Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 74 16.9%
  • No

    Votes: 164 37.4%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 200 45.7%

  • Total voters
    438

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?
I don't know how you made that assumption that intracellular parasites had to appear after multicellularity.  Bacteriophages attack bacteria, so there might have been a very early time when the first viruses for instance appeared with the first cells.  The extent of the evolution of viruses and intracellular parasites that we do know is that they co-evolve with the host.  As the host gets more advanced, the parasites get more advanced, which always have been the problem for development of resistance.
I don't know any intracellular parazite that lives in a bacterial cell or single celled organism. That's why I assume this. Your answer is another hypothesis. Let's summarize here what I'm trying to determine. I said Darwinism predicts as much involution as evolution. You gave me completely unsubstantiated response that in order to involute past environment should arise. Leaving aside how omniscient statement it is, I gave you an example which desproves your statement. Now you trying to give me rebuttal which actually has huge gape in it. Are you trying to say that a virus (bacteriophage) evolved as a cellular organism that continued to live inside cells?

In case there's been found a prokaryote living in a single celled organism and I do not know it, that still does not change previous logic unless you tell me viruses evolved into these parasites. So, your only option is to agree with the question above and then we are going to go into another hypothesis how viruses turned into something.

Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.
As to your question, I don't know where to begin.  We know there are extremophiles that live in extreme conditions, and we understand the Earth to have had extreme conditions billions of years ago.  The complex organisms that live today could not have survived those conditions.  That's science in a nutshell for you.
Another irrelevant answer. What I said was against you statement "When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection. One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment." First this whole statement bags the question for a simplification why is it necessary to go back to an original environment while we know already that simple organisms has existed in all environments. Second, do you know detailed history of the Earth? Do you know detailed history of genetic codes of each existing species at any given time? How do you know that during the millions of years of existence of millions of genome none of them would fit in that environment if the genome was simplified? I seriously need to know this.

Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized?  What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.
I'm only giving you some ideas.  For instance, if there existed apes at the time that are similar to those who are Down's Syndrome, then they might have been ostracized.  Some people with Down's are still fertile, and some can give birth to normal humans.

I can't give examples of people being ostracized.  But surely, we have examples of species that may look very similar with different chromosomal numbers (like the beavers).  The question of how this occurred is no different than asking how a murderer got in.  Hence, why I don't understand why you think these questions can disprove evolution.
Well, I need better answer not just hypothesis. First of all your example is actually against you. If a person with Down's produces normal human then this ostracized Down's population go back to wild type. That does not help you since you need ostracized genome which remains stable and give you whole new generation of this genome. Second, I'm curious where have you heard about fertile Down man or woman? Most importantly you are avoiding important question and trying to continue with you fallacious analogy. I gave you clear cut question. I will make the situation clearer and ask question again. We have some hypothesized 24 chromosome pair ancestors. You hypothesized that 2 of the chromosome in there could be fused. I gave you that point. Now in order to get a new population with 23 chromosomes we need to ostracize only individuals (both male and female) with 23 chromosomes (which have this fused chromosome) and isolate them completely from 24 chromosome population. Otherwise there's no way we can get new population (diffusion of this new genome back into wild type will prevent formation of new population). Now I'm asking you is it possible at all for this to happen? And if it is possible then give me some detailed answer? Are we not talking about science after all?

We need to know lots of things and at least have some current observational data. Say we have observed today that apes with 24 chromosome do produce offspring with 23 chromosomes after this fusion. But prevalence of this chromosome is practically 0, so that there's no given time when 2 individuals exists with 23 chromosome. Then certainly you hypothesis is even more baseless. In this case you have to hypothesize more things (like this particular mutations happened much much more frequently and so on). This is why I'm asking the numbers. I would like to know what's the frequency of viable 23 chromosome individuals in apes. I would like to know how many individuals are necessary to be ostracized to give us significant chance of survival of this ostracizeds. I would like to now what would be a chance of such happening. I would like to know how this isolation can be complete for a prolonged period of time so that this two subpopilation does not mix until they are sexually isolated. What's wrong with this questions and why do you not want to answer them?

Introducing beavers make things worse since same applies to them and this new population formation is going to be very rare based on calculation and observation, two rare thing happening would be more rare. Not to mention that we will have to expect hundreds of thousand of such "isolational" events.

So show me that at least in case of ape-to-human path is possible.

 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Let's say we have created this protocell in the lab. What properties it should have to call it protocell and not call it cell?
I don't know.  I suppose a protocell would have properties that allow it to grow, reproduce, and eventually evolve.
Didn't you tell me that "If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough". But it seems you don't even know what this protocel will be wright? Anybody knows it on this forum? Or on the Earth? Look Dear, the problem here is very simple: we either leave certain ingredients in a certain environment and wait until something happens - well this is the situation when we do not know what's going to happen and what will be formed; but this does not look scientific at all and you can't say anything at all until something happens. And when something happens it is possible that this happening will actually be disproving Darwinism. So in this case we can't talk anything. Or there's the other option: you have a hypothesis about what this protocel might be and what characteristics it could have. Then start experimenting and see if you can get anything like that. Otherwise it does look like an engineer deciding to construct a plane without knowing what this plane is going to do. He doesn't even know whether this plane should fly, should have wings, should carry passengers and so on.

But since you gave me some hypothetical answer tell me please how you are going to give this protocell properties so it can grow and reproduce? If you have no idea just point me to somebody who has this idea.

And if abiogenesis doesn't have to do anything with evolution then say abiogenesis is not possible but evolution is possible. Say that first cells were created by God and then evolution took on. Say it, I'm listening. Say it and have all the evolutionists say it. But the logic is so simple. 1) Abiogenesis is not possible and God only created first cell; 2) If God created one cell he could have created any type of cells and any number of cells with different genetic makeup; 3) consequently there's no need of evolution to explain life's origin and it's diversity. As simple as this.
That's like asking a mechanical engineer to tell me what he believes about the only way to treat someone with cancer.
Again, false analogy. In fact the argument I gave you is called Occam's razor and I can translate this the following way: If I found the way of the origin of one particular species (first cell) then I found the way of origin of all species and I don't need to introduce extra hypothesis. Thus all life is explained.

I'm simply open to anything the origin of life.  If we can't make life ourselves, okay, great.  If it has been proven that we can chemically make life, and that the condition of the earth allowed that to happen, great.
Are you? Are you open to something that Bible says, everything including life was created by Almighty God, blessed be His Name? If you are really open to it why do you need any other theory? Why don't you just put faith in it and continue if you are open to it? You certainly know that science (who's inherently materialistic) is not going to prove this. Then can you really say you are open to such faith? And if say it was proved that life can be produced by itself without God's Will and His Action, for you what will be left on the list of the things that God created? Can you name those things? And since Bible says God created the life including man and now science found the other way round aren't you going to doubt the Book? How are you going to reconcile scientific truth at that point with Bible and your faith? This are sincere questions to an Orthodox person and they are not asked to criticize you at all.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
ativan said:
Opus118
What is your personal definition of a new species?
You put a trap to Darwinism. I do not need to define species. All I will do is change my statements and say: it is not possible to get eukaryotic cell from a prokaryote; It is not possible to get multicellular organism from a unicellular one; It is not possible to get a flying animal from nonflying one; It is not possible to get a dog from a cat (or since you like to jump on statements like this, I'll make it better: it is not possible to get a tiger from cats ancestor who was cat); It is not possible to get a bacteria with flagelum from a bacteria without one and so on;
I asked for your definition of a species in order to have a productive conversation because it can vary even among scientists. Some scientists consider Helacyton gartleri, derived from Helen Lacks 60 years ago, as a new species, others say it is still Homo sapien.

Cyanobacteria are often multicellular, forming long chains with signal transduction pathways that cause some cells in the chain to differentiate into another cell type in order to fix nitrogen. Myxobacteria are also multicellular, they will swarm and move together along an agar plate. In limited nutrients they will, like their eukaryotic counterpart Dictyostelium, differentiate to form a stalk and fruiting body and produce spores. They are more or less a mushroom in bacterial form.

Bacteria lacking flagella acquire it all the time. Some E. coli have flagella, some don't, they lost the functional genes. But they get it back by mating with another E. coli, where they become partially diploid for a while, or by being infected with a transducing lysogenic bacteriophage.

BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?
I am guessing this is what you want but I am not sure:

The intracellular cyanobacteria of Paulinella chromatophora: endosymbionts or organelles?
Abstract
Endosymbiotic relationships are common across the tree of life and have had profound impacts on cellular evolution and diversity. Recent molecular investigations of the amoeba Paulinella chromatophora have raised a timely and important question: should obligatory intracellular cyanobacteria in Paulinella be considered new organelles, or do plastids and mitochondria hold a unique stature in the history of endosymbiotic events? We argue that drawing a sharp distinction between these two organelles and all other endosymbionts is not supported by accumulating data, neither is it a productive framework for investigating organelle evolution.

http://preview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17537638

Chromatophore genome sequence of Paulinella sheds light on acquisition of photosynthesis by eukaryotes.
RESULTS: Our data reveal a fundamental reduction of the chromatophore genome. The single, circular chromosome of 1.02 Mb encodes 867 protein-coding genes and is, therewith, the smallest cyanobacterial genome reported to date. Compared to Synechococcus WH5701, a free-living relative of the chromatophore, only 26% of the genes were retained. Eleven putative pseudogenes were identified, indicating that reductive genome evolution is ongoing. Although the chromatophore genome contains a complete set of photosynthesis genes, it lacks not only genes thought to be dispensable for an intracellular lifestyle but also genes of essential pathways for amino acid and cofactor synthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data characterize the chromatophore as a photosynthetic entity that is absolutely dependent on its host for growth and survival. Thus, the chromatophores of P. chromatophora are the only known cyanobacterial descendants besides plastids with a significantly reduced genome that confer photosynthesis to their eukaryotic host. Their comparison with plastids and bacterial endosymbionts of invertebrates sheds light on early steps of the integration of a photosynthetic prokaryote into a eukaryotic cell.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18356055

Amoeba (a unicellular eukaryote) usually engulf and digest cyanobacteria, but sometimes they keep them to become photosynthetic organisms.

 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
ativan said:
Opus118
What is your personal definition of a new species?
You put a trap to Darwinism. I do not need to define species. All I will do is change my statements and say: it is not possible to get eukaryotic cell from a prokaryote; It is not possible to get multicellular organism from a unicellular one; It is not possible to get a flying animal from nonflying one; It is not possible to get a dog from a cat (or since you like to jump on statements like this, I'll make it better: it is not possible to get a tiger from cats ancestor who was cat); It is not possible to get a bacteria with flagelum from a bacteria without one and so on;
I asked for your definition of a species in order to have a productive conversation because it can vary even among scientists. Some scientists consider Helacyton gartleri, derived from Helen Lacks 60 years ago, as a new species, others say it is still Homo sapien.
HeLa cells are 1) derived from human cells in lab and not by evolution. Thus it contributes nothing to evolution through random mutation. 2) If such a cell is a new human species then every single specialized (as well as stem) cell in human body is a new human species and I must be composed of about 300 hundred different species each one containing billions of individuals.

That is exactly what I said in previous pot: evolutionary scientists don't even have a clearly defined notion of species. How can you talk about species evolution if you don't know what species is? That is not my problem. It adds to your problem. I already gave you how I would change my reasoning by simple introducing clear terms, without ever referring to vagueness of "species", to which you gave me wrong answer. Here it goes:
Cyanobacteria are often multicellular, forming long chains with signal transduction pathways that cause some cells in the chain to differentiate into another cell type in order to fix nitrogen. Myxobacteria are also multicellular, they will swarm and move together along an agar plate. In limited nutrients they will, like their eukaryotic counterpart Dictyostelium, differentiate to form a stalk and fruiting body and produce spores. They are more or less a mushroom in bacterial form.

Bacteria lacking flagella acquire it all the time. Some E. coli have flagella, some don't, they lost the functional genes. But they get it back by mating with another E. coli, where they become partially diploid for a while, or by being infected with a transducing lysogenic bacteriophage.
Problem with your reasoning is twofold at least: 1) If you giving me such examples as an examples of evolution, then huge changes (like acquiring genes for flagella) occur in a matter of minutes or hours, or however long it takes for different e.coli to exchange genetic material. If such changes happen so fast we should be seeing all species turning into different species in a matter of days or months (of course this reasoning only is extrapolation of your reasoning by bringing in these examples). So I will ask you: why don't we see humans change for say 5000 years? Your answer is, it's not enough time for a human to transform into a new species? I ask again: did you not just gave me examples of unicellular things turning into multicelllar in a blink? Well, you should not have brought this examples at all. 2) Of course you gave me examples where things happen as a result of very very cleverly designed structure of cell communication and exchange of genetic material. If you've paid attention I was actually saying you can't get such cellular communication and exchange of genetic material in cells that did not have all these to start with. Now you have to explain not only how one bacteria without flagella evolved into bacteria with flagella but also how bacteria acquired the property of genetic material exchange within the species and across the species which in turn requires lots of genes working in amazing cooperation. Can you do that?

I am guessing this is what you want but I am not sure
N, not that. Simply put the problem is this: obligate intracellular parasites, I say, must have evolved through simplification of already existing facultative cell who could exist outside acell. And of course the whole my assumption is based on anther assumption that Darwinism is true.  Mina is saying this assumption is not right and he's doing this to avoid artificially introduced notion of "evolving, going up the ladder".  If my assumption is not right then obligate intracellular cell evolved (got more and more complex) inside a cell. I'd like to hear how.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
if I say that evolution is scientifically wrong, then that means I have an alternative scientific view to prove this.
This is your opinion though. It's OK to hold an opinion but opinion is not truth itself. Many examples can be brought from science that invalidates such approach. Aristotle thought the heavier object the faster they fell. One did not need a new theory to refute this statement. It could have been done and was done by 1) rational reasoning and 2) experiment, as did Galileo.

There are problems even in physics such that physicists have no even no idea how to approach them/ I wonder why don't they come up with a working hypothesis? Because they can't due to the inherent properties of a given problem. Why can't we deal same way with the problem of life and its diversity?


I told you for instance I don't really know much about abiogenesis to have a fulfilling discussion, but you wanted me to "admit" that abiogenesis is wrong, but that's not how I work.  When I say I don't know, then I don't assume a position is wrong.  Otherwise, that means I know something, which is definitely not "I don't know."
I have different impression actually. I clearly gave you the logical problem with abiogenesis that goes against the very properties of life. I gave you very general argument why abiogenesis is wrong. You could not even point to the problem within my logic. Why? because there's no problem there. In my opinion you avoiding to discuss abiogenesis issue since there's nothing to discuss there.

The reason people leave the Church is almost always a mutual cause.  Part of the blame is themselves, and part of the blame is the environment they were with.  When evolution is called heretical and blasphemy in a particular church, we are essentially ostracizing some who do seek belief.  And this is not considering the fact that there are others in the EO Church, especially bishops, who find no problem with evolution.
First of all, ask those bishops who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions. As far as leaving church only ego-full people do that. Environment does not have to do anything with this. We have even not a single shred of humility. Today almost everybody wants to be theologian without praying, fasting, realizing their sinfulness and shedding rivers of tears. My dear friend, Orthodox men/women can't be demanding. They must be warriors of The Lord Jesus Christ to borrow the words of one of the greatest Saints. One great Saint (Saint Alexandre Shushania) after revelation of Gods' will to him to become a monk, did not think of himself worthy of becoming monk. So for 2 years to test his readiness for Christ he was washing feet of sick people and was drinking that water, for two years he was doing this. Now some don't want to stay in the Church because the Church tells them Darwinism (and many other things) is blasphemy. OK, leave it. The Church did not come into existence to hear our complaints and reorganize itself. It came to help us, sick people, sick with the worst disease.

I wonder when time comes and Antichrist shows us the Cross and a piece of bread to relinquish the Cross, what we would chose if we don't even want to leave the blasphemy away?


God Bless and Glory To Lord Jesus Christ
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.

This sort of conflict reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they don't want to get blood transfusions. I find this very ridiculous, not because they're heretics, not because this command is nowhere to be found in the Bible and Tradition. But because this belief has nothing to do with logic and science. Much like those people who didn't want to take photos of them, for fear of losing their soul. Ridiculous.

Evolution is the most credible theory for the life sciences, according to all evidence found by now. If you have evidence that disproves evolution, but also proves something different, which can be formulated into a theory, go on and submit a paper to a Scientific Journal. I'll be glad to see how this goes.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
I disagree with ativan on the topic of evolution, but he touches upon an important point regarding how we use language. If we say that the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ had an "apelike ancestor" so many years ago, what we imply is that the body, mind, and soul of the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ evolved from apelike body, apelike mind, and apelike soul of the apelike ancestor, and that everything we know about  MHM and LJC was and is a result of purely natural causes operating within their apelike ancestors.

From an Orthodox anthropology, one would instead, it seems, have to say that the body of the MHM and LJC, according to genetic evidence, evolved from an apelike ancestor.

Regarding the mind (that is, thoughts and feelings), one would have to be a bit more hesitant, since (from a scientific perspective) we still don't know what "mind" is or where it comes from. (And by "mind" I mean, e.g., the images one can create in one's "head"; what these images actually are composed of, is a mystery; and whether they "evolved" is an open question. By "mind", I don't mean the biochemical processes that occur in the physical brain, and that are quantifiable in one way or another.)

And regarding the human soul -- which I would define as the act of mere awareness, not bound by either mind or body -- science knows even less. To say that awareness evolved from physical matter is good naturalism, but not so good Orthodox anthropology, which seems to indicate that the power of awareness is part of the "breath of God" given directly by God to each human.

To simply say the MHM and LJC evolved from an apelike ancestor, and not say anything further, is to meld into one, the different aspects of the human person.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
I disagree with ativan on the topic of evolution, but he touches upon an important point regarding how we use language. If we say that the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ had an "apelike ancestor" so many years ago, what we imply is that the body, mind, and soul of the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ evolved from apelike body, apelike mind, and apelike soul of the apelike ancestor, and that everything we know about  MHM and LJC was and is a result of purely natural causes operating within their apelike ancestors.

From an Orthodox anthropology, one would instead, it seems, have to say that the body of the MHM and LJC, according to genetic evidence, evolved from an apelike ancestor.

Regarding the mind (that is, thoughts and feelings), one would have to be a bit more hesitant, since (from a scientific perspective) we still don't know what "mind" is or where it comes from. (And by "mind" I mean, e.g., the images one can create in one's "head"; what these images actually are composed of, is a mystery; and whether they "evolved" is an open question. By "mind", I don't mean the biochemical processes that occur in the physical brain, and that are quantifiable in one way or another.)

And regarding the human soul -- which I would define as the act of mere awareness, not bound by either mind or body -- science knows even less. To say that awareness evolved from physical matter is good naturalism, but not so good Orthodox anthropology, which seems to indicate that the power of awareness is part of the "breath of God" given directly by God to each human.

To simply say the MHM and LJC evolved from an apelike ancestor, and not say anything further, is to meld into one, the different aspects of the human person.
Soul? Who said that animals have souls? Soul is something that God gave to humans alone. I don't see the need to clarify that. The same goes for mind.

When I say that this species evolved from that one, I'll only care about DNA. Not body, mind or soul, plain DNA. At least, that's how a biologist should think.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,294
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Age
41
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I want to comment ativan's other questions in full when I have the time tomorrow or after.  But concerning the "animal ancestry" of humanity, I do like to share the late Bishop Alexander Mileant of ROCOR, who I would be doing great injustice if I didn't quote this part in full:

[url=http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm#_Toc67449472]The Origin of Man: Making and Creating.[/url] said:
At the end of the "sixth day" all the preliminary steps of creation were complete and the time came to crown nature with her "king," who would become the Creator’s representative for the lower creatures. And before the all-important act of man’s creation the Lord, as if conferring with His Council of the Holy Trinity, says, "Let us make (asa, see below) man in our image, after our likeness [note the use of the plural]: and let them [people] have dominion over the fish of the sea, [and over the beasts,] and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth… So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:26-27).

Here again the Prophet Moses uses two words that in their English translation sound alike, but actually have different meanings: create (Heb. bara) and make (Heb. asa). The first word means to create from nothing, and the second means to form something from pre-existing materials.

The Bible discusses man’s creation twice: in the first chapter of the book of Genesis: "God created (bara) man in his own image" (1:27), and in the second chapter of the same book: "And the Lord God formed (asa) man of the dust of the ground" (2:7).

Creation [bara] is the birth of something new that did not exist before. It is the result of an instantaneous act. The Prophet Moses uses this word for the creation of the world — "In the beginning God created [bara] the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) and for the creation of man — "So God created [bara] man" (Gen. 1:27). In the latter case creation concerns man’s spiritual essence. Similarly, the book of Exodus (31:17) discusses the gradual formation of the world from pre-existing elements and therefore uses the word corresponding to the English made: "In six days the Lord made [asa] the heavens and the earth…" The use of different words in the Hebrew original is significant. Unfortunately, in the Greek translation this difference between creating and making or forming is lost. Greek translators translated these different concepts into the single word epiisen [εποιησεν]. Therefore it is not surprising that the majority of the Church Fathers who interpreted the book of Genesis, using the Greek translation of the Seventy, were not able to catch the essential nuances of the Hebrew original.

It is no accident that, when speaking about man, the Prophet Moses uses both words: First, in Gen. 1:26 — the word translated made (Heb. asa), and later, in 1:27, the word translated created (Heb. bara). In doing so, the prophet differentiates the process of forming the body, which preceded the breathing of the soul into the body, which was a new creation. This creative act of the soul is indicated in the second chapter also, Gen. 2:7, where it is said that after forming the body the Lord "breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils the breath life; and man became a living soul," that is, combined the body with the spiritual basis that did not exist in nature — his Godlike and immortal soul!

Careful reading of this account reveals one more detail. The first chapter talks about the creation of man and woman — two people potentially implying a variety of beings; and in the second chapter, where it talks about the breathing of the soul, only Adam is mentioned, from whom the Lord then formed Eve. Is it not complementary that there are two aspects here of how man was made? First, the making of his physical human-like form, and then the endowment of a soul to one of them, who became the historical Adam?

The concept of man’s gradual making was not alien to the Holy Fathers. Bishop Theophan the Recluse writes about Adam’s body: "What was this body? A clay gray-hen, or a living body? It was a living body — it was an animal in the form of a man, with a living soul, and then God breathed His spirit into it…" First a creature with man’s form was created, whom God later gave a rational soul. This thought of Bishop Theophan’s is not incidental; he returns to it several times in his anthropological constructions, affirming that man contains antecedent levels of life. For example, he writes: "God’s creations are disposed such that every higher class mixes the strengths of lower classes in itself, besides having its own strengths particular to and characterizing its own class." This is a completely normal and widely found dialectic. Bishop Theophan draws the conclusion that there is an animal’s soul within man. He cites St. Anthony the Great. "According to St. Anthony," writes Bishop Theophan, "our soul is of the same rank as an animal’s soul. What makes us different is the mind, which I call the spirit."

On the basis of similar statements, some draw the conclusion that human nature has three parts — a body, soul and spirit (the mind or intellect). But the Orthodox Church teaches that human nature has two parts. Obviously, the soul that the Creator breathed into the first man took in or assimilated all of the lower living functions of pre-man. The source of life in plants, insects, fish, and animals does not have an independent existence: it disappears at the moment of their death. But the human soul, on the contrary, directing all of the body’s vital processes, continues to exist after man’s death.

As he speaks of man further, the Prophet Moses once again resorts to imagery. The element of symbolism in his accounts is felt most where the need to expose a religious idea with extreme clarity is strongest. Such as, for example, in the story of woman’s creation from Adam’s rib. St. John Chrysostom teaches: "‘And it is said he took her from his rib.’ One should not take these words literally, but understand that these coarse words are accommodated to human weakness. For if the Scripture did not use these words, how would we know indescribable secrets? We shall not dwell on words alone, but will accept everything reverently, as it concerns God. The expression ‘took’ and others like it are used for the sake of our weakness."

We understand the moral conclusion of the account indicated by the Apostle Paul, namely that the wife takes second place in the family, after the husband : "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man…; for the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." But why does Moses describe the way that woman was made in this way? No doubt he meant to protect the Judaic consciousness from the fabrications of mythology, particularly the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia, the land of the Jews’ ancestors. These stories are morally tempting, saying that there is a certain blending in the world of gods, the world of people and the world of animals: goddesses and gods are combined with people and animals. Images of lions and bulls with human heads, so widespread in Chaldean and Mesopotamian sculpture and Egyptian drawings, allude to this. The Bible’s account of the way woman was created affirms the truth of the unity of the human race.
And as for the "soul," I think one has to differentiate between the soul living beings have (basically the essence of life) and the rational soul, or as some Church fathers call it, the "spirit," or the "Image of God."
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


minasoliman said:
And as for the "soul," I think one has to differentiate between the soul living beings have (basically the essence of life) and the rational soul, or as some Church fathers call it, the "spirit," or the "Image of God."
I couldn't agree more.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.
well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.
well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.
well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.
i dont know why it has to be taken to that level. of course I'm not saying he's a Pope, but he is ridiculously holy and i can't even remotely touch him. i have no reason or right to say he's wrong without at least appealing to someone equally holy. thats how i see it at least.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.
well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.
i dont know why it has to be taken to that level. of course I'm not saying he's a Pope, but he is ridiculously holy and i can't even remotely touch him. i have no reason or right to say he's wrong without at least appealing to someone equally holy. thats how i see it at least.
I never said he's not holy, on the contrary. He is one of the brightest candles of Christianity in the last century. I've actually prayed for his intercession sometimes. That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on just one subject, which is more technical than spiritual in any case. Today everyone knows about evolution, but back when Elder Paisius expressed that view, religious people faced evolution as something that excluded God. Greek people hardly knew anything scientific about evolution back then, so they used to blindly follow what others said, without much judgement.

Nowadays, more than a few Christian scientists have spoken on a compatibilist view of life, with evolution and God together, God being the Creator through evolution. As long as the spiritual treasure is kept intact, to which evolution has no say, there is nothing blasphemous about it.

As for someone equally holy, I apologize because I haven't done research on it, especially on saints. I've found modern theologians who are compatibilists but haven't done the extra step to search for saints and I'm at fault here. I promise that once University gives me some free time, I'll do it.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
jckstraw72 said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.
well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.
i dont know why it has to be taken to that level. of course I'm not saying he's a Pope, but he is ridiculously holy and i can't even remotely touch him. i have no reason or right to say he's wrong without at least appealing to someone equally holy. thats how i see it at least.
I never said he's not holy, on the contrary. He is one of the brightest candles of Christianity in the last century. I've actually prayed for his intercession sometimes. That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on just one subject, which is more technical than spiritual in any case. Today everyone knows about evolution, but back when Elder Paisius expressed that view, religious people faced evolution as something that excluded God. Greek people hardly knew anything scientific about evolution back then, so they used to blindly follow what others said, without much judgement.

Nowadays, more than a few Christian scientists have spoken on a compatibilist view of life, with evolution and God together, God being the Creator through evolution. As long as the spiritual treasure is kept intact, to which evolution has no say, there is nothing blasphemous about it.

As for someone equally holy, I apologize because I haven't done research on it, especially on saints. I've found modern theologians who are compatibilists but haven't done the extra step to search for saints and I'm at fault here. I promise that once University gives me some free time, I'll do it.
Indeed!  I made the argument earlier that virtually the first 300 hundred years of the Church, all the Church fathers believed that angels can have intercourse with humans.  Later on, the Church seemed to have changed over the course understanding either a different interpretation or an allegory of the Nephilim.  The question that comes to mind, and very crucially, does it really change the central faith of the Church.  The answer was no.  So despite the unanimous Church going along with the idea of the Nephilim as being sons of fallen angels, the later Church fathers keeping up with the scientific understanding of their times found it to be prudent to disagree.

We can see the same going on today.  The 5th century of the Church seemed to have shown an interesting transition.  I always wonder whether Church fathers really debated such an issue of their time or not, whether it really bothered them.  Likewise, so long as we still maintain man being the Image of God, it doesn't change the central dogmatic view of humanity at all.  The Image of God as we know is what unites us with divine life.  Since the understanding of the divine is already known to be quite an exclusively human concept, then for what it's worth, I think we find ourselves more in agreement than in disagreement, especially on the importance the image of God in man.

I think we should truly ask ourselves, and I hope this might help some of us here (since now I broke my vow on just sticking with scientific discussion of this).  Why don't we ask ourselves what unites us?  Let's find out what exactly do we agree on, and then use that as a way to analyze our disagreements.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
I never said he's not holy, on the contrary. He is one of the brightest candles of Christianity in the last century. I've actually prayed for his intercession sometimes. That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on just one subject, which is more technical than spiritual in any case. Today everyone knows about evolution, but back when Elder Paisius expressed that view, religious people faced evolution as something that excluded God. Greek people hardly knew anything scientific about evolution back then, so they used to blindly follow what others said, without much judgement.

Nowadays, more than a few Christian scientists have spoken on a compatibilist view of life, with evolution and God together, God being the Creator through evolution. As long as the spiritual treasure is kept intact, to which evolution has no say, there is nothing blasphemous about it.

As for someone equally holy, I apologize because I haven't done research on it, especially on saints. I've found modern theologians who are compatibilists but haven't done the extra step to search for saints and I'm at fault here. I promise that once University gives me some free time, I'll do it.
well again, whether or not something is blasphemous would be a spiritual, not technical, matter. plus, you say he's holy but then treat it as if he is restricted by his scientific education, or lack thereof. but what about his holiness? the Saints often know and understand things that they were never educated about because they are divinely illumined. i find it hard to believe that Elder Paisios is just blindly following the crowd. and its obvious that he is NOT referring to evolution as excluding God, but rather is responding to what happens when you try to combine evolution with our God - to say that Christ is descended from animals, he says is blasphemy! he's not saying its atheism, but rather that its a religious blasphemy.

and yes there are scientists who have spoken/written about a compatabilist view, but if they are going to approach the subject simply from a position of education, then they would need to be highly educated in both science and theology to accurately consider if the two are compatible. on the other hand, divine illumination and revelation is clearly recognized as the higher wisdom by the Church, and thus for one illumined like Elder Paisios its not necessary to have the latest scientific education. He's not approaching it academically but theoria-ically (yes, i made that word up). St. Theophan the Recluse says that our Tradition can be used to test scientific ideas, and if they are not in line with the Tradition then they are wrong and we should ignore them. if we honestly believe that our beliefs and the inspiration of Saints and elders are from God then they know no barrier of scientific education. the Saints contemplate the logoi of things, and Clement of Alexandria says that the true gnostic (not those crazy heresy ones) is pre-eminent in scientific knowledge - they see what science is unable to see.

P.S. and really, thinking about it more, our theology can never be reduced to an academic pursuit, so even the scientist who is also educated in theology would not be truly qualified to decide if the two are compatible or not. the Saints and holy elders are our true theologians, who could make this call other than them?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Asteriktos said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Asteriktos said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.
going off of this, ive heard some evolutionary atheists arguing that therefore man has no true free will, since everything is just natural and you're therefore just programmed to respond to everything in a specific way. have you ever heard of this?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Asteriktos said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.
going off of this, ive heard some evolutionary atheists arguing that therefore man has no true free will, since everything is just natural and you're therefore just programmed to respond to everything in a specific way. have you ever heard of this?
Yes, some evolutionary atheists reject free will. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel laureate, wrote in The Astonishing Hypothesis "although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that."

However, evolutionary theory itself does not reject free will.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Asteriktos said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.
going off of this, ive heard some evolutionary atheists arguing that therefore man has no true free will, since everything is just natural and you're therefore just programmed to respond to everything in a specific way. have you ever heard of this?
I never really understood this point.  I think either they don't understand what "free will" really is under our definition or they're making a statement about how we can't battle our instincts.

I think it's very clear if we were to allow ourselves to be ruled by our instincts, by our flesh, then we truly are not free.  But when we struggle and fight against the desires of the flesh, then it's very clear to me our spirits are freeing our will.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
i think its because they explain everything about man through evolution, as Jetavan said. so anything we see as spiritual aspects of man they explain as something biological.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
i think its because they explain everything about man through evolution, as Jetavan said. so anything we see as spiritual aspects of man they explain as something biological.
Indeed.  By the very definition of atheism, they are fatalists.  They must explain themselves as nothing but organic computers that will cease to exist one day and they live each day reminding themselves that that's okay.

Our brains have a sense of plasticity.  In other words, somehow we can change the wiring of our brains.  We can't download things down (I wish), but we work hard at understanding things.  If we can change our brain, then we can be free.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Evolution is the most credible theory for the life sciences, according to all evidence found by now. If you have evidence that disproves evolution.
Theologically it's terrible blasphemy. Scientifically it's nonscientific nonsense. I have evidence that Darwin's hypothesis is flawed and unsubstantiated. I've not seen anybody responded to what I've asked so far other than Mina giving hypothesis after hypothesis. Others have not even put out hypothesis.

I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this.
You don't know but you believe. Knowledge is a big word. I don't know either what Saint is but I believe (rather I have 100 % faith in this) they are something that human mind can't even imagine. They are beyond any logic. Have you ever met any Saint?

Asteriktos said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
Soul? Who said that animals have souls?
St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  :) Oh snap!
I have heard about one great living Saint and Prophet has said it too. When I read that story I was excited.

minasoliman said:
Indeed!  I made the argument earlier that virtually the first 300 hundred years of the Church, all the Church fathers believed that angels can have intercourse with humans.  Later on, the Church seemed to have changed over the course understanding either a different interpretation or an allegory of the Nephilim.  The question that comes to mind, and very crucially, does it really change the central faith of the Church.  The answer was no.  So despite the unanimous Church going along with the idea of the Nephilim as being sons of fallen angels, the later Church fathers keeping up with the scientific understanding of their times found it to be prudent to disagree.
Sons of fallen angels or sons of God? Old testament in old Georgian language mentions "Sons of God". One living Saint was asked who were Sons of God ("Nephilim" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4). The Saint, who sees anybody's heart and soul from top to bottom and who know anybody's life more than a person can know about himself, answered something like this: It's early for you to know this, you won't understand it anyways. I'll tell you though they are everywhere around us but to see them one has to be Son of God himself; one has to be pure in his heart.

So, there're Saints who see Sons of God and they're not talking from the books. Here our only role is either to deny their words (call them lairs) or have faith in them as much as we have faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.

BTW, even Great saints from the past are here, walking on the earth. I read amazing sermon on that from the same Saint but I was really surprised when I read same statement from another great Saint of 20th century Elder Ambrose of Dadiou. This is what Blessed Elder Ambrose said:
In 1990, he had said that the Lord will soon start revealing his Saints in front of people, because He wishes to strengthen mankind. Since temptations will be great and the trials unbearable, the Lord will instruct his Saints to show up, especially great Saints like Saint Demetrios or Saint George. People will hear that this Saint appeared in Crete this week, next week in Macedonia, the other one there, etc.
I don't doubt even smallest grain of their word. These people are God's people and they don't talk from the book. They are examples of living God on the Earth and living Faith. Problem with faith today is its rationalization and its modernization. Part of this rationalization is to sneak into it all the heretic studies disguised under the name of science including Darwinian evolution.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
I asked for your definition of a species in order to have a productive conversation because it can vary even among scientists. Some scientists consider Helacyton gartleri, derived from Helen Lacks 60 years ago, as a new species, others say it is still Homo sapien.
HeLa cells are 1) derived from human cells in lab and not by evolution. Thus it contributes nothing to evolution through random mutation. 2) If such a cell is a new human species then every single specialized (as well as stem) cell in human body is a new human species and I must be composed of about 300 hundred different species each one containing billions of individuals.
I think it is possible you missed the point. HeLa cells are distinctly different.  For example, HeLa ATCC-CCL2 is variably multiploid with 51-179 total chromosomes. Chromosome 3 does not exist.  The long arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 1; the short arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 5. The small arm of chromosome 5 is duplicated at the other side of the centromere to form a small isochromosome. The long arm of chromosome 11 is fused to an arm of chromosome 19. And these changes are the gross ones that can be observed in a light microscope (Lavappa et al, 1976) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v259/n5540/abs/259211a0.html).

That is exactly what I said in previous pot: evolutionary scientists don't even have a clearly defined notion of species. How can you talk about species evolution if you don't know what species is? That is not my problem. It adds to your problem. I already gave you how I would change my reasoning by simple introducing clear terms, without ever referring to vagueness of "species", to which you gave me wrong answer.
This is not a problem. Genetic isolation (absence of interbreeding) in higher organisms and slow gene transference in lower organisms (either genetic or geographical isolation) suffices. You are the one that brought up species:
For sure, there has never been any observation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.
But you clearly do not want this statement challenged, so I won't.

Problem with your reasoning is twofold at least: 1) If you giving me such examples as an examples of evolution, then huge changes (like acquiring genes for flagella) occur in a matter of minutes or hours, or however long it takes for different e.coli to exchange genetic material. If such changes happen so fast we should be seeing all species turning into different species in a matter of days or months (of course this reasoning only is extrapolation of your reasoning by bringing in these examples).
There is no reasoning on my part. I just stated the facts. Your problem (not mine) is that you have no definition for a species that you are willing to accept so there is no response possible, only facts. There is substantial and rapid exchange of genetic information (like the genes necessary for the formation of flagella) between E. coli because these individual cells are not genetically or physically isolated from each other.  However there is also substantial, but slow, exchange of genes between different "species", "genera" and "classes" of bacteria. For example the transducing bacteriophage SN-T infects bacteria belonging to the class Gammaproteobacteria (Shigella flexneri, Proteus vulgaris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli), Alphaproteobacteria (Rhodospirillum rubrum) and class Betaproteobacteria (Sphaerotilus natans). (Transducing bacteriophage  occasionally package bacterial DNA into their capsids, usually by mistake, which of course doesn't kill the next host when they inject the non-viral DNA.) (Source for SN-T info: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317401/)  There are also broad-range plasmids that are compatible with a wide range of bacteria and gene transfer between the kingdoms bacteria and archaea is also evident (Source: http://preview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19271200). Current estimates are that approximately 70% of genes in any given bacterium arrived by horizontal gene transfer.

Your question about all species turning into different species can't be answered because species is not defined. You should not be dogmatic about how evolution works.  Prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria) exchange genetic information promiscuously with cohabitation being a major component in regard to the rate of exchange.

I think you will like this quote from Eugene Koonin (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/),  "The biological universe seen through the lens of genomics is a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by ‘primitive’ life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology. Above all, it is an extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT (viruses, plasmids, transposons and more) are ubiquitous. We now think of the entire world of prokaryotes as a single, huge network of interconnected gene pools, and the notion of the prokaryotic pangenome is definitely here to stay. Although HGT is partially curtailed in eukaryotes, especially, the multicellular plants and animals, multiple endosymbioses accompanied by massive gene transfer were key to the evolution and indeed the very origin of eukaryotes. Moreover, most eukaryotic genomes teem with mobile elements which make them no less dynamic than the prokaryotic pangenome. The discovery of the all-encompassing genomic mobility puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life that has to be replaced by a network of vertical and horizontal gene fluxes. It is important to note, however, that evolution of individual genes still can be represented with trees, and search for trends in the ‘Forest of Life’ comprised of these gene trees could still reveal order in the historic flow of genetic information."

Also please look at Table 1 in the above cited paper: "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". This conversation should be about evolution and not Darwinism.

So I will ask you: why don't we see humans change for say 5000 years? Your answer is, it's not enough time for a human to transform into a new species? I ask again: did you not just gave me examples of unicellular things turning into multicelllar in a blink? Well, you should not have brought this examples at all.
Not a blink exactly, but I believe this question is now addressed above.

2) Of course you gave me examples where things happen as a result of very very cleverly designed structure of cell communication and exchange of genetic material. If you've paid attention I was actually saying you can't get such cellular communication and exchange of genetic material in cells that did not have all these to start with. Now you have to explain not only how one bacteria without flagella evolved into bacteria with flagella but also how bacteria acquired the property of genetic material exchange within the species and across the species which in turn requires lots of genes working in amazing cooperation. Can you do that?
The first part of point (2) has been answered in one aspect, all prokaryotes have the ability to obtain genetic information from their surroundings. As far as how the first flagellum arose, I probably could specify a pathway for evolution from protein homologues and my thoughts about it. But I am not particularly interested in how flagella evolved into being. You might want to read "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella" in Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (2006) http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html.

The other reason that I feel answering this question is a waste of my time is that I have seen no convincing or suggestive scenario for the creation of life on earth (abiogenesis).
See my prior posts for my thoughts on this topic:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg534740.html#msg534740
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg535055.html#msg535055
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.msg535427.html#msg535427

N, not that. Simply put the problem is this: obligate intracellular parasites, I say, must have evolved through simplification of already existing facultative cell who could exist outside acell. And of course the whole my assumption is based on anther assumption that Darwinism is true.  Mina is saying this assumption is not right and he's doing this to avoid artificially introduced notion of "evolving, going up the ladder".  If my assumption is not right then obligate intracellular cell evolved (got more and more complex) inside a cell. I'd like to hear how.
I am not sure what you are asking here and I do not have time to go back to previous posts to figure out what you are getting at. I can only again suggest looking at Table 1. "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". Darwinism is only partially correct.  From the cited table: "There is no consistent trend towards increasing complexity and no progress in evolution".

Pardon the typos if you find any.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
I think it is possible you missed the point. HeLa cells are distinctly different.  For example, HeLa ATCC-CCL2 is variably multiploid with 51-179 total chromosomes. Chromosome 3 does not exist.  The long arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 1; the short arm of chromosome 3 is fused to the long arm of chromosome 5. The small arm of chromosome 5 is duplicated at the other side of the centromere to form a small isochromosome. The long arm of chromosome 11 is fused to an arm of chromosome 19. And these changes are the gross ones that can be observed in a light microscope (Lavappa et al, 1976) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v259/n5540/abs/259211a0.html).
It is definitely possible I missed the point. Not to miss it again can you tell me why are you exactly bringing this example in? What's the purpose? Are you telling this cell is a new species?

That is exactly what I said in previous pot: evolutionary scientists don't even have a clearly defined notion of species. How can you talk about species evolution if you don't know what species is? That is not my problem. It adds to your problem. I already gave you how I would change my reasoning by simple introducing clear terms, without ever referring to vagueness of "species", to which you gave me wrong answer.
This is not a problem. Genetic isolation (absence of interbreeding) in higher organisms and slow gene transference in lower organisms (either genetic or geographical isolation) suffices.
Then I want to now: 1) Were American Indians and Europeans different species long before Europeans found there way into America? 2) Are they different species now? 3) What you mean by slow gene transference? 4) Are tigers and lions different species and if yes based on what? If tigers and lions are different species then what about liger - I mean, can different species be interbreeding?

You are the one that brought up species:
For sure, there has never been any observation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.
But you clearly do not want this statement challenged, so I won't.
Fair enough. I will rephrase it: In spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans cats are cats, dogs are dogs, no cat turned into dogs, no dogs turned into ducks etc.

Problem with your reasoning is twofold at least: 1) If you giving me such examples as an examples of evolution, then huge changes (like acquiring genes for flagella) occur in a matter of minutes or hours, or however long it takes for different e.coli to exchange genetic material. If such changes happen so fast we should be seeing all species turning into different species in a matter of days or months (of course this reasoning only is extrapolation of your reasoning by bringing in these examples).
There is no reasoning on my part. I just stated the facts. Your problem (not mine) is that you have no definition for a species that you are willing to accept so there is no response possible, only facts.
I don't need to define species. I'm gonna go back and quote you again:
Bacteria lacking flagella acquire it all the time. Some E. coli have flagella, some don't, they lost the functional genes. But they get it back by mating with another E. coli, where they become partially diploid for a while, or by being infected with a transducing lysogenic bacteriophage.
This you brought as a response to my statement that it is impossible to get a cell with flagella from a cell without flagella. Did you bring this example as a support of evolution of a non-flagellar cell into flagellar cell? If not then my point is still valid and you can't bring such examples. So it makes sense to continue this line of reasoning if you did bring this example as a supportive case for evolution.

Your question about all species turning into different species can't be answered because species is not defined. You should not be dogmatic about how evolution works.  Prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria) exchange genetic information promiscuously with cohabitation being a major component in regard to the rate of exchange.
Again, no need for species definition.

1) Let's go back to your own species definition and quantify please slow vs. rapid exchange of genetic material.

2) I can completely understand what you say and even agree with you that bacterial "species" can be formed the way you mentioned. Intresting questions are though. Horizontal transfer of genes is a complex and geniusly designed mechanisms of forming "new species". As I said, I'm completely OK to agree with you on that. But A) Can you get those species without this mechanism by just random mutations like Darwinism claims? This is the real problem and your examples are to explain away the problem. There's nothing evolutionary at all in those examples in Darwinian sense; After all, if such mechanisms can explain new species formation you don't need Darwinism, it's redundant. B) How, in the first place, this geniusly designed mechanism came to be when it did not exist some time?

As a remote possibility, there could be some very complex (not random but absolutely intelligent) mechanism(s) of genetic information transfer and very complex plasmids/genes that, by working on prokaryotes through such mechanisms, could convert prokaryote into esukaryote. But even if we found such thing it will help none to Darwinism - Darwinism needs random mutations int genome!

So I will ask you: why don't we see humans change for say 5000 years? Your answer is, it's not enough time for a human to transform into a new species? I ask again: did you not just gave me examples of unicellular things turning into multicelllar in a blink? Well, you should not have brought this examples at all.
Not a blink exactly, but I believe this question is now addressed above.
I did not read your article yet but do you mean you adressed question in your statements or its addressed in that article?

2) Of course you gave me examples where things happen as a result of very very cleverly designed structure of cell communication and exchange of genetic material. If you've paid attention I was actually saying you can't get such cellular communication and exchange of genetic material in cells that did not have all these to start with. Now you have to explain not only how one bacteria without flagella evolved into bacteria with flagella but also how bacteria acquired the property of genetic material exchange within the species and across the species which in turn requires lots of genes working in amazing cooperation. Can you do that?
The first part of point (2) has been answered in one aspect, all prokaryotes have the ability to obtain genetic information from their surroundings. As far as how the first flagellum arose, I probably could specify a pathway for evolution from protein homologues and my thoughts about it. But I am not particularly interested in how flagella evolved into being. You might want to read "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella" in Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (2006) http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html.
No, you did not answer anything at all with regards to my question. All you said make problems worse. First of all, if all prokaryotes have the ability to obtain genetic information from their surroundings, they must have happened in prokaryotes that did not have this mechanisms to start with. If you want to say there was never a time when prokaryotes did not have this mechanism then you are completely denying abiogenesis even in the wildest imaginary theory, since there was never a protocell without such genetic information uptake from the surroundings. I doubt you say this. I'm sure you must admit sometime there was an organism without being able to transfer/uptake genetic information. And if you admit the existence of such cells you just have to imagine them since there's none in the nature which give you no choice but offer unsubstantiated hypothesis. Therefore you still have to give me a hypothesis with minimum scientific rational.


The other reason that I feel answering this question is a waste of my time is that I have seen no convincing or suggestive scenario for the creation of life on earth (abiogenesis).
Why have we not seen no convincing or suggestive scenario for the creation of life on earth? Is there problems with us or its just impossible to come up with such scenarios? And when you have not seen such hypothesis for over a century do you rally think anybody ever will come up with it?

I am not sure what you are asking here and I do not have time to go back to previous posts to figure out what you are getting at. I can only again suggest looking at Table 1. "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". Darwinism is only partially correct.  From the cited table: "There is no consistent trend towards increasing complexity and no progress in evolution".
No I'm saying something very different. I say, if you can get eukaryote from prokaryote then you can get prokaryote from eukaryote. If you can get a human from an ape, then you can get an ape from human and so on. This leads to further consequences. Here's a quote from my previous posts:
By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think you will like this quote from Eugene Koonin (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/),  "The biological universe seen through the lens of genomics is a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by ‘primitive’ life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology. Above all, it is an extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT (viruses, plasmids, transposons and more) are ubiquitous. We now think of the entire world of prokaryotes as a single, huge network of interconnected gene pools, and the notion of the prokaryotic pangenome is definitely here to stay. Although HGT is partially curtailed in eukaryotes, especially, the multicellular plants and animals, multiple endosymbioses accompanied by massive gene transfer were key to the evolution and indeed the very origin of eukaryotes. Moreover, most eukaryotic genomes teem with mobile elements which make them no less dynamic than the prokaryotic pangenome. The discovery of the all-encompassing genomic mobility puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life that has to be replaced by a network of vertical and horizontal gene fluxes. It is important to note, however, that evolution of individual genes still can be represented with trees, and search for trends in the ‘Forest of Life’ comprised of these gene trees could still reveal order in the historic flow of genetic information."

Also please look at Table 1 in the above cited paper: "The fate of the central tenets of (neo)Darwinism in the post-genomic era". This conversation should be about evolution and not Darwinism.
I'm sorry I did not read it. It does sound very interesting. I just glanced through a table. Certainly it is much intelligent theory paying dues to genious of life but it still has some of the same problems of Dariwnism which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.

Can we agree now that Darwinism is wrong? If we can then we can continue towards this theory.

Sorry again, my response above might have been unnecessary.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
...which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory.
And this is exactly why your views are unscientific.  Call them theology, call them philosophy; call them whatever you'd like, but don't call them science.  You start with your conclusions (nothing is random),  and then you attempt to fit the data to your conclusions.  That's not science.  That's the difference.

And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.
No scientific theory takes God out of any picture.  If you choose to look at a theory and remark that "Hey, that means there's no need for God", then that's your choice.  But don't assign the blame to science.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
...which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory.
And this is exactly why your views are unscientific.  Call them theology, call them philosophy; call them whatever you'd like, but don't call them science.  You start with your conclusions (nothing is random),  and then you attempt to fit the data to your conclusions.  That's not science.  That's the difference.
well then the question is - whats so great about science, if it insists on being open to possibilities that we know are not true because of our faith?
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
"know" or believe?

Science looks at the physical world and things as they are and has found lots of things that are real that some didn't agree with. Things like germs that caused disease and ways of prevention or ways to ease pain that some said should not be done.  Or plate tectonics which was controversial because it meant that the earth wasn't all solid and unchanging.  But it's True and it gave knowledge and understanding of things like earthquakes and tsunamis and so forth. 

Ebor
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
...which is unacceptable for me as a Christian: there's no place of "random" in any theory.
And this is exactly why your views are unscientific.  Call them theology, call them philosophy; call them whatever you'd like, but don't call them science.  You start with your conclusions (nothing is random),  and then you attempt to fit the data to your conclusions.  That's not science.  That's the difference.
Did I ever claim my faith was scientific? I do not call my faith science but you do call your faith (faith in Darwinism) science. And when questions come to purely scientific explanations you make most general statements like the one you did know. Show me where's science in Darwinism. When I refute Darwinian claims I do not use faith, I play the same game as science does. Anyways, You've got the opportunity to prove Darwinism as scientific theory by answering the question that were asked.

And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.
No scientific theory takes God out of any picture.  If you choose to look at a theory and remark that "Hey, that means there's no need for God", then that's your choice.  But don't assign the blame to science.
Yes it does. And as you think it doesn't I'm sure it does. As you want somebody to hear you and take your advice I want same. Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  ::)
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
ativan said:
there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.
So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
ativan said:
there's no place of "random" in any theory. Nothing is random in this universe. And any theory that takes God out of the picture serves no purpose.
So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
As long as you believe that these "random" collisions are directed by Divine Providence, there shouldn't be a problem. "Chance" is simply shorthand for "we don't know the reasons why this happened". The problem arises when people jump from "we don't know" to "we can't know". Then they deify Chance (Goddess Fortuna), and thereby deny Providence.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  ::)
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?

Rufus
So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
Jonathan Gress read my mind. I agree with him completely.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  ::)
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?
You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?

A knife can cut some wood, but also throats. It's up to you to decide how to use it. The maker of the knife is nowhere to blame if you go on rampant mode and start killing everyone. Same goes for Science. It's up to you to believe in God, while also taking medicine or not.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
ativan said:
Science today serves one purpose: To "prove" that there's no need in God. Fortunately, the truth can easily be revealed.
-Trying to find a cure for cancer.
-Trying to predict earthquakes and tsunamis.
-Trying to maintain biodiversity.
-Trying to understand the evolution of HIV, so as to design drugs that fight against it.

Yes, these all are examples of how science wants to prove there's no need in God.  ::)
Speaking of which, last time I checked I didn't see warning on cancer and HIV (or any other) drugs saying "drugs work or don't because it's God's will". When people get sick they don't pray for forgiveness of their sin and they don't remember God Almighty and All-merciful, and they don't surrender to his will and say "be it thy Will" do they? Who they put all their hope in? In doctors, in medicine and in science. Don't tell me it's not like this. So, the question is how does science (in you rhetoric questions) help us come closer to God? And why do you think it doesn't prevent us remember most important thing?
You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?
Interesting. I don't remember ever seeing such a thing in an Orthodox confession guide, but I wouldn't say that makes this suspect. If you refuse treatment out of pride, then it's sinful and must be confessed. Honestly, however, I would have thought the most common sin now would be to forget God completely when you're sick, and put your faith entirely in the doctors. The proper way, of course, is to pray first to God for help in your sickness, and then to go seek appropriate treatment.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dimitrios-Georgios said:
You know, I have read an Orthodox Confession Book, back from the time of my grandma, who asked the following question:
"Did you go to the doctor and get the suitable treatment when you were sick, or were you arrogant enough to refuse treatment and wait? Doctors are one of the ways God will cure you."

Something along these lines, since I'm far away from my grandma's city and can't go and find it. Was that Confession Book from the 60s so progressive to put science over God?
No, it was merely you misreading me and wrong conclusion. I did not say when one gets sick not to seek treatment! I said almost nobody puts his hope in God anymore. It's only science, medicine, doctors etc who cure us and who we hope in. And surely if we sincerely and strongly hope in God why we need anything else? Do you not know multiple stories from the lives of Saints cured by God alone when they have faith? I do.
 
Top