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

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
EofK said:
Just to offer another unsolicited two cents, who's to say that every creature evolves at the same pace as every other creature?  If an animal has evolved enough that it can sufficiently find food, shelter, and a mate then why should it need to evolve any further?  In the instance of the horseshoe crab would it be fair to say that it's reached a comfort zone?  I wouldn't say that the horseshoe crab is the pinnacle of evolution but if it's not being challenged I wouldn't see a reason for it to further evolve. 
That is what I meant when I suggested that the Horseshoe Crab is fitted for its niche in the ecosystem.l   :)

Ebor
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
My apologies for posting without reading all of the thread and thus repeating what Ytterb. and EofK covered so well.

Ebor
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Demetrios G. said:
Nice detour . ;)
Thank you. One always needs a bit of levity in a debate such as this.

Ebor said:
My apologies for posting without reading all of the thread and thus repeating what Ytterb. and EofK covered so well.
No apology needed; "hot" topics like this have so many new posts that it becomes very difficult to read all of them in time to respond.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Ebor said:
How do you personally know that it hasn't 'evolved under the Natural selection process"? Are you trained in Marine Biology?  On what basis do you make that statement please?  The site you linked to says in part:

"The evolution of the horseshoe crab extends back far before the dawn of human civilization, before the dinosaurs, before flowering plants... back to the era in our planet's history when visible life first appeared."

So I do not understand where you get the idea that the Horseshoe Crab is 'exempt' and thus a proof against Evolution.

Ebor
I don't know. I'm just a dumb Greek hick, But if something is traced back to when visible signs of life first appeared than there might be more here than meets the eye.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
I don't know. I'm just a dumb Greek hick, But if something is traced back to when visible signs of life first appeared than there might be more here than meets the eye.
Reading a bit more on the site you linked to has more information
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/paleo/paleo.html

It reads to me something like saying that the history of a family stretches back to before there were large cities.  That doesn't mean that the people of *now* were the same back then, but that there were ancestors, that the people of today are descended from those who lived in small settlements.  And if one of them lives in a small village, does that mean that he/she hasn't 'descended'?

Ebor
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Ebor said:
Reading a bit more on the site you linked to has more information
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/paleo/paleo.html

It reads to me something like saying that the history of a family stretches back to before there were large cities.  That doesn't mean that the people of *now* were the same back then, but that there were ancestors, that the people of today are descended from those who lived in small settlements.  And if one of them lives in a small village, does that mean that he/she hasn't 'descended'?

Ebor
It doesn't say family, is says horseshoe crab. ;)
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
It doesn't say family, is says horseshoe crab. ;)
I am quite aware of what the linked page says.  I've read it more then once carefully.  I was attempting to draw a comparison, a paralllel example as it were of the group in a larger scheme that is the Horseshoe Crab and a group in the larger mass of humanity.

Ebor
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.
It's a catchy line, but that's all it is. I've read and heard similar things before. What does it really mean, if anything?  On what real data, on what collected and calculated numbers is it based?

Invoking "chances" of something happening is getting into the field of Mathematics.  There are mathematicians on this forum who perhaps will be willing to bring their knowledge.

Ebor

 

Peleg

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
peleg.smugmug.com
This ridiculous notion of creating a "Christian version" of everything that's already been done makes Christianity laughable. Please, for the sake of the Gospel, let's have Christian artists and inventors who create real, original works--not copycats. The world will hate us; Christ Himself said so. But please, if they will hate us, let him hate us because we are followers of Christ, and not because we are thieves.
Amen and amen!!!  Very well said! ;D  Frank Schaeffer deals w/ this issue in his book Sham Pearls for Real Swine.
 

Ziggernaut

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.
Christ is Risen!

Being neither a scientist nor a theologian, and somewhat adept at putting my foot in my mouth, so to speak, I would just venture to suggest here that while science isn't out to prove anything, there are very probably certain scientists who, because of their fallen human nature, try to use science to do just that--prove something, that is.  I'm sure the same would apply to theologians too.  Not all scientists, unfortunately, are as objective as they might be and, like so very many of us, may have agendas they are not entirely consciously aware of--that they would admit to, anyway.

Just my humble penny's-worth.

God Bless,
Jeff

 

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
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.
From your mouth to God's ears! Very true, IMHO. Science never aims at "proving" anything. It can, and often does, disprove - of course. Yet, so far, nobody has disproved the theory of biological evolution; to do that, one must show that genes do not exist (but they do), or that genes do not mutate (but they do), or that spatial separation of two populations does not lead to the establishment of mating preferences (but it does), etc. etc. etc.
 

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:
The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.
Ah, but that's a very common mistake. Evolution is not a game of dice. There is only an element of chance in it, but overall it is very "deterministic."
 

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:
It's a catchy line, but that's all it is. I've read and heard similar things before. What does it really mean, if anything?  On what real data, on what collected and calculated numbers is it based?

Invoking "chances" of something happening is getting into the field of Mathematics.  There are mathematicians on this forum who perhaps will be willing to bring their knowledge.

Ebor
My thoughts exactly. Ebor, I am sorry that I have replied to Demetrios G. (above), not having noticed that you already had done it so well.
 

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
LakaYaRabb said:
Science has not and cannot determine what constitues a human being. Why? Because science cannot prove the existence of the soul. Science takes a very materialistic very of the human being. They ask questions like "How big is his brain? How tall was he? What was the shape of his skull". Last time I checked, Christianity does not consider materialism as a the definitive qualifier for what makes a human being human.

Also regarding "ensoulment", God created man in His Image and Likeness. Of Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals are our biological ancestors, but didn't have a soul, then God would have inserted a soul into an pre-existing animal species. Lame.

Bottom line: If Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals aren't human, then they were animals without a soul. IMHO, they were less advanced in skills and technology, but were still humans with a soul.
But where do we go from here? What are you implying? Yes, science cannot define or study soul, and it doesn't do it. Yes, scientifically speaking, we are absolutely unable to say, just who was this first owner of a "truly human" soul. So... what?
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Heorhij said:
My thoughts exactly. Ebor, I am sorry that I have replied to Demetrios G. (above), not having noticed that you already had done it so well.
Please don't apologize.  I really  appreciate the back up on this.  The phrase is, imho, just silly.  It sounds like it means something, but there's not solid fact or numbers.  All it would seem to mean is "I don't like the idea of evolution. I can't cite solid data, so I'll toss off the idea of unlikely (and untestable) odds."
???

Real Science has Real numbers and real data with meaning that can be checked.

Ebor
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Heorhij said:
Ah, but that's a very common mistake. Evolution is not a game of dice. There is only an element of chance in it, but overall it is very "deterministic."
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.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
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.
Maybe the beer I've just consumed has dulled my senses, but what the heck is this supposed to mean?  ???
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
PeterTheAleut said:
Maybe the beer I've just consumed has dulled my senses, but what the heck is this supposed to mean?  ???
Well, I haven't had any beer and can't make sense of that post either.  Perhaps the poster could elaborate on what he is trying to say?

Ebor
 
Top