Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Veniamin

Archon
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Are we talking about witnesses or eyewitnesses? They are two different things. A witness is someone who testifies to the truth as best as they can with the information they have; the person does not have to have been present or really have any knowledge of the actual event to be a witness (a character witness is a good example of this). An eyewitness, however, must be present and must actually have seen the event take place. Neither is totally reliable, of course, but the point stands.
WRONG!!!

A witness always has to have knowledge of what they're talking about.  Character witnesses have to have knowledge of the person's reputation for a specific character trait or have formed an opinion of that specific character trait based on their knowledge.  You're drawing a false distinction there.  All witnesses must have knowledge of what they report.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
That wasn't what I was saying. Suppose a person is accused of having robbed a bank. It is possible for a character witness to be called who was not even in the same state as the robbery to give testimony for the accused. Such a person would have no knowledge of the event, i.e. the robbery and certainly could not be called an eyewitness to the robbery, but would be a witness nonetheless.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Heorhij said:
I simply cannot understand, just what this so-called "creationism" is about. One might as well establish a movement called "anti-electromagnetism." Biological evolution is a FACT, just like the existence of electricity is a fact. That life on the planet Earth is being diversified because of the biological evolution is a valid scientific theory, just like that the potential in an electric circuit is determined by the electromagnetic field is a valid scientific theory. There is no "crteationism," it's just silly, stupid, ignorant.

wrong,


Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is sci-fi. A myth




JNORM888
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
jnorm888 said:
Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is sci-fi. A myth
Where do you get this jibberish? There is no micro or macro evolution, there are simply random changes in  nucleotide sequences that are kept or eliminated depending on how the associated phenotypes contribute to survivability. ::)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jnorm888 said:
Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is sci-fi. A myth
I hope you realize you're telling a biologist he's wrong.

In any case, by saying this, you're giving some of us here more a reason not to take you seriously, since you seem to already made up your mind on what "evolution" is.

I hope you read the explanation of the so-called "differences" in micro and macro evolution in the other thread.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
greekischristian said:
Where do you get this jibberish? There is no micro or macro evolution, there are simply random changes in  nucleotide sequences that are kept or eliminated depending on how the associated phenotypes contribute to survivability. ::)
"Adaptive variation" = Micro-evolution. This is what we see in the labs and in Creation/Nature.

When a population of insects are killed by a fertilizer, the ones that are most resistant to the fertilizer will survive to breed and leave a more resistant offspring. After a while the new population of fertilizer resistant insects will be immune to such a fertilizer. But even in this....there is no guarantee that such a population won't revert back to a previous state. So such a mutation can be temporary.



This is what we see and this is done on the Micro scale. The idea that this adaptive variation over a long period of time will turn land lizards into feathered birds is far fetched. It is pure imagination.

We don't observe that in labs. We don't observe that in Creation/nature. This is an assumption. A leap of faith based on the FACT of Adaptive variation.


Thus


The Fact is:

"ADAPTIVE Variation".


The Myth is:


Over a long period of time "adaptive variation" turns land lizards into feathered birds.






I believe in facts not myths. If you want me to believein Macro-evolution then I will have to see it (observe it) in nature and in the lab. Until then it's a no go.



JNORM888
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
minasoliman said:
I hope you realize you're telling a biologist he's wrong.

In any case, by saying this, you're giving some of us here more a reason not to take you seriously, since you seem to already made up your mind on what "evolution" is.

I hope you read the explanation of the so-called "differences" in micro and macro evolution in the other thread.
He's not the first. I said the same to my aggressive Atheistic highschool bio teacher. In college when I took an elective bio course (intro to human bio), and the Prof I had was a Christian who didn't force Marco-evolution on us in the same way Atheistic prof's do. Did we learn it? Yes, but just because it was tought to us doesn't mean I have to swallow everything "uncritically".


You can know what the teaching is without agreeing with all of it.  Especially if you know where the "speculation" is. I don't understand why I must accept a speculation in the same way one must accept facts.


The facts I will agree with.


JNORM888


Edited by combining comments made in a largely redundant post with this one, eliminating said post and correcting minor spelling and style gliltches.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Mod.

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jnorm888 said:
He's not the first. I said the same to my aggressive Atheistic highschool bio teacher. In college when I took an elective in bio I took intro to human bio and the Prof was a christian who didn't force Marco-evolution on us in the same way Atheistic prof's do. Did we learn it? Yes, but just because it was tought to us doesn't me I have to swallow everything "uncritically".


You can know what the teaching is whithout agreeing with it.


JNORM888
Absolutely, you shouldn't take anything uncritically.  That's the mark of a true scientist.  But just an intro to Bio course hardly gets you qualified to even understand fully the processes of evolution, let alone question.  If you must challenge, you need to know more than just basics.  That's like saying I know much more than my 60-year old bishop out of reading one theology book.  Don't you think you need to study the subject more in order to make you qualified as "critical?"

Sometimes, I see in these debates a lack of humility.  People think they know so much, and yet don't realize there's a field of genetics that takes a WHOLE DEGREE to fully understand the processes.

And just to let you know, we also don't "observe" sub-atomic particles, but deduction in research made it possible to understand the atom the way we do today, not just some "simple" observation like you make it out to be.  This is another reason why people won't take you seriously if you're going to engage in such discussions.

God bless.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
minasoliman said:
Absolutely, you shouldn't take anything uncritically.  That's the mark of a true scientist.  But just an intro to Bio course hardly gets you qualified to even understand fully the processes of evolution, let alone question.  If you must challenge, you need to know more than just basics.  That's like saying I know much more than my 60-year old bishop out of reading one theology book.  Don't you think you need to study the subject more in order to make you qualified as "critical?"

Sometimes, I see in these debates a lack of humility.  People think they know so much, and yet don't realize there's a field of genetics that takes a WHOLE DEGREE to fully understand the processes.

And just to let you know, we also don't "observe" sub-atomic particles, but deduction in research made it possible to understand the atom the way we do today, not just some "simple" observation like you make it out to be.  This is another reason why people won't take you seriously if you're going to engage in such discussions.

God bless.

You can pretty much derive alot with just the basics. If you know the scientific method and if you know Darwinian evolution, a little bit of bio, chem, physics, and alot of history....but if you know the basics then you can derive alot.


I'm not disagreeing with him on the issue of mutations. I disagree with the idea that over millions of years such a thing must turn a lizard into a feathered bird.


This is pure speculation. If it wasn't I would believe it.



I personally believe.....and I could be wrong, but I personally believe that I'm a mutant. You are a mutant....I think all black people and all white people are mutants. I believe we mutated from "brown" people.

I hope I didn't sound racist by saying that. If I offended anyone I am sorry. I included myself in the mutant category.........if that helps.

But this isn't a fact. And if it is I never knew of it as being a fact. ....this is something I speculated based on the basics.


Also one can read books by people who have degrees in bio. I do read books by christians with degrees in bio, physics, arch.......ect.

Everyone in bio with Ph.D's are not in agreement on every issue. I have a friend who is a veterinarian. He had 8 years of bio. And he doesn't believe in "Macro-evolution".

Dr. David Menton disagrees with it. Should I ignore his credentials?

I shouldn't have to believe people in bio who support the speculation of Macro-evolution.


And just to let you know, we also don't "observe" sub-atomic particles, but deduction in research made it possible to understand the atom the way we do today, not just some "simple" observation like you make it out to be.  This is another reason why people won't take you seriously if you're going to engage in such discussions

Then they will have to prove to me that their "belief" in "marco-evolution" is the same as ""observing sub-atomic particles".

I don't think it is the same. Our observing of sub-atomic particles is not a "reconstruction of history". The Myths of Macro-evolution is a "reconstruction of history".

So it is not the same comparison.











JNORM888
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jnorm888 said:
I'm not disagreeing with him on the issue of mutations. I disagree with the idea that over millions of years such a thing must turn a lizard into a feathered bird.


This is pure speculation. If it wasn't I would believe it.
It would be speculation if we only used homologous structures (although technically it wasn't just "mere" speculation if homologous structures were indeed used).  But when studying DNA and chromosomal processes and mutations, one is surprised that Darwin's "speculations" are quite insightful (since this does not only provide a "what evolved from what" question, but "how" as well).

As for deriving a lot from basics, from my own experience, the more I learn, the more I'm surprised I don't know.

I'll recommend this website for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

They pretty much offer a rebuttal to practically everything that has been thrown against evolution.

God bless.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
jnorm888 said:
I believe in facts not myths. If you want me to believein Macro-evolution then I will have to see it (observe it) in nature and in the lab. Until then it's a no go.
Or we could simply, making the assumption of common ancestry, compare genomes of various species, make predictions, and have those predictions validated in the lab. This has been done as a paper from Nature I've already referenced in this thread demonstrates. If common ancestry is an inaccurage assumption, how do you explain the success of the predictions one can make by assuming it in that paper?
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
minasoliman said:
It would be speculation if we only used homologous structures (although technically it wasn't just "mere" speculation if homologous structures were indeed used).  But when studying DNA and chromosomal processes and mutations, one is surprised that Darwin's "speculations" are quite insightful (since this does not only provide a "what evolved from what" question, but "how" as well).

As for deriving a lot from basics, from my own experience, the more I learn, the more I'm surprised I don't know.

I'll recommend this website for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

They pretty much offer a rebuttal to practically everything that has been thrown against evolution.

God bless.

I'll try to answer this in the fall or next spring. I have to much on my plate right now. I will also ask other creationists(the ones that reject Macro) about this issue. The International Creation conference is in August. They have it once every 5 years..... so I will ask some of them.







JNORM888


P.S. having rebuttals to creationist criticisms doesn't really bother us. Every group and belief system has rebuttals, but that doesn't mean that their rebuttals are "sufficient". Especially if the foundation of one's interpretation is based soley on a naturalistic understanding of everything. And this is what it really comes down to. This war has been going on for over a hundred years.

I may not have an alternative interpretation to all of the evidence, but just because an alternative understanding isn't formulated doesn't mean the evidence is rejected.

All it means is that it is put on hold. Until a proper interpretation is formulated.

But I will come back to this issue later.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
It is interesting how creationists spend all of their time trying to disprove science and yet their task becomes more and more difficult with each passing year. On the other hand, science effectively ignores creationism and with each passing year the case of science becomes stronger and stronger.

But, in the end, at least we're unlocking the mysteries of life and, well, I guess you guys are having a good time thinking what good people you are and how evil we are. So, everyone wins. ;)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jnorm888 said:
P.S. having rebuttals to creationist criticisms doesn't really bother us. Every group and belief system has rebuttals, but that doesn't mean that their rebuttals are "sufficient". Especially if the foundation of one's interpretation is based soley on a naturalistic understanding of everything. And this is what it really comes down to. This war has been going on for over a hundred years.
Science is naturalistic by nature.  We observe and record what we see.  Science is not a theology/philosophy course.

I'm afraid the only reason for the alleged "insufficiency" of these explanations is because you might have already made up your mind.

My only wish is that you consider the arguments with humility.  Like I said before, the more I learned, the more I realized I don't know.

God bless.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Sorry to be bringing up something from nearly 2 months ago, but I read at the page before this about salt in the oceans and seas.  One interesting point is that when seas dry out, the salt and minerals are left on the bottom.  Even if/when water returns, they don't just dissolve back.  A classic case is that of the Mediterranean Sea which has large deposits of salts and minerals that could only be laid down by evaporation when that area was cut off from any other large bodies of water some millions of years ago.  Yes, rivers still ran into it, like the Rhone and the Nile, but that wasn't enough to fill it by any means, instead they cut channels and canyons as they went down.  I recommend "The Mediterranean was a Desert: a Voyage on the Glomar Challenger" by Kenneth J. Hsu for anyone interested in geology.


Ebor
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
minasoliman said:
Science is naturalistic by nature.  We observe and record what we see.  Science is not a theology/philosophy course.

I'm afraid the only reason for the alleged "insufficiency" of these explanations is because you might have already made up your mind.

My only wish is that you consider the arguments with humility.  Like I said before, the more I learned, the more I realized I don't know.

God bless.
The "meaning" or definition of the word science slightly changes over the centuries. Before Darwin went to those ISLAND's......it was understood that Creation went hand in hand with science. It was understood that science was nothing more than the study of God's creation. And even Darwin....in one of his edition's to the Origin of Species advocated that his view didn't have to erase God from the picture. He advocated a form of Theistic evolution.




This really all goes back to the christianization of the philosophy of Aristotle. This goes back to western scholasticism. Modern science has it's roots in western christianity......it has it's roots in the christianization of the philosophy of Aristotle.




But I will deal with the history of this in the fall. What most chreationists want to do is bring back the school of thought that dominated in the 18 hundreds. The school of thought of Darwin's teachers.


Yes we have to mold it....just like Darwinism was molded into neoDarwinism, but we want the world to know that a strict adherence to "methodological naturalism" wasn't always the case. Methodological naturalism and God's Providence can co-exist in a union just like the two natures of Christ.


Mainstream science wasn't always like the way it is today. And if we have our way....it won't be the same in the future.




The day the otherside stops twisting creationism is the day both sides will come to the table in humility. You already assume that they are correct in everything they say. You only want us to be absorbed by their Atheism.

No, both sides must humble themselves and look at what the other is saying. But until then we will continue to push and pray so that we will have the same freedoms and rights that they have in the mainstream.

I will deal with this in the fall or next summer, and hopefully it will be fruitfull for both sides.





JNORM888
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
So, basically, creationism stopped being popular about the time it was realized that leaches really aren't a miracle cure? Should we go back to using leaches to treat bacterial infections, slavery, child labour, and all the other glories of the age of creationism?
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I love it, its lent and GIC still can't pass up an opportunity to label and make fun of people!


greekischristian said:
But, in the end, at least we're unlocking the mysteries of life and, well, I guess you guys are having a good time thinking what good people you are and how evil we are. So, everyone wins. ;)
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
I love it, its lent and GIC still can't pass up an opportunity to label and make fun of people!
And what, exactly, in my posts gave you the impression that I take lent seriously? ;)
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Nothing, but I don't understand why you take such pleasure in making of fun people during a time when most people on this board are trying to take Lent seriously. It's one thing to use this board as an exercise in pulling other people into the black hole of your loss of faith. Most of the time it's probably a good thing as you bring up questions that people do struggle with. But it's another thing to do it during lent when people are trying to concentrate on spiritual things, and especially when you so relish making fun of people.

greekischristian said:
And what, exactly, in my posts gave you the impression that I take lent seriously? ;)
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
It is interesting how creationists spend all of their time trying to disprove science and yet their task becomes more and more difficult with each passing year.
I disagree. I think most of the American courts have sympathy with our cause. They just want things to be done right. They would like some of the defendants to be more informed and they would also like some of the top creationists to help the defendants in these situations.

It is only a matter of time before we go back to court. And each time we do we will become more and more resistant to the arguments & claims of the otherside. It is only a matter of time before we take over.




On the other hand, science effectively ignores creationism and with each passing year the case of science becomes stronger and stronger.
The Atheists and Agnostics who rule over the scientific community ignores us because if they engage us it will cost them their dominance. The public, U.S. government, and the World will know that we do have valid criticisms.

No....the Atheists and Agnostics who rule are nothing more than POPES. They are ruling like despots. They are acting like Tyrants and that movie (expelled) will show the World how they treat those who criticize Darwinism.


But, in the end, at least we're unlocking the mysteries of life and, well,
45% of the modern scientific community are creationists. So the unlocking of mysteries are done by both sides.



I guess you guys are having a good time thinking what good people you are and how evil we are. So, everyone wins. ;)


If you don't believe in Social Darwinism then you shouldn't put yourself in that category. And Atheists who are socially good are only good because of the christian culture. Once this culture dies out then they will have no legs to stand on. They will have no restraint in doing acts of evil.

Who was the scientist that invented "lobotomies"? What that man did to alot of people was evil. And in the future alot of evil will be done in the name of science.


Science needs a moral philosophy.....and christianity(Eastern Orthodoxy) has the best moral philosophical system.



GIC, I just want you to know that just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you. Or dislike you. I do like you. I just know that those who reject "my form" of creationism have no motivation to tell the otherside of the story. The only ones who have an interest in telling the otherside are those on the otherside.


To know both sides is to limit/regulate the bias. But I will come back to this in the fall.....Lord willing.





JNORM888
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
greekischristian said:
So, basically, creationism stopped being popular about the time it was realized that leaches really aren't a miracle cure? Should we go back to using leaches to treat bacterial infections, slavery, child labour, and all the other glories of the age of creationism?
I was talking about God's Providence as being the philosophical foundation along with "Methological naturalism". The form of Creationism that dominated in that era believed in something called "The God of the Gaps".

They had a tendency to believe in "It was done by either God or Nature".

I believe that was an error that went to one extreme, but I also believe that the Agnostic and later Atheistic take over went to the other extreme....of limiting everything to Natural causes.  This speculation is a child of the "enlightenment movement". Therefore it should be subject to criticism.


There were alot of good things tought by the creationists of the 18 hundreds.....so what I am saying is just like NeoDarwinism molded Darwinism....creationists should mold the creationism of the 18 hundreds.

To throw everything out is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


What I want is a type of neocreationism that embraces both "God's Providence" as well as "methological naturalism".
And unlike the old...which had an Either or modal. the modal I'm fighting for is a "Both and" system.

God created everything first, and after that it was a type of synergy.


This is what I'm fighting for. And I am not really against "Macro". I do see it as being a "possibility". What I am against is seeing it as being a "scientific DOGMA".






by the way. Christianity helped get rid of both British, North & South American slavery as well as the British/Chinese Opium trade.




JNORM888
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
This really all goes back to the christianization of the philosophy of Aristotle. This goes back to western scholasticism. Modern science has it's roots in western christianity......it has it's roots in the christianization of the philosophy of Aristotle.
I'm not sure I'll ever understand the whole "Western Aristotelian Scholastic" bull crap that Eastern Orthodox always throw at the Catholics, but if objective scientific observations as we understand it today came from that, well I applaud them.  If there's one good thing we can learn from the West, it's exactly mainstream science today.

Pravoslavbob said:
In order to avoid duplication of arguments, could you please seek out the  many discussions we've had? You see, we've been over this topic....ummm, well, quite a few times here at OC.net.  I am expecting Heorhij to enter the picture any second with a reasoned refutation of your remarks, so I will try and save him the trouble....

Scientific theories cannot, by their very nature, either include or exclude God.  It is not within the realm of how science works to incorporate or not incorporate an element of the divine.  Unfortunately, people who are otherwise very competent scientists seem to be incompetent enough in other areas of life that they arrogantly assume, (along with some theologians who should know better) that science has all the answers for any metaphysical  questions that might trouble humanity.  Other theologians who should know better (and many who are simply incompetent and incapable of knowing better) oppose these scientists and apostate(?) theologians, replaying the scene that has been played on the Western stage of civilisation since at least the time of Galileo and probably earlier.  The Western Church, by agreeing to counter "science" on its own playing field (ie, on terms defined by "science"), has condemned itself to losing the war, since only "scientific" criteria of "proof" can be accepted as evidence.  And we all know that if anything isn't rational, it must by definition be irrational, don't we? ;)  After all, we live in the post-Enlightenment West.  Of course, I shouldn't just cite the West and leave out the East, because the whole world is now so under the thraal of Western categories of "normalcy", that it doesn't know what has hit it.  It seems to me that a lot of Orthodox have this kind of knee-jerk reaction to the whole debate and side with "creationists".  It's like they're saying to themselves:  "hmmm.  Orthodoxy is "conservative", right?  Guess I'd better show my conseravative colours and stand up for "creationism"!"  (Of course, Orthodoxy is neither conservative nor liberal, but the living faith of the apostles...but this is a discussion for another thread.) 

BTW, I'd like to pre-empt a bashing from GIC or lubeltri or whoever else who would like to accuse me of being anti-Enlightenment or anti-Western.  I actually think that a lot of good things came out of the Enlightenment.  I really value science, in fact I am a scientist of sorts, though of a much humbler variety than Heorhij.  I don't mean to say that science cannot enter the realm of the metaphysical at times; in fact, fascinating work being done in physics right is going in this direction, and it's mind boggling.  But in the field of evolution?  For now, at any rate, there is no mixture at all.

I am a convinced Orthodox Christian.  I am also a convinced believer in evolution.  Are there things that we don't understand fully?  Absolutely, on both the theological and scientific end of things.  Just because evolution appears to be random is no reason at all to deny God's hand in things.  (How spiritually childish and oafishly cataphatic can one be?  This points to  one reason of several why I personally find this debate so tiresome.)  What appears as being "random" to us limited human creatures indeed hides greater mysteries beyond our understanding.
In other words, instead of saying "God is responsible for your cancer, since he created all things" or "There is no God, cancer just happens because...," we say "Cancer is a process caused by genetic issues in a cell that causes uncontrolled cell division."  There is no assumption of philosophical or theistic beliefs because it can't make it.  What you are arguing is a philosophical/moral issue.  This is kept out of science classes, and rightfully so.  If scholasticism has something to do with it, then thank God for scholasticism on this regard.

And how is one "twisting" creationism?  What is so scientific about creationism?  If it's merely preserving in literal terms a few chapters of Genesis, then that is not science at all, but conforming to one's Bibliolatry beliefs and at worst a tyranny of scientific objectivity.

I also question how you got the figure that 45% of the "scientific community" believes in creationism.  Do these scientists consist of qualified people in the field of biology?  How do this 45% define "creationism."  If half scientific community believes in God, that does not mean they will teach God in the classroom.  They'll do so if they are approached or asked privately, or at Church, but not in a public forum that requires objective understanding of biology.

God bless.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
jnorm888 said:
I disagree. I think most of the American courts have sympathy with our cause. They just want things to be done right. They would like some of the defendants to be more informed and they would also like some of the top creationists to help the defendants in these situations.

It is only a matter of time before we go back to court. And each time we do we will become more and more resistant to the arguments & claims of the otherside. It is only a matter of time before we take over.
The American Courts tend to be political battlegrounds, I doubt they'll turn and support the creationists, but if they do it just represents a political swing to the right in this country. My statement, however, had nothing to do with the judicial system and everything to do with overwhelming scientific data. We don't do research into biology inorder to advance some political or philosophical cause, we do it for science, we do it for medicine, we do it for its own sake.

The Atheists and Agnostics who rule over the scientific community ignores us because if they engage us it will cost them their dominance. The public, U.S. government, and the World will know that we do have valid criticisms.
Considering 75% of Americans can't even find Israel on a map...I'd hardly trust public opinion on questions about genetics, molecular biology, and computational biology. The scientifc community are the ones who address this issue because they are the only ones even capable of doing so. Basically the divide is that those who know biology are evolutionists and those who have no clue about the science are creationists. Personally, while I am no biologist, I know enough about the field to know that denying our evolutionary heritage is just absurd and unfathomable. I really just don't get it.

No....the Atheists and Agnostics who rule are nothing more than POPES. They are ruling like despots. They are acting like Tyrants and that movie (expelled) will show the World how they treat those who criticize Darwinism.
They're probably frusterated, it's like sitting there, looking at a building with your own two eyes, seeing it as plain as day...while someone on the phone is insisting that it's not there and doesn't exist and then starts getting angry at you when you say, 'but I can see it'. The evidence for evolution is that strong...but it requires a moderate grasp of biology and mathematics to fully appreciate.

45% of the modern scientific community are creationists. So the unlocking of mysteries are done by both sides.
Source?

If you don't believe in Social Darwinism then you shouldn't put yourself in that category. And Atheists who are socially good are only good because of the christian culture. Once this culture dies out then they will have no legs to stand on. They will have no restraint in doing acts of evil.
May I recommend you brush up on Locke and read about the concept of social contract? Trust me, I don't kill and steal because I fear hell-fire, I don't. I don't do thes things because of the social contract I am in.

Who was the scientist that invented "lobotomies"? What that man did to alot of people was evil. And in the future alot of evil will be done in the name of science.
Well, that's more a technological procedure than science. There's nothing wrong with the scientific knowledge behind lobotomies, the problem was merely in the particular application of said scientific knowledge.

Science needs a moral philosophy.....and christianity(Eastern Orthodoxy) has the best moral philosophical system.
I disagree, science needs to be free of morality and cultural and social norms. It must be free to expand without limits. If this means a few messed up human clones, so be it...it's a price worth paying.

GIC, I just want you to know that just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you. Or dislike you. I do like you. I just know that those who reject "my form" of creationism have no motivation to tell the otherside of the story. The only ones who have an interest in telling the otherside are those on the otherside.
Oh, I certainly hope we can have a discussion without turning to hate each other. If it makes any difference, there was a time when I was a creationist...of course, I understood nothing about biology then. But since I've studied the field the obvious truth of evolution became obvious, to the point where I now cannot really understand my past ignorance in the face of overwhelming truth.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Unless you have some, as you call it.
overwhelming truth
To show us GIC. This is just a circular argument. Let it rest.  :D
If it's for the sake of combating boredom, I understand. Continue on. ;)
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Victoria, Australia
greekischristian said:
I disagree, science needs to be free of morality and cultural and social norms. It must be free to expand without limits. If this means a few messed up human clones, so be it...it's a price worth paying.
Oh yeah I forgot the end does justify the means! :D
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Demetrios G. said:
Unless you have some, as you call it.To show us GIC. This is just a circular argument. Let it rest.  :D
If it's for the sake of combating boredom, I understand. Continue on. ;)
But I'd have to try to teach him enough mathematics to get through analysis of algorithms and numerical analysis...so unless he at least has differential equations and linear algebra, it's a bit more work than I'm ready for. Plus, probably two semesters of biology, a semester of genetics, and a crash course in genomics. The problem with trying to tell someone why evolution is obvious is that it really takes about two to three years of background courses to understand the arguments. Which is why creationism is so popular amongst the ignorant masses, but not so much amongst biologists. I might as well try to prove Fermat's last theorem to a skeptic who could never manage to grasp something as basic as calculus. Without this fundamental knowledge, journal articles which prove my point (and which I have already posted here and have been completely ignored ::)) are pretty much useless.

So all things considered...rather than trying to teach wo years of college courses over OC.net, I think I'll just stick in the argument for the hell of it. ;)
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
prodromas said:
Oh yeah I forgot the end does justify the means! :D
If the end is the advancement of scientific knowledge, then I believe that whole heartedly.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
greekischristian said:
If the end is the advancement of scientific knowledge, then I believe that whole heartedly.
Isn't this the reasoning Nazi's used for doing experiments on pregnant women and children,etc., "the advancement of scientific knowledge?"
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
livefreeordie said:
Isn't this the reasoning Nazi's used for doing experiments on pregnant women and children,etc., "the advancement of scientific knowledge?"
Nah, there was some racist ideology mixed in. If scientific objectivity was their only concern they might have actually won the war. But with that said, we can't so easily dismiss the scientific advances made by the Nazis, our Jets and Rocketry were in large part based on their research. That's the wonderful thing about science, it's good and virtuous regardless of who made the discovery and how they came about it.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
greekischristian said:
So all things considered...rather than trying to teach wo years of college courses over OC.net, I think I'll just stick in the argument for the hell of it. ;)
You're something else. I'm Glad we have you on our side.  ;)
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
greekischristian said:
But I'd have to try to teach him enough mathematics to get through analysis of algorithms and numerical analysis...so unless he at least has differential equations and linear algebra, it's a bit more work than I'm ready for. Plus, probably two semesters of biology, a semester of genetics, and a crash course in genomics. The problem with trying to tell someone why evolution is obvious is that it really takes about two to three years of background courses to understand the arguments. Which is why creationism is so popular amongst the ignorant masses, but not so much amongst biologists. I might as well try to prove Fermat's last theorem to a skeptic who could never manage to grasp something as basic as calculus. Without this fundamental knowledge, journal articles which prove my point (and which I have already posted here and have been completely ignored ::)) are pretty much useless.

So all things considered...rather than trying to teach wo years of college courses over OC.net, I think I'll just stick in the argument for the hell of it. ;)



I'll let this slide for I am a little rusty in math. It's been 6 years since I took Engineering Mathmatics 1, But I just want you to know that you are sounding more and more like that Richard Dawkin's rap song on Youtube.

"Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw




I didn't ignore what you said. I'm gonna ask others about it. I would like to come back to this issue and give you a responce after I attend this conference.

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/


and out of the 45% only 5% are young earth creationists. The other 40 are either Old Earthers or Theistic evolutionists.





JNORM888
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This thread started here:  Death of Pets and Neanterthals.  Since the questions quoted below really deal with two different subjects--I couldn't split the post itself yet make sure Devin got credit for both halves--I ask that you limit your replies on this thread to discussion of the second question regarding Neanderthals.  Thank you.  -PtA


88Devin12 said:
I was just wondering, I recently had  pet die (who was about 18 years old), and we buried his ashes next to my grandfather, but me and my parents don't believe animals have souls, thus we may not see them again. What is the traditional Orthodox belief on this, or what do you all believe?

Also, I was watching a program on the History Channel about 10,000 B.C. and the co-existance of Cromagnon (modern man) and Neanderthals on the continent of Europe for about 5,000 years. After being showed that the two have the same lineage (but split off at a time), I wondered, if Humans are the only ones with souls, would that have included Neanderthals?
There no such thing as neanderthals or cromagnom bible does't mention anything like that......from adam on no mention....my own personal opinion  the bone's that there finding are from the giants ...and what scriptures say..when the son's of God angels .,,looked upon the woman of the earth and mated with them a hybrid race naphilium[hope i spelled that correctly] appeared [giants] that God drowned ....the giant around the time of king david was the last of the hybrids....so they find a pieces of there bone's and create neandethals, cromagnom,who knows what else in the future......my 2 cent's worth...i believe God Has a special place For our Beloved pet's in his vast kingdom that has no end ....this i really believe......For God is God of the Living ..he creates life animal and human...and other plants trees and so forth....Christ Has Risen.....Rejoice......<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,747
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
stashko said:
There no such thing as neanderthals or cromagnom bible does't mention anything like that......from adam on no mention....my own personal opinion  the bone's that there finding are from the giants ...and what scriptures say..when the son's of God angels .,,looked upon the woman of the earth and mated with them a hybrid race naphilium[hope i spelled that correctly] appeared [giants] that God drowned ....the giant around the time of king david was the last of the hybrids....so they find a pieces of there bone's and create neandethals, cromagnom,who knows what else in the future......my 2 cent's worth...i believe God Has a special place For our Beloved pet's in his vast kingdom that has no end ....this i really believe......For God is God of the Living ..he creates life animal and human...and other plants trees and so forth....Christ Has Risen.....Rejoice......
The correct spelling is Nephilim.
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thank You...<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_4_11.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">Christ has Risen,,,Rejoice...<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
isn't nazis a organazation ,,neantherthals ,,cromagnom man are suppose to some type of pre- human races...im confused...i don't see the similarities....Hristos Voskrese....rejoice...<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">people have free will they reap what they sow thou the innocent seem to always get it..the good Book does say evil and violence will increase..the two world war's ,korea..vietnam and others..so the scripture's does cover all this and what's yet to come in the future...including the fire from heaven either God's doing or man's doing....nuclear or heavenly fire???the good Book does say this about the fire....
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
^ You said that because the Bible never mentions homo sapiens neanderthalensis, that such a creature must never have existed. This is the fallacy of sola scriptura, the idea that all truth is contained in the Bible and therefore anything not mentioned in the Bible must of necessity be false. I pointed out that the Bible also does not mention Nazis and yet we know they existed and the evils they did. Therefore, there must be some truths which the Bible does not mention. It is quite possible that homo sapiens neanderthalensis existed despite their omission from the Bible.
 
Top