OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 11:24:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.3%)
both metaphorically and literally - 155 (46%)
Total Voters: 337

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 323416 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4545 on: September 25, 2012, 08:26:53 PM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley
Pretty much.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,937


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


WWW
« Reply #4546 on: September 26, 2012, 07:18:48 AM »

Just so I don't have to read through 100+ pages, is the general consensus among the evolutionist faithful that Adam and Eve were not "real" and can only be understood metaphorically?

Bump  Smiley

Not in my experience. Frequently I see a compromise, whereby the common descent of all humans from one couple is maintained, while the possibility is allowed that this first human couple was descended from non-human ancestors. I'm not sure what biology has to say about a single first couple, though I remember reading somewhere that current genetic variation is not compatible with this.

Mina, do you know any more about this?
Some people maintain allegory of their persons without literality.  Others maintain allegory of their story, but acknowledge their actual existence.  Some believe they weren't the only 2 that existed, but 2 that were ordained to enjoy the paradisical life.  Some believe they were the first 2 that lead to other humans in paradise to fall with them.

As for me, I simply don't know.  I tend to believe they existed, whereas the story that surrounded them is allegorical.  I believe that in their childlike naivety and selfishness for seeking to be like God out of their own selves, they disobeyed God in a way I don't understand, and fell.  Whether there were others with them who fell or not, I don't know.

OK. So you're not aware of genetic evidence that would undermine the idea that we are all descended from a single ancestral couple?
Actually, I have yet to understand this concept, but apparently, we all as humans do share a common father probabaly about 2-5 thousand years ago, or 5-15 thousand years ago.  That doesn't mean he was the only one then, but his genes predominated to be in all of us today.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#section_1

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point

Quote
The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human MRCAs are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 07:33:30 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4547 on: September 26, 2012, 04:57:58 PM »

I'm sorry, I know I said I would wait until I had my computer, but I can't pass this over without a reply.  First,  how do you expect to claim anything is fact without proof?  Apparently, YOU do not understand how science works.  Secondly, you say leave assumptions at the door, but without proof, that's all you have, assumptions.  So, which is it?  Proof or assumptions?
You have created a false dichotomy.  There are plenty of things you accept as true without proof. You accept those things as true until a better explanation is afforded.   There are plenty of gradations between assumption and proof.  That's exactly how science works.  It never proves anything, and those who insist on proof merely display their ignorance of science.

Instead, it simply answers the question "Which explanation is most consistent with our observations?"
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4548 on: September 26, 2012, 05:19:14 PM »

OK, maybe you're right. I truly like to understand what they've discovered over the past centuries. Can you explain me what is that? I promise I will leave my assumptions behind until I understand those discoveries. Help me out, please.
Consider endogenous retroviruses.  For those unfamiliar, the nutshell version: 

Everyone's generally familiar with viruses; they're little blobs of protein and nucleic acid that somehow co-opt cells into helping them procreate.  Their impact ranges from the totally benign (like cool tulip colors) to the unmercifully malignant (like many of the world's worst diseases).  Usually, they enter a cell and then their kids depart to infect other cells.

Some viruses, however, actually "infect" the host cell's nucleus itself.  Called retroviruses, they too range from pointless to insidious -- the AIDS virus (HIV) being perhaps the most notable example.  The key thing to note is that the virus becomes a part of of the host organism's actual DNA.  If a typical retrovirus infects my liver, then it'll probably remain in my liver until I'm dead.  If it's in my skin, it'll probably remain in my skin until I'm dead.  Etc.
 
But if a retrovirus is lucky enough to infect my sex organs, it will become a part of my offspring's DNA as well, and will then be what scientists call an endogenous retrovirus (ERV).  Since the way we get an ERV is through a parent, if two individuals share an ERV, it demonstrates that they had a common ancestor with the ERV.

And this is the interesting part.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees and gorillas.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees, gorillas, and monkeys.  Etc.  But I know of no ERVs that we share with monkeys that aren't shared with chimps.  Etc.

Remember, the key point of ERVs is that they show a common ancestor.

Personally, I've never seen more convincing data supporting evolution than ERVs.  I suppose that nothing is indisputable, but I can't even conceive of a way to dispute their particular testimony.
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #4549 on: September 26, 2012, 08:23:24 PM »

This quote caught my eye: The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human MRCAs are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively.

What does the first part of the first sentence mean: "The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago".... This dating falls within the Anno Mundi/ Etos Kosmou of the traditional calendar for man while allowing for biological evolution and long, that is, looooooooong periods of time to elapse.

I myself fall in the young earth creationist camp but think both views (evolution/ creation, young earth/ old earth are best approached agnostically as long as we agree on keeping the commandments and growing in grace).....
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,404


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4550 on: September 26, 2012, 09:07:28 PM »

This quote caught my eye: The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human MRCAs are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively.

What does the first part of the first sentence mean: "The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago".... This dating falls within the Anno Mundi/ Etos Kosmou of the traditional calendar for man while allowing for biological evolution and long, that is, looooooooong periods of time to elapse.

I myself fall in the young earth creationist camp but think both views (evolution/ creation, young earth/ old earth are best approached agnostically as long as we agree on keeping the commandments and growing in grace).....
The identical ancestors point (IAP) is:

"that point in a given population's past where each individual then alive turned out to be either the ancestor of every individual alive now, or to have no living descendants at all."

Thus, the IAP is not the point at which a new species appears or is created, nor is it the point at which only one couple (male and female exists). The IAP is a point which includes hundreds or thousands of individuals, each of whom is either an ancestor of everyone alive now, or not an ancestor of anyone alive now.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4551 on: September 26, 2012, 10:25:34 PM »

You have created a false dichotomy.  There are plenty of things you accept as true without proof. You accept those things as true until a better explanation is afforded.   There are plenty of gradations between assumption and proof.  That's exactly how science works.  It never proves anything, and those who insist on proof merely display their ignorance of science.

Instead, it simply answers the question "Which explanation is most consistent with our observations?"
Better explanation is God designed universe. You are the ones who care none about scientific method and logic. Since science "simply answers the question "Which explanation is most consistent with our observations?"" why don't you thorw that theory in the garbage? It predicts gradual appearence of species but fossils show sudden appearence of many different animal types without preexisting simple forms (in so called Cambrian explosion); It predicts hundreds of thousands of so called transisional forms but we have practically none; It predicts the evolution of new proteins (not to mention new cell structures, organs and so on) but we have observed formation of no new protein in living systems while so many observations and experiments have been done.

These observations dirrectly condtradict what evolutionary theory predicts, but you point us how we don't understand science workings. That's fine with us.

OK, maybe you're right. I truly like to understand what they've discovered over the past centuries. Can you explain me what is that? I promise I will leave my assumptions behind until I understand those discoveries. Help me out, please.
Consider endogenous retroviruses.  For those unfamiliar, the nutshell version: 

Everyone's generally familiar with viruses; they're little blobs of protein and nucleic acid that somehow co-opt cells into helping them procreate.  Their impact ranges from the totally benign (like cool tulip colors) to the unmercifully malignant (like many of the world's worst diseases).  Usually, they enter a cell and then their kids depart to infect other cells.

Some viruses, however, actually "infect" the host cell's nucleus itself.  Called retroviruses, they too range from pointless to insidious -- the AIDS virus (HIV) being perhaps the most notable example.  The key thing to note is that the virus becomes a part of of the host organism's actual DNA.  If a typical retrovirus infects my liver, then it'll probably remain in my liver until I'm dead.  If it's in my skin, it'll probably remain in my skin until I'm dead.  Etc.
 
But if a retrovirus is lucky enough to infect my sex organs, it will become a part of my offspring's DNA as well, and will then be what scientists call an endogenous retrovirus (ERV).  Since the way we get an ERV is through a parent, if two individuals share an ERV, it demonstrates that they had a common ancestor with the ERV.

And this is the interesting part.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees and gorillas.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees, gorillas, and monkeys.  Etc.  But I know of no ERVs that we share with monkeys that aren't shared with chimps.  Etc.

Remember, the key point of ERVs is that they show a common ancestor.

Personally, I've never seen more convincing data supporting evolution than ERVs.  I suppose that nothing is indisputable, but I can't even conceive of a way to dispute their particular testimony.
Again, your logic is based on circular reasoning. Plus it goes against observed facts. Plus it requires a host of unproven and nearly impossible assumptions in order for your "proof" to work.

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html --- This is a really nice summary of all the problems with "ERV being the evidence of evolution" theory. Look at all these and tell me you have answered all these problems.

Besides, when you claim some virus has inserted itseld in the germ cell line, has it ever observed today that retrovirus infecting germ cells passes down to next generation? In other words do we have a evidencial data on it?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,063


« Reply #4552 on: September 26, 2012, 11:52:55 PM »

This quote caught my eye: The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human MRCAs are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively.

What does the first part of the first sentence mean: "The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago".... This dating falls within the Anno Mundi/ Etos Kosmou of the traditional calendar for man while allowing for biological evolution and long, that is, looooooooong periods of time to elapse.

I myself fall in the young earth creationist camp but think both views (evolution/ creation, young earth/ old earth are best approached agnostically as long as we agree on keeping the commandments and growing in grace).....

Interesting. From what I recall, we can determine a MRCA on both the male and female lines, but there is a lot of other genetic variation besides what the Y-chromosomes and the mitochondrial DNA, and that variation is not compatible with a single first couple.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4553 on: September 27, 2012, 04:40:47 AM »

I'm sorry, I know I said I would wait until I had my computer, but I can't pass this over without a reply.  First,  how do you expect to claim anything is fact without proof?  Apparently, YOU do not understand how science works.  Secondly, you say leave assumptions at the door, but without proof, that's all you have, assumptions.  So, which is it?  Proof or assumptions?
You have created a false dichotomy.  There are plenty of things you accept as true without proof. You accept those things as true until a better explanation is afforded.   There are plenty of gradations between assumption and proof.  That's exactly how science works.  It never proves anything, and those who insist on proof merely display their ignorance of science.

Instead, it simply answers the question "Which explanation is most consistent with our observations?"
That isn't truth or proof, it's convenient assumption to fit a preconceived idea.  If people would simply say, "Our best guess is..." rather than claim fact, I would take little issue, but that isn't the case.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4554 on: September 27, 2012, 04:42:32 AM »

OK, maybe you're right. I truly like to understand what they've discovered over the past centuries. Can you explain me what is that? I promise I will leave my assumptions behind until I understand those discoveries. Help me out, please.
Consider endogenous retroviruses.  For those unfamiliar, the nutshell version: 

Everyone's generally familiar with viruses; they're little blobs of protein and nucleic acid that somehow co-opt cells into helping them procreate.  Their impact ranges from the totally benign (like cool tulip colors) to the unmercifully malignant (like many of the world's worst diseases).  Usually, they enter a cell and then their kids depart to infect other cells.

Some viruses, however, actually "infect" the host cell's nucleus itself.  Called retroviruses, they too range from pointless to insidious -- the AIDS virus (HIV) being perhaps the most notable example.  The key thing to note is that the virus becomes a part of of the host organism's actual DNA.  If a typical retrovirus infects my liver, then it'll probably remain in my liver until I'm dead.  If it's in my skin, it'll probably remain in my skin until I'm dead.  Etc.
 
But if a retrovirus is lucky enough to infect my sex organs, it will become a part of my offspring's DNA as well, and will then be what scientists call an endogenous retrovirus (ERV).  Since the way we get an ERV is through a parent, if two individuals share an ERV, it demonstrates that they had a common ancestor with the ERV.

And this is the interesting part.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees and gorillas.  There are ERVs that we share with chimpanzees, gorillas, and monkeys.  Etc.  But I know of no ERVs that we share with monkeys that aren't shared with chimps.  Etc.

Remember, the key point of ERVs is that they show a common ancestor.

Personally, I've never seen more convincing data supporting evolution than ERVs.  I suppose that nothing is indisputable, but I can't even conceive of a way to dispute their particular testimony.
I wondered how long it would take retrovirus to be mentioned.   Roll Eyes
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4555 on: September 27, 2012, 03:32:39 PM »

These observations dirrectly condtradict what evolutionary theory predicts, but you point us how we don't understand science workings. That's fine with us.
I will definitely contend that you don't understand science as long as you post comments like:
Quote from: ativan
Plus it requires a host of unproven and nearly impossible assumptions in order for your "proof" to work.
Quote from: Kerdy
That isn't truth or proof...
There's no such thing as proof.  All of science is subject to refinement or rejection based on new obsevations or a more consistent hypothesis.  Your insistence on proof continues to proclaim your ignorance.  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,675


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #4556 on: September 27, 2012, 03:39:58 PM »

In one day I have seen people link to CARM and WhoIsYourCreator. I'm calling Bad Source Bingo!
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4557 on: September 27, 2012, 04:24:32 PM »

In one day I have seen people link to CARM and WhoIsYourCreator. I'm calling Bad Source Bingo!
Ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking an argument attacking the source - it's common fallacy in darwinist's fallacy stock.

To keep the discussion up to real scientific level, what point exactly you don't like in linked argument?
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4558 on: September 27, 2012, 04:33:00 PM »

In one day I have seen people link to CARM and WhoIsYourCreator. I'm calling Bad Source Bingo!

ROFL, and Answers In Genesis is the Free Space.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4559 on: September 27, 2012, 04:41:56 PM »

These observations dirrectly condtradict what evolutionary theory predicts, but you point us how we don't understand science workings. That's fine with us.
I will definitely contend that you don't understand science as long as you post comments like:
Quote from: ativan
Plus it requires a host of unproven and nearly impossible assumptions in order for your "proof" to work.
Quote from: Kerdy
That isn't truth or proof...
There's no such thing as proof.  All of science is subject to refinement or rejection based on new obsevations or a more consistent hypothesis.  Your insistence on proof continues to proclaim your ignorance.  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
After your utter failure you have nothing else to say of course. You don't have to read the word "proof" as it is defined in logic or math. What is the fact is scientists use this word with different meaning like evidence. It's surprising when you try to find insignificant fault and avoiding the real issues while at the same time darwinists themselves call their theory FACT.

Let's put now unimportant things away and concentrate on main question: how does ERV fragments in DNA prove that we have some common ancestors with primates? When did these ERVs infect the genome of your ancestors many generations ago (hopefully you will not take this as an insult, since I don't think my ancestors were anything other then humans and you think your ancestors at one point were something other then non-humans)? How many times they infect the genome? How did the infectious particle all of a sudden gained new and favorable function for DNA? Why don't we see today RV's incorporating into the germ-line cells and thus passing down new ERV to next generation?

These are question for starters.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,675


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #4560 on: September 27, 2012, 04:47:31 PM »

In one day I have seen people link to CARM and WhoIsYourCreator. I'm calling Bad Source Bingo!
Ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking an argument attacking the source - it's common fallacy in darwinist's fallacy stock.

To keep the discussion up to real scientific level, what point exactly you don't like in linked argument?

I guess it would be a fallacy if I were seriously attempting an argument. But I was not.

I'll be honest: I'm not interested in debating the science of evolution these days. I think there are more interesting conversations to have regarding evolution, because I think there are real issues that believers in evolution have to address. Some were, I believe, mentioned upthread. Like: what about death before the fall? What is the Genesis story, if not literal? What about Adam and Eve? What about ancestors before Adam and Eve? How do all of these questions affect theology? I'm not interested in arguing whether or not to accept evolution as a premise, I am more interested in the issues that arise after that premise has already been accepted.

That, unfortunately, never happens. I'm not even sure why I lurk this thread except that I'm still subscribed to it.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,675


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #4561 on: September 27, 2012, 04:47:55 PM »

In one day I have seen people link to CARM and WhoIsYourCreator. I'm calling Bad Source Bingo!

ROFL, and Answers In Genesis is the Free Space.

 Cheesy
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4562 on: September 27, 2012, 05:32:53 PM »

In one day I have seen people link to CARM and WhoIsYourCreator. I'm calling Bad Source Bingo!
Ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking an argument attacking the source - it's common fallacy in darwinist's fallacy stock.

To keep the discussion up to real scientific level, what point exactly you don't like in linked argument?

I guess it would be a fallacy if I were seriously attempting an argument. But I was not.

I'll be honest: I'm not interested in debating the science of evolution these days. I think there are more interesting conversations to have regarding evolution, because I think there are real issues that believers in evolution have to address. Some were, I believe, mentioned upthread. Like: what about death before the fall? What is the Genesis story, if not literal? What about Adam and Eve? What about ancestors before Adam and Eve? How do all of these questions affect theology? I'm not interested in arguing whether or not to accept evolution as a premise, I am more interested in the issues that arise after that premise has already been accepted.

That, unfortunately, never happens. I'm not even sure why I lurk this thread except that I'm still subscribed to it.

I think orthonorm tackles a few questions with this great answer, or atleast from my understanding of him:

The real is only properly understood symbolically.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4563 on: September 27, 2012, 05:48:53 PM »

These observations dirrectly condtradict what evolutionary theory predicts, but you point us how we don't understand science workings. That's fine with us.
I will definitely contend that you don't understand science as long as you post comments like:
Quote from: ativan
Plus it requires a host of unproven and nearly impossible assumptions in order for your "proof" to work.
Quote from: Kerdy
That isn't truth or proof...
There's no such thing as proof.  All of science is subject to refinement or rejection based on new obsevations or a more consistent hypothesis.  Your insistence on proof continues to proclaim your ignorance.  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
If it isn't proven, stop claiming fact.  And there have been many things proven in science.  Your insistence there is no proof in science continues to proclaim your ignorance.
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #4564 on: September 27, 2012, 10:25:12 PM »

These observations dirrectly condtradict what evolutionary theory predicts, but you point us how we don't understand science workings. That's fine with us.
I will definitely contend that you don't understand science as long as you post comments like:
Quote from: ativan
Plus it requires a host of unproven and nearly impossible assumptions in order for your "proof" to work.
Quote from: Kerdy
That isn't truth or proof...
There's no such thing as proof.  All of science is subject to refinement or rejection based on new obsevations or a more consistent hypothesis.  Your insistence on proof continues to proclaim your ignorance.  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
If it isn't proven, stop claiming fact.  And there have been many things proven in science.  Your insistence there is no proof in science continues to proclaim your ignorance.

You... should really just stop.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,835


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4565 on: September 27, 2012, 10:37:38 PM »

how can you assure me that given findings is not due to similar event?


It's possible, but it ain't very likely.

Let's start from the very fallacy of circular reasoning you make.
I think the language barrier is making this a futile exercise.

Perhaps if we had it in person... I don't know. Maybe then.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 10:39:27 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

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

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4566 on: September 28, 2012, 12:43:15 AM »

There's no such thing as proof...  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
If it isn't proven, stop claiming fact.  And there have been many things proven in science.
And I asked you to provide an example.  Do you have one?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4567 on: September 28, 2012, 01:05:01 AM »

After your utter failure you have nothing else to say of course. You don't have to read the word "proof" as it is defined in logic or math. What is the fact is scientists use this word with different meaning like evidence. It's surprising when you try to find insignificant fault and avoiding the real issues while at the same time darwinists themselves call their theory FACT.
It's certainly not insignificant; it directly addresses typical creationist argumentation, which is basically "since theory xyz hasn't been proven, then other theories must be held as equally valid." 

Let's put now unimportant things away and concentrate on main question: how does ERV fragments in DNA prove that we have some common ancestors with primates?
It doesn't prove such.  It is strong evidence for such.  Do you have an alternative hypothesis?

When did these ERVs infect the genome of your ancestors many generations ago (hopefully you will not take this as an insult, since I don't think my ancestors were anything other then humans and you think your ancestors at one point were something other then non-humans)?
I guess it's happened for about as long as there have been viruses.  As soon as some viruses became capable of reverse transcription of their RNA into DNA, then ERVs became a possibility.

How many times they infect the genome?
I believe the estimate is something less than about 100,000.  Imagine, of the billions of viral infections each year, and of the trillions of infections throughout history, this appears to have occurred this few times.  It's one resaon their location in our DNA provides so much evidence. 

How did the infectious particle all of a sudden gained new and favorable function for DNA?
I'm not aware that it did.  Where did you get the idea that it became useful?  Most of it just sits there as "junk" DNA.  One interesting area of current research is that the AIDS virus might be triggering one or more of these ERVs to become active again, which could be one reason it is so effective at what it does.  Another potential victory for evolutionary science, where understanding where we came from helps combat a modern plague.  I'm very interested in seeing what this research discovers.

Why don't we see today RV's incorporating into the germ-line cells and thus passing down new ERV to next generation?
I'm not sure we don't.  It's a pretty rare occurrence, and there are a lot of cells in the world.  How would you propose we monitor for such an event?

These are question for starters.
And they address some pretty basic ERV concepts.  How was it that you were so ready to dismiss them when you didn't understand them?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4568 on: September 28, 2012, 03:47:23 AM »

how can you assure me that given findings is not due to similar event?


It's possible, but it ain't very likely.
Likelihood is mathematical term and you can calculate likelihood of an event. Did you calculate likelihood of those event? How? What number did you get?

And what about darwinian evolution? How likely it is? How do you get the number?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4569 on: September 28, 2012, 03:53:32 AM »

There's no such thing as proof...  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
If it isn't proven, stop claiming fact.  And there have been many things proven in science.
And I asked you to provide an example.  Do you have one?
If you think retrovirus' prove anything more than different species are subject to the same things, you are mistaken.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 04:08:07 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4570 on: September 28, 2012, 03:57:52 AM »

These observations dirrectly condtradict what evolutionary theory predicts, but you point us how we don't understand science workings. That's fine with us.
I will definitely contend that you don't understand science as long as you post comments like:
Quote from: ativan
Plus it requires a host of unproven and nearly impossible assumptions in order for your "proof" to work.
Quote from: Kerdy
That isn't truth or proof...
There's no such thing as proof.  All of science is subject to refinement or rejection based on new obsevations or a more consistent hypothesis.  Your insistence on proof continues to proclaim your ignorance.  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
If it isn't proven, stop claiming fact.  And there have been many things proven in science.  Your insistence there is no proof in science continues to proclaim your ignorance.

You... should really just stop.
Because you are unable to support your evolutionary claims?  I don't think so.  You don't have the luxury of changing the basis of all science to suit the argument.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4571 on: September 28, 2012, 04:05:28 AM »

There's no such thing as proof...  Disagree?  Then what principle(s) of science do you consider to be proven?
If it isn't proven, stop claiming fact.  And there have been many things proven in science.
And I asked you to provide an example.  Do you have one?
Lets try this again.  I replied previously, but for some reason it did not take.

Ever hear of terminal velocity?  If you take a golf ball and a bowling ball in a controlled environment and drop them from a height of 50 feet, which will hit the ground first?  Better yet, take two objects of equal size, but one is three times as heavy, without air resistance, which lands first?  Math and Science are forever intertwined.  Math deals with proof and absolutes all the time, which is why it is so important to science.  You don't get to toss one out and play make up rules as you see fit in its place.  How do you think we send things into space with such precision?  Math AND science, and with proofs.  

...for starters.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 04:16:28 AM by Kerdy » Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4572 on: September 28, 2012, 04:33:32 AM »

After your utter failure you have nothing else to say of course. You don't have to read the word "proof" as it is defined in logic or math. What is the fact is scientists use this word with different meaning like evidence. It's surprising when you try to find insignificant fault and avoiding the real issues while at the same time darwinists themselves call their theory FACT.
It's certainly not insignificant; it directly addresses typical creationist argumentation, which is basically "since theory xyz hasn't been proven, then other theories must be held as equally valid."
You are misquoting creationist's arguments. Creationist's argument is clear: darwinism is not scientific theory. Otherwise God creating the universe and whole life in it is not a theory. It's an article of faith. We clearly say what we believe. On the other hand you want to sell you faith in darwinism as theory. If you did not do it we would not have this discussion.

Quote
Let's put now unimportant things away and concentrate on main question: how does ERV fragments in DNA prove that we have some common ancestors with primates?
It doesn't prove such.  It is strong evidence for such.  Do you have an alternative hypothesis?
Yes, alternative hypothesis is God created all animals and human as it is now. There was no evolution. And certain pseudo-scientists want to read in DNA structure (and elsewhere) very bizarre and illogical conclusions. Now. my question here was: how exactly the events would have developed fromm darwinian standpoint in order to give us same picture as we have today with regards to DNA structure of humans and primates?

Quote
When did these ERVs infect the genome of your ancestors many generations ago (hopefully you will not take this as an insult, since I don't think my ancestors were anything other then humans and you think your ancestors at one point were something other then non-humans)?
I guess it's happened for about as long as there have been viruses.  As soon as some viruses became capable of reverse transcription of their RNA into DNA, then ERVs became a possibility.
Here you can assume that such events happened "as long as there have been viruses" but when I ask why we don't see it today your answer is that such events are rare, besides we can't even imagine how to monitor it. So, you basically telling me that we can't monitor an event in real time environment but you are pretty sure it happened 100 000 times in the past where we have no access to those events. Do you see the problem here?

Quote
How many times they infect the genome?
I believe the estimate is something less than about 100,000.  Imagine, of the billions of viral infections each year, and of the trillions of infections throughout history, this appears to have occurred this few times.  It's one resaon their location in our DNA provides so much evidence.
100 000 times germ cells were infected and 100 000 viable zygote was formed: is this another assumption you have to make in your assumption-full theory? 100 000 times not only was viable zygote formed but also zygotes were formed with some type of survival benefit? Is this even more assumption you have to make? What survival benefits did this infected zygotes gain in each 100 000 time?

Quote
How did the infectious particle all of a sudden gained new and favorable function for DNA?
I'm not aware that it did.  Where did you get the idea that it became useful?  Most of it just sits there as "junk" DNA.  One interesting area of current research is that the AIDS virus might be triggering one or more of these ERVs to become active again, which could be one reason it is so effective at what it does.  Another potential victory for evolutionary science, where understanding where we came from helps combat a modern plague.  I'm very interested in seeing what this research discovers.
I've read some preliminary information. Before I link to any article I need to at least look at it.

Quote
Why don't we see today RV's incorporating into the germ-line cells and thus passing down new ERV to next generation?
I'm not sure we don't.  It's a pretty rare occurrence, and there are a lot of cells in the world.  How would you propose we monitor for such an event?
I already asked quite intresting question above regarding this. As far as your question goes there are 2 doable ways: 1) Monitor a population of newborns (especially with HIV infected parents) and analyze the DNA for presence of retrovirus incorporated into DNA. Then determine how it was acquired. 2) Second way is experimental: infecting germ cells with RV and implanting thus formed zygote into surrogate mother animal's womb. Afterwards you can not only find if RV is incorporated in the DNA but also determine if such zygote is viable and if it confers any survival benefit. Today everything is possible.

Quote
These are question for starters.
And they address some pretty basic ERV concepts.  How was it that you were so ready to dismiss them when you didn't understand them?
I told you: you make gazillion illogical and against-the-evidence assumptions which is clear to see. Besides, you don't know how science works: if I find even one sure evidence that contradicts theories predictions that theory is wrong. I did give you sure evidence (not just one but 4) that contradicts darwinism's predictions. So the theory is wrong regardless what the ERV thing tells you. I can always explain any genetic makeup by assuming its intelligent design.

BTW, how do you know that ERVs are derived from RVs and not other way around, RVs are derived from ERVs with some intelligent mechanism in action?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4573 on: September 28, 2012, 11:43:16 AM »

Ever hear of terminal velocity?  If you take a golf ball and a bowling ball in a controlled environment and drop them from a height of 50 feet, which will hit the ground first?  Better yet, take two objects of equal size, but one is three times as heavy, without air resistance, which lands first?
A reasonable example for discussion.  I think you may be conflating two related but distinct situations, however.  An experiment demonstrating terminal velocity will not take place without air resistance.  Terminal velocity requires air resistance.  But that said, discussing the matter..

I would call terminal velocity the observation.  And you are correct, observations don't need "proving" -- they are the facts.  Science properly wants observations to be repeatable, but it isn't the observation that would need proving anyway; it's the explanation.  And in this case, the explanation for why we observe the phenomenon of terminal velocity involves air density, drag coefficients, mass, acceleration, etc.  It's this part that isn't proven and never will be (since that's not what science does).  Like all science, the theory is subject to replacement by a better theory.  Overturning the theory wouldn't change the fact that we observe terminal velocity.  It would just mean that we corrected a theory that was in error, or we added to a theory that was incomplete.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4574 on: September 28, 2012, 11:47:15 AM »

I can always explain any genetic makeup by assuming its intelligent design.
Quite true and I completely agree.  One can assume intelligent design.  But unless you can describe a set of observations that would potentially falsify your conclusion, then you can't call it science.

So, is this what you believe is true -- that what we call ERVs were placed in our DNA by design?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4575 on: September 28, 2012, 02:04:49 PM »

Besides, when you claim some virus has inserted itseld in the germ cell line, has it ever observed today that retrovirus infecting germ cells passes down to next generation? In other words do we have a evidencial data on it?
You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation.  I call it odd because no scientist I'm aware of relies on it.

Consider this:  I am convinced that on the day we would now call October 25, 1987 B.C., a total solar eclipse occurred over what we would now call Omaha, Nebraska.

Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe?  Why or why not?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4576 on: September 28, 2012, 02:58:39 PM »

Let's put now unimportant things away and concentrate on main question: how does ERV fragments in DNA prove that we have some common ancestors with primates?
It doesn't prove such.  It is strong evidence for such.  Do you have an alternative hypothesis?
Yes, alternative hypothesis is God created all animals and human as it is now.
And do you consider your hypothesis to be scientific?  That is, are there potential observations that could falsify your hypothesis?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4577 on: September 28, 2012, 06:03:59 PM »

Ever hear of terminal velocity?  If you take a golf ball and a bowling ball in a controlled environment and drop them from a height of 50 feet, which will hit the ground first?  Better yet, take two objects of equal size, but one is three times as heavy, without air resistance, which lands first?
A reasonable example for discussion.  I think you may be conflating two related but distinct situations, however.  An experiment demonstrating terminal velocity will not take place without air resistance.  Terminal velocity requires air resistance.  But that said, discussing the matter..

I would call terminal velocity the observation.  And you are correct, observations don't need "proving" -- they are the facts.  Science properly wants observations to be repeatable, but it isn't the observation that would need proving anyway; it's the explanation.  And in this case, the explanation for why we observe the phenomenon of terminal velocity involves air density, drag coefficients, mass, acceleration, etc.  It's this part that isn't proven and never will be (since that's not what science does).  Like all science, the theory is subject to replacement by a better theory.  Overturning the theory wouldn't change the fact that we observe terminal velocity.  It would just mean that we corrected a theory that was in error, or we added to a theory that was incomplete.

I provided three separate things.  I apologize if it appeared I mixed them all together, but they are related so I can understand.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4578 on: September 28, 2012, 06:11:24 PM »

Ever hear of terminal velocity?  If you take a golf ball and a bowling ball in a controlled environment and drop them from a height of 50 feet, which will hit the ground first?  Better yet, take two objects of equal size, but one is three times as heavy, without air resistance, which lands first?
A reasonable example for discussion.  I think you may be conflating two related but distinct situations, however.  An experiment demonstrating terminal velocity will not take place without air resistance.  Terminal velocity requires air resistance.  But that said, discussing the matter..

I would call terminal velocity the observation.  And you are correct, observations don't need "proving" -- they are the facts.  Science properly wants observations to be repeatable, but it isn't the observation that would need proving anyway; it's the explanation.  And in this case, the explanation for why we observe the phenomenon of terminal velocity involves air density, drag coefficients, mass, acceleration, etc.  It's this part that isn't proven and never will be (since that's not what science does).  Like all science, the theory is subject to replacement by a better theory.  Overturning the theory wouldn't change the fact that we observe terminal velocity.  It would just mean that we corrected a theory that was in error, or we added to a theory that was incomplete.

It would also mean the first theory was wrong, which is my point.  How do you know your next theory is accurate.  You simply don't.  If you don't, why do you call it factual?  It's dishonest and evolution is riddled with.  Theory after theory being replaced and replaced again until people don't even remember what has been said in the past, but we are expected to believe each theory even when historically and statistically speaking, it's more than likely wrong as well.  Stop claiming to KNOW and be honest.  Take a best guess and admit as much.  Leave room for error and admit others may have the right answer after all.  Evolution has become a modern religion for the very reason I just explained.  After so many wrongs, it takes more faith to believe in it than many pagan religions.  I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I do pay attention and I run up the flag when I see inconstancy and outright fallacy.  I'm what you would call an observer and researcher.  I leave the experiments to other people, but I make sure they don't hide anything.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4579 on: September 28, 2012, 06:14:17 PM »

I can always explain any genetic makeup by assuming its intelligent design.
Quite true and I completely agree.  One can assume intelligent design.  But unless you can describe a set of observations that would potentially falsify your conclusion, then you can't call it science.

Then, by your own statement, evolution isnt science.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


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


« Reply #4580 on: September 28, 2012, 06:19:50 PM »

I can always explain any genetic makeup by assuming its intelligent design.
Quite true and I completely agree.  One can assume intelligent design.  But unless you can describe a set of observations that would potentially falsify your conclusion, then you can't call it science.

Then, by your own statement, evolution isnt science.
Er, no. Evolution can be falsified if you can produce an observation that contradicts it, such as a human fossil from 500 million years ago. ID by definition, is un-falsifiable, therefore, not science.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4581 on: September 28, 2012, 06:24:45 PM »

Stop claiming to KNOW and be honest.  Take a best guess and admit as much.
But this is exactly what science does.  Even the man you love to demonize, Darwin, quantified some potential observations that would render his theory invalid.  Can you do the same for creationism?  Are there any potential observations that would cause you to change your mind about your conclusions?

Quote from: Kerdy
Leave room for error and admit others may have the right answer after all.
But the onus is not on evolution (or more properly, on natural selection) to make room for another theory.  The onus is on the other theory to demonstrate how it is more consistent with all known data.  If you want to put creationism to the test then I'm all for it, but it's exceedingly hard to actually draw a comprehensive and cohesive theory/hypothesis out of most creationist argumentation.

Do you have one?  To begin, how long ago do you believe life first appeared on this planet?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4582 on: September 28, 2012, 06:29:53 PM »

I can always explain any genetic makeup by assuming its intelligent design.
Quite true and I completely agree.  One can assume intelligent design.  But unless you can describe a set of observations that would potentially falsify your conclusion, then you can't call it science.

Then, by your own statement, evolution isnt science.
Er, no. Evolution can be falsified if you can produce an observation that contradicts it, such as a human fossil from 500 million years ago. ID by definition, is un-falsifiable, therefore, not science.
It must be observable in the first place.  Since it isn't...by definition it's unfalsifiable and not science.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 06:30:55 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4583 on: September 28, 2012, 06:33:29 PM »

Stop claiming to KNOW and be honest.  Take a best guess and admit as much.
But this is exactly what science does.  Even the man you love to demonize, Darwin, quantified some potential observations that would render his theory invalid.  Can you do the same for creationism?  Are there any potential observations that would cause you to change your mind about your conclusions?

Quote from: Kerdy
Leave room for error and admit others may have the right answer after all.
But the onus is not on evolution (or more properly, on natural selection) to make room for another theory.  The onus is on the other theory to demonstrate how it is more consistent with all known data.  If you want to put creationism to the test then I'm all for it, but it's exceedingly hard to actually draw a comprehensive and cohesive theory/hypothesis out of most creationist argumentation.

Do you have one?  To begin, how long ago do you believe life first appeared on this planet?
Oh, how I would love to give a complete response to this.  Cell phones are far too limited.  So, I will simply say evolution and your arguments are filled with fallacy, various kinds, not just one.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 06:38:16 PM by Kerdy » Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4584 on: September 28, 2012, 06:34:47 PM »

Evolution can be falsified if you can produce an observation that contradicts it, such as a human fossil from 500 million years ago.
It must be observable in the first place.  Since it isn't...by definition it's unfalsifiable and not science.
And I will repeat a response I gave to a different poster to a different comment:

You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation.  I call it odd because no scientist I'm aware of relies on it.  Consider this:  I am convinced that on the day we would now call October 25, 1987 B.C., a total solar eclipse occurred over what we would now call Omaha, Nebraska.  Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe?  Why or why not?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4585 on: September 28, 2012, 06:36:25 PM »

To begin, how long ago do you believe life first appeared on this planet?
Oh, how I would love to give a complete response to this.  Cell phones are far too limited.
It's difficult to post a number using a cell phone?  How long ago do you believe life appeared on planet earth?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4586 on: September 28, 2012, 06:38:21 PM »

I can always explain any genetic makeup by assuming its intelligent design.
Quite true and I completely agree.  One can assume intelligent design.  But unless you can describe a set of observations that would potentially falsify your conclusion, then you can't call it science.

So, is this what you believe is true -- that what we call ERVs were placed in our DNA by design?
Double standards again.

If darwinists says (when asked why we don't observe new species formation) answers that it takes millions of years to do so and thus making the theory unfalsifiable that means nothing. But when it comes to intelligent design, of course, then this non-falsifiability applies to it. Now I'm going to make a statement that surely can falsify the theory: since my theory states that whole life (every single species) was designed by super-intelligent Designer then if I find at least one example of new species formation then my theory is falsified. Both your theory and my theory requires long stretch of time to be falsified. So how's your theory any better then mine? Besides I did not call my theory scientific. I have honesty enough to call it faith. Do you call your theory your faith?

Quote
So, is this what you believe is true -- that what we call ERVs were placed in our DNA by design?
Yes, it's my belief. Plus there's no junk in the nature. As an Orthodox believer I believe that God created everything with purpose. It's just human ignorance to call something junk. There are examples in science when scientists thought certain things had no function while later such functions were found.

Let's put now unimportant things away and concentrate on main question: how does ERV fragments in DNA prove that we have some common ancestors with primates?
It doesn't prove such.  It is strong evidence for such.  Do you have an alternative hypothesis?
Yes, alternative hypothesis is God created all animals and human as it is now.
And do you consider your hypothesis to be scientific?  That is, are there potential observations that could falsify your hypothesis?
I did answer this question above.

Besides, when you claim some virus has inserted itseld in the germ cell line, has it ever observed today that retrovirus infecting germ cells passes down to next generation? In other words do we have a evidencial data on it?
You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation.  I call it odd because no scientist I'm aware of relies on it.

Consider this:  I am convinced that on the day we would now call October 25, 1987 B.C., a total solar eclipse occurred over what we would now call Omaha, Nebraska.

Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe?  Why or why not?
That's not true. Scientists rely on experiments. This is the science exactly. Science either observes the predictions in the nature or looks it in human experiments. Why do you think Miller conducted experiments?

As far as your question is concerned it is very different from what I asked. With regard of your question it sounds more like this: You are offering a hypothesis that eclipses occurred at certain intervals at certain locations. But then I object that if it's been happening in the past then we should be observe it now or in the future and we should be observing it at certain point and ask you to look at the experiments (of such a thing happening at predicted point). Your answer is "You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation". Do you believe this are fair questions? If not, why?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4587 on: September 28, 2012, 06:41:47 PM »

Evolution can be falsified if you can produce an observation that contradicts it, such as a human fossil from 500 million years ago.
It must be observable in the first place.  Since it isn't...by definition it's unfalsifiable and not science.
And I will repeat a response I gave to a different poster to a different comment:

You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation.  I call it odd because no scientist I'm aware of relies on it.  Consider this:  I am convinced that on the day we would now call October 25, 1987 B.C., a total solar eclipse occurred over what we would now call Omaha, Nebraska.  Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe?  Why or why not?
Evolution can be falsified if you can produce an observation that contradicts it, such as a human fossil from 500 million years ago.
It must be observable in the first place.  Since it isn't...by definition it's unfalsifiable and not science.
And I will repeat a response I gave to a different poster to a different comment:

You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation.  I call it odd because no scientist I'm aware of relies on it.  Consider this:  I am convinced that on the day we would now call October 25, 1987 B.C., a total solar eclipse occurred over what we would now call Omaha, Nebraska.  Do you also believe this event occurred as I describe?  Why or why not?
I have a better question.  Which species have been observed to evolve into an entirely different species?  Please provide dates, links, labs locations or anything else you can find.  Keep in mind, birds changing feather color is not a new species. 
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4588 on: September 28, 2012, 06:44:00 PM »

Your answer is "You have an odd insistence on direct personal observation". Do you believe this are fair questions?
Why can't you just answer the question?  It's quite simple.  Do you believe that a solar eclipse occurred in that particular place on that particular date or not?  Yes or no?  How much simpler a question could I possibly ask?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4589 on: September 28, 2012, 06:44:49 PM »

To begin, how long ago do you believe life first appeared on this planet?
Oh, how I would love to give a complete response to this.  Cell phones are far too limited.
It's difficult to post a number using a cell phone?  How long ago do you believe life appeared on planet earth?
Don't try to shift.  That never works with me.  Either evolution is fact or it isn't.  Since your recent posts say their is no proof, it isn't fact, therefore, it's just another idea which can be dismissed along with all the other silly ideas people come up with.  Unless you can prove it, it's not fact.
Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.212 seconds with 76 queries.