Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Veniamin]

Are we talking about witnesses or eyewitnesses? They are two different things. A witness is someone who testifies to the truth as best as they can with the information they have; the person does not have to have been present or really have any knowledge of the actual event to be a witness (a character witness is a good example of this). An eyewitness, however, must be present and must actually have seen the event take place. Neither is totally reliable, of course, but the point stands.

WRONG!!!

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

 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

That wasn't what I was saying. Suppose a person is accused of having robbed a bank. It is possible for a character witness to be called who was not even in the same state as the robbery to give testimony for the accused. Such a person would have no knowledge of the event, i.e. the robbery and certainly could not be called an eyewitness to the robbery, but would be a witness nonetheless.

 

[jnorm888]

I simply cannot understand, just what this so-called "creationism" is about. One might as well establish a movement called "anti-electromagnetism." Biological evolution is a FACT, just like the existence of electricity is a fact. That life on the planet Earth is being diversified because of the biological evolution is a valid scientific theory, just like that the potential in an electric circuit is determined by the electromagnetic field is a valid scientific theory. There is no "crteationism," it's just silly, stupid, ignorant.

wrong,


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




JNORM888

 

[greekischristian]

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

Where do you get this jibberish? There is no micro or macro evolution, there are simply random changes in  nucleotide sequences that are kept or eliminated depending on how the associated phenotypes contribute to survivability. :

 

[minasoliman]

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

I hope you realize you're telling a biologist he's wrong.

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

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

 

[jnorm888]

Where do you get this jibberish? There is no micro or macro evolution, there are simply random changes in  nucleotide sequences that are kept or eliminated depending on how the associated phenotypes contribute to survivability. :

"Adaptive variation" = Micro-evolution. This is what we see in the labs and in Creation/Nature.

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



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

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


Thus


The Fact is:

"ADAPTIVE Variation".


The Myth is:


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






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



JNORM888

 

[jnorm888]

I hope you realize you're telling a biologist he's wrong.

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

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

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


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


The facts I will agree with.


JNORM888


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

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Mod.

 

[minasoliman]

He's not the first. I said the same to my aggressive Atheistic highschool bio teacher. In college when I took an elective in bio I took intro to human bio and the Prof was a christian who didn't force Marco-evolution on us in the same way Atheistic prof's do. Did we learn it? Yes, but just because it was tought to us doesn't me I have to swallow everything "uncritically".


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


JNORM888

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

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

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

God bless.

 

[jnorm888]

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

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

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

God bless.

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


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


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it is not the same comparison.











JNORM888

 

[jnorm888]

I have alot on my plate, so I will chopp it up with you all in regards to this topic in the fall or next spring.


Until then....take care and be ready.





JNORM888

 

[minasoliman]

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


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

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

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

I'll recommend this website for you:

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

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

God bless.

 

[greekischristian]

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

Or we could simply, making the assumption of common ancestry, compare genomes of various species, make predictions, and have those predictions validated in the lab. This has been done as a paper from Nature I've already referenced in this thread demonstrates. If common ancestry is an inaccurage assumption, how do you explain the success of the predictions one can make by assuming it in that paper?

 

[jnorm888]

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

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

I'll recommend this website for you:

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

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

God bless.

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







JNORM888


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

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

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

But I will come back to this issue later.

 

[greekischristian]

It is interesting how creationists spend all of their time trying to disprove science and yet their task becomes more and more difficult with each passing year. On the other hand, science effectively ignores creationism and with each passing year the case of science becomes stronger and stronger.

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

 

[minasoliman]

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

Science is naturalistic by nature.  We observe and record what we see.  Science is not a theology/philosophy course.

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

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

God bless.

 

[Ebor]

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


Ebor

 

[jnorm888]

Science is naturalistic by nature.  We observe and record what we see.  Science is not a theology/philosophy course.

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

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

God bless.

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




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




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


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


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




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

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

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





JNORM888

 

[greekischristian]

So, basically, creationism stopped being popular about the time it was realized that leaches really aren't a miracle cure? Should we go back to using leaches to treat bacterial infections, slavery, child labour, and all the other glories of the age of creationism?

 

[livefreeordie]

I love it, its lent and GIC still can't pass up an opportunity to label and make fun of people!

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

 

[greekischristian]

I love it, its lent and GIC still can't pass up an opportunity to label and make fun of people!

And what, exactly, in my posts gave you the impression that I take lent seriously?