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

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.
So is a convert required to assent to this "consensus" before being allowed to become Orthodox? I ask only for information.
No.  To become Orthodox one must accept Orthodox theology, dogma, doctrine.  If it isn't specifically clarified, you can believe what you want.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
DavidH said:
Do you still hold to their Biblically reinforced geocentrism as well?
DavidH, I think this is not a useful line of argument. You will have to start out by proving that Einsteins' theory of general relativity is incorrect. There are plenty of things to complain about but I would steer clear of this one, unless you have the background for it. I personally accept that heliocentrism and geocentrism are both valid (even after much brow beating by Sauron in this thread earlier on.
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
Opus118 said:
DavidH said:
Do you still hold to their Biblically reinforced geocentrism as well?
DavidH, I think this is not a useful line of argument. You will have to start out by proving that Einsteins' theory of general relativity is incorrect. There are plenty of things to complain about but I would steer clear of this one, unless you have the background for it. I personally accept that heliocentrism and geocentrism are both valid (even after much brow beating by Sauron in this thread earlier on.
The historical concept of geocentrism held by everyone in Biblical and Patristic times until Copernican Revolution in the 16th century AD to which I was referring is that the Earth is fixed in space, unmoving and unmovable, and the Universe (sun, moon, stars) were embedded in the solid dome firmament which literally revolved around it.

This is the geocentric model the Fathers would have held and that the Bible reflects.

Is that the position you are defending, Opus?
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
TheTrisagion said:
Dionysii said:
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.
Well....that is up for debate. Just because it talks of giants doesn't mean the fossil record matches it.  Heck, there are giants around today, are they also angel-human hybrids? It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

Remember how he said the space jump dude had his photo manipulated to create a curved Earth? Hey I think some photo manipulation is going on here too.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
:)  Not sure if you are being serious or not, but this is a pic of the worlds tallest and the worlds shortest man together.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OK.  I have not read this thread, and I am not going to.  However, I did see an article that I thought was interesting, and I get the feeling this is the thread where it belongs:

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe that God played a part in the evolution of humans.

A YouGov survey shows that 62 percent of Americans believe God helped create humans. Thirty-seven percent of those believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years while 25 percent believe human beings evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years but God guided the process. Only 21 percent believe that God did not play a part in human evolution.

Seventeen percent of those polled were not sure if God played a part in the existence of humans.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/23/poll-majority-of-americans-believe-god-played-role-in-human-evolution/
 

Nikolaos Greek

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Hellas-Greece
Everything I believe was created in seven days. Many now may say but what problem exists if one day was a bigger time. Then this would contradict with the dogma that death existed not before Adam! I have never thought of it and Lord brought it to my mind exactly when some tried to explain that Evolution does not contradict Orthodoxy. So if it was just seven days and evolution as they say take many years then human came no from ape. After all God creates everything directly. Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Human was created directly by God. No evolution.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
That would be a good reply to just about any post on any thread.  ;D
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Dionysii said:
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.
Other fathers argue against that interpretation.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Shanghaiski said:
theistgal said:
Dionysii said:
Dionysii said:
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
That would be a good reply to just about any post on any thread.  ;D
And it usually is. ::)  I have recently learned answers/evidence/proof are only good if the person questioning them is satisfied with the answer, which usually doesn't happen, so it really all boils down to who asks this question first.  Then the discussion, for all intelligent and practical reasons, is finished.  At that point, the thread is dead.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
 

Deep Roots

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Baltimore
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Nikolaos Greek said:
Everything I believe was created in seven days. Many now may say but what problem exists if one day was a bigger time. Then this would contradict with the dogma that death existed not before Adam! I have never thought of it and Lord brought it to my mind exactly when some tried to explain that Evolution does not contradict Orthodoxy. So if it was just seven days and evolution as they say take many years then human came no from ape. After all God creates everything directly. Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Human was created directly by God. No evolution.
These are good statements.

This is a thread that is composed of a myriad of subtopics and totally irrelevant material. It is in need of subcategorization. You picked one of them and there are posts that deal with this topic.

My answer to your one question is YES.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
 

Deep Roots

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Baltimore
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
that is true
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.
This in response to, "For some people, yes."
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
that is true
:)
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.
This in response to, "For some people, yes."
It was more in response to Nikolaos Greek. Sorry, I shouldn't have included the later replies.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
Kerdy said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.
This in response to, "For some people, yes."
It was more in response to Nikolaos Greek. Sorry, I shouldn't have included the later replies.
Okay.  ;D
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I knew I would eventually find it.  The March of Progress

 

Nikolaos Greek

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Hellas-Greece
DNA changes and species evolves but not from one specie to another one.
Humans of previous generations had harder teeth but modern  with all this soft food have changed. Now humans have softer teeth since birth. This is evolution.
Not from fish to lizard or from ape to human but change in the borders of a specie.
 

Deep Roots

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Baltimore
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
that is true
kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deep Roots said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
that is true
kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha
I do, honestly, and I have attempted to return the favor.  Every interaction does not need to be an argument.  So, yes, I absolutely do appreciate your restraint.  We simply have differing opinions.  Not the end of the world. :D
 

Deep Roots

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Baltimore
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
that is true
kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha
I do, honestly, and I have attempted to return the favor.  Every interaction does not need to be an argument.  So, yes, I absolutely do appreciate your restraint.  We simply have differing opinions.  Not the end of the world. :D
;D
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Kerdy said:
Deep Roots said:
Nikolaos Greek said:
Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
::)
Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
For some people, yes.
that is true
kerdy, I hope you can appreciate the self restraint I demonstrated in this response. haha
I do, honestly, and I have attempted to return the favor.  Every interaction does not need to be an argument.  So, yes, I absolutely do appreciate your restraint.  We simply have differing opinions.  Not the end of the world. :D
As you continue to post in this thread are you willing to get back to a discussion that never really started?

For me it starts here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg804008/topicseen.html#msg804008

Just checking.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No, I'm happy to let this thread die.  I see no point is running in circles with those who say you don't have to believe in evolution, but if you don't you're wrong and continue to propel idea after idea when none have been thoroughly and concretely verified.  I never attempted to prove I was right, on the other hand...

I only posted The March of Progress because some here pretend it was never taught.

You believe what you want, I believe what I want and we are both Orthodox.  :angel:
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
I wish you had the option of changing your vote on this thread  :police:
 

davillas

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....
I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
davillas said:
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....
I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
You can track the mutations in mitochondrial DNA.  Because apes and humans have such similar DNA, scientists have been able to track when mutations have occurred and trace them back to a common ancestor.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Delete.  I didn't want to get involved again.  Sorry.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Kerdy said:
Delete.  I didn't want to get involved again.  Sorry.
Aww crap.  I saw your name pop up and thought there might be another good hearted debate on the topic!

I just got back from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, so I'm up on all my latest heretical evolutionary teachings.
 

davillas

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
davillas said:
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....
I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
You can track the mutations in mitochondrial DNA.  Because apes and humans have such similar DNA, scientists have been able to track when mutations have occurred and trace them back to a common ancestor.
So it is an estimation based on the scientists opinion on how often the mutations have occurred ? I can understand why it makes sense from an atheist point of view but where is God in this picture ? 
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
davillas said:
TheTrisagion said:
davillas said:
TheTrisagion said:
The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago....
I`ve seen this written many times in this topic. Can you explain how they came up with this number ?
You can track the mutations in mitochondrial DNA.  Because apes and humans have such similar DNA, scientists have been able to track when mutations have occurred and trace them back to a common ancestor.
So it is an estimation based on the scientists opinion on how often the mutations have occurred ? I can understand why it makes sense from an atheist point of view but where is God in this picture ? 
Where He always is: in control.  You don't have to be an atheist to believe in gene mutations.
 

davillas

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Where He always is: in control.  You don't have to be an atheist to believe in gene mutations.
No, but you have to believe He wasn`t involved in any way in the "evolution of life", that is like a dogma for the religious supporters of evolution. I remember i heard someone ( and i agree with him ) saying that Dawkins is telling us "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose" , but there is no designer. Theistic evolutionists are telling us that things don`t look designed but there is a designer.

There is no way of knowing how often the gene are mutating because we don`t see that today. It`s all circular reasoning, it happened and it happened slowly so if we are 95% similar to chimps we go back in time assuming an arbitrary rate of gene mutation based on the evolutionary time and uniformitarianism.
 

davillas

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Points
0
davillas said:
There is no way of knowing how often the gene are mutating because we don`t see that today. It`s all circular reasoning, it happened and it happened slowly so if we are 95% similar to chimps we go back in time assuming an arbitrary rate of gene mutation based on the evolutionary time and uniformitarianism.
And when things don`t look too good we can say that sometimes evolution happens fast.  :)
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
davillas said:
TheTrisagion said:
Where He always is: in control.  You don't have to be an atheist to believe in gene mutations.
No, but you have to believe He wasn`t involved in any way in the "evolution of life", that is like a dogma for the religious supporters of evolution. I remember i heard someone ( and i agree with him ) saying that Dawkins is telling us "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose" , but there is no designer. Theistic evolutionists are telling us that things don`t look designed but there is a designer.

There is no way of knowing how often the gene are mutating because we don`t see that today. It`s all circular reasoning, it happened and it happened slowly so if we are 95% similar to chimps we go back in time assuming an arbitrary rate of gene mutation based on the evolutionary time and uniformitarianism.
Where did you get the impression that we don't see genes mutating?  There is a whole branch of science called phylogenetics that tracks genetic changes.

While some may argue that God cannot be involved in the evolutionary process, it does not necessarily follow that God cannot be involved.  Who are we to say how God does and does not interact with genetic changes?
 

davillas

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Where did you get the impression that we don't see genes mutating?  There is a whole branch of science called phylogenetics that tracks genetic changes.

While some may argue that God cannot be involved in the evolutionary process, it does not necessarily follow that God cannot be involved.  Who are we to say how God does and does not interact with genetic changes?
Exactly and phylogenetics works under the assumption that it happened and under the assumption of uniformitarianism. Which are maybe reasonable assumptions for an atheist who thinks this universe is all that there is. But here you are telling us that the common ancestor lived about 5-8 millions years ago. That already implies that God had no business in the evolution of man. And there is no evidence for that other than the assumption that it happened and it happened slowly.

Let me ask you this : The moon is moving away from Earth ( i believe it`s 3 cm / year ). Which means that sometimes in the past it was very close to Earth. Why don`t we apply uniformitarianism everywhere ? Why do we cherry pick only what fits with our holy theory ?
 
Top