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

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tzimis said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
It's also hard to deny that evolution has become a prevailing view within science. Over time we my have to see a christian view that encompasses the prevailing views of science. Otherwise one will become fiction and remain a story in a period in time when man was primitive in his thinking regarding the sciences. It's not about a bastardization of the truth so much as it is a revelation to add to the truths already known. What is most important to remember is that while a science can hold truth it doesn't necessitate that it is an end onto itself. The science doesn't have to become a competitive theory to Christianity if encompassed within it.  
the problem is that evolution cant just be added to the truths already held by the Orthodox Church - it forces a change in those truths we hold. some will say that science is the higher truth in this matter, but i, and others, hold that the Church is the higher truth in regards to Scripture.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
TheJackel said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
TheJackel said:
Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.
That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/
I agree with you that expressing views on things you don't understand is the biggest weapon you can give to your opponent and claim defeat. However, this goes both ways, both to those that speak on evolution without studying it and those that speak on Eastern Orthodoxy without studying what it stands for. Just generally speaking though, without pointing at anyone, really. Just my two cents.
Yes, and Yes to a point. I understand that Genesis has no information what-so-ever when it comes to being a source of biochemistry and evolution. All it states is that things were created in an order of events to which it can't even agree on vs the OLD Testament and the NEW. And says nothing other than the assumption that an invisible man did it.. However, I have read a lot of Theist science papers that try to paint that picture of Genesis and every one of them had shown to be completely ignorant, or disingenuous.. Now I am not Sure if Sarfati for example is one of those Partristic sources of yours, but it's rather interesting to see their attempts at molding science into religion.  I will have to browse through this thread to see if any of those Patristic sources have been posted here...

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
TheJackel said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
TheJackel said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
TheJackel said:
Might explain why most theists (not all) I talk to don't even know the differences between Abiogenesis, and Evolution..Or the differences between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. And when you tell them, they still have no clue :/
Look, I'm an undergraduate biology student who hopes to become an evolutionary geneticist one day and I know and understand all these topics. However, how can you expect everyone to do the same? Can you expect everyone to know core principles of astronomy? I definitely don't know them. Can you expect everyone to know core principles of psychology? I don't know them either. Same goes for theatrology, electrology, perhaps particle physics and others.
That's great.. I'm in the same field.. And you ought to know the definition of evolution to understand why it's a fact. I expect people to do some simple research to understand, and you only need to know the basics to comprehend why it's a fact of life. I gave people here a good starting point, and a listed process for them to use in the above post. But I really don't tolerate it when people post nonsense like the Bee argument without even taking the time to address the posts I provided them to which would help them understand. Yes, it will take you a good 6 years to get a firm grip on many of the aspects of biochemistry ect.. But it's no excuse to ignore the obvious examples I have provided. "/

How much time was taken by the person with the Bee argument to read my posts on evolution here? None! he just jumps in with comments that are irrelevant, or just plain wrong :/
I agree with you that expressing views on things you don't understand is the biggest weapon you can give to your opponent and claim defeat. However, this goes both ways, both to those that speak on evolution without studying it and those that speak on Eastern Orthodoxy without studying what it stands for. Just generally speaking though, without pointing at anyone, really. Just my two cents.
Yes, and Yes to a point. I understand that Genesis has no information what-so-ever when it comes to being a source of biochemistry and evolution. All it states is that things were created in an order of events to which it can't even agree on vs the OLD Testament and the NEW. And says nothing other than the assumption that an invisible man did it..
Invisible, yes. Man, no.

Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
This might be true, but it's a little hard to believe, considering you're bringing up Scripture passages to use against us. That won't get you very far in dealing with Orthodox believers, because we don't rely on the inerrancy of the Scriptures for our beliefs.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
TheJackel said:
Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
TheJackel said:
Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.
I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/

 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Nice fail.. I've read what Modern Saints had to say and they are as about as uneducated in evolution as the person that made the BEE argument. Btw, do you know that the Partristics base most of their logic on the basic Newtonian Physics while ignoring why that is an epic fail? Especially with systems that have feedback? Or the physics involved with electromagnetism?

I will give you one Example of the educational failure of Partristics:

This explanation, that order evolved from chaos, is put forward despite the fact that it flies in the face of the well-established Second Law of Thermodynamics, which infers that all ordered systems tend towards disorder.
Let's see if You can find a link above that deals with thermodynamics.. Patristics assume everything is a closed system because they ignore all the other laws that Govern Thermodynamics.. Nor do they comprehend the energy metabolism of a living cell, or living organisms. Talking to them would be like talking to a brick wall of pure ignorance or intentional ignorance. They might want to also learn what entropy is. We wouldn't exist in closed system as the biological life forms we currently are. So it's a good thing that the other laws of thermodynamics exist ;).. Every wonder why you sweat? or why your body can absorb and radiate heat? Patristics intentionally ignore entire swaths of science in order to plead of ignorance, or in order to attempt to make science mold to religious ideological constructs. This is why you get the video series "Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At" on youtube to which was made by a Christian :/

Can you please state the other laws of thermodynamics for us?




as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it
Wrong, I posted it point blank in your face lol. Your failure or laziness is not my problem. I deny your position because I'm actually educated enough in the field to know when people like you are pleading for ignorance, or simply are not educated enough in the subject to know what you are talking about. Let me know when you can actually address my posts properly vs resorting to pleading arguments.  
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Talking to them is reference to those who believe or had written the Patristics.. Sorry, had to clarify..

Creationists also base their arguments on the concept of Conspiracy as if science was conspiring against them.. You you get dumb arguments like:

"Haldane's dilemma"

This is an erroneous argument and this is why:

   The dilema referred to is an assertion or assumption of the pace at which they themselves just magically made up while knowing that evolution is a chaotic system to which is not predictable on a time scale. They have zero data to even support it, much less statistical data to show it as even relevant! It's also very ignorant, or rides on peoples ignorance of how long 3.X billion years is!. It's one stupid argument after another, and most from a Carl Sagan's Dragon position.

   Wiki:
   A recent estimate of the maximum rate of evolution by natural selection may be too low, based as it is on a maxim that seems to be erroneous.
   Creationists like Walter ReMine seem to operate under the mistaken impression that scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to "obscure" and "brush aside" Haldane's Dilemma and other problems with the theory of evolution. Well, it's already been well addressed because In order to know whether or not the the substitution cost even has the potential to be an issue in real world evolution, these creationist scientists would have to know everything man currently doesn't about Earth's continuously changing dynamics at every time frame anywhere on the Earth in total completeness. That's both geologically and biologically.

   Hence, you can not place rates of increase or decrease based on your own predetermined rates and assumptions. That is a key sign of disingenuous argument!

And then you get things like the following that show why that is:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/03/living-dinosaur-found-to-be-fastest-evolving-creature.ars
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090126-bird-evolution-missions.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/11/126
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/08/09/2977453.htm
http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=18582

Rate of evolution is relative and is not bound to some creationist's made up time table.. :/
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
Ortho_cat said:
TheJackel said:
Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.
I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/
i dont expect the Fathers to be masters of evolution, they are masters of the Scriptures. so to continually deride them based on secular science has no bearing on anything im saying. if thats the angle you want to stick with, then im not sure there's anything to dialogue with me about.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
TheJackel said:
Creationists also base their arguments on the concept of Conspiracy as if science was conspiring against them.. You you get dumb arguments like:

"Haldane's dilemma"
Do they? I believe that God created everything visible and invisible, yet I don't argue about this, nor do I think science is "conspiring" against me (I'm pretty sure my doctorate was based in science) and I've never heard of Haldane's dilemma, nor am I interested to learn about it.
So where's your argument?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?
ummm wouldnt that question apply just as much to you?

have any of our modern Saints taken to valuing secular materialistic science over the wisdom of illumined Saints?

the only reason i continue to post the beliefs of the Fathers is because people continue to place science and themselves above the Fathers. i am no more incessant than the naysayers.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
Do creatures and plants and living things of all kinds and the World itself change over time?

Yes, much of it due to adapting to changes in the environment/food supply etc.

Is Darwin's theory of Evolution as expressed in his treatise "Origin of the Species" correct?

Probably not. Darwin himself said that if we discover species who make a sudden appearance, it would mortally wound his basic assumptions.

Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?

This is a hotly debated topic but there is considerable evidence of "Sudden Appearance" 

Conclusion: Anyone who simply provides evidence of change as we have seen in this thread is side stepping the core issues. Things change, species adapt. That does not mean Darwin's Theory of Evolution is correct or that these changes somehow exclude God as the Creator of all.

In addition, The Theory of Evolution has had an effect of secular social attitudes. The idea is that all things "evolve" for the better over time. A great example of this World View is the Star Trek series and movies which has a vision of the future based on an evolutionary line of March. It also seems ( to me) to incorporate Dialectics. Two opposing social norms collide, there is friction between the two and then POP, the better system or social structure emerges from the process.

I am not convinced that is how history operates.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
TheJackel said:
Ortho_cat said:
TheJackel said:
Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.
I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/
i dont expect the Fathers to be masters of evolution, they are masters of the Scriptures. so to continually deride them based on secular science has no bearing on anything im saying. if thats the angle you want to stick with, then im not sure there's anything to dialogue with me about.
Then why are you using your computer? Ignoring entire swaths of science for sake of ideological preservation isn't going to magically make it all go away. In fact it's entire disingenuous and show's how weak you position is. The Fathers aren't even in the Grade school level of understanding evolution. And scriptures don't address it at all, which probably explains their level of intelligence when it comes to evolution, biochemical cycles and processes ect. People in the biblical era had no conceptual clue as to what evolution was. It's probably why they thought bats were birds. They knew nothing of genetics, dna, rna, tna, biochemistry, entropy, ect in the level we know it today.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yes, much of it due to adapting to changes in the environment/food supply etc.


Is Darwin's theory of Evolution as expressed in his treatise "Origin of the Species" correct?
You just contradicted yourself. And Darwin's theories are only but a mere fraction of what evolution is based on today.. I strongly suggest you take further time to understand that, and study why that is.
Probably not. Darwin himself said that if we discover species who make a sudden appearance, it would mortally wound his basic assumptions.
Good thing that things don't just magically appear out of thin air..

Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?
Nope, we've seen them evolve.. Given plenty of examples already.
This is a hotly debated topic but there is considerable evidence of "Sudden Appearance"  
Actually it's not.


Conclusion: Anyone who simply provides evidence of change as we have seen in this thread is side stepping the core issues. Things change, species adapt. That does not mean Darwin's Theory of Evolution is correct or that these changes somehow exclude God as the Creator of all.
Wrong! Again you seem to have taken zero time to actually read my posts, or even bothered to define the term Evolution.

In addition, The Theory of Evolution has had an effect of secular social attitudes.
Irrelevant and further proves the point of evolution.

The idea is that all things "evolve" for the better over time.
Wrong! Evolution does not state that things will only evolve for the better, or ever guarantee they will evolve for the better! Failure to adapt = extinction and it happens all the time! I suggest you look into the endangered species list while your at it too, or the extinct species list. The dodo Bird would be a good example here for this forum.


A great example of this World View is the Star Trek series and movies which has a vision of the future based on an evolutionary line of March. It also seems ( to me) to incorporate Dialectics. Two opposing social norms collide, there is friction between the two and then POP, the better system or social structure emerges from the process.
Actually you are again contradicting your own argument with that attempt. Behavioral evolution is still apart of evolution ;)..

I am not convinced that is how history operates.
I am not convinced your education level in evolution makes you qualified to make that statement.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?
ummm wouldnt that question apply just as much to you?
I was aware of the self-indicting nature of my words when I posted them. However, I'm not trying to use the Fathers in some attempt to win an online argument as you seem to be doing.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
TheJackel said:
Yes, much of it due to adapting to changes in the environment/food supply etc.


Is Darwin's theory of Evolution as expressed in his treatise "Origin of the Species" correct?
You just contradicted yourself. And Darwin's theories are only but a mere fraction of what evolution is based on today.. I strongly suggest you take further time to understand that, and study why that is.
Probably not. Darwin himself said that if we discover species who make a sudden appearance, it would mortally wound his basic assumptions.
Good thing that things don't just magically appear out of thin air..

Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?
Nope, we've seen them evolve.. Given plenty of examples already.
This is a hotly debated topic but there is considerable evidence of "Sudden Appearance"  
Actually it's not.


Conclusion: Anyone who simply provides evidence of change as we have seen in this thread is side stepping the core issues. Things change, species adapt. That does not mean Darwin's Theory of Evolution is correct or that these changes somehow exclude God as the Creator of all.
Wrong! Again you seem to have taken zero time to actually read my posts, or even bothered to define the term Evolution.

In addition, The Theory of Evolution has had an effect of secular social attitudes.
Irrelevant and further proves the point of evolution.

The idea is that all things "evolve" for the better over time.
Wrong! Evolution does not state that things will only evolve for the better, or ever guarantee they will evolve for the better! Failure to adapt = extinction and it happens all the time! I suggest you look into the endangered species list while your at it too, or the extinct species list. The dodo Bird would be a good example here for this forum.


A great example of this World View is the Star Trek series and movies which has a vision of the future based on an evolutionary line of March. It also seems ( to me) to incorporate Dialectics. Two opposing social norms collide, there is friction between the two and then POP, the better system or social structure emerges from the process.
Actually you are again contradicting your own argument with that attempt. Behavioral evolution is still apart of evolution ;)..

I am not convinced that is how history operates.
I am not convinced your education level in evolution makes you qualified to make that statement.
Correct. I dont read your posts very thoroughly. They seem  egotistical and chock full of straw man arguments and miss characterizations.

You have much to learn about how to persuade people. Do you really beleive that you can beat people into submission by telling them how dumb they are and how smart you are? A sure sign of a bad argument is the constant use of personal put downs, your stock in trade.


I am not convinced your education level in evolution makes you qualified to make that statement.

I actually have a degree in Political Science and know quite a bit about Dialectical materialism
 
Top