OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 05:05:00 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  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bad arguments for evolution  (Read 6414 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« on: April 07, 2006, 11:25:35 PM »

Bad arguments for evolution include using the tautology "survival of the fittest". I cite the following to show not only did Darwin use the term, he stated he preferred the term.

"Darwin used the term "natural selection" in his book "On the Origin of Species" but was persuaded that Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" was probably 'more convenient' "
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/genes1.html#rst
"Darwin did not believe that the environment was producing the variation within the finch populations. He correctly thought that the variation already existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable beak shape and against less useful ones. Darwin and his supporters ultimately described this process as the "survival of the fittest." This is very different from Lamarck's incorrect idea that the environment altered the shape of individuals and that these acquired changes were then inherited."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

The best twist on this is...
The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was not even Darwin's. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated 'natural selection' because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
That is, it doesn't argue that he didn't use it, just that he didn't 'coin' it.

However, look at this chapter from Darwin's own book
On the Origin Of Species (1859)
Chapter IV: Natural Selection; Or the Survival of the Fittest
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter4.html
"This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest."
(Ibid)

Oddly enough they are recognised as synonymous by talkorigins...when they rebut the claim that "Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring, but it defines the fittest individuals as those that leave the most offspring."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

They then argue that Darwin never used the term, at all! But "Darwin himself was uneasy with the term (natural selection). In the sixth and last edition of the Origin, he says that survival of the fittest is a "more accurate" expression of what he had previously called natural selection."
http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html
This is what he himself says...
"But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."
from the 6th edition of "Origin of the Species"
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-03.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2006, 11:40:28 PM »

One book in an effort to defend Darwinism comes up with another bad argument; comparing natural with artificial selection...
“From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled “Darwin's Mistakes,” by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.
Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.)* That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is.”
Robert H Tamarin, (1996) “Principles of Genetics” (5th ed), p571.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2006, 01:49:24 AM »

the bird kills "survival of the fittest". It grew a wing (for which most of the time it was useless) for millions of years, so that it could fly and survive extinction. it took millions of years to form the wing, if it had that much time, I doubt it was in trouble of becoming extinct
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2006, 03:10:53 AM »

the bird kills "survival of the fittest". It grew a wing (for which most of the time it was useless) for millions of years, so that it could fly and survive extinction. it took millions of years to form the wing, if it had that much time, I doubt it was in trouble of becoming extinct
Speaking of birds, I was watching a program about turtles. When they hatch they make their way down to the ocean past a cordon of various birds. The birds simply pick-off whatever turtle happens to be closest. There's no 'seclection of the fittest'/weeding out the weakest. It's pure chance.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2006, 03:49:40 PM »

Quote
the bird kills "survival of the fittest". It grew a wing (for which most of the time it was useless) for millions of years, so that it could fly and survive extinction. it took millions of years to form the wing, if it had that much time, I doubt it was in trouble of becoming extinct

Uh, no. It's now clear that many theropod dinosaurs were feathered, such as Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor, and a front limb with feathers is nothing less than a proto-wing. These front limbs would have been useful for all the functions that theropod front limbs were useful for, and the addition of feathers would have added several functions -- sexual display, thermoregulation, balance, and the ability to glide (much like flying squirrels do today). At no point would the proto-wing have been "useless".
Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2006, 04:02:23 PM »

explain to me something about Darwin's theory.

the evolution of man, chimpanzees, monkeys etc... from a past "ape like" neanderthal animal would have to mean that at some point, the amount of chromosones had changed since all of the animals mentioned have different amounts of chromosomes. You cannot say that this change developed slowly during year and years such as the wing because you cannot have 1/3 of a chromosome and then million years later have 2/3s of it and then it eventually appears completely. Scientists have not been able to change the amount of chromosomes in ANY animal or scientific study, without making the resulting creature unable to reproduce.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2006, 05:03:25 PM »

Quote
the evolution of man, chimpanzees, monkeys etc... from a past "ape like" neanderthal animal

What are you talking about? According to current cladistical understanding, hominids (including neanderthalensis) and apes are a separate lineage from old world monkeys, and apes/old world monkeys are a separate lineage from new world monkeys. The common ancestor of the old world and new world lineages wouldn't have been ape-like at all, but likely would have resembled one of the current prosimians.

Quote
You cannot say that this change developed slowly during year and years such as the wing because you cannot have 1/3 of a chromosome and then million years later have 2/3s of it and then it eventually appears completely.

Actually, you can. You can have odd numbers of chromosomes (chromosomes usually come in pairs), and chromosomes can be of different sizes, and can also split and join together.

Quote
Scientists have not been able to change the amount of chromosomes in ANY animal or scientific study, without making the resulting creature unable to reproduce.

You are utterly incorrect. As a quick example, Przewalski's horses have 33 pairs of chromosomes (66 chromosomes), and domestic horses have 32 pairs (64 chromosomes). The two can easily interbreed, and their offspring have 32.5 pairs of chromosomes (65 chromosomes). The offspring are fertile.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2006, 07:24:41 PM »

What are you talking about? According to current cladistical understanding, hominids (including neanderthalensis) and apes are a separate lineage from old world monkeys, and apes/old world monkeys are a separate lineage from new world monkeys. The common ancestor of the old world and new world lineages wouldn't have been ape-like at all, but likely would have resembled one of the current prosimians.
I like Neanderthals. They've been moved about from being our ancestors, to being cousins on a dead-end branch, to being so close that they were bred out. But no matter where they put them, they're still happy that the point to evolution. Like saying "We don't know how it happened, but we just know that it did"
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2006, 08:36:37 PM »

Quote
They've been moved about from being our ancestors, to being cousins on a dead-end branch, to being so close that they were bred out.

Not quite -- they're still considered a dead-end branch. The current semi-consensus is that humans and neanderthals either couldn't breed, or could but didn't. There does exist one possible hybrid skeleton, but it's disputed whether it's actually a hybrid or an oddly-shaped human. Genetic analysis has shown that humans and neanderthals were quite distinct. It's most likely that neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans.
Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2006, 08:44:05 PM »

It's most likely that neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans.

neanderthals were outcompeted by CROMAGNONS, who interestingly became extinct not toolong after. So, according to you, humans are cromagnons, therefore humans dont exist? many people claim homo sapiens apiens came from cromagnons but people have stated that there is a HUUUUUUUUGE gap between us and them that cannot be explained and no intermediates have been found.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2006, 08:48:37 PM by Sloga » Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2006, 08:46:46 PM »

Quote
neanderthals were outcompeted by CROMAGNONS, who interestingly became extinct not toolong after. So, according to you, humans are cromagnons, therefore humans dont exist?

Cro-Magnon is simply the name for the earliest examples of Homo sapiens in Europe. They're not extinct, as a quick look around you will easily demonstrate.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2006, 08:47:04 PM by yBeayf » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2006, 08:49:35 PM »

Not quite -- they're still considered a dead-end branch.
Yes quite. There's schools of thought that say Neanderthal bred with us, etc as I stated above.
The current semi-consensus is that humans and neanderthals either couldn't breed, or could but didn't. There does exist one possible hybrid skeleton, but it's disputed whether it's actually a hybrid or an oddly-shaped human. Genetic analysis has shown that humans and neanderthals were quite distinct. It's most likely that neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans.
I make no point about how many adhere to any particular theory. My point is that 'based on the evidence' Neanderthal has been a fit in various places within and without our evolutionary line. In 1986 when I did pre-history there were four mutually exclusive theories
the Unilinear School;
the Polyphyletic School'
the Preneanderthal School; and
the Presapiens School
(Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”, p346ff)

These have, I acknowledge, gone to theory-heaven, but new mutually exclusive theories have emerged.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2006, 08:51:26 PM »

look im not trying to fuel a debate but anyone with enough commonsense can find out that evolution can only be a theory because not enought evidence has been found (especially intermediates). There are many things that dont make sense. evolutionists often claim "it happened, but we cant find proof for it, so just take our word"
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2006, 08:52:28 PM »

Quote
These have, I acknowledge, gone to theory-heaven, but new mutually exclusive theories have emerged.

Yep. Ain't science grand? The view that Neanderthals were absorbed into the human population is a minority view, though, and losing ground. Certainly humans and Neanderthals were very close genetically, but there just isn't the hard evidence to support a merging of the two lines.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2006, 08:52:36 PM »

Cro-Magnon is simply the name for the earliest examples of Homo sapiens in Europe. They're not extinct, as a quick look around you will easily demonstrate.
So says talkorigins...
Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. .
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2006, 08:54:37 PM »

Quote
look im not trying to fuel a debate but anyone with enough commonsense can find out that evolution can only be a theory because not enought evidence has been found (especially intermediates).

You're talking nonsense. Properly speaking, *every* species is an intermediate between its ancestral species and any species that may derive from it in the future.

Quote
evolutionists often claim "it happened, but we cant find proof for it, so just take our word"

The evidence is there; you merely seem to be unfamiliar with it.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2006, 08:57:15 PM »

Yep. Ain't science grand? The view that Neanderthals were absorbed into the human population is a minority view, though, and losing ground. Certainly humans and Neanderthals were very close genetically, but there just isn't the hard evidence to support a merging of the two lines.
Ain't evolutionary science grand?

You miss the subtle point. This is simply not a matter of holding one theory and then discarding it when another theory better suits what's known. This is the matter of holding several mutually exclusive theories to all be possible even though all are based on the evidence.

Which is, as noted earlier a way of saying "We don't know how it happened, but we're damn certain that it must have".

FYI the current mutually exclusive theoires I refer to are commonly called
a) the Out of Africa hypothesis
and the
b) Diregional (aka Multi-regioonal) hypothesis.

"Where do the genes of the Europeans come from? A good, but trivial, answer is: From Africa, like everybody else's genes. Paleontologists agree that the long-term human ancestors, a million years ago or so, dwelt in Africa. There is disagreement, however, about what happened after archaic presapiens humans (Homo erectus) spread over much of the Old World. The anatomically archaic populations of Europe, Northeastern Asia, and Southeastern Asia may have gradually evolved into the modern Homo sapiens sapiens populations inhabiting, respectively, Western Eurasia, East Asia, and Australia; this is the multiregional theory of human evolution (1). On the contrary, the Out-of-Africa theory regards all modern populations as descended from an anatomically modern group that dispersed from Africa less than 200,000 years ago and replaced archaic populations (2). "
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/1/22
"One of the great controversies of archaeology surrounds the origins of Homo sapiens sapiens. One group of scholars believes that Homo erectus populations throughout the world evolved independently, first into early Homo sapiens, then into fully modern humans. Thus, the modern geographic populations (races) of the world would have been separated for a long time, perhaps a million years. Most experts take a diametrically opposite view. They hypothesize that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved in Africa sometime between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, then spread to other parts of the Old World. Under this model, modern geographic populations are less than 100,000 years old.
2
These two models represent extremes, which pit advocates of anatomical continuity against those who believe there was population replacement. Each model is based on the minute study of human fossil remains, but the replacement theory also relies on studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)."
http://www.bartleby.com/67/24.html

I have but two books on this, one from each school. One offers a rather telling admission...
"The current controversy is largely a reflection of different scientific philosophies, linked to ideas about race through their treatment of variation. But there is more to it. Even if they have no conscious social agenda, scientists are bound by the same preconceptions as everyone else - their social, religious, and educational backgrounds influence their choices of theories and, perhaps more important, their philosophies of science. Karl Popper noted more than once that it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from, only whether they explain the evidence they are based on, wether they are subject to disproof, and whether they can hold up to enthusiastic attempts to disprove them. This philosophy forms the basis of deductive science. But hypothesis do come from somewhere, often the underlying assumptions of society. Moreover, not only the differences in sources of ideas, but also different premises scientists have held about evolution, human nature, God, and how science should be done, have always underscored the controversies about human evolution."
Wolpoff, M & Caspari, R, (1997) "Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction", p12.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2006, 08:58:41 PM »

The evidence is there; you merely seem to be unfamiliar with it.
Now that goes to my point. There's all this evidence that all points to 'evolution', but when you ask 'how?' you get;
it could be 'a'
it could be 'b'
it could be 'c'

Even though 'a', 'b', and 'c' each exclude each other.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2006, 09:00:40 PM »

Quote
Now that goes to my point. There's all this evidence that all points to 'evolution', but when you ask 'how?' you get;
it could be 'a'
it could be 'b'
it could be 'c'

Even though 'a', 'b', and 'c' each exclude each other.

If you think this is a problem, then you are unfamiliar with how science works. Disagreement on the origin of modern hominids doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all; the disagreement isn't over the theory, but its application to a specific set of data.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2006, 10:07:12 PM »

If you think this is a problem, then you are unfamiliar with how science works.
I am aware how 'science' works. And I am aware how 'evolutionary science' works.
Disagreement on the origin of modern hominids doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all; the disagreement isn't over the theory, but its application to a specific set of data.
I know. That's what I've been saying. All theories are okay providing they fit a naturalistic explanation. And there was you arguing with another person about the strength of all the evidence. What good is 'evidence' 'a' when it's able to be applied to several different theories at once. What's it evidence then for?

Imagine you go to court. Police have accused you of a crime. They're just certain you did it, but aren't sure how you did it. Would you accept a guilty verdict?

You're more than welcome to add comments to the quote from Wolpoff above.

My book on the Out of Africa model* comes up with some really stupid illustrations. There's a picture of a woman who is of African heritage. Next to her is a picture of her done up in make-up to make her appear European, and Asian etc. It is to show how we all are so closely related that we are all the same under the skin (whilst I agree that we are - the illustration in effect suggests that a woman who has make-up applied to look European can be made to look European!)

*Stringer, C., & McKie, R., (1996) "African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity", (Henry Holt Books; New York)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2006, 12:03:41 AM »

Quote
I am aware how 'science' works. And I am aware how 'evolutionary science' works.

From your postings here, this is far from evident. And you can drop the quotes; "evolutionary science" is just "science", period.

Quote
They're just certain you did it, but aren't sure how you did it. Would you accept a guilty verdict?

If there were evidence showing I did, in fact, do it, then yes. Your books are from 1996 and 1997 -- rather out of date. Wolpoff's is a minority view in the scientific community. And what competing models for hominid evolution has to do with the theory of evolution itself, I have no idea. What is your point in this thread?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 12:07:45 AM by yBeayf » Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2006, 12:34:09 AM »

From your postings here, this is far from evident. And you can drop the quotes; "evolutionary science" is just "science", period.

science is based on observation. we have not and cannot observe evolution therefore Darwin's Theory is only a theory, not scientific fact.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2006, 12:36:52 AM »

From your postings here, this is far from evident. And you can drop the quotes; "evolutionary science" is just "science", period.
Now you've switched from debate to innuendo. Cool. Shows you've nothing else to say.
If there were evidence showing I did, in fact, do it, then yes. Your books are from 1996 and 1997 -- rather out of date. Wolpoff's is a minority view in the scientific community. And what competing models for hominid evolution has to do with the theory of evolution itself, I have no idea. What is your point in this thread?
More inneudno... there's nothing to suggest that Wolpoff's theory has been replaced. All you have ascertained is that ONE book of his that I have is 10 years old. Still beats debate, hey? And the direct quote I used from Wolpoff was to do with general ideas about the approach to evolution... something you've missed
Show me how Wolpoff's ideas have been superseded.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 12:37:39 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2006, 12:38:20 AM »

science is based on observation. we have not and cannot observe evolution therefore Darwin's Theory is only a theory, not scientific fact.

I think yBeayf's posts are now lacking fact.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2006, 12:47:06 AM »

Quote
science is based on observation. we have not and cannot observe evolution therefore Darwin's Theory is only a theory, not scientific fact.

It's both a theory and a fact.

Quote
More inneudno... there's nothing to suggest that Wolpoff's theory has been replaced. All you have ascertained is that ONE book of his that I have is 10 years old. Still beats debate, hey? And the direct quote I used from Wolpoff was to do with general ideas about the approach to evolution... something you've missed
Show me how Wolpoff's ideas have been superseded.

This is a side issue. I will ask one more time, and then I will leave the thread until you answer: what does the fact that there are competing models of hominid evolution have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?

I will not post in this thread again until you have answered. If you wish, you may consider my further non-participation in this thread a victory; I really don't care. To be honest, I'm sick of beating my head against the wall of scientific ignorance among Orthodox. If there was ever something to tempt me to go back to the Latins, it's the fact that at least some of them seem to have paid attention in Biology 101 instead of huddling in the corner with their hands over their ears.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2006, 12:54:12 AM »

This is a side issue. I will ask one more time, and then I will leave the thread until you answer: what does the fact that there are competing models of hominid evolution have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?
What has this to do with anything? I've already stated the problem of suggesting many a thing all at once makes for a nonsense; especially as you were brow-beating another person that evolution is true based on the evidences. All you've done is reduced evolution to at least a just-so; it must have happened because it must have - all the evidences point to mutually exclusive views. I've stated this before, why you need me to repeat it I don't know.

I will not post in this thread again until you have answered. If you wish, you may consider my further non-participation in this thread a victory; I really don't care. To be honest, I'm sick of beating my head against the wall of scientific ignorance among Orthodox. If there was ever something to tempt me to go back to the Latins, it's the fact that at least some of them seem to have paid attention in Biology 101 instead of huddling in the corner with their hands over their ears.
I don't care if you don't post again, you seem to be in a huff. What have I said that is incorrect? You've alluded to me not knowing the subject but you've not actually stated anything I've said is false. Thus you're only intent here is to cast innuendo and slur about an opponent; based on nothing.

That's all you've offered against me as debate; innuedno. That I just don't 'get it'. If someone simply submits themselves to science uncritically; just 'accepting' that the answer must be there, then science can not go forward.

As to 'evolutionary science' being different from 'science', I separate the two simply because of other reasons.

One being that most people claim that science follows the scientific method (assuming that there is but one scientific method). In fact there's more than one theory of evolution which you don't seem to realise when you refer to it.

So, if you're all in a huff, that's not my fault. You've waded in here made lots of speculation about other people's knowledge and not backed it up by anything. When I point this out you simply demand that I answer a question I've already pre-empted and then state you won't debate till I answer it. I had hoped to have had a rational debate here.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 12:55:49 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2006, 01:12:34 AM »

He may be using a book that is 9 years old for proof, But that doesnt discredit the proof of using Darwin's Theory..which is about how old? dont be a hypocrite. No new evolutionary theories have been printed, they are all stemming off Darwin, which is 100 years old.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2006, 01:39:53 AM »

He may be using a book that is 9 years old for proof, But that doesnt discredit the proof of using Darwin's Theory..which is about how old? dont be a hypocrite. No new evolutionary theories have been printed, they are all stemming off Darwin, which is 100 years old.
I'm amazed that he would pick on the age of a book when the quote I gave from it was about motives for evolution in general. The proofs for this one (of a couple of) mutually exclusive theories was evidenced by several quotes from web-sites.

Still, as I pointed out, it sure beats rational debate.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2006, 01:43:12 AM »

I'd like to get back to the OP, anyway. Darwin to describe his idea, thought that a tautology was the best way of explanation.

I find that this is rather odd. He in effect is saying "That which survives survives". He should have called it "Survival of the surviviest"
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The Wolf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 95


« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2006, 06:57:12 AM »

Do many of you subscribe to a literalistic interpretation of the creation story?
Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

Euripides: Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2006, 08:28:42 AM »

Do many of you subscribe to a literalistic interpretation of the creation story?
I think it's best summed up like this when the late Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?” (Genesis Creation and Early Man, p69).

Some just 'believe'. "We (Orthodox) believe that the created world itself is a 'mystery' originating in the sovereign will of God accomplished by the action (energia) of the Holy Trinity. We confess in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (325/381) that the Father is the “Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible", the Son “He through whom all things were made”, and the Holy Spirit, the "Creator of life" (zoopion)." http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8050.asp
« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 08:29:33 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The Wolf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 95


« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2006, 10:16:41 AM »

Interesting reply, Thanks.
Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

Euripides: Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,328


« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2006, 10:59:03 AM »

Quote
Do many of you subscribe to a literalistic interpretation of the creation story?

You might not get a wide variety of responses, because this is about the 1,047th time this issue has been debated here just in the last year (I'm only exaggerating a little Wink ). The posters on this forum are a mixed bag, with intelligent posters holding to positions ranging from Young Earth Creationism, to a deistic version of ID theory, to Neo-Darwinism.
Logged

.
The Wolf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 95


« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2006, 12:12:31 PM »

Many thanks.  Grin
Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

Euripides: Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2006, 05:55:37 PM »

Interesting reply, Thanks.
No problemo. We just 'believe' it to be true without understanding.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2006, 08:32:39 PM »

I am a Young Earth Creationist myself and find the traditional date of "anno mundi" to be perfectly satisfying. I do wonder however, Evolutionists must have some answer to the fact that the Scientific Method must, among other things, be observable and testable to be provable. For any Orthodox Theistic Evolutionists here: How in the world do you observe and conduct experiments on a process that takes millions of years to be discernible? And if experiments can't be performed on it how do you prove it? And if you can't prove it, how can it ever be more than a hypothesis supported by certain presuppossitions? And if it can't be more than a hypothesis- why not just take the Creation account just as it is................?
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2006, 08:50:52 PM »

In addition to the above, recently there has been a missing link- "Tiktaalik rosaea"- discovered. Creationists treat fossils as photographs of species that once existed but may not live anymore while Evolutioists see it as a link in a chain. In this instance, is  not a Creationist one who sees a fact without drawing further conclusions? And is not an Evolutionist one who interprets the fact of the creature and then presupposes its ancestry and descendancy the one living by blind faith? I am reminded of the pig's tooth that was extrapolated into "Nebraska Man", for example.............
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2006, 10:36:04 PM »

I am a Young Earth Creationist myself and find the traditional date of "anno mundi" to be perfectly satisfying. I do wonder however, Evolutionists must have some answer to the fact that the Scientific Method must, among other things, be observable and testable to be provable. For any Orthodox Theistic Evolutionists here: How in the world do you observe and conduct experiments on a process that takes millions of years to be discernible? And if experiments can't be performed on it how do you prove it? And if you can't prove it, how can it ever be more than a hypothesis supported by certain presuppossitions? And if it can't be more than a hypothesis- why not just take the Creation account just as it is................?

One of the ways is that they believe in a type of unity of process. If we can observe something now, we  presume that it worked like this over a long period of time (there's no basis for this, one just supposes it to be so, and so it is).

And there's also the 'fossil record'. And this is simply evidence that one can interpret any way;
In 1870 a Darwinist named Hyatt worked on specimens of ammonites and arranged them Aegoceras (oldest)-Androgynoceras-Liparoceras (youngest)

In 1938 L F Spath looking at the same evidence arranged them Liparoceras (oldest)-Androgynoceras-Aegoceras (youngest)

In 1963 Blockely said that they were all a variation of Androgynoceras, and the range was explained by sexual dimorphism.

All of which Richard Milton says "It is a prime illustration of the infinite elasticity of Darwinian theory: of its ability to interpret the data in any one of a number of completely different ways - even with diametrically opposed conclusions - as long as those ways are consistent with the central belief in Darwinian evolution itself."
in "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", p113
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2006, 10:37:44 PM »

In addition to the above, recently there has been a missing link- "Tiktaalik rosaea"- discovered. Creationists treat fossils as photographs of species that once existed but may not live anymore while Evolutioists see it as a link in a chain. In this instance, is  not a Creationist one who sees a fact without drawing further conclusions? And is not an Evolutionist one who interprets the fact of the creature and then presupposes its ancestry and descendancy the one living by blind faith? I am reminded of the pig's tooth that was extrapolated into "Nebraska Man", for example.............
To be fair to evolutionists the "Nebraska Man" situation was never widely accepted. A better example is "Piltdown Man" which had them fooled for decades
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2006, 10:38:27 PM »

You might not get a wide variety of responses, because this is about the 1,047th time this issue has been debated here just in the last year (I'm only exaggerating a little Wink ). The posters on this forum are a mixed bag, with intelligent posters holding to positions ranging from Young Earth Creationism, to a deistic version of ID theory, to Neo-Darwinism.

Many a Church Father believed in creation
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2006, 11:27:09 PM »

worked on specimens of ammonites"


 Weren't these one of the peoples inhabiting Canaan till post-Exodus?...............not to be picky.........
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2006, 12:05:04 AM »

Weren't these one of the peoples inhabiting Canaan till post-Exodus?...............not to be picky.........
LOL
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,328


« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2006, 12:45:33 AM »

Quote
Many a Church Father believed in creation

Photius gave an interesting principle in his work On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that I think is applicable: we should not condemn someone for something--even in some cases heresy--that was beyond their knowledge. If a 4th century Father affirmed a doctrine that was condemned at a 6th century Council, for example, Photius endorsed "covering" the heretical belief of the 4th century Father. Well, I would say likewise that there is no fault in a 4th or 8th century Church Father holding to a 4th or 8th century understanding of how the universe came to be.
Logged

.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2006, 01:27:58 AM »

Photius gave an interesting principle in his work On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that I think is applicable: we should not condemn someone for something--even in some cases heresy--that was beyond their knowledge. If a 4th century Father affirmed a doctrine that was condemned at a 6th century Council, for example, Photius endorsed "covering" the heretical belief of the 4th century Father. Well, I would say likewise that there is no fault in a 4th or 8th century Church Father holding to a 4th or 8th century understanding of how the universe came to be.

Are you saying that the Church Fathers who believed in creation (because Jesus did) had no knowledge of this? (It makes for a very good case for a relative truth then). Who knows what other things the Church Fathers said were 'true' that weren't 'true' in an absolute sense?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2006, 05:35:13 AM »


Wow! These critters look tough! No wonder the early Israelites had so much trouble dislodging them from the Promised Land- not sure how they built those Canaanite cities though.........
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2006, 05:55:24 AM »

Wow! These critters look tough! No wonder the early Israelites had so much trouble dislodging them from the Promised Land- not sure how they built those Canaanite cities though.........
Perhaps the Canaanites used the Ammonites to ameliorate their cities.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,328


« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2006, 12:07:09 PM »

Quote
Are you saying that the Church Fathers who believed in creation (because Jesus did) had no knowledge of this? (It makes for a very good case for a relative truth then). Who knows what other things the Church Fathers said were 'true' that weren't 'true' in an absolute sense?

I am saying that they didn't know any better, thus it wasn't truth that they held to, but opinion. There were numerous theories of creation floating around during the early years of Christianity, including at least one evolutionary theory. At the time, a literal reading of Genesis seemed as good an explanation as anything. I am not arguing that the Fathers were relatively true, I am saying that given their context, we should not condemn them for holding the opinion that they held. St. Photius articulated this principle, and St. Mark of Ephesus also used it at the Council of Florence to defend certain Orthodox Fathers who Roman Catholics said taught doctrines like purgatory (in fact, he pointed out that some, like Gregory of Nyssa, taught doctrines which were "worse" than purgatory).
Logged

.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2006, 06:42:24 AM »

I am saying that they didn't know any better, thus it wasn't truth that they held to, but opinion. There were numerous theories of creation floating around during the early years of Christianity, including at least one evolutionary theory. At the time, a literal reading of Genesis seemed as good an explanation as anything. I am not arguing that the Fathers were relatively true, I am saying that given their context, we should not condemn them for holding the opinion that they held. St. Photius articulated this principle, and St. Mark of Ephesus also used it at the Council of Florence to defend certain Orthodox Fathers who Roman Catholics said taught doctrines like purgatory (in fact, he pointed out that some, like Gregory of Nyssa, taught doctrines which were "worse" than purgatory).
Then you contradict yourself. Knowing evolution, they rejected it. Further, I'm not going by what singlular Church Fathers say, but what ALL the church says.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2006, 06:52:05 AM »

Oh, and Jesus refers to the creation. Shocked

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


And the Apostles believed it
Acts 14:15 "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2006, 07:36:19 AM »

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Seems clear enough, there were never people who weren't male or female. I don't see a contradiction with evolution.

Quote
Acts 14:15 "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them

I support the notion of evolution and yet I believe God is the Creator of the universe. Both viewpoints are entirely reconciable. When God created the universe, several billion years ago, he in his omniscience could have started things off with precisely the right conditions that things would lead, seemingly randomly, step by step according to his plan, to Adam. I don't think there's anyone here who believes in evolution that just accidentally and meaninglessly produced people. Rather, Christians who support evolution see it as an expression of our God's awesome power.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2006, 07:37:51 AM by CRCulver » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,328


« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2006, 07:51:12 AM »

Mont

Quote
Then you contradict yourself. Knowing evolution, they rejected it.

Lol, well no, actually, if they rejected anything then what they rejected was an ancient version of evolution, not the modern, Darwinian version of evolution. And if you are affirming what all the Church says, then why do many other Orthodox contradict you? Seems the Church is a bit ambiguous about its absolute truth. Tongue
Logged

.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2006, 08:07:47 AM »

Seems clear enough, there were never people who weren't male or female. I don't see a contradiction with evolution.
I believe it means He created people as they are today.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2006, 08:11:59 AM »

Lol, well no, actually, if they rejected anything then what they rejected was an ancient version of evolution, not the modern, Darwinian version of evolution.
Well modern Darwinism itself isn't the same as evolution as postulated by Darwinism. But if anything it shows that they knew of alternate theories.
And if you are affirming what all the Church says, then why do many other Orthodox contradict you? Seems the Church is a bit ambiguous about its absolute truth.
Ah, that's a novel argument!
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2006, 08:15:43 AM »

“No on should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory” said St Ephraim the Syrian

St. Basil the Great in his Hexatemeron says “Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written.”

"1. St. John Chrysostom wrote a larger and smaller commentary on the whole book of Genesis. The larger, called Homilies on Genesis, was actually a course of lectures delivered during Great Lent, since during Lent the book of Genesis is read in church. This book contains sixty-seven homilies and is some seven hundred pages long.* Another year, St. John delivered eight other homilies, comprising several hundred more pages. He also wrote a treatise called On the Creation of the World, over a hundred pages long. Thus, in St. John Chrysostom we have a thousand pages or more of interpretation of Genesis. He is one of the main interpreters of this book.

2. St. Ephraim the Syrian, from about the same time as St. John Chrysostom, also has a commentary on the whole book. In his work, called simply Interpretation of the Books of the Bible, several hundred pages are devoted to Genesis. St. Ephraim is valued as an Old Testament interpreter because he knew Hebrew, was an "Easterner" (i.e., of an Eastern mentality), and knew sciences.

3. St. Basil the Great gave homilies on the Six Days of Creation, called the Hexaemeron - meaning "Six Days." There are other Hexaemera in the literature of the early Church, some going back to the second century. St. Basil's, one might say, is the most authoritative. It does not cover the whole of Genesis, but only the first chapter. Another book by him which we will quote is called On the Origin of Man, which is like a continuation of the Hexaemeron.

4. In the West, St. Ambrose of Milan read St. Basil's homilies and wrote homilies on the Six Days himself. His Hexaemeron is quite a bit longer, about three hundred pages. St. Ambrose also wrote a whole book on Paradise, a continuation of the Hexaemeron, as well as a book on Cain and Abel."
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/chapter1.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2006, 08:22:35 AM »

Seems clear enough, there were never people who weren't male or female. I don't see a contradiction with evolution.
By evolution I assume you mean Darwinism.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #55 on: April 11, 2006, 08:27:34 AM »

"If the world has a beginning, and if it has been created, enquire who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator: or rather, in the fear that human reasonings may make you wander from the truth, Moses has anticipated enquiry by engraving in our hearts, as a seal and a safeguard, the awful name of God: 'In the beginning God created' - It is He, beneficent Nature, Goodness without measure, a worthy object of love for all beings endowed with reason, the beauty the most to be desired, the origin of all that exists, the source of life, intellectual light, impenetrable wisdom, it is He who 'in the beginning created heaven and earth.'" St. Basil the Great, The Hexaemeron quoted at http://www.orthodox.net/gleanings/creation.html

"And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God [Qeos] on account of His having placed [teqeikenai] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of [qeein], for qeein means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand, and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood." So said Theophiuls of Antioch** in "To Autolycus" quoted at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/theophilus-book1.html

Further...
"For as the soul in man is not seen, being invisible to men, but is perceived through the motion of the body, so God cannot indeed be seen by human eyes, but is beheld and perceived through His providence and works. For, in like manner, as any person, when he sees a ship on the sea rigged and in sail, and making for the harbour, will no doubt infer that there is a pilot in her who is steering her; so we must perceive that God is the governor [pilot] of the whole universe, though He be not visible to the eyes of the flesh, since He is incomprehensible. For if a man cannot look upon the sun, though it be a very small heavenly body, on account of its exceeding heat and power, how shall not a mortal man be much more unable to face the glory of God, which is unutterable? For as the pomegranate, with the rind containing it, has within it many cells and compartments which are separated by tissues, and has also many seeds dwelling in it, so the whole creation is contained by the spirit of God, and the containing spirit is along with the creation contained by the hand of God. As, therefore, the seed of the pomegranate, dwelling inside, cannot see what is outside the rind, itself being within; so neither can man, who along with the whole creation is enclosed by the hand of God, behold God. Then again, an earthly king is believed to exist, even though he be not seen by all; for he is recognised by his laws and ordinances, and authorities, and forces, and statues; and are you unwilling that God should be recognised by His works and mighty deeds? "
(Ibid)
Creation is thus a window onto God. We say that God is love, and it is because of His love that He created. To suggest that God just made the initial big bang and sat back to watch it unfold is to deny His love. What father would it be that conceives of a child and then abandons it? Not a loving one! Likewise God didn't abandon His creation, He constantly works with His creation.

God is an active participant in the creation. Further, the relationship of a very real Adam is essential to Christianity, almost as much so as that of Jesus.

"If one is to vigorously and consistently maintains that Jesus Christ is the unique Savoir Who has brought salvation to a world in need of salvation, one obviously must know what is the nature of the need which provoked this salvation. (St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, 4) It would, indeed, seem foolish to have medical doctors trained to heal sickness if there were no such thing as sickness in the world. Likewise, a savoir who claims to save people in need of no salvation is a savoir only unto himself." http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.htm
This 'sickness' then is sin. It is ancestral sin, the sin committed by Adam. "And behold, as you see, the sentence of God remains forever as an eternal chastisement...For this reason the Almighty Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, came so as to humble Himself in place of Adam." (St. Symeon the New Theologian "The First-Created Man", p44).
"The sin committed by our progenitors in paradise, with all its consequences, passed and passes from them to all their posterity. What the first people became after the Fall, such also till now are their descendants in the world. "Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3, KJV). Estrangement from God, the loss of grace, the distortion of God's image, the perversion and weakening of the bodily organism, which ends with death - here is Adam's sad legacy, received by each of us at our very appearance in the world. "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream," teaches the Orthodox catechism, "so from an ancestor infected with sin, and hence mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected with sin, and hence mortal." http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9609a.htm
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men (Romans 5:12 )." By refusing communion with God, Adam cut himself off from the Source of Life. Having separated himself from God, Adam, in a sense, starved his nature from the gifts of God. Because man was given dominion over all creation, St. Paul insists that all of creation has fallen as well.(Original Sin, p 2 as quoted on http://www.akins.org/matthew/paul.html#tthFtNtACH)
"Undoubtedly, one of the most important causes of heresy is the failure to understand the exact nature of the human situation described by the Old and New Testaments, to which the historical events of the birth, teachings, death, resurrection and second coming of Christ are the only remedy. The failure to understand this automatically implies a perverted understanding of what it is that Christ did and continues to do for us, and what our subsequent relation is to Christ and neighbour within the realm of salvation. The importance of a correct definition of original sin and its consequences can never be exaggerated. Any attempt to minimize its importance or alter its significance automatically entails either a weakening or even a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments and human destiny." http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.htm. Thus, it is meaningless, or worse still utterly wrong to downplay the relationships established in Genesis. It is the beginning of the story of Man, and the story of Man's sin. Without it, why would Jesus come to us?

This is not a novel approach to reading Genesis, in fact it is the allegorical approach that is novel! Countless Christian thinkers have throughout the centuries held to the literal truth...
"No on should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory" said St Ephraim the Syrian

St. Basil the Great in his Hexatemeron says "Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written."

St.Macarius the Great of Egypt in commenting on Genesis 3:24 said "This is a passage which many of us might have expected to have only a mystical meaning, but this great seer of Divine things assures us that is is also true "just as it is written" for those capable of seeing it." (pp85-6 Seraphim Rose "Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision)
*Properly speaking, the phrase ``original sin'' is not generally used by Eastern Fathers or contemporary Orthodox theologians. This phrase was introduced by St. Augustine in his polemics against Pelagians. The phrase continued to be used, primarily in the west, to denote the idea of ``original guilt.''

(Eastern theologians have long preferred the phrase "ancestral sin,'' which connotes the sin of our first ancestor, Adam. The term was used to denote "the sin of Adam, which was transmitted to his descendants and weighs upon them" or "sin-sickness.''
http://www.akins.org/matthew/paul.html )

Further... "With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their wilful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q...ginal-Sin.html

Thus the creation story, and that of the first real and actual man, Adam is fundamental to the Christian story. This story has been undermined by many Chrisitans.
"Liberal Protestantism can be fairly simply identified. It is a tendency which regards human reason as paramount and which begins its theologising from the agenda of the secular world. It thus appears as continual impulse to modernize the faith, to abandon the confines of the historic creeds, and to accommodate the thought and practices of the churches to those of the secular world...In many ways, liberal Protestantism was (an)... attempt to create an intellectually supportable version of Christianity, in the face of massive divisions within the body of those who claimed to worship the same God." Schaeffer, F, "Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion", pp193-4.
"In short, the triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God an set the stage for replacing Biblical religion with a new faith based on evolutionary naturalism. That new faith would become the basis not just of science but also of government, law and morality. It would be the established religious philosophy of modernity." (Fr. Seraphim Rose, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man", p17)
"Today, confused and well-meaning Protestants of all denominational persuasions, having little or no historic foundation at all, take Scripture - as their only source of spiritual authority... Each individual becomes his or her own "ecumenical council," "bishop" and "priest." Each is a law unto himself as he reads the Bible and claims, "God is speaking to me."" Schaeffer, F, "Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion", p195

But what of science, and man's capacity to summount all with the power of his mind?
"It is not perhaps without good reason that we attribute to simple-mindedness a readiness to believe anything and to ignorance the readiness to be convinced, for I think I was once taught hat a belief is like an impression stamped on our soul: the softer and less resisting the soul, the easier it is to print anything on it...On the other hand there is a silly arrogance in continuing to disdain something and to condemn it as false just because it seems unlikely to us. That is a common vice among those who think their capacities are above the ordinary".
"That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities", Michel de Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics, p74.

Science is based on the understanding of scientists who are flawed humans.

Science is, for the most part about hypothesis, experiment and observation. If experiments can be repeated with the same observations, such events usually pass into the realm of scientific fact.
Once, there was a belief in spontaneous generation; that life would instantaneously arise from non-life, usually decaying biotic matter. This belief existed because people could see maggots ?form? on rotting meat. The first serious attack on the idea of spontaneous generation was made in 1668 the Italian physician Francesco Redi. Up till that time, it was widely believed that maggots arose spontaneously in rotting meat. Redi believed that maggots developed from eggs laid by flies. To test his hypothesis, he set out meat in a variety of flasks, some open to the air, some sealed completely, and others covered with gauze. As he had expected, maggots appeared only in the open flasks in which the flies could reach the meat and lay their eggs.
It was through hypothesis, experimentation and then observation that Redi showed spontaneous generation did not occur. But for the Darwinist, we must now reverse this ideal. NOW we must believe that life spontaneously developed from non-life, and all without benefit of observation. Worse still, at least with old theories of spontaneous generation life was believed to have come from organic material, now we are to believe that life came from non-organic material.
How too, does a theory of natural selection or survival of the fittest account for the origins of life? What 'need' was there for a Carbon molecule to bind with another molecule, as Carbon does not need to 'survive' as it's not even alive... in fact it exists perfectly well by itself! What was the mechanism then behind the origins of life (in Darwinist terms)?*

Science has thrown out its own methods; it replaces experiment in order to oust God.

Here is a more easily understood and insidious use of science for socio-political ends. In the early 1970s a group of radical feminists went so far as you science to suggest that it was physically impossible for a woman to achieve sexual orgasm whilst having penetrative sex. Even if the woman experienced an orgasm, she was said to be deceiving her self.... "That even in a woman?s sexuality, there is deceit on the part of men, and complacency on the part of some women" in Koedt, A. "The Myth of Vaginal Orgasm." in Koedt, A. & Levine, E. & Rapone, A., (eds.). (1973). "Radical Feminism". Quadrangle Books, New York, p204** They had a vast amount of scientific data to back them up, including physiology that showed that position of the clitoris made it impossible for it to be stimulated by penetrative sex.

Science is only as 'objective' as scientists will allow.

"If you believe that man came up from savagery, you will interpret all past history in those terms. But according to Orthodoxy, man fell from Paradise. In evolutionary philosophy there is no room for a supernatural state of Adam. Thos who want to keep both Christianity and evolutionism, therefore, are forced to stick an artificial Paradise onto an ape-like creature. These are obviously two different systems which cannot be mixed."
Fr. Seraphim Rose, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision", pp324-5
"The most important question which is raised for Orthodox theology by the modern theory of evolution is the nature of man, and in particular the nature of the first-created man Adam." (Ibid, p46)

But, I repeat it can't be made more clear than...
"No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is allegory..." St. Ephraim the Syrian (quoted in Ibid p86).


*People will say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution should note:
Darwin himself hypothesised a 'primordial soup'
Here, for your information...
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. "Climbing mount improbable." W.W. Norton, New York. pp. 282-283. Where he deals with this issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html is the web-site of a group who have as their banner "Exploring the Creation/Evolution controversy"
Obviously these people include it in an over-arching godless theory.

**See also
Kearnon, P. Man-Hating.
in Koedt, A. & Levine, E. & Rapone, A., (eds.). (1973). Radical Feminism. Quadrangle Books, New York.





"Another giant of that era, St. John Chrysostom, observed that, ?To say that creation sprang from pre-existent matter, and not to acknowledge the Creator who created everything out of nothing ? this is a mark of the lowest form of stupidity.? From these quotations we see that the notion that the universe came into existence through some process of self-generation,without the conscious act of an intelligent Creator, required refutation even then, in what we now regard as an Age of Faith, though in those centuries, and for many thereafter, non-believers made up an insignificant minority."
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/divine_evidence_thornton.htm

Obviously Orthodoxy disagrees with you. You are heterodox, after-all.

Unless you are being legalistic in your own interpretations - that there is no dogmatic ruling on the issue. You are correct. I can find one Orthodox site that says:
" Eastern Orthodox theology finds not real argument with evolution up to the creation of man. And even in that, there is a possibility of accepting some of what has been discovered and continues to be discovered by science. For example, Moses, the author of the Book of Genesis, is writing to illiterate people who are asking some sobering questions while they are wandering all over the Sinai desert for some forty years. He uses a picture language and frames of reference with which they can identify. Nonetheless, the language does not take away from the meaning." Fr. George Nicozisin
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm

It is clear from the number of sources I cited by sheer weight and the greatness of them, that Orthodox should reject evolution.
Here is what some more learned contemporaries say..

"In short, then, Orthodoxy absolutely affirms that God is the Creator and Author of all things, that He is actively engaged with His creation, and that He desires to restore His creation to full communion with Himself through the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, unlike Darwinism, is not a matter of ideology but, rather, a matter of theology. "Fr. John Matusiak at
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Evolution-and-Orthodoxy.html

see also Fr. Seraphim Rose at
http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/sc_e_develo.html
and Gennadiy Kalyabin at
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/mathematic.htm
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #56 on: April 11, 2006, 08:38:36 AM »

And if you are affirming what all the Church says

For simplicity's sake his some of the commentators who believed in the creation
Commentators/commentaries such as
St. John Chrysotomon (Homilies on Genesis)
St Ephraim the Syrian (Interpretaion of the Books of the Bible)
St Basil the great (Hexaemeron; meaning Six Days)
St Ambrose of Milan (also wrote a Hexaemeron)
St Gregory of Nyssa (On the making of man)
St John Damascene (On the Orthodox Faith)
St Symeon the New Theologian (The Sin of Adam)
as well as various other writings by st Gregory the Theologian, St Macarius the Great (of Egypt) , St Abba Dorotheus, St Isaac the Syrian (list compiled from Fr. Seraphim Rose's book cited earlier).
to name a few, treated Geneisis as a literal creation.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   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 0.229 seconds with 84 queries.