). In a population of, say, 346000 apes some 234 might have a slightly shorter tail, some 65 a slightly more upright posture, some 31 a bigger size of the cranial cavity, etc. The variants that fit their environment better are "reproductively successful," i.e. live longer and have more children. This, plus phenomena like gene flow and genetic drift, cause changes in the populations. For example, in a certain environment the subset of apes with a bigger size of the cranial cavioty may expand, and a subset with a longer tail shrink, etc.


Ok, yeah I agree with all this. Infact, most modern YEC's(Young Earth Creationist) will as well. We don't see a problem with this. And what you said above is what I was tought in public school. Well, it's what is tought in American public schools in general. I think what bothers YEC's and maybe some OEC's(Old Earth Creationists) is when you use this process to explain the existence of hominids and humans from Apes. But we are in 100% agreement in what you said here.

I do not understand at all, what are all these Young Earth, Old Earth etc. There are people who know biology and there are people who do not know it, that's all! Smiley

Let me call myself Blue Ribbon Covalentist. I just happen to believe that covalent bonds between atoms shown on p. 137 of my chemistry textbook as blue ribbons actually ARE blue ribbons. And I completely disagree with Red Dash Covalentists, because they believe that the covalent bonds between atoms are red dashes, because their - of course wrong, heretic - textbook shows them as red dashes on its page 154.

Does calling myself a Blue Ribbon Covalentist substantially change our progress in chemistry? Smiley

Quote
Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent.


What about the mutations that are caused by the Sun? The type that damage our DNA? If this happened over millions of years then wouldn't that make everything look different?

Not only the Sun but also cosmic radiation, and X rays, and quite a lot of chemicals are mutagens. So yes, mutations do happen all the time, with an average rate of one per billion or so base pairs per generation. In my lifetime, I will most definitely acquire a few hundred mutations, if not more. But many of them are somatic mutations (i.e. they do not concern the gametes), and therefore they are not passed down generations. Also many mutations are "silent" (i.e. do not change proteins because of the redundancy of the genetic code). Also, there are repair mechanisms in cells that "fix" a certain number of mutations. So, all in all, mutation that would manifest in changed proteins and be passed down generation is a relatively rare event.

There is also a different significance of different mutations: some produce mutants that aren't much different from the "wild type," and other - the so-called homeotic mutations - cause a dramatic change in the mutant because they affect the genes that control pattern formation in the embryo.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 04:08:54 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #792 on: April 28, 2009, 04:11:27 PM »

I don't know if this has been posted yet because I have not yet read through the entire thread, but it came out about six months ago, and looks like an interesting read.  Certainly pertinent to the topic:



Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives


Thanks. I'm gonna get this when I can.








JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #793 on: April 28, 2009, 04:16:09 PM »

Quote
Whoever is procreating, is procreating. Monkeys and apes procreate. Species that are between the apes (hominids) and humans procreate. Humans procreate. My point is, the exact minute, hour, day, month, year, decade, century etc. when something "appears" and we say about this "something," here, there is a human, no longer a hominid - cannot be traced. Evolution is a slow and inconspicuous process that concerns large poulations of individuals (not individuals per se - I do not "evolve," you do not "evolve"; only "we," a very large population of human beings, evolves).

I agree with you that we may slighty change from generation to generation. But before I tell you where I agree and dissagree, I would first like to know for sure what you are saying. So I will repeat what you said in my own words. ok, here it goes:

So from large populations of Monkies procreating for millions of years came the hominids, and through a large population of hominids procreating for millions of years came humans. And no one will be able to trace the first individual hominid and human because we change as groups not as individuals. And since these changes are slow, it will take millions of years to see a huge difference.....from group to group.

Is this what you are saying?

Yes. Evolution is something that happens to POPULATIONS of living organisms. Evolution is not what happens to me or you or a dog or a tree. It's a phenomenon of change of the genetic makeup of populations. In any population, there exists a certain array of allelic forms of genes: for example, gene A exists as allele A1, allele A2, allele A3, etc. These allelic forms have their shares, or frequency: for A1, it can be, say, 43%, for B - 11%, for C - 46%. We say that a population evolves when there is a change in these frequencies: for example, the frequency of B rose from 11% to 25%, etc. Simply because populations experience generational change and fluctuate in size, these frequencies cannot change, they remain constant (a law known as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium). But when there is a certain pressure on the genetic makeup from the environment (e.g. when carriers of allele B have a certain advantage - like in Darwnian finches with long and sharp beaks) - then the distribution of frequencies changes and we say that the population has evolved. Essentially all real populations on our planet evolve. But when exactly the two evolving and diverging populations become two new species (one ape and the other human), is simply impossible to say.

Quote
Because these transitions are gradual. And they do not apply to all individual members of a population at once. Rather, within populations, there are various genetic "alleles" (products of genetic mutations). These allelic genes control traits, creating a certain "variance," the existence of very many distinct variants of the "phenotype"(appearence). In a population of, say, 346000 apes some 234 might have a slightly shorter tail, some 65 a slightly more upright posture, some 31 a bigger size of the cranial cavity, etc. The variants that fit their environment better are "reproductively successful," i.e. live longer and have more children. This, plus phenomena like gene flow and genetic drift, cause changes in the populations. For example, in a certain environment the subset of apes with a bigger size of the cranial cavioty may expand, and a subset with a longer tail shrink, etc.


Ok, yeah I agree with all this. Infact, most modern YEC's(Young Earth Creationist) will as well. We don't see a problem with this. And what you said above is what I was tought in public school. Well, it's what is tought in American public schools in general. I think what bothers YEC's and maybe some OEC's(Old Earth Creationists) is when you use this process to explain the existence of hominids and humans from Apes. But we are in 100% agreement in what you said here.

I do not understand at all, what are all these Young Earth, Old Earth etc. There are people who know biology and there are people who do not know it, that's all! Smiley

Let me call myself Blue Ribbon Covalentist. I just happen to believe that covalent bonds between atoms shown on p. 137 of my chemistry textbook as blue ribbons actually ARE blue ribbons. And I completely disagree with Red Dash Covalentists, because they believe that the covalent bonds between atoms are red dashes, because their - of course wrong, heretic - textbook shows them as red dashes on its page 154.

Does calling myself a Blue Ribbon Covalentist substantially change our progress in chemistry? Smiley

Quote
Because they are very well adapted to their environment. Evolution can be quite stabilizing, not necessarily divergent.


What about the mutations that are caused by the Sun? The type that damage our DNA? If this happened over millions of years then wouldn't that make everything look different?

Not only the Sun but also cosmic radiation, and X rays, and quite a lot of chemicals are mutagens. So yes, mutations do happen all the time, with an average rate of one per billion or so base pairs per generation. In my lifetime, I will most definitely acquire a few hundred mutations, if not more. But many of them are somatic mutations (i.e. they do not concern the gametes), and therefore they are not passed down generations. Also many mutations are "silent" (i.e. do not change proteins because of the redundancy of the genetic code). Also, there are repair mechanisms in cells that "fix" a certain number of mutations. So, all in all, mutation that would manifest in changed proteins and be passed down generation is a relatively rare event.

There is also a different significance of different mutations: some produce mutants that aren't much different from the "wild type," and other - the so-called homeotic mutations - cause a dramatic change in the mutant because they affect the genes that control pattern formation in the embryo.


Thanks for the info. I will try and respond tomorrow.







JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #794 on: April 28, 2009, 04:20:22 PM »

^^You are very welcome, JNORM. Forgive me if I was too harsh on my replies. It's this "end-of-the-semester" thing. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #795 on: April 28, 2009, 11:04:28 PM »

It is not about Biology. It is about certain beliefs we can't see and observe......thus it is about philosophy.
I disagree.  All that science (any science) concerns itself with is answering "What do we observe?" and "How do we explain these observations?"  While it's true that the terms philosophy and science were basically synonymous some years ago, philosophy today includes connotations of a worldview, where science still does not.  One can certainly use science to influence their philosophy, but one cannot properly do the reverse.

The "Who were the first humans?" question is an excellent example, in my opinion.  It is a question of significant philosophical and theological importance, but as Heorhij points out, science does not answer the question -- evolution and speciation are results of the accumulation of changes over time.

As an analogy, consider an old punch-drunk boxer.  There was clearly a time in his younger days when he was unimpaired; and there is clearly a time now that he is impaired.  However, even with perfect video of all his fights, it is generally impossible to identify the one blow that "changed his status" from one to the other.  His condition is the result of the accumulated damage of many blows.  Ultimately, any attempt to label a particular jab -- or probably even a particular fight -- can at best produce merely an arbitrary mark.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #796 on: April 29, 2009, 05:30:12 PM »

It is not about Biology. It is about certain beliefs we can't see and observe......thus it is about philosophy.
I disagree.  All that science (any science) concerns itself with is answering "What do we observe?" and "How do we explain these observations?"  While it's true that the terms philosophy and science were basically synonymous some years ago, philosophy today includes connotations of a worldview, where science still does not.  One can certainly use science to influence their philosophy, but one cannot properly do the reverse.

The "Who were the first humans?" question is an excellent example, in my opinion.  It is a question of significant philosophical and theological importance, but as Heorhij points out, science does not answer the question -- evolution and speciation are results of the accumulation of changes over time.

As an analogy, consider an old punch-drunk boxer.  There was clearly a time in his younger days when he was unimpaired; and there is clearly a time now that he is impaired.  However, even with perfect video of all his fights, it is generally impossible to identify the one blow that "changed his status" from one to the other.  His condition is the result of the accumulated damage of many blows.  Ultimately, any attempt to label a particular jab -- or probably even a particular fight -- can at best produce merely an arbitrary mark.

Can you define these words for me? Please?

1.)   Epistemology

2.)   Ontology

3.)   Equivocal

4.)   Relativism

5.)   Sociology of Knowledge

6.)   Subjectivism

7.)   Existentialism

8.)   Foundationalism

9.)   Historicism

10.) methodology

11.) Inductive logic & the Inductive method

12.) Deductive logic & the deductive method

13.) Logical positivism

14.) Empiricism

15.) Materialism

16.) Naturalism

17.) Metaphysics

18.) Intuitionism

19.) Paradigms

20.) Evolution

21.) Revolution

22.) Teleology

23.) Cosmology

24.) Creatio ex nihilo

25.) Uniformitarianism

26.) Catastrophism

27.) A posteriori / a priori

28.) Aesthetics
 
29.) Analogia entis / Analogy of being

29.) Analytical Philosophy

30.) Axiology

31.) Casuistry

32.) Coherence theory of truth

33.) Correspondence theory of truth



Thank You!!! I appreciate it.






JNORM888

P.S. "What I highlighted in red has everything to do with philosophy"
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 05:34:00 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #797 on: April 29, 2009, 06:22:56 PM »

^^Dear JNORM, defining all these terms will take way too much time, but I stand by my words that not everything is philosophy, and that there is an objective natural science based on observations, questions, hypotheses, predictions, and tests. We directly observe that life evolves (i.e. genes mutate, certain mutants are selected, this selection shifts the frequencies of alleles and genotypes in populations, and thus populations split into sub-populations that sometimes continue to diverge). We ask the question, can this evolution increase the existing diversity of species, producing new species. We hypothesize that yes, it can. One prediction from this hypothesis is that if it is true, then a model of the above-described evolution through natural selection, the so-called artificial selection, can produce new species. This prediction turns out to be true, because new biological species were, indeed, created by the so-called domesticated husbandry:

"... domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[10] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[11]

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[12] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[13]

Diane Dodd was also able to show how mating preferences can develop from reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[14]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

So, our hypothesis is not falsified. Let's keep going! Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #798 on: April 29, 2009, 06:58:52 PM »

Quote
Yes. Evolution is something that happens to POPULATIONS of living organisms. Evolution is not what happens to me or you or a dog or a tree. It's a phenomenon of change of the genetic makeup of populations.

So you believe in the evolution of a population of amoebae to a population of humans over billions of years?

Why can't I believe in the gene variation of the human population "after" God said be fruitfull and multiply to Adam & Eve?

I believe the reason why I'm tall and black with frizzled hair, and you shorter, white with uhm....I forgot the color of your hair....is because of gene variations. Infact, I think the reason why populations of people look unique all over the planet is because of gene variation.

But why must I believe in the evolution of a population of amoebae to a population of humans over billions of years? Now I know that Theistic evolutionists believe this, but they see this process as being guided by Divine Providence.

I personally see no reason why I must make that jump since all this is based on nonobservable pre-history.......thus it is open to "speculation". And whenever we speculate there is a good possibility that we might be wrong.

In order for me to take that jump, I would have to first believe in the philosophical pressuposition of "Uniformitarianism". And I know that multiple worldwide Catastrophies would "reset" the evolutionary biological clock. And we don't know with "absolute" certainty how many worldwide Catastrophies there were in the pre-recorded history of this planet.

So do I believe in gene variation? Absolutely.....however, I am not willing to take the jump of an evolution of a population of amoebae to the population of humans. For most of that is about what could have happened in the pre-recorded history of this planet. I am open to it as a theory, but not as 100% absolute certainty.



Quote
In any population, there exists a certain array of allelic forms of genes: for example, gene A exists as allele A1, allele A2, allele A3, etc. These allelic forms have their shares, or frequency: for A1, it can be, say, 43%, for B - 11%, for C - 46%. We say that a population evolves when there is a change in these frequencies: for example, the frequency of B rose from 11% to 25%, etc. Simply because populations experience generational change and fluctuate in size, these frequencies cannot change, they remain constant (a law known as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium). But when there is a certain pressure on the genetic makeup from the environment (e.g. when carriers of allele B have a certain advantage - like in Darwnian finches with long and sharp beaks) - then the distribution of frequencies changes and we say that the population has evolved. Essentially all real populations on our planet evolve. But when exactly the two evolving and diverging populations become two new species (one ape and the other human), is simply impossible to say.


Thanks for explaining. Now I believe in gene variation, so I agree with everything you said up above. The only problem I have is Apes becoming human.

Please correct me wherever I am wrong. They say that the DNA of Apes are about 98 or 99 percent the same as the DNA of humans. Now please correct me if I understand this incorrectly, but if gene variation is true, which I believe it is, then that would mean that only a different combination of the same information can happen. In order for Apes to eventually evolve into humans, that would mean that over time, Apes would have to gain "new information".

Now if I am wrong please correct me. I don't know, maybe they can gain new information through a collection of viruses over millions of years.......I don't know. But it would seem as if they would need "new information" added in their DNA programing.......in order to eventually become like us......for without that new information, the only variations they can have would be just a different type of monkey.....you know...different color, different skin, different size, shape.......you know....phenotype.

If I said anything that was wrong or just not correct, please let me know. I am just letting you know why I am currently unwilling to take that jump.




Quote
I do not understand at all, what are all these Young Earth, Old Earth etc. There are people who know biology and there are people who do not know it, that's all! Smiley

I know Protestants who say the samething about "scripture". They say things like "I believe the scriptures", "I know what scripture says", "scripture is clear", scripture interpretes itself"........ect.

They are not able to see their biases when it comes to "interpreting scripture". And I feel the same is true when it comes to "interpreting" the World around us. The idea that we can use the observations of the present to know the past is a philosophical idea that maybe correct or may not be correct.

It is a bias that affects the way we "interpret" the unobservable pre-recorded past.


Quote
Let me call myself Blue Ribbon Covalentist. I just happen to believe that covalent bonds between atoms shown on p. 137 of my chemistry textbook as blue ribbons actually ARE blue ribbons. And I completely disagree with Red Dash Covalentists, because they believe that the covalent bonds between atoms are red dashes, because their - of course wrong, heretic - textbook shows them as red dashes on its page 154.
Does calling myself a Blue Ribbon Covalentist substantially change our progress in chemistry? Smiley


I take it that you want the answer to be yes, for it will stop people from actually searching to see what that bond actually is......by letting the bond speak for itself.

But then again, I will say no for it is this sort of thing that can actually advance science. For it will cause both the Blue Ribbons & the Red Dashes to deeply observe the atom to prove that their side was right. But in doing so science actually advances for either the Blue Ribbons or the Red Dashes will have to eventualy change their understanding or they will have to both change their understanding to fit what the bond actually is.



Quote
Not only the Sun but also cosmic radiation, and X rays, and quite a lot of chemicals are mutagens. So yes, mutations do happen all the time, with an average rate of one per billion or so base pairs per generation. In my lifetime, I will most definitely acquire a few hundred mutations, if not more. But many of them are somatic mutations (i.e. they do not concern the gametes), and therefore they are not passed down generations. Also many mutations are "silent" (i.e. do not change proteins because of the redundancy of the genetic code). Also, there are repair mechanisms in cells that "fix" a certain number of mutations. So, all in all, mutation that would manifest in changed proteins and be passed down generation is a relatively rare event.


How is new information in the DNA gained? Are you saying new information is gained through a rare change in proteins that are passed down generational lines within a population?


Quote
There is also a different significance of different mutations: some produce mutants that aren't much different from the "wild type," and other - the so-called homeotic mutations - cause a dramatic change in the mutant because they affect the genes that control pattern formation in the embryo.


Please correct me where I am wrong. So are you saying that "homeotic" mutations are the ones that cause a change in the pattern in our DNA for the next generation?

Ok, so this would only change the pattern of the data that the DNA already has. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there be a need for "new" information in order for a population of Apes to eventualy become a population of humans? It would seem as if "homeotic" mutations would only re-shuffle the deck of data that the population of Apes already have.

If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 07:29:47 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #799 on: April 29, 2009, 07:15:24 PM »

^^Dear JNORM, defining all these terms will take way too much time, but I stand by my words that not everything is philosophy, and that there is an objective natural science based on observations, questions, hypotheses, predictions, and tests. We directly observe that life evolves (i.e. genes mutate, certain mutants are selected, this selection shifts the frequencies of alleles and genotypes in populations, and thus populations split into sub-populations that sometimes continue to diverge). We ask the question, can this evolution increase the existing diversity of species, producing new species. We hypothesize that yes, it can. One prediction from this hypothesis is that if it is true, then a model of the above-described evolution through natural selection, the so-called artificial selection, can produce new species. This prediction turns out to be true, because new biological species were, indeed, created by the so-called domesticated husbandry:

"... domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[10] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[11]

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[12] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[13]

Diane Dodd was also able to show how mating preferences can develop from reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[14]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

So, our hypothesis is not falsified. Let's keep going! Smiley


I don't have a problem with gene variations. I believe in it. But thanks for the information. The problem I have as well as other YEC and maybe some OEC creationists is the "actual" transition from Ape to man.......ect.

I once saw something on the science channel, where a scientist was using fruit flies to show that humans can live forever. I'm going off of memory so I will try to explain it as best as I can.

I don't know how long fruit flies live, but we will just say a few hours for the sake of it.

Ok, what this person did was made the fruit flies mate later in life, and after so many different generations of mating fruit flies like this, he had a population that was able to live for a few weeks.

His theory was that if humans waited to procreate until they were older then after so many generations we could live way longer than we do now. He also said something about a certain gene or something that makes us age faster when we procreate or when we are sexually active......I forgot which it was, but there is something in our bodies that tells certain cells or genes or whatever to decay faster.

Now there is a huge difference between fruit flies & humans. Just because it was done with fruit flies doesn't mean it can be done with us.

But you are right about too many words to define. So I will just list 8


1.) Inductive logic / Induction

2.) Deductive logic / Deduction

3.) Logical positivism / Positivism

4.) Empiricism

5.) Naturalism/Materialism

6.) Relativism

7.) Epistemology

8.) Uniformitarianism



This has everything to do with what we are talking about. Philosophy is in "everything".......including science.



JNORM888
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 07:20:50 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #800 on: April 29, 2009, 07:37:46 PM »

M
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 07:42:38 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #801 on: April 30, 2009, 01:37:14 AM »

M
Huh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #802 on: April 30, 2009, 01:39:28 AM »

Philosophy is in "everything".......including science.
I might offer this corrective:  In my estimation, philosophy is not in science itself, but it may be seen in how one practices science.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #803 on: April 30, 2009, 07:25:42 AM »

But you are right about too many words to define. So I will just list 8


1.) Inductive logic / Induction

2.) Deductive logic / Deduction

Inductive logic is when a person makes a generalization, for example, if a cat called A has four legs, and a cat B, and a cat C, and a cat D, ..., ..., then all cats have four legs. It is a valid part of the scientific method since ancient times. Nevertheless, it must be necessarily combined with what we call "falcificationism": I will hold to my generalization about cats until (or unless) I see a cat with three or five legs.

Deductive logic is the classical Aristotelian logic. It makes statements that logically follow from more general statements, and that are formally bound to be made following the general statements (even though they can very well be false if the general statements are false). For example, from the statements that all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, necessrily follows that Socrates is a man (true). From the statements that all planets revolve around the Earth and that Mercury is a planet necessarily follows that Mercury revolves around the Earth (false - but nonetheless logically correct). Deductive logic was the most used technique of mediaeval "scholastics." It still has its place in the scientific method, although, again, it must be always kept under check by the "falcificationism."

3.) Logical positivism / Positivism

The idea that all events can be adequately described in exact, precise, verifiable terms folowing the basic laws of logic or reasoning. Does retain its place in the scientific method, although actually harmed science a great deal. Galileo, for example, was accused a number of times that he is simply illogical: he refused to accept the idea that ether (the invisible ingredient of which planets are made) covers the craters on the surface of the Moon, but not its mountain peaks. Indeed, if we stand firmly on the idea that this ether exists, and in the Aristotelian notion that all heavenly bodies are perfectly round, and we see what we see using Galileo's telescopes (the craters and peaks on the surface of the Moon), we then must agree that the ether fills the craters and recedes from the peaks. That's the only way to reconcile the theory with the facts. When Galileo replied to this reasoning that he is still not convinced that the ether does not behave in the opposite way - i.e. that it does not concentrate on the peaks and is absent from the craters, making the actual Moon even less ideally spherical than it appears to be, his opponents laughed at him and said something like, "well, a good schoolboy has more logic than Maestro Galilei has." Smiley

4.) Empiricism

The notion that knowledge is primarily gained through senses. While I am not an empiricist "philosophically," I do absolutely believe that as far as natural sciences are concerned, indeed, everything that is impossible to falsify through the senses should not be included into our theories. That's why "creationism" is not a science.

5.) Naturalism/Materialism

A philosophy, exemplified by L. Feuerbach, Buchner, Focht and others, which states that everything that exists is made of matter and can be tested through our senses. A person who believes in God cannot be a philosophical materialist; however, again, in the scientific studies questions that pertain to immaterial, "supernatural" should not be asked and theories that operate with supernatural should not be pursued (because that would necessarily lead to voluntarism and chaos).

6.) Relativism

I am not sure about this one - people give way too many different meanings to this term. I prefer Paul Feyerabend's term "anarchism" - the notion that science actually does not follow any one given rigid set of rules.

7.) Epistemology

A very interesting branch of philosophy concerned with the questions like "how do we know what we know?" and "under what circumstances can we be sure that we really know something."

8.) Uniformitarianism

I am not familiar with this term.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 07:27:08 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
hgais
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 10



« Reply #804 on: May 04, 2009, 12:49:40 PM »

I agree: It is a difference between those who know biology and those who don't.  Not to be disrespectful, but there is some truth to it, at least with regards to a lot of the Protestant YEC's.  Much of their dissent has more to do with the exact understanding of evolution in Darwin's time and nothing more; this leaves out a lot of information, especially the understanding that evolution doesn't have to take a very, very, very long time to happen.  It is possible to species to change radically in a short period of time (geological time, of course).  Darwin didn't realize this at the time, but I'm sure he would have no problem with being corrected.

In essence, our understanding of the theory of evolution is quite different than it was in Darwin's time, and, most likely, it will continue to develop.  Part of the issue on both sides is the assumption that it is a constant; there is no change in the theory, nor should there be.  A true scientist, on the other hand, would assert that change is necessary to bring a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the whole process, and said understanding doesn't necessarily become "complete" at a specific point in time.  Indeed, the nature of a posteriori knowledge is such that there is a certain lack of complete certainty at certain points.  Hume, I suppose, was partly right in that regard, but this is not to say I agree with everything the man said (Kant is far superior, in my honest opinion).

I work with a number of Protestant Evangelicals on a weekly basis, and I have heard many of these anti-"evolutionist" arguments, albeit not particularly deep.  I think that theological "depth" is part of the problem.  Much of the YEC and OEC in the United States at least do not have a particularly deep understanding of Genesis, and a number have mostly rested their ideas on the strange fear that evolution will prove God false (which, I think, is mostly an unconscious one).  That is not to say there are some highly respected individuals who hold either view, nor is it to say it is entirely wrong theologically speaking.  There are a number of ways the "days" (yom) of Creation were understood throughout history, and all ought to be respected.  I guess my main point is that one's method of interpretation should not be based on fear -- conscious or unconscious -- but rather a pure attempt at actually interpreting the text through Patristic writings and the Tradition of the Church.  I think a number of the issues that have been raised in Western Protestantism with regards to the theory of evolution have more to do with crappy methods of interpretation, and less to do with actual religious issues.

On both sides, however, there is a huge epistemological problem looming off in the distance, which is the question of what we can really know about the pre-Fall world.  I think this should be recognized more than it usually is.

But, hey, that's just me. 
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #805 on: May 04, 2009, 01:54:11 PM »

I agree: It is a difference between those who know biology and those who don't.  Not to be disrespectful, but there is some truth to it, at least with regards to a lot of the Protestant YEC's.  Much of their dissent has more to do with the exact understanding of evolution in Darwin's time and nothing more; this leaves out a lot of information, especially the understanding that evolution doesn't have to take a very, very, very long time to happen.  It is possible to species to change radically in a short period of time (geological time, of course).  Darwin didn't realize this at the time, but I'm sure he would have no problem with being corrected.

In essence, our understanding of the theory of evolution is quite different than it was in Darwin's time, and, most likely, it will continue to develop.  Part of the issue on both sides is the assumption that it is a constant; there is no change in the theory, nor should there be.  A true scientist, on the other hand, would assert that change is necessary to bring a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the whole process, and said understanding doesn't necessarily become "complete" at a specific point in time.  Indeed, the nature of a posteriori knowledge is such that there is a certain lack of complete certainty at certain points.  Hume, I suppose, was partly right in that regard, but this is not to say I agree with everything the man said (Kant is far superior, in my honest opinion).

I work with a number of Protestant Evangelicals on a weekly basis, and I have heard many of these anti-"evolutionist" arguments, albeit not particularly deep.  I think that theological "depth" is part of the problem.  Much of the YEC and OEC in the United States at least do not have a particularly deep understanding of Genesis, and a number have mostly rested their ideas on the strange fear that evolution will prove God false (which, I think, is mostly an unconscious one).  That is not to say there are some highly respected individuals who hold either view, nor is it to say it is entirely wrong theologically speaking.  There are a number of ways the "days" (yom) of Creation were understood throughout history, and all ought to be respected.  I guess my main point is that one's method of interpretation should not be based on fear -- conscious or unconscious -- but rather a pure attempt at actually interpreting the text through Patristic writings and the Tradition of the Church.  I think a number of the issues that have been raised in Western Protestantism with regards to the theory of evolution have more to do with crappy methods of interpretation, and less to do with actual religious issues.

On both sides, however, there is a huge epistemological problem looming off in the distance, which is the question of what we can really know about the pre-Fall world.  I think this should be recognized more than it usually is.

But, hey, that's just me. 
Post of the Month nominee. Welcome to the forum!
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #806 on: May 04, 2009, 02:01:04 PM »

N
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
hgais
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 10



« Reply #807 on: May 04, 2009, 03:56:13 PM »

O
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #808 on: May 04, 2009, 06:26:21 PM »

Are "monkies" anything like "monkeys"?  Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #809 on: May 05, 2009, 06:55:17 AM »

Are "monkies" anything like "monkeys"?  Wink
No, they're short bald men in robes. "Monkees," however are quite different.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
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 0.225 seconds with 75 queries.