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

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
I'll tell you what naturalism and evolution is. It is a mountain of conjecture backed up with mountain of evidence that influenced by confirmation bias. It has inspired an entire generation of close-minded arrogant individuals believing that they are the offspring of monkeys and pond scum and spend billions of dollars regularly scouring the universe looking for little green men with big heads in flying saucers and believe that the universe just magically popped into existence, denying the laws of cause and effect.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
^how much time have you spent researching the theory to come to this conclusion?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Aposphet said:
It has inspired an entire generation of close-minded arrogant individuals believing that they are the offspring of monkeys and pond scum
I think "From Pond Scum to Human Personality" would be an interesting title for a paper. Though "The Evolution of Monkey Men" would be cool as well. :)
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
For the record, every 'pond scum' i've ever encountered prefers to be referred to collectively as 'blue-green algae', or by their individual species names, such as Chlorella and Spirulina.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I suppose Pond Scum is another way of saying "dirt mixed with water" scum...sounds very biblical to me.  ;)
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Aposphet said:
I'll tell you what naturalism and evolution is. It is a mountain of conjecture backed up with mountain of evidence that influenced by confirmation bias. It has inspired an entire generation of close-minded arrogant individuals believing that they are the offspring of monkeys and pond scum and spend billions of dollars regularly scouring the universe looking for little green men with big heads in flying saucers and believe that the universe just magically popped into existence, denying the laws of cause and effect.
^Pretty much sums it up for me.

When it comes to evolutionary "science," the fox is guarding the henhouse. This is what most people either don't understand or refuse to admit.


Selam
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wiki:

    Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inheritedtraits.[1] A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural
--
    Abiogenesis
    In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment
Scientists watch 40000 generations evolve:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/21/Scientists-watch-40000-generations-evolve/UPI-90041256132104/

Macro-evolution in E-coli:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

Scientists watch bacteria evolve heat resistance:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617111247.htm

Or:

Macro and Micro Selenium Speciation in Black Foot River, Idaho
http://xraysweb.lbl.gov/uxas/Publicatons/Papers/pdfs/Strawn%20Se%20sediment.pdf

nylon eating organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'll tell you what naturalism and evolution is. It is a mountain of conjecture backed up with mountain of evidence that influenced by confirmation bias. It has inspired an entire generation of close-minded arrogant individuals believing that they are the offspring of monkeys and pond scum and spend billions of dollars regularly scouring the universe looking for little green men with big heads in flying saucers and believe that the universe just magically popped into existence, denying the laws of cause and effect.
This is more or less a plea for pure ignorance because someone is likely science illiterate. :/ Worst of all, its an attempt to rationalize one's failures by trying to apply social dogma for a plea of emotion to make one's argument seem authoritative and credible.

believe that the universe just magically popped into existence, denying the laws of cause and effect.
Might want to brush up on your quantum physics.. The Universe is not stated to have magically popped into existence from nothing. You can feel free to Google "Ground State", "Zero-point Energy", and "Vacuum Energy". Yes, an education before making blindly uneducated comments might help you in your arguments :/

I'm willing to bet that you don't even know the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Just in Case, I will post it here for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI&feature=related
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
TheJackel said:
Wiki:

    Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inheritedtraits.[1] A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural
--
    Abiogenesis
    In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment
Scientists watch 40000 generations evolve:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/21/Scientists-watch-40000-generations-evolve/UPI-90041256132104/

Macro-evolution in E-coli:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

Scientists watch bacteria evolve heat resistance:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617111247.htm

Or:

Macro and Micro Selenium Speciation in Black Foot River, Idaho
http://xraysweb.lbl.gov/uxas/Publicatons/Papers/pdfs/Strawn%20Se%20sediment.pdf

nylon eating organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
I'm just going to throw this out here, but why must science exclude outright the possibility of the divine in order to understand our world and our cosmos?

I would simply say that within the realm of biology, evolution can only adequately explain a very limited number of things. I would argue that many Neo-Darwinists have exaggerated the capacities of evolution. Very recently, in fact, it was found that even Natural Selection is probably not responsible for speciation:
The traditionally accepted idea of species evolving through gradual changes is the Red Queen hypothesis, named after a character in Alice in Wonderland, who explains to Alice that "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." The hypothesis, that species continually change and adapt to compete with co-evolving species and retain their ecological niche, was proposed in 1973 by Leigh Van Valen.

The new research, carried out by Mark Pagel and colleagues at the University of Reading, in England, studied 101 groups of plant and animal species and analyzed the lengths of branches in the evolutionary trees of thousands of species within these groups. The lengths of the branches are a measure of the time elapsed between two species branching off.

The researchers then compared four models of speciation to determine which best accounted for the rate of speciation actually found. The Red Queen hypothesis, of species arising as a result of an accumulation of small changes, fitted only eight percent of the evolutionary trees.

Dr Pagel said that the research shows speciation is the result of rare events in the environment, such as genetic mutations, a shift in climate, or a mountain range rising up.

The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said "really goes against the grain" for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution.

The paper is published in the journal Nature.
http://www.physorg.com/news179737267.html

Biologists will now have to explain an immense number of biological changes in very, very short time frames. We seem to be discovering that Evolution accounts for less and less, rather than more and more. The case for an all-encompassing evolutionary theory becomes no more sunny when you begin to investigate molecular biology: where evolution has to account for the presence of molecular machinery operating within in the cell. Furthermore, evolution cannot adequately account for the presence of information.

I would embrace an ID+Evolution position. That while evolution certainly has a role in biology, it could never fully explain every aspect of biology in a satisfactory way.

Also this is a debate that requires one to be extraordinarily humble. It's a broad and vast field of study, and much of the discussion is clouded by emotional characterizations of the opposition. What you quoted me above on was rather tongue and cheek, not to be taken seriously (It's pretty obvious I made a rash overt generalization with Evolution). I honestly take no sides in this debate, and I do my best to follow the evidence where it leads me. This is why I'm not fundamentally opposed to evolution, because I know that there are certain cases where it can adequately explain physical changes in organisms.

The best advice I can offer in such a discussion is to be amazed. Be amazed at the grandeur and the beauty of life. We should be in awe at its sophistication, and its almost mystical surprises. Debates of this kind usually go best when the people arguing have a deep-seeded love for nature. We should always be astounded by the fact that chickens lay eggs, for it is far stranger than any tale told in a nursery rhyme.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm just going to throw this out here, but why must science exclude outright the possibility of the divine in order to understand our world and our cosmos?
It has not intention of doing so.. The exclusion surfaces in the logical fallacy of the concept itself, and under the weight of it's own arguments. Science only makes it more apparent.

I would simply say that within the realm of biology, evolution can only adequately explain a very limited number of things. I would argue that many Neo-Darwinists have exaggerated the capacities of evolution. Very recently, in fact, it was found that even Natural Selection is probably not responsible for speciation:
Firstly, there is no such thing as a Neo-darwinist group. Secondly you are entirely incorrect. This again tells me that you have no clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to biochemistry. And I would like you to please define speciation and then define macro-evolution for me.. In fact micro-evolution can cause more variation than macro-evolution in physical appearances between species. Macro-evolutions is when a species splits down two evolutionary paths where they can no-longer procreate with each other. When that happens, speciation has thus occurred. Humans are equally bound to the same biochemical processes.. I would also like for you to please define Natural selection for me and post it here so we know you understand what it means.

And when you are done. you can stop ignoring the examples I gave you to which are direct examples of evolution..

Lastly, I can give you a perfectly good example of evolution to which is order arising from a system chaos.:

    TheJackel,

    Academically, I am not that strong and never have that chance. I'd like to ask you a question "Are all men created equal?". Please, consider it as a small part of evolution question.
My Reply:

There are many aspects of evolution to which also include behavioral evolution.. Much like how fish will swim in schools for protection, man will find social groups to associate themselves with for many of the same reasons.. Human nature will segregate themselves into different social groups to where they never really ever fully equate other people outside their social group as equal.. Yes, it can happen, but evolution states that such things as equality as relative.. The other problem is, in chaotic systems such as human behavior, or evolution, there never is equality since everything is a dynamic and continuously emerging property of positive, negative, and neutral actions, reactions, responses, ideas, thoughts, levels of equality, emotion, feeling, adaptations, natural selections, choices, decisions, paths, morals, ethics, abilities, or possibilities of countless probabilities to which can not ever be 100% predictable or ever be static.

Example:

911 hits, where do I stand on human equality if it were my family killed in Tower 1? What possible routes will the evolution of my morality, ehtics, or stance on human equality take me? How much control do I have over this? Would I ever be the same?.. Sure I can make a choice to a limited degree, but evolution states that everyone isn't the same and will make any possible number of choices and changes because not everyone is the same. Especially in mental stability, states of mind, or in what control they have over their emotions. Thus, even though humans are intelligent, the entire system remains Chaotic like to which can not be predicted with any sort of real certainty.

This is why Chaos theory holds true.. Even in human nature.
Evolution functions in regards to positive and negative feedback from an organism and it's environment. I can prove evolution in non-living molecules as I can in living organisms:

* We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means:

http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=13429

We can prove evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Ju­pi­ter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These fold­ing arrangements play an ev­o­lu­tion­ary role in pri­ons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry creationists, but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutation, and simple observations of existing wild life. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter.

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29

--

* Furthermore, we can get even deeper into evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

--

* There is also information on the evolution of the human Genome:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html


 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Atheistic evolutionists miss the forest for the trees. Ironic, considering their deification of nature.

Atheistic evolutionsists are like a mechanic who can explain every piece of the car engine and how it operates, but he has no idea why the car exists in the first place and he can't drive. But he fancies himself the sole expert on cars simply because he can explain how (not why) the engine works.


Selam 
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Molecular Dynamics: Life: Gravity
Genome, DNA, Reproduction
Darwin, Origin of Life
Protein: Thermodynamics
Photon Energy and Life
Photon is the energy evolution of everything
Synthetic Life 1
Video: Synthetic Life 2
Self Orgainization and Complexity
Self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA
Gene self-organizing maps
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization

Enzymes and self-organizing collective dynamics:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

RNA:


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm (no human intervention)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/



Further synthetic life links:

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1208047/Life-order-Man-organisms-months-say-biologists.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life
* http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter-claims-artificial-life-has-been-created
* http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_genome?currentPage=2
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html

DNA Robots:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php
http://2020science.org/2008/01/26/synthe...echnology/

The Self-organized gene:
http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/the-self-organized-gene-part-1/

The human Genome has already been established in relation to apes. Its the fusion of a chromosome 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Dolphin. It's not a fish, it's mammal. Still has the pelvis bone, and is still found with extra limbs attached to the pelvis:

* http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/dolphinevo.html
* http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/whaleancestors.gif&imgrefurl=http://limulus.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/dolphin-with-hind-limbs-caught-alive-in-japan/&h=299&w=170&sz=19&tbnid=wDr7fUzZSTQ_qM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=66&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddolphin%2Bevolution&zoom=1&q=dolphin+evolution&hl=en&usg=__wevos8a3S3YgBUz14hib2FRE798=&sa=X&ei=vZxJTaW-LJPQsAP3xbCXCg&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q9QEwBA
* http://limulus.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/dolphin-with-hind-limbs-caught-alive-in-japan/
* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090924185533.htm

Or:

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

Genotypic speciation of heterotrophic bacteria
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15524705

Introduction: to species and speciation in micro-organisms
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1475/1897.full


Everything in existence has pattern from a chaotic system with feed back with order that comes from chaos. All this states is that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other. Hence, Chaos follows information theory:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

   3) "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern

 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Atheistic evolutionists miss the forest for the trees. Ironic, considering their deification of nature.

Atheistic evolutionsists are like a mechanic who can explain every piece of the car engine and how it operates, but he has no idea why the car exists in the first place and he can't drive. But he fancies himself the sole expert on cars simply because he can explain how (not why) the engine works.
Really? This tells me you have no understanding of how information theory works.. And btw, chaotic systems are not predictable and thus can never be explained in exact detail.. You might want to learn information theory before posting pleading arguments. And I can explain why the car exists with 3 simple laws that govern Chaos theory, information, matter, energy, atoms, processes, phenomenon, ect.

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These 3 rules (laws) underpin all things of complex, and all things existent. It's the fundamental characteristics of a chaotic system to which can give rise to emergent properties such as consciousness, or the chair you sit on while reading this post. Why?

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral; action, reaction, response, process, phenomenon, Natural selection, adaptation, ability, emotion, feeling, dynamic, function, feedback, ethic, relevance, information, state, position, point of view, thought, idea, system, or emerging property.


Do you even know the differences between a Carbon atom and let's say..A helium atom?
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And why we already know by fact and by example:

Spatial capacity to which is the capacity to exist, and have a place to exist in. This can not ever have zero literal capacity, exist as zero capacity, or exist in the form of a negative capacity. Hence, literal 0 dimensional objects, places, or things do not exist because they can not have the capacity to do so. And that is especially true for someone that would try and imply -1 dimensional capacity..

And what is Spatial Capacity made of? Energy..And that also means no literal negative or zero energy can't exist. This is also stated in the laws of Thermodynamics because literal zero temperature or thermal property is impossible for this very same reason. From ground state to every day objects like the chair you sit in here on Planet Earth.. So we do know quite a bit, we just don't know the entire sum total there is to know between zero (ground state) and above.

So you can feel free to reference:

1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/

Gravity is considered a negative energy (not literally, just opposite force in the opposite direction/attraction)This is also where expansion is considered positive energy. The total net energy is zero (not literal). This is where Zero energy, as energy, is in a state of Equilibrium vs actually being nothing or literally zero. This is why we refer to zero-point energy or ground state. So at rest there is zero-point energy. This is where zero also = 1 or (0,1)

Zero point energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Ground State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

Vacuum Energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Zero Energy Calculator:
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

The Four stages of Matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4
--
Quantum Electrodynamics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE
--
Chaos Theory and Emerging order from the coupling of positive and negative feedback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ
--
Butterfly effect: Secret life of Chaos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ

--

So yes, there are gaps in our "Knowledge" of the universe, but they are actually only Gray Area Gaps in terms of physics, complexity of chaotic systems, and how exactly to infinite detail did the Big Bang happen from Quantum fluctuations of energy.

This can best be understood by the following example:

We know we are human and what we are made of, and where we relatively reside. However, we do not infinitely know everything there is about ourselves/species.. In fact we know more about the Chicken than we do about the ourselves on a scientific level. So are we human? Do we need to know the entire 100% of all the infinite information we could ever gain about ourselves to understand what we are? Or to make correct assumptions of what we are based on the available and already known knowledge of what we are?

Same principle applies to Earth.. We don't need to infinitely know everything about Earth to know it's a habitable planet in a solar system labeled "sol" so which resides in the Milky-way Galaxy amongst the billions of others...

And this is why the GOD of the Gaps argument is erroneous..

You can also not references:

Our own Universe has been measured to be flat with less than a 2 percent margin of error.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

For clarity, like a disc floating in space similar to our own Galaxy but at a much grander scale. Thus the net Energy = zero (no lower than ground state).

Some Good source videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=relmfu

Other resources:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2848

http://icecube.wisc.edu/~halzen/notes/week1-3.pdf

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/early_univ.html

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html

 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Atheistic evolutionsists are like a mechanic who can explain every piece of the car engine and how it operates, but he has no idea why the car exists in the first place and he can't drive. But he fancies himself the  sole expert on cars simply because he can explain how (not why) the engine works.
And I would like to address this even further.. ;) How much of what I posted above do you think came from Atheists? Little hint, I included information from Christian scientists who don't see the need to cling to logical fallacies to the point of a total collapse of intellectual integrity.

I also had to debunk the supposed creationist scientist Sarfati in regards to Earth's Early Atmosphere here:

Genesis VS Science Part 2: Early Earth's Atmosphere
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Aposphet said:
The best advice I can offer in such a discussion is to be amazed. Be amazed at the grandeur and the beauty of life. We should be in awe at its sophistication, and its almost mystical surprises. Debates of this kind usually go best when the people arguing have a deep-seeded love for nature. We should always be astounded by the fact that chickens lay eggs, for it is far stranger than any tale told in a nursery rhyme.
I thought it was important to reiterate this.
 

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:
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. ::)
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. Good thing that Patristic sources weren't used because Bats aren't birds, and insects don't have 4 legs.  So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&feature=player_embedded


The sources I provided for evolution come from Christians, and Non-Christians. And they at least have some level of intellectual integrity. So lets weigh the intellectual integrity here in this forum.

Evolution
Micro evolution
Macro evolution
Speciation
Natural Selection


1) Define those words I have provided above and post the definitions here for us. Yes, I want YOU to do this literally just so we all know that we comprehend the definitions of Evolution, Speciation, Natural Selection, Adaptation, Micro-evolution, and Macro-evolution ect..

2) Read the rest of my post to which has a good amount of information and examples in it..

3) Comeback here and then repost the definitions of: Evolution, Speciation, Natural Selection, Adaptation, Micro-evolution, and Macro-evolution ect..

4) Review them

5) Then reply to me in scientific methodology why you think evolution ;)


Also we can look at some more recent evolution in the human Genome:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=genome+evolution+in+human&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Speciation in action:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/?npu=1&mbid=yhp

The length of a birds wings adapt to the changes in the environments to which they fly in:

http://www.conservationmaven.com/frontpage/birds-changing-wing-shape-as-possible-adaptation-to-environm.html



 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I thought it was important to reiterate this.
Not relevant at all to establishing evolution. Posting philosophical views do not at all address the issue. And sorry, but the people who actually study nature can be said to have a deep love for it, and thus nullifying any supposed intended argument within it's context. The quote reminds me of "Don't think, just believe and gawk".. "/
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
TheJackel said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&feature=player_embedded


The sources I provided for evolution come from Christians, and Non-Christians. And they at least have some level of intellectual integrity. So lets weigh the intellectual integrity here in this forum.

Evolution
Micro evolution
Macro evolution
Speciation
Natural Selection


1) Define those words I have provided above and post the definitions here for us. Yes, I want YOU to do this literally just so we all know that we comprehend the definitions of Evolution, Speciation, Natural Selection, Adaptation, Micro-evolution, and Macro-evolution ect..

2) Read the rest of my post to which has a good amount of information and examples in it..

3) Comeback here and then repost the definitions of: Evolution, Speciation, Natural Selection, Adaptation, Micro-evolution, and Macro-evolution ect..

4) Review them

5) Then reply to me in scientific methodology why you think evolution ;)


Also we can look at some more recent evolution in the human Genome:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=genome+evolution+in+human&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Speciation in action:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/?npu=1&mbid=yhp

The length of a birds wings adapt to the changes in the environments to which they fly in:

http://www.conservationmaven.com/frontpage/birds-changing-wing-shape-as-possible-adaptation-to-environm.html
Where's the link on the evolution of universal sterility in bees?
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Where's the link on the evolution of universal sterility in bees?
Universal?  Methinks we wouldn't see bees at all if that were the case.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Where's the link on the evolution of universal sterility in bees?
If you believed someone that told you that, I can't help but feel sorry for your gullibility ;/

You can also address your argument here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=universal+sterility+in+bees?&source=bl&ots=5a5_28gbCZ&sig=ilZkJpzyMPmtgFFtbxChKedHSTk&hl=en&ei=D1tcTZCwIYOclgeo1LjkCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=universal%20sterility%20in%20bees%3F&f=false

Abstract:


Distinction between the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids -- Sterility various in degree, not universal, affected by close interbreeding
Pretty damn hard to breed with universal Sterility o_O


How about you actually address the post above vs drifting off into nonsense that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject? I posted that information for you for a reason. I would hope you would actually take the time to comprehend what evolution actually is. Apparently that is beyond your capacity to do. :/
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
^^ Thank you for demonstrating my point.

you can sit through a lecture on abiogenesis here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObuQhCozCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seIZSkpTLEo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX3N1Ots6Hw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wi4JSrGTw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfbUG66yS4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhE1-21xNI0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YpwsZQwdY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7L-lnbHwmw&feature=related

OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Then you can research synthetic life, molecular assemblers, dna robots that self replicate, ect.

You can also watch this video:

Evolution and Common Decent:
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. Good thing that Patristic sources weren't used because Bats aren't birds, and insects don't have 4 legs.  So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:
Patristic sources are required to establish the Orthodox interpretation of Genesis.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
TheJackel said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Patristics sources were required to establish evolution? lol... Ohh jeez, really?.. Good thing that Patristic sources weren't used because Bats aren't birds, and insects don't have 4 legs.  So when you get backed into a corner and can't handle a debate, you resort to irrelevance and off-topic pleading?.I can even give you the evolution of your own religion here:
Patristic sources are required to establish the Orthodox interpretation of Genesis.
Good thing those sources are clueless to biochemistry much less are completely absent of, and clueless of their accuracy in accordance to reality. And the key words here are "interpretation of Genesis".. Self-inventing context and then trying to fill in the blanks with ignorance as if it would make any logical sense what-so-ever. But isn't that why some of you cling to the word 'incomprehensible" to make it all better?

You can feel free to point to me a biochemistry lecture in Genesis that goes into Biochemical functional micro-structures, and self-organizing enzymes ect. LOL.. It's Orthodox Christians trying to shape science into religion while ignoring 99 percent of the science? Is Sarfati one of those so called Orthodox Christians ?

Tell me, did the Bee argument come from Orthodox interpretation of Genesis? How about 4 legs on insects? Regardless it's not going to make evolution a magical fairy tale.. Well I suppose you can teach people to be stupid ? 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 :/

How about this.. Point me to the page here that lists your "sources" ;)... This should be rather fun.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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 :/

 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
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.
Well, unfortunately, when some Orthodox Christians continue to use the Church fathers as a way to discredit reality in science, they are opening the flood gates of blasphemy against the Church fathers by non-believers.  They are the Canaans of the Church.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
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. 
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
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?
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
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?
I think he's argued that from the beginning, no?
 
Top