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

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Demetrios G. said:
Well, it's that element of chance that it could be false, that keeps you around. No? If it was proven than you wouldn't be here.
Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion. :)

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Heorhij said:
Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion. :)

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?
Thank you for this, Heorhij.  It seems that for some the idea of "Chance" somehow gives the idea of chaos and random happening.  But in your post about structure and order the "chance" fits in the parameters. Have I understood correctly?

There is plenty of order and structure in the Universe and all Creation, just as a general note.  So "chance" isn't as open and random as catchy phrases might make it seem.

Ebor
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Ebor said:
Thank you for this, Heorhij.  It seems that for some the idea of "Chance" somehow gives the idea of chaos and random happening.  But in your post about structure and order the "chance" fits in the parameters. Have I understood correctly?
Yes, precisely!

Ebor said:
There is plenty of order and structure in the Universe and all Creation, just as a general note.  So "chance" isn't as open and random as catchy phrases might make it seem.
Exactly right!
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Heorhij said:
Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion. :)

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?
I see what you are eluding to. But now add in the formation of the universe as a chance that everything fell into place to allow this type of formation and you again have chaos.  You see now that you are still dealing with chance. ;)
Until science is able to create a life from nihl or show a mutation from one species to another. The theory will always remain a theory. I'm not saying it didn't happen this way. I'm just saying it's unproven.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
So what role do you think chance plays?  Do you believe life as we know it today is an automatic and predicable consequence of the primordial ooze, if not, where do you believe chance and luck came into play? I'd also be interested in what you see as the difference between "chance" and "pure chance". Or "luck" and "pure luck", or even  "fate" and "pure fate".  :)

Heorhij said:
Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion. :)

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Demetrios G. said:
Until science is able to create a life from nihl or show a mutation from one species to another. The theory will always remain a theory. I'm not saying it didn't happen this way. I'm just saying it's unproven.
You've said this before, and quite recently, too.  Do you have anything different, maybe more enlightening, to say about this?
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
PeterTheAleut said:
You've said this before, and quite recently, too.  Do you have anything different, maybe more enlightening, to say about this?
The Naturalistic view always requires Proof. A theory isn't good enough.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Demetrios G. said:
The Naturalistic view always requires Proof. A theory isn't good enough.
Essentially the substance of what you said in the posts I quote below:

Demetrios G. said:
It's obviously not a science if it's a theory. That said. The day I stop attending church is the day that man can create from nihl. I challenge them to show me even one molecule they created. Or just plain prove that they can create anything. Until that moment comes they have no footing to try and convince us of anything.
Demetrios G. said:
Drop an apple and you prove that gravity exists, Split an atom and you have an atom bomb, move electrons and you can create light, Create a life form and you have life. All I am asking for is Proof? Create a life form. It's that simple. A theory will always remain a theory until proven.
Veniamin and I both addressed this faulty logic the last time you brought it up.  Would you care to go back and read what we had to say then and respond to the substance of that?
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
PeterTheAleut said:
Essentially the substance of what you said in the posts I quote below:

Veniamin and I both addressed this faulty logic the last time you brought it up.  Would you care to go back and read what we had to say then and respond to the substance of that?
Why is it faulty logic? If we had Christ with us right now we wouldn't need any faith. Because he would be here. The same applies to a theory. The atomic theory is proven the moment the boom goes off.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Demetrios G. said:
Why is it faulty logic? If we had Christ with us right now we wouldn't need any faith. Because he would be here. The same applies to a theory. The atomic theory is proven the moment the boom goes off.
Go back and read what Veniamin said in reply the last time you brought up this line of reasoning if you really want to see why it's faulty.  At the top of each quote where you see "Quote from: Demetrios G. on December 20, 2007, 06:55:58", just click on that link, and it will take you back to the quoted post.  Then follow the discussion immediately afterward.


I'll also offer my own critique of your logic.  The theory of evolution is primarily an attempt to explain what happened in the past to produce the life forms we see today, and this by reading the fossil record as one would read a history book.  All the examples you have used to show how this is unproven are based on the law of cause and effect:  "Do this, and this will happen as a result."  Drop some neutrons into a mass of U235, and you get a big explosion.  Drop an apple off a bridge and you hit someone in the head down below.  This is all cause and effect, which just cannot be used to prove that basically unrepeatable events ever occurred in our biological history.  (IOW, those who believe in evolution do so largely because the theory of evolution best explains the long series of unrepeatable events we see in the fossil record, but you would say, "Unless you can repeat these events that cannot be repeated, I will not believe you.")

Besides that, I already showed you how your definition of theory runs totally contrary to how this concept is used in the sciences.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
livefreeordie said:
So what role do you think chance plays?  Do you believe life as we know it today is an automatic and predicable consequence of the primordial ooze, if not, where do you believe chance and luck came into play? I'd also be interested in what you see as the difference between "chance" and "pure chance". Or "luck" and "pure luck", or even  "fate" and "pure fate".  :)
Silouan, brother, good to hear from ya! :)

The chance does play a certain role in evolution. Mutations are, indeed, random. But that's about all there is. Again, what really matters is not what nucleotide was hit by a mutagen at random, but whether or not the resulting change in the shape, form, etc., is advantageous in a certain environment. And these environments are many, and they keep changing. So, one mutant is better fit in the environment number one, another in the environment number two, etc. Hence the great and ever-increasing variety of life forms.

As for the predictability question - no, I don't think we can predict evolution much. We can perhaps say that our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens, will not be a precursor of any new species that would evolve from it. We are no longer merely biological beings, we have culture and technology (transportation facilitating interaction and cross-marriage). 
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
But it would seem that the odds of a random mutation resulting in an advantageous trait in a species are very high, especially considering, as I understand it, very few mutations are ever observed to be beneficial, and also that it seems as a species became more advanced it would take a lot of cumulative random mutations to result in a substantive change, i.e. developing vocal chords.  Something like that doesn't happen with one change, more like thousands of changes if it's possible.  It seems like we look at the "beneficial" mutations after the fact and then try to take the actual incredible odds of a random mutation being beneficial out of the equation.  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback and look smart! Especially when you have billions of years to work with.  Lots of time for a prediction to come true!  ;)

But isn't evolutionary theory when it looks at fossils from millions of years ago totally dealing in "prediction"?  Not in the observation of the fossil, this is clearly observation, not prediction, but in how these fossils evolved one to another. It's clear there are common traits among all creatures, that stands to reason as regardless of how were created we were all created in to live on this earth, but when you look at the traits of a monkey common to man, and then say, "we evolved from apes (or whatever the appropriate sub-human creature would be)" that seems to me pure speculation and prediction, although from your point of view I understand that this prediction is based on the scientific knowledge you must make this prediction with as a scientist.

And hey, if you will be at Father Chris's new parish in Mississippi we'll have to hook up the next time I'm down!

Heorhij said:
Again, what really matters is not what nucleotide was hit by a mutagen at random, but whether or not the resulting change in the shape, form, etc., is advantageous in a certain environment. And these environments are many, and they keep changing. So, one mutant is better fit in the environment number one, another in the environment number two, etc. Hence the great and ever-increasing variety of life forms.

As for the predictability question - no, I don't think we can predict evolution much. We can perhaps say that our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens, will not be a precursor of any new species that would evolve from it. We are no longer merely biological beings, we have culture and technology (transportation facilitating interaction and cross-marriage). 
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
livefreeordie said:
But it would seem that the odds of a random mutation resulting in an advantageous trait in a species are very high, especially considering, as I understand it, very few mutations are ever observed to be beneficial, and also that it seems as a species became more advanced it would take a lot of cumulative random mutations to result in a substantive change, i.e. developing vocal chords.  Something like that doesn't happen with one change, more like thousands of changes if it's possible.  It seems like we look at the "beneficial" mutations after the fact and then try to take the actual incredible odds of a random mutation being beneficial out of the equation.  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback and look smart! Especially when you have billions of years to work with.  Lots of time for a prediction to come true!  ;)
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an "advantageous mutation." If you live in New York City and acquire the s-hemoglobin mutation, you are a miserable patient with anemia; but if you acquire the exact same mutation and happen to live in the Amazon basin jungle, where everything is infested with Plasmodium malariae - you are the lucky guy, because P. malariae cannot survive in red blood cells with s-hemoglobin; so, unlike your "normal," non-mutant fellow tribesmen, you will survive past the age of 40 and have 12 wives, 67 children and 1297 gradchildren! :)

livefreeordie said:
But isn't evolutionary theory when it looks at fossils from millions of years ago totally dealing in "prediction"?  Not in the observation of the fossil, this is clearly observation, not prediction, but in how these fossils evolved one to another. It's clear there are common traits among all creatures, that stands to reason as regardless of how were created we were all created in to live on this earth, but when you look at the traits of a monkey common to man, and then say, "we evolved from apes (or whatever the appropriate sub-human creature would be)" that seems to me pure speculation and prediction, although from your point of view I understand that this prediction is based on the scientific knowledge you must make this prediction with as a scientist.
Well, yes, the whole story about the "vertical descent" is a theory, not an observation. But so is the theory that there exists an electromagnetic field or a gravitational field. And people somehow don't blast physicists for using these terms, or measuring the potential energy of these "fields."

livefreeordie said:
And hey, if you will be at Father Chris's new parish in Mississippi we'll have to hook up the next time I'm down!
Thank you. I'll be happy to meet. Doesn't God, indeed, work in mysterious ways? :)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
PeterTheAleut said:
Go back and read what Veniamin said in reply the last time you brought up this line of reasoning if you really want to see why it's faulty.  At the top of each quote where you see "Quote from: Demetrios G. on December 20, 2007, 06:55:58", just click on that link, and it will take you back to the quoted post.  Then follow the discussion immediately afterward.


I'll also offer my own critique of your logic.  The theory of evolution is primarily an attempt to explain what happened in the past to produce the life forms we see today, and this by reading the fossil record as one would read a history book.  All the examples you have used to show how this is unproven are based on the law of cause and effect:  "Do this, and this will happen as a result."  Drop some neutrons into a mass of U235, and you get a big explosion.  Drop an apple off a bridge and you hit someone in the head down below.  This is all cause and effect, which just cannot be used to prove that basically unrepeatable events ever occurred in our biological history.  (IOW, those who believe in evolution do so largely because the theory of evolution best explains the long series of unrepeatable events we see in the fossil record, but you would say, "Unless you can repeat these events that cannot be repeated, I will not believe you.")

Besides that, I already showed you how your definition of theory runs totally contrary to how this concept is used in the sciences.
This touches on one of the nails in the coffin in my belief in evolution, hammered in at the University of Chicago (the professors didn't realize what they were doing).

It seems a lot of evolutionary theory revolves around speciation.  But by definition, speciation in the fossil record has to be conjecture, as one cannot mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring.  The problems in this can be seen when species are reclassified, which does happen from time to time.

It is a problem: replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method, said to be at the basis of modern science.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
ialmisry said:
This touches on one of the nails in the coffin in my belief in evolution, hammered in at the University of Chicago (the professors didn't realize what they were doing).

It seems a lot of evolutionary theory revolves around speciation.  But by definition, speciation in the fossil record has to be conjecture, as one cannot mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring.  The problems in this can be seen when species are reclassified, which does happen from time to time.

It is a problem: replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method, said to be at the basis of modern science.
I am not quite sure what you mean. Speciation means arrival of a new species. Of course, just studying the fossil record, one cannot detect the EVENT of speciation. But there are no other ways to detect it, either. The whole point is, this "arival" does not mean, today this population was part of species X, and tomorrow it will be a new species Y. Speciation is inconspicuous, it takes thousands or millions of years. But it doesn't mean it's unreal. There is an overwhelming evidence that it is real - from population genetics, biogeographical studies and other lines of study. To reject all that is pretty much the same as to say, "I never saw these two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen in water molecules, so why should I believe in them?"
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Heorhij said:
I am not quite sure what you mean. Speciation means arrival of a new species. Of course, just studying the fossil record, one cannot detect the EVENT of speciation. But there are no other ways to detect it, either. The whole point is, this "arival" does not mean, today this population was part of species X, and tomorrow it will be a new species Y. Speciation is inconspicuous, it takes thousands or millions of years. But it doesn't mean it's unreal. There is an overwhelming evidence that it is real - from population genetics, biogeographical studies and other lines of study. To reject all that is pretty much the same as to say, "I never saw these two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen in water molecules, so why should I believe in them?"
What you mean by "evidence" would be interesting.  The non-evidence is overwhelming: men have bred animals of all sorts consciously over thousands of millenia over thousands of generations, yet without producing a new "species."  The idea of random selection doing the job stretches credulity, as does the idea of primordial soup overcoming entropy to produce life.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I already have 5 children with one wife, that will do for now!

C'mon, you know the theory of a gravitional field is a different type of thing than something like the theory of evolution.  Gravity is a very specific principle, I can test it fully in action by dropping an apple for instance.  While we can look at the supposed individual processes of evolution in this same way, i.e. gene mutation, adaptation, etc. it seems like we create a whole other category of "theory" when we say these processes result in some process we call "evolution" which results in an ape becoming man.  Isn't the difference between the theory of "gravity" and the theory of "evolution" that "gravity" is a physical law that can immediately be observed, i.e. an apple falling, while "evolution" is a more general theory or field of study that tries to explain how a bunch of observable individual theories like mutation, adaption, etc. result in the evolution of species? Isn't "gravity" an actual true observation, i.e an apple falling, and "evolution" is more of a prediction, i.e. gene mutations, adaption, etc. were responsible for life crawling forth from mud and we call this prediction "evolution."

Also, a thought I had pondering all this.  Is the only way that an evolutionist can have faith that God "created" is to say God "tuned" the universe so that when these billions of random mutations began to occur some of them would result in the evolution of life? But since mutations are completely random and rarely beneficial, does this mean that as an evolutionist you believe God still left creation to some sort of chance? Otherwise, why do you need God, why do you need to believe God "created", etc.  Of course, that's faith isn't it, something that takes over when reason fails us.

Heorhij said:
you will survive past the age of 40 and have 12 wives, 67 children and 1297 gradchildren! :)

Well, yes, the whole story about the "vertical descent" is a theory, not an observation. But so is the theory that there exists an electromagnetic field or a gravitational field. And people somehow don't blast physicists for using these terms, or measuring the potential energy of these "fields."

Thank you. I'll be happy to meet. Doesn't God, indeed, work in mysterious ways? :)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
livefreeordie said:
I already have 5 children with one wife, that will do for now!
The number of children or the number of wives?

C'mon, you know the theory of a gravitional field is a different type of thing than something like the theory of evolution.  Gravity is a very specific thing, I can test it fully in action by dropping an apple for instance.  While we can look at the supposed processes of evolution in this same way, i.e. gene mutation, adaptation, etc. it seems like we create a whole other category of "theory" when we say these result in an ape becoming man.  Isn't the difference between the theory of "gravity" and the theory of "evolution" that "gravity" is a physical law that can immediately be observed, i.e. an apple falling, while "evolution" is a more general theory or field of study that tries to explain how a bunch of observable individual theories like mutation, adaption, etc. result in the evolution of species? Isn't "gravity" an actual true observation, i.e an apple falling, and "evolution" is more of a prediction, i.e. gene mutations, adaption, etc. were responsible for life crawling forth from mud and we call this prediction "evolution."

Also, a thought I had pondering all this.  Is the only way that an evolutionist can have faith that God "created" is to say God "tuned" the universe so that when these billions of random mutations began to occur some of them would result in the evolution of life? But since mutations are completely random and rarely beneficial, does this mean that as an evolutionist you believe God still left creation to some sort of chance? Otherwise, why do you need God, why do you need to believe God "created", etc.  Of course, that's faith isn't it, something that takes over when reason fails us.
"That's faith.  That's when you believe what no one in their right mind would believe"-Archie Bunker.

Actually faith can, and should, take over when our reason is up and running and working.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Of course, should have stated my last sentence better.  Although unfortunately, I usually rely too much on my own reason until I get knocked down to size.

ialmisry said:
Actually faith can, and should, take over when our reason is up and running and working.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
ialmisry said:
The number of children or the number of wives?.
Children, although my wife and I are currently look at some bigger homes with lots of land out in the country and after the move it will no doubt result in an increasing brood! Of course, as the seven of us swam and built a bonfire tonight, a couple more would have just have made it merrier!
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
PeterTheAleut said:
I'll also offer my own critique of your logic.  The theory of evolution is primarily an attempt to explain what happened in the past to produce the life forms we see today, and this by reading the fossil record as one would read a history book.  All the examples you have used to show how this is unproven are based on the law of cause and effect:  "Do this, and this will happen as a result."  Drop some neutrons into a mass of U235, and you get a big explosion.  Drop an apple off a bridge and you hit someone in the head down below.  This is all cause and effect, which just cannot be used to prove that basically unrepeatable events ever occurred in our biological history.  (IOW, those who believe in evolution do so largely because the theory of evolution best explains the long series of unrepeatable events we see in the fossil record, but you would say, "Unless you can repeat these events that cannot be repeated, I will not believe you.")
The fossil record shows no evidence, what so ever that leads to the theory of evolution. Where did you hear that?
Actually there are such large gaps that no one can fill the holes.

Besides that, I already showed you how your definition of theory runs totally contrary to how this concept is used in the sciences.
And I have showed you that science needs observable data to verify a theory.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
ialmisry said:
What you mean by "evidence" would be interesting.  The non-evidence is overwhelming: men have bred animals of all sorts consciously over thousands of millenia over thousands of generations, yet without producing a new "species."  The idea of random selection doing the job stretches credulity, as does the idea of primordial soup overcoming entropy to produce life.
Chihuahua and Labrador ARE different species - they do not cross-breed. (BTW, wolf and "dog" aren't really different species.)

Primordial soup etc. is beyond the scope of the theory of biological evolution, that's the realm of a different theory (abiogenesis).
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Heorhij said:
Chihuahua and Labrador ARE different species - they do not cross-breed. (BTW, wolf and "dog" aren't really different species.)
Is the following then false ( a quick wikipedia search):

"While they may look very different, domestic dog breeds are all the same species, Canis lupus, and crossbreds are never sterile. Dog crossbreeds are called hybrids (in the secondary usage) so as to avoid confusion with the term mixed breed dog, since often people who are not knowledgeable about dogs will confuse the terms crossbreed and mixed breed. The term hybrid also is used to refer to the descendants of crossbred progeny[3], although technically that is not correct, and the advantage of hybrid vigour is lost."

It might be physically hard for a Chihuahua and Labrador to copulate and thus cross-breed :eek:, but I'm pretty sure they are still the same species. I'm no dog expert though.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
livefreeordie said:
Is the following then false ( a quick wikipedia search):

"While they may look very different, domestic dog breeds are all the same species, Canis lupus, and crossbreds are never sterile. Dog crossbreeds are called hybrids (in the secondary usage) so as to avoid confusion with the term mixed breed dog, since often people who are not knowledgeable about dogs will confuse the terms crossbreed and mixed breed. The term hybrid also is used to refer to the descendants of crossbred progeny[3], although technically that is not correct, and the advantage of hybrid vigour is lost."

It might be physically hard for a Chihuahua and Labrador to copulate and thus cross-breed :eek:, but I'm pretty sure they are still the same species. I'm no dog expert though.
Well, imagine a hundred chihuahuas (50 male and 50 female), and a hundred Labradors (50 male and 50 female), and allow them to mate. Imagine mating preferences? :)
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Heorhij said:
Well, imagine a hundred chihuahuas (50 male and 50 female), and a hundred Labradors (50 male and 50 female), and allow them to mate. Imagine mating preferences? :)
As man proves, there would be the oddball pair giving it a swing!

On a serious note, they can potentially breed(I imagine anyone sick enough to try it would use artificial insemination if the female was a Chihuahua), although a female impregnated by a lab would have a good chance of dying in child birth or earlier during the pregnancy due to the probable size of the puppies.  In the coincidence category, my grandfather was actually a breeder of Chihuahuas, and coon dogs. Never together though that I know of!
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Demetrios G. said:
The fossil record shows no evidence, what so ever that leads to the theory of evolution. Where did you hear that?
Actually there are such large gaps that no one can fill the holes.
Would you like to tell us where these gaps are?  You have a lot of scientists, including our own resident biologist Heorhij, who will disagree vehemently with your interpretation of the fossil record.

And I have showed you that science needs observable data to verify a theory.
No you haven't, though I do understand this principle.  Many scientists, though, will preach that the fossil record provides much of the data they need to verify that the theory of evolution is for right now the most plausible explanation for what they see.


ialmisry said:
It is a problem: replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method, said to be at the basis of modern science.
The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena we see in the universe today, but can we replicate the Big Bang?  If not, why do scientists accept the theory as the best explanation?  Studies into evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that science also tries to explain how things came to be what they are today, and in this type of historical study, replication is often not considered applicable.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
livefreeordie said:
Children, although my wife and I are currently look at some bigger homes with lots of land out in the country and after the move it will no doubt result in an increasing brood! Of course, as the seven of us swam and built a bonfire tonight, a couple more would have just have made it merrier!
I like your attitude.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
livefreeordie said:
As man proves, there would be the oddball pair giving it a swing!

On a serious note, they can potentially breed(I imagine anyone sick enough to try it would use artificial insemination if the female was a Chihuahua), although a female impregnated by a lab would have a good chance of dying in child birth or earlier during the pregnancy due to the probable size of the puppies.  In the coincidence category, my grandfather was actually a breeder of Chihuahuas, and coon dogs. Never together though that I know of!
Someone I know had a spontaneous experience with the scenerio laid out (or close to it, I think it was a Great Dane and one of those toy poddles I think (I don't know breeds)).  He had the puppies aborted because of fear of the size of them, so never found out if they were fertile.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
PeterTheAleut said:
Would you like to tell us where these gaps are?  You have a lot of scientists, including our own resident biologist Heorhij, who will disagree vehemently with your interpretation of the fossil record.
And they dissagree vehemently amonst themselves.  Point?

No you haven't, though I do understand this principle.  Many scientists, though, will preach that the fossil record provides much of the data they need to verify that the theory of evolution is for right now the most plausible explanation for what they see.
Which is intertesting, as they are not above doctoring it to fit their theory.  Example: scientist find a hip bone which they identify as australopithicus I believe, but the configuration is not what their theory predicts.  Answer: postulate that some bovine stepped on the bone during fossilization, altering it.

The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena we see in the universe today, but can we replicate the Big Bang?  If not, why do scientists accept the theory as the best explanation?  Studies into evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that science also tries to explain how things came to be what they are today, and in this type of historical study, replication is often not considered applicable.
If I recall correctly, the particle accelerators were supposed to do this.  And it has been theorized that the universe will collapse on itself, and the process will start all over.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
PeterTheAleut said:
No you haven't, though I do understand this principle.  Many scientists, though, will preach that the fossil record provides much of the data they need to verify that the theory of evolution is for right now the most plausible explanation for what they see.
Plausible doesn't make it actual. It's an educated guess.  :laugh:

The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena we see in the universe today, but can we replicate the Big Bang?  If not, why do scientists accept the theory as the best explanation?  Studies into evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that science also tries to explain how things came to be what they are today, and in this type of historical study, replication is often not considered applicable.
This theory is also questionable because it lacks a good explanation of where matter came from.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
Plausible doesn't make it actual. It's an educated guess. 
I think it's important to note the word educated.  The paleontologists are making things up or pulling things out of nothing.  There has been study and the collection of data and analysis of fossils and more. And when new information, fossils and data is found old ideas may change which doesn't mean that they were bad, but that they were based on incomplete data.

This theory is also questionable because it lacks a good explanation of where matter came from.
Just because something is not known *now* doesn't mean that it may not be found some time in the future.  And future science and knowledge is built on earlier foundations.

Ebor
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Demetrios G. said:
This theory is also questionable because it lacks a good explanation of where matter came from.
Was I the only person here paying attention in Quantum Mechanics? Perhaps you remember this Heisenberg fellow from...oh, I don't know...THE FIRST WEEK OF CLASS??? ::)
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Heorhij said:
Primordial soup etc. is beyond the scope of the theory of biological evolution, that's the realm of a different theory (abiogenesis).
Which is built on sound molecular biology. The fact that there is less observable evidence for abiogenesis than for evolution doesn't make the rejection of the theory any less absurd...especially when the alternative is to say an invisible guy in the sky did it. A googol to one odds of molecules bonding together at random would be infinitely more likely than any alternative theory thusfar presented.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
Which is built on sound molecular biology. The fact that there is less observable evidence for abiogenesis than for evolution doesn't make the rejection of the theory any less absurd...especially when the alternative is to say an invisible guy in the sky did it. A googol to one odds of molecules bonding together at random would be infinitely more likely than any alternative theory thusfar presented.
hello Greeki.  I was beginning to think extinction had caught up with you.

Actually the "invisible guy in the sky" is logically more consistent that your pet theory.  I've yet to see an explanation of how random abiogenesis overcomes entropy.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
ialmisry said:
And they dissagree vehemently amonst themselves.  Point?
Yes, the point is that I wanted Demetrios to defend his statement that the fossil record offers absolutely no evidence for evolution, that the holes in the fossil record are too big.

Which is intertesting, as they are not above doctoring it to fit their theory.  Example: scientist find a hip bone which they identify as australopithicus I believe, but the configuration is not what their theory predicts.  Answer: postulate that some bovine stepped on the bone during fossilization, altering it.
Maybe the unscrupulous among evolutionary scientists, but can you apply "they" to ALL evolutionary scientists in such an attempt to discredit their science?

If I recall correctly, the particle accelerators were supposed to do this.
How so?

And it has been theorized that the universe will collapse on itself, and the process will start all over.
This, too, is no more a theory than the Big Bang, and even less testable.  It's difficult enough trying to understand the cosmic past without also trying to predict the future.  You think any scientist in the next thousand generations will still be around to witness this event?  SWYP?
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Victoria, Australia
ialmisry said:
hello Greeki.  I was beginning to think extinction had caught up with you.

Actually the "invisible guy in the sky" is logically more consistent that your pet theory.  I've yet to see an explanation of how random abiogenesis overcomes entropy.
Although I don't want to agree with GIC :)D) The fact (statistically) that ANY random number of events that could lead to create life are more probable and acceptable then to believe in a metaphysical realm and the existence of an omnipotent being. It's basic "easiest explanation is MOST (not always) true"
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
hello Greeki.  I was beginning to think extinction had caught up with you.
Now don't you worry...me and my type of people are the intellectual future of the human race. The great thing about science is that is true, regardless of how many people believe in it or follow it...religion without followers has no value.

Actually the "invisible guy in the sky" is logically more consistent that your pet theory.  I've yet to see an explanation of how random abiogenesis overcomes entropy.
With no disrespect intended towards your flying spaghetti monster is it really that hard to see how atoms might somehow bond together to make the organic molecules that form the basis of life? Oh, and the argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is moot...it only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not and while a small degree of order may have been created a greater degree of chaos would have resulted on a subatomic level.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
prodromas said:
Although I don't want to agree with GIC :)D) The fact (statistically) that ANY random number of events that could lead to create life are more probable and acceptable then to believe in a metaphysical realm and the existence of an omnipotent being. It's basic "easiest explanation is MOST (not always) true"
Actually the postulate of an omnipotent being, who ipso facto could create life, is much simpler than running probability streams on all the variables.  It is also self contained consistent.  Btw, you don't need to get into the existence of a metaphysical realm.

greekischristian said:
Now don't you worry...me and my type of people are the intellectual future of the human race.
Ah, Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.  Aren't you the one against all this reproducing going on?  I didn't know that the pin head allele was adventageous.  Usually those who have it aren't mating.


The great thing about science is that is true, regardless of how many people believe in it or follow it
That's great to know, 'cause I just bought tons of stock in aether and phlogiston.  And I guess I have to admit to the truth of evolution.  After all, we can observe recapitulation, and that proves evolution, no?

...religion without followers has no value.
He makes the rain fall on the righteous and wicked.

With no disrespect intended towards your flying spaghetti monster is it really that hard to see how atoms might somehow bond together to make the organic molecules that form the basis of life?
Given the complexity, yes.

If it was so simple, your intellectual future of the human race should have been able to replicate it by now.

Oh, and the argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is moot...it only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not and while a small degree of order may have been created a greater degree of chaos would have resulted on a subatomic level.
Ah, exceptions, exceptions, exceptions.

So much for Great Unified Field.
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Victoria, Australia
ialmisry said:
Actually the postulate of an omnipotent being, who ipso facto could create life, is much simpler than running probability streams on all the variables.
Actually no the belief in an omnipotent deity is literally infinitely more complex to fathom and believe then to first believe that an almost statistically improbable event occurred (come on GIC back me up :D). But seriously

ialmisry said:
It is also self contained consistent.  Btw, you don't need to get into the existence of a metaphysical realm.
So the existence of a metaphysical realm need not exist for an omnipotent THEISTIC deity to exist? I don't think its possible, but I could be wrong. and I assume your a theist (since you are Christian) unlike GIC which can get away with the whole metaphysical system.
 

Stephans

Newbie
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
70
Location
Buffalo, New York
Website
hometown.aol.com
GOCTheophan said:
No its not a "fact"...it is a theory with no evidence at all to back it up. I am not the most scientific person in the world but there are more and more books by reputable sciencists showing the weaknesses in the arguments for it from a purely scientific point of view.

Theologically of course what you just wrote is blasemphy.

You make God responsible for all the suffering, misery, sin and death- you are saying that the creation He brought out of nothing and described as very good wasnt really that good at all. You accuse Him of creating this world in a fallen state- of using "natural selection". If that is all true what does that make of the Cross of Christ? You also accuse of the Holy Spirit of lying to Moses when He inspired him to write the account of the creation of the world in Genisis. You accuse our Holy Fathers who noetically rose above time and in the Uncreated Grace of God and beheld the beginning and end of all things as being in Prelest.

You have also just called the righteous St John of Kronsdaht "just silly, stupid, plain ignorant"-

"The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God."

MY LIFE IN CHRIST

[translated, with the Author's sanction, from the Fourth and Supplemented Edition by E.E. Goulaeff, St. Petersburg]

(p. 41,42) 

Now that you have seen what that Holy man of God has written will you repent of your blasemphy?

Theophan.
Well said, Theophan.

To put it another way, if one were to accept evolution then the Kenosis of Christ does not exist and He died on the Cross for no reason other than the hatred of His enemies. Also, if one were to accept evolution then the Resurrection of Christ (a total impossibility in the opinion of evolutionary scientists) is nothing more than a forlorn wishful thinking by his apostles. The real reason for the anti-gospel of evolution as a supposed fact obviating and voiding the Christian faith of the believer is to bring in the Pantheistic-Monist en-sof of the qabbalists and the neo-gnostic hatred of the flesh leading to full gratification thereof; as well as many other objections to the Gospel of Christ. In short, though many who might try to defend evolution may not see themselves in this fashion, they are pandering to the apostasy that will bring in the Antichrist. I am not saying they do this on purpose, but they fall into a trap laid carefully for them. Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the most Blessed Theotokos, the Virgin Mary, an impossibility in an evolutionary universe. Our Lord Jesus Christ walked on water and transformed five loaves and a few fishes into a huge amount and raised the dead including Lazarus who was rotting already. All of this is impossible in an evolutionary universe. Our  Lord Jesus Christ made the singular sign of proof of His divine mission His own Resurrection from the dead in the flesh and showed this forth as the promise of our own resurrection at His return from heaven from the Father's right hand. All of this is impossible and unthinkable in an evolutionary universe. We have to face the question, which is impossible and unthinkable? The Truth of Christ or evolution? I say evolution is impossible and unthinkable.

A few scriptures to think on:

2Pt:3:
2  That you may be mindful of those words which I told you before from the holy prophet and of your apostles, of the precepts of the Lord and Saviour.
3 ¶ Knowing this first: That in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4  Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5  For this they are wilfully ignorant of: That the heavens were before, and the earth out of water and through water, consisting by the word of God:
6  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
7  But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men.

1Cor:15:
1 ¶ Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
2  By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.
3  For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures:
4  And that he was buried: and that he rose again according to the scriptures:
5  And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven.
6  Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.
7  After that, he was seen by James: then by all the apostles.
8  And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time.
12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13  But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.
14  And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain.
15  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ, whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.
16  For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
17  And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 ¶ But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep:
21  For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead.
22  And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
23  But every one in his own order: the firstfruits, Christ: then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.


And of course the genealogies in St. Matthew's Gospel and St. Luke's Gospel make it clear that 70 human generations passed between the first man Adam and Christ. Without redemption from the death brought in by Adam's sin then both the Kenosis of Christ and His Resurrection become meaningless. They are not meaningless but the Truth.
 
Top