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: 164 37.7%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.5%

  • Total voters
    435

jckstraw72

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

jckstraw72

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

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
 

TheJackel

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

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

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

Sleeper

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

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

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

jckstraw72

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

Ortho_cat

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

TheJackel

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

 

TheJackel

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

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

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

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




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

TheJackel

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

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

"Haldane's dilemma"

This is an erroneous argument and this is why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

jckstraw72

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

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
TheJackel said:
Creationists also base their arguments on the concept of Conspiracy as if science was conspiring against them.. You you get dumb arguments like:

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

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?
 

jckstraw72

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

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

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

Marc1152

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

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

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

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

Have we discovered species that have suddenly appeared?

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

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

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

I am not convinced that is how history operates.
 

TheJackel

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

TheJackel

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
hey Jackel - i didnt see any Patristic sources in all your posts ...
Which is at least more genuine than your misuse of Patristic sources.
Pope Peter has spoken!
Y'know, you could at least address my reply without resorting to absurdly sarcastic ad hominems. ::)
ok. just because you make the assertion that i have misused the Fathers, (even though I have presented them the same way as have our modern Saints and holy elders), without any attempt on your part to demonstrate the proper usage of this wide survey of Fathers from all times and places throughout Church history, doesn't mean i actually have misused the Fathers. in looking through the Fathers I have come to the same conclusion as St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, St. Justin Popovich, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose. so you can make this assertion all you want, but the evidence clearly disagrees with you.
What evidence? Just because you say you use the Fathers the same way as have our modern saints and elders doesn't mean you actually do. For starters, I can't imagine modern saints and elders arguing with others on Internet discussion boards.
the evidence is obvious -- read what our modern Saints say, and compare that to the Patristics I have quoted. our modern Saints dont question that there is an actual teaching on creation from the Church, and they certainily arent accepting evolution! as i see it, your tactic is simply to sit back and wait for other people to do research, and then you simply deny it (and ive actually received sympathizing PMs from other users saying they've had the exact same frustration with you). if i, and our modern Saints, have misrepresented our Fathers, then please, feel free to place them in their proper context.
Have any of our modern saints taken to arguing incessantly on this one topic on an Internet discussion board?
ummm wouldnt that question apply just as much to you?
I was aware of the self-indicting nature of my words when I posted them. However, I'm not trying to use the Fathers in some attempt to win an online argument as you seem to be doing.
 

Marc1152

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
TheJackel said:
^^ 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:
One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.  It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.  And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).

By the way, Ortho_cat made a compelling argument for evolution in this thread. And what happens with a compelling argument by those who do not believe in evolution - ignore it.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
jckstraw72 said:
TheJackel said:
Ortho_cat said:
TheJackel said:
Also I do understand the Orthodox pretty well, I engaged your beliefs to see how they stand up, and out of curiosity of how you would portray them according to information theory, science, logic, and reason. Don't mistaken me for someone who's not aware of how you practice your religion.
Because I've witnessed how you distort the faith in order to bolster many of your arguments, I am highly suspect of this. That is, unless you are knowingly doing so in order to build up a strawman, but I would never assume that.
I didn't distort anything lol.. I took your own words and properly put that into context according the the English language. I know what nothing means, do you? And I even get some of you that make the argument that your GOD is incomprehensible.. Do they even comprehend what the term "incomprehensible" means, or how they contradict their own arguments with that term? Is this self-inventing your own interpretation of the English language?  No, I have done no such thing.. Nothing isn't anything and that is why it's incomprehensible. Your belief system isn't going to magically make the definitions of words bend to your ideological construct or view of "Truth".. Nothing will remain nothing regardless of what you want to believe. That is not may education problem, that is yours or your faiths education problem :/
i dont expect the Fathers to be masters of evolution, they are masters of the Scriptures. so to continually deride them based on secular science has no bearing on anything im saying. if thats the angle you want to stick with, then im not sure there's anything to dialogue with me about.
Then why are you using your computer? Ignoring entire swaths of science for sake of ideological preservation isn't going to magically make it all go away. In fact it's entire disingenuous and show's how weak you position is. The Fathers aren't even in the Grade school level of understanding evolution. And scriptures don't address it at all, which probably explains their level of intelligence when it comes to evolution, biochemical cycles and processes ect. People in the biblical era had no conceptual clue as to what evolution was. It's probably why they thought bats were birds. They knew nothing of genetics, dna, rna, tna, biochemistry, entropy, ect in the level we know it today.
eeeh why would i not use my computer? do i have to believe that im the 12th cousin of an ape to accept computer technology?

ever think that they didnt define birds the same way we do? i mean, eh, it was thousands of years ago ....

i didnt say the Fathers knew anything about evolution. they know about Scripture, they know about God. and evolution is incompatible with what they know.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tzimis said:
Over time we my have to see a christian view that encompasses the prevailing views of science.
I don't even understand why this should happen over time.  Right now, the christian view should encompass the prevailing views of science. 
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,846
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
wilderness
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.
This is the main stream view within a platonic philosophy. Now what if Adam inherited his nature from evolution and god created the person of Adam. How would that change things?
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
TheJackel said:
^^ 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:
One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.
abiogenisis is not a religion lol.. And the information I provided was for educational purposes for people that are entirely ignorant of the subject. Sounds like you are making up excuses to simply ignore it lol.




 It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.
incorrect


 And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).
Actually it's not because that argument is assuming Earth to be as it is today lol. Earth was a very much different place when life began that it is today. Life is unlikely to restart here when an already existing ecological system has been established.. it would simply end up as food. And in the RNA world they have already shown how life can synthesize on it's own from inorganic materials. Creationists just try to use the odds game as if it were to be impossible for it to happen naturally.. That's the fundamental logical fail Creationists use. Btw.. I provided links that touch on that subject.

You want to ignore what evolution is, or what abiogenisis is and the information available on those subjects, that is your problem. "_
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.
Abiogenisis is not a religion lol. You might want to define the term religion before you use it. And the information I provided was for educational purposes for people that are entirely ignorant of the subject. Sounds like you are making up excuses to simply ignore it lol. It's not at all a problem with my post.

It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.
That is more than enough time for life to form. And really, there is not defined amount of time that would require. It's not hard to imagine at all. This tells me you didn't really watch and listen to the lectures provided, or really understand the info provided to you.

Such as:

The Low molecular weight liquid hydrocarbons from various sources, would have formed an oil layer covering the primeval ocean (present already 4.0–4.4 × 109 yr ago), preventing water from evaporating into the atmosphere. Water from other sources, precipitated by cold traps at higher altitude in the atmosphere, becomes trapped in the ocean. In a thereby more dry and presumably reducing atmosphere (before 3.9 × 109 yr ago) even more hydrocarbons, as well as reactive molecules will form. An oil layer can possibly act as a dry solvent for reactions, where the reactive molecules can produce monomers and condensing agents. Monomers and eventual polymers formed could become strongly concentrated at the oil-water interface, favoring molecular interactions at high mobility and low dilution, without exposure to the destructive action of UV-light even though Volcanic Haze would be sufficient enough for UV-light protection. Increased water leakiness of the oil layer due to accumulation of polar molecules within, would lead to photo-oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons, and subsequent emulsification at the oil-water interface, forming cellular structures. The atmosphere would then have lost its reducing character. Not only this, volcano's make up the majority of the amino acids required for life on early Earth.

Also found to be true here:

* NASA - Oil-Seeps:
* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:
* Volcanoes produced much of the world's oil:
* Amino acids, oil / water:
* NASA: Life origins - Volcanic amino acids:
* Patroleum Origin

RNA:

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


And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).
Actually it's not because because the rate of synthesis vs degradation is not bound to erroneous assumptions.. It's no different than why the Dilema posted above is erroneous. It's actually not really a problem for the RNA world. RNA can also act like an enzyme which is a major player(vital actually?) in protein synthesis. RNA molecules have already been shown capable of duplicating themselves.

 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.
Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Aposphet said:
I have a question. If we evolved from apes, and there was no God, would our species even last as long as it had?

I mean with no guidance we'd probably killed each other off no?
Acts of compassion are pretty common in the animal world:

Examples of animal altruism abound. Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels and ducks. Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe. Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill. Velvet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tzimis said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.
This is the main stream view within a platonic philosophy. Now what if Adam inherited his nature from evolution and god created the person of Adam. How would that change things?
if Adam is a product of evolution then that still means there was death in creation before the sin of man, which makes death a creation of God, and since all that God creates is good, death would then have to be good. But Scripture teaches that God did not create death, nor does He desire the death of anything living (Wisdom of Solomon 1,2), and Christ hung dead upon the Cross specifically for the purpose of defeating death, which is the enemy of all creation. Orthodoxy teaches that the fall of man was a cosmic event, and that the restoration of man is therefore also a cosmic event - death entered creation through the sin of man, it is not a creation of God. if God created death and declared it to be good then we would have to really wonder why the heck He later decided to declare death to be our enemy and then defeat it? why are Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time if death and the place for the dead were actually good creations of God that He intended for His creation? God created us to call us, and with us all of creation, into His life. Death is a temporary kink in that plan brought on by man.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheJackel said:
the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.
Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/
biochemistry and genetics show you how things work now. they dont in any way tell you how mankind began. that is a huge assumption.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
TheJackel said:
One of the problems with your posts, is that you try to overwhelm the reader with lot of links that do not directly pertain to the issue. This is one example. To have an absolute belief and faith that abiogenesis occurred on earth is essentially a religion in itself.
Abiogenisis is not a religion lol. You might want to define the term religion before you use it. And the information I provided was for educational purposes for people that are entirely ignorant of the subject. Sounds like you are making up excuses to simply ignore it lol. It's not at all a problem with my post.

It would be better to start with Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 06/08 at 4:10. John Kuriyan states that "How with starting with the components, ever create a life form. It is hard to imagine how long it would take." If you continue to listen, life on earth has to be created in 100 million years. We are not talking about billions of years.
That is more than enough time for life to form. And really, there is not defined amount of time that would require. It's not hard to imagine at all. This tells me you didn't really watch and listen to the lectures provided, or really understand the info provided to you.

Such as:

The Low molecular weight liquid hydrocarbons from various sources, would have formed an oil layer covering the primeval ocean (present already 4.0–4.4 × 109 yr ago), preventing water from evaporating into the atmosphere. Water from other sources, precipitated by cold traps at higher altitude in the atmosphere, becomes trapped in the ocean. In a thereby more dry and presumably reducing atmosphere (before 3.9 × 109 yr ago) even more hydrocarbons, as well as reactive molecules will form. An oil layer can possibly act as a dry solvent for reactions, where the reactive molecules can produce monomers and condensing agents. Monomers and eventual polymers formed could become strongly concentrated at the oil-water interface, favoring molecular interactions at high mobility and low dilution, without exposure to the destructive action of UV-light even though Volcanic Haze would be sufficient enough for UV-light protection. Increased water leakiness of the oil layer due to accumulation of polar molecules within, would lead to photo-oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons, and subsequent emulsification at the oil-water interface, forming cellular structures. The atmosphere would then have lost its reducing character. Not only this, volcano's make up the majority of the amino acids required for life on early Earth.

Also found to be true here:

* NASA - Oil-Seeps:
* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:
* Volcanoes produced much of the world's oil:
* Amino acids, oil / water:
* NASA: Life origins - Volcanic amino acids:
* Patroleum Origin

RNA:

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


And although I respect John Kuriyan and Carlos Bustamante, they side-stepped the question that they were asked following the statement above. Reactions rates are dependent on the concentration of the reactants and more importantly abiogenesis is dependent on the rate of synthesis versus the rate of degradation, which is the real problem for some of the models (the RNA world, for example).
Actually it's not because because the rate of synthesis vs degradation is not bound to erroneous assumptions.. It's no different than why the Dilema posted above is erroneous. It's actually not really a problem for the RNA world. RNA can also act like an enzyme which is a major player(vital actually?) in protein synthesis. RNA molecules have already been shown capable of duplicating themselves.
I do not know how to break up quotes, so this will reply follows the order of your statements. What I was trying to express, and I thought it was obvious, is that an "absolute" belief and faith in abiogenesis occurring on earth without any established scientific evidence for the precise mechanisms by which it was achieved is little different from the belief in God.

Yes it is possible to imagine that life can arise in a relatively short period of time if one ignores the details.

I skimmed through the videos, it only took me a few seconds to know what the speakers were talking about as I skimmed since I have read quite a few of their papers in the past and also recognized the concepts they were in the middle of explaining. What got me pissed off was the dearth information on abiogenesis which you led me to believe this lecture would be about.

Thank you for citing news-type article about a Michael Yarus paper. You might read this short article by Michael Yarus to get an inkling of the complexities of abiogenesis:
"Getting Past the RNA World: The Initial Darwinian Ancestor"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20719875
This symposium wasn't online the last time I checked a couple of months ago and I haven't had the opportunity to go through all of the papers yet.

To get a further grasp about the complexity/diversity of the issues/possibilities, read this Review:
"RNA: Prebiotic Product, or Biotic Invention?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443885

I didn't understand your statement about erroneous assumptions.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
jckstraw72 said:
Tzimis said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.
This is the main stream view within a platonic philosophy. Now what if Adam inherited his nature from evolution and god created the person of Adam. How would that change things?
if Adam is a product of evolution then that still means there was death in creation before the sin of man, which makes death a creation of God, and since all that God creates is good, death would then have to be good. But Scripture teaches that God did not create death, nor does He desire the death of anything living (Wisdom of Solomon 1,2), and Christ hung dead upon the Cross specifically for the purpose of defeating death, which is the enemy of all creation. Orthodoxy teaches that the fall of man was a cosmic event, and that the restoration of man is therefore also a cosmic event - death entered creation through the sin of man, it is not a creation of God. if God created death and declared it to be good then we would have to really wonder why the heck He later decided to declare death to be our enemy and then defeat it? why are Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time if death and the place for the dead were actually good creations of God that He intended for His creation? God created us to call us, and with us all of creation, into His life. Death is a temporary kink in that plan brought on by man.
Well said.


Selam
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Tzimis said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and some people will continually divert attention from Scripture to science, and then force that science upon the Scriptures rather than looking to the Church to illumine the Scriptures. the truth is bastardized this way.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You argue that the Patristic interpretation of Genesis is an interpretation that does not allow for macro-evolution?
absolutely. i completely agree with our modern Saints who have spoken and written against evolution.
Didn't God make Adam from the dust of the ground? Isn't that a type of evolution, on a grand scale?
no, that was an instantaneous creation, it was not a natural, gradual process - it was a sudden miraculous act of God.
Again, we've discussed this several pages ago. It appears the key distinction here for 72 is that it must have been an instantaneous process, while others accept that it could have been a gradual process.
well thats one of many distinctions. i mean, the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam. the creative act of each day was instantaneous. several Fathers specifically deny the idea of a gradual creation and at least one (i forget who) derides the notion of a slow creation as taking away from the power of God - as if He was incapable of creating instantly.

however, i think the main distinction is that death is not inherently a part of Patristic cosmology, as it is for the evolutionary process. evil and death have no existence of their own - they are in the will of man, not in nature. but evolution obviously does not happen without death.
This is the main stream view within a platonic philosophy. Now what if Adam inherited his nature from evolution and god created the person of Adam. How would that change things?
if Adam is a product of evolution then that still means there was death in creation before the sin of man, which makes death a creation of God, and since all that God creates is good, death would then have to be good. But Scripture teaches that God did not create death, nor does He desire the death of anything living (Wisdom of Solomon 1,2), and Christ hung dead upon the Cross specifically for the purpose of defeating death, which is the enemy of all creation. Orthodoxy teaches that the fall of man was a cosmic event, and that the restoration of man is therefore also a cosmic event - death entered creation through the sin of man, it is not a creation of God. if God created death and declared it to be good then we would have to really wonder why the heck He later decided to declare death to be our enemy and then defeat it? why are Death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time if death and the place for the dead were actually good creations of God that He intended for His creation? God created us to call us, and with us all of creation, into His life. Death is a temporary kink in that plan brought on by man.
Well said.


Selam
I would have to say that the ultimate fail in the GOD didn't create death comes from the claim of a GOD being Omniscient ;) It would have known every "supposed" sin to which could exist before it would have existed. It's like blaming the beasts of your creation for the wrongs it supposedly commits while knowing every wrong it would commit before it was ever created in infinite detail.. Puppet show anyone?
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I didn't understand your statement about erroneous assumptions.
Erroneous assumptions have to do with people specifying a time frame limits on evolution. :/

And yes, they are looking for RNA precursors, or first replicators when it comes to abiogenisis. (something simpler.) Hard to do though.. Especially since we are in an already well established ecological system, and one that has changes so drastically since Early Earth's days when life didn't yet exist on Earth. It's not as easy to solve such a thing by reverse investigation.. And 150 years has brought us to the point of synthetic life. And no, abiogenesis hasn't been completely solved yet, there are a lot of areas in that to which require a lot more research to do. The links on abiogenesis where to give you some insight into the field. There is a lot to learn yet, but I doubt it will take another 150 years in the field to figure it out. ;) And I don't have 6 + years here to provide you with a "Dearth" amount of data on abiogenesis. That is something you would have to go into the field for. I more specifically deal with evolution, information theory, and how chaotic systems lead to complex. Those are the things I am currently in school for :)

Anyways this is a pretty good basic video when dealing with the basics of RNA and Abiogenesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

I posted some information here dealing with deep sea vents and volcanic amino acids, and amino acids dealing with water and oil. But keep in mind that in abiogenesis, the exact sequence of events are unknown to which lead to life..(but this doesn't mean we don't know of possible sequence of events).. We only need to prove it can happen. :)
 

TheJackel

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w&feature=related
http://exploringorigins.org/

these are good too for simplicity of explanation.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
TheJackel said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related
So the painting doesn't need a painter just because the paints themselves are chemicals? Uhh sorry but for there to actually be a painting the artist must put into motion the paints to create the artwork. That's a horrible rebuttal to the likes of Kirk Cameron.
 
Top