The Heresy of Darwin

[flatworm]

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me." - John 5:46

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." - Exodus 20:11

Do you believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, before He became incarnate? If so, do you believe that which Moses has written about Him?

Do you believe Jesus is literally a gate, or do you think it was a metaphor?

Believing what Moses wrote does not entail believing it was meant literally.

 

[sbvera13]

My friend, I don't need to debate with you. I have great respect for science, except when its conclusions contradict that which Christ has already revealed.

This is a debate subforum. If you are not here to debate, then why are you here? Satisfying your cult's social impetus to evangelize?

 

[flatworm]

My friend, I don't need to debate with you. I have great respect for science, except when its conclusions contradict that which Christ has already revealed.

If you do not respect science when it produces results you don't like, you do not respect science.

 

[pgp_protector]

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me." - John 5:46

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." - Exodus 20:11

Do you believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, before He became incarnate? If so, do you believe that which Moses has written about Him?

That doesn't say (And I quote) "Our Lord stated that unless you believe Moses, you will not believe in Him." what you posted is if We Do Believe in Moses then we would also Believe Him, not the Reverse.



Where is that in the bible (That if we Don't Believe Moses we WILL NOT Believe in Him ? )

 

[Naraoia]

If I see a series of footprints on a sandy beach, can I conclude that someone has walked there, or do I have to observe the someone in the process of leaving the footprints?

*timidly sneaks up*

B-b-bump?

 

[Loudmouth]

My friend, I don't need to debate with you. I have great respect for science, except when its conclusions contradict that which Christ has already revealed.

Science isn't a buffet.

 

[sbvera13]

*timidly sneaks up*

B-b-bump?

Lets try another angle. Why does it matter if there is direct human observation of the events or not? Humans are fallible. Which would you regard as being more accurate at indicating truth:

Bob's bloody fingerprints on the bloody handle of the knife still stuck in the corpse.

Or Joe's eyewitness testimony that Bob never touched the knife.

Hmmm. I know which one I'd go with. Evidence > mere observation.

 

[pgp_protector]

Lets try another angle. Why does it matter if there is direct human observation of the events or not? Humans are fallible. Which would you regard as being more accurate at indicating truth:

Bob's bloody fingerprints on the bloody handle of the knife still stuck in the corpse.

Or Joe's eyewitness testimony that Bob never touched the knife.

Hmmm. I know which one I'd go with. Evidence > mere observation.

Got another one for Evidence vs Observation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_lu6LV5Je4

What do you see ?

 

[Vene]

This is the last thread that I want to start for Great Lent. I believe that our understanding of Genesis is the bedrock for our understanding of the faith. Our Lord stated that unless you believe Moses, you will not believe in Him. I want you to please consider the implications of compromising your faith to appease secular science.

Too late. Reality dictates what I believe.

One must understand that natural science and Orthodox theology follow two radically different epistemologies. Theology seeks to understand that which has been revealed in the Scripture. Natural science seeks to find natural explanations for what we observe in the natural world.

Science and Religion: Non-Overlapping Magisteria
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

As long as theology doesn't make claims about the world, there isn't a problem.

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

How about when it does both (like evolution). It ties together all of biology, is used in the design of pharmaceuticals, in agriculture, phylogenetics, the creation of enzymes, along with others I don't feel like listing. source

Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

I thought you just said that science and theology don't overlap

Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.
*youtube snip*

Then explain forensics to me (by the way, our knowledge of DNA comes from the understanding of evolution).

Here are some important questions every Orthodox Christian should ask:

I'm not Christian, but I'll answer anyways

If we are the descendants of pre-human forms, did H. erectus and H. Neandertal have souls?

Is the soul something which evolved over time?

Demonstrate that souls exist.

Is there anything inherent to the purported fossil ancestors themselves which would suggest that they were not fully ape or fully human?

We are still fully ape, just as we are still fully mammal, fully animal, fully vertebrate, and fully eukaryote.

[SIZE=-1]

Reflections on Human Origins

[/SIZE]

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

I somehow expected more, for example "Consider, first, that because
there are only four nucleotide bases, whenever one lines up distinct
strands of DNA, even entirely random strands will, on average, be 25
percent similar." is wrong. There are four that are used by DNA, there are many more that exist: see. By the way, DNA doesn't have to use those exact nucleotides. It can be even seen in RNA which uses Uracil instead of thymine.

If we are evolved apes, is it an ape that died on the cross?

I don't see why not, we are still apes.

Why do we believe that Christ died to save us from death if death entered the world before the sin of Adam?

There was death in your Eden. They ate fruit, which shows they have metabolism and need energy. Plants are just as alive as animals. Not that I think it's anything more than mythology.

If Christ's death was to save our souls and our bodies, when did our bodies become corrupt under an evolutionary perspective?

I don't think our bodies are corrupt.

An Interview with Father Damascene on Evolution
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/060222155510

I don't see a priest about a engine trouble, I'm not going to see a priest to learn about science.

Why do you believe natural science's explanations of prehistory, when prehistory is beyond the realm of science? Please do not accuse me of being an ignorant man for understanding that science cannot reach beyond science to discredit Orthodox Tradition.

Science can deal with prehistory. In fact, we can literally see into the past. Granted, those things have to be light years away, but it is still possible. For example SN 1987A.

May God have mercy upon us.

For what?

 

[Naraoia]

Lets try another angle. Why does it matter if there is direct human observation of the events or not? Humans are fallible. Which would you regard as being more accurate at indicating truth:

Bob's bloody fingerprints on the bloody handle of the knife still stuck in the corpse.

Or Joe's eyewitness testimony that Bob never touched the knife.

Hmmm. I know which one I'd go with. Evidence > mere observation.

True, though I was specifically trying to find out if Spyridon accepts the validity of indirect observation in other cases. It looks like I'm invisible to the one I challenged, though

I absolutely agree that eyewitness testimony isn't reliable.

 

[atomweaver]

Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.

I've spent the better part of twenty years now practising the science of chemistry, and yet I have never once observed an atom in the present, nor even a molecule comprised of tens of thousands of atoms. Am I likewise doing something which is "not even good science"? By your interpretation, that would seem to be the case, and yet experiment after experiment succeeds without ever once invoking a deity. It would seem that good science and good Christianity are not related.
I am constantly forced to speculate on the unobservable world of the atomic and molecular scale, does this contradict what Christ has already revealed to us about the nature of matter? What was it that Christ revealed about the nature of matter, again..?

 

[NailsII]

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

But when it does both?
Maybe we should just discard germ theory and psychology because Jesus said all ills and evils were demons in people.

May God have mercy upon us.

Why would you ned to ask for mercy?
From what I have read, god only went after those who didn't believe (or were gay, which is somehow just as bad)

As you should already know, since no humans were present to witness the events themselves, all we can do is piece together the remnants of what occurred, using our presuppositions to interpret them. Your presuppositions in understanding prehistory aren't any more or less valid than my own.

Oh dear.
You don't need presuppositions to interprit evidence, only to interpret the bible.....

 

[wScott]

I've spent the better part of twenty years now practising the science of chemistry, and yet I have never once observed an atom in the present, nor even a molecule comprised of tens of thousands of atoms. Am I likewise doing something which is "not even good science"? By your interpretation, that would seem to be the case, and yet experiment after experiment succeeds without ever once invoking a deity. It would seem that good science and good Christianity are not related.
I am constantly forced to speculate on the unobservable world of the atomic and molecular scale, does this contradict what Christ has already revealed to us about the nature of matter? What was it that Christ revealed about the nature of matter, again..?

If there is never a present time,then we only have the past.There is no evidence of macroevolution in the past. You can appeal to the future, but then, of course, empirical science gets left behind and it's the same old "just-so" stories that evolutionists love to dream about.

 

[flatworm]

There is no evidence of macroevolution in the past.

The hominid series? The tetrapod series? The mammal series? The whale series? The bird series? The twin nested heirarchies? Vestigial features? Our damaged vitamin-C gene? Homologous ERVs? The telomeres at the center of human chromosome 2?

I think before you go any further, you need to explain exactly what you mean by macroevolution and what sort of evidence you would accept that it has occured.

 

[sbvera13]

If there is never a present time,then we only have the past.There is no evidence of macroevolution in the past. You can appeal to the future, but then, of course, empirical science gets left behind and it's the same old "just-so" stories that evolutionists love to dream about.

Of course there's a present time. He was trying to get you to notice how scientists actually do observe atoms- by indirect observation. That's the old footprints in the sand business, taht we may not have seen the person walking, but we can see the traces they left behind and know that they were once there. Oh, and that bit about evolution not having evidence is a lie. Either you are lying, or whoever told you that bunk was lying straight to your face.

 

[Vene]

If there is never a present time,then we only have the past.There is no evidence of macroevolution in the past. You can appeal to the future, but then, of course, empirical science gets left behind and it's the same old "just-so" stories that evolutionists love to dream about.

Speciation list

By the way, I'm using the biological definition of macroevolution, if you're using a different one, please share.

 

[Patashu]

My friend, I don't need to debate with you. I have great respect for science, except when its conclusions contradict that which Christ has already revealed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

May God have mercy upon us.

Why do you accept science when its conclusions and theories do not contradict Christ? You can discard an entire body of scientific knowledge just because it contradicts a world view, yet accept an equally well founded and explored body when it does not. Why are you so inconsistent about your handling of science? Would you rather accept it all equally or deny it all equally?

 

[huggybear]

And it's not possible at all that you can believe something without taking it literally? If I do not believe that the parables Jesus taught literally happened, does that make them devoid of their moral lessons? Perhaps the writer of genesis did not know the exact processes by which God created the universe (how could he have?) and instead created a nice story that is meant to show that: God is omnipotent, God is loving, We seperated ourselves from God on our own accord etc... that wasn't necessary literally true? Just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's also false. Truth can be found in metaphor as well.



There is no such thing as "secular" science. Science is Science regardless of the beliefs of those doing it. Science is not a thing that is right or wrong, science is a process, a set of logical rules through which one can deduce things about the natural world.



You hit the nail on the head. Orthodox Theology makes the unprovable assumption that what is written in scripture is true, and goes from there, Science makes no assumption, and instead uses observable reality to build up our knowledge base. You can believe Orthodox Theology all you want, that doesn't change reality.


Your holy fathers have deluded you for their own benefit and to line their pockets with money they have bilked from you. It's really that simple. You have been taught to believe what you are told, likely from a very young age and have developed an emotional dependency on that belief to the point that YOU ARE WILLING TO IGNORE REALITY in order to maintain it. You have been brainwashed.



What you assume Christ has already revealed to you. Lets get one thing straight, you don't know that anything in the bible is true. You believe it is on faith, but you don't know. You couldn't possibly KNOW anything about the origins of the bible for the same reason we'll probably never KNOW the origins of the universe. However, what science allows us to do is to create theories to explain how something MIGHT have happened or how something is LIKELY to have happened. We do this by looking at the evidence, formulating hypotheses about how this evidence came to be, and then using those hypotheses to make predictions about future behavior and discoveries. If the predictions come true, we have a theory like evolution which is still tentative but simply supported by the evidence we have.

Orthodox Theology allows for none of that, it demands that you believe unprovable or supportable claims and inevitably devolves into people bickering about which SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of the scripture really means and everyone being convinced that their way is the only right ways. It's delusional to the point of insanity.


If humanity in it's current for does have a soul, why does it matter what our precursors had? H. erectus and Neandertal man are not H. Sapien. Why would it be so damaging to your faith to believe that God is capable of using or directing the natural forces he supposedly created to his own will, then imbued his creation with a soul?



In my experience with this debate, the soul is something endowed to man by God, evolution does not way in on the subject of a soul, so I don't see how the theory of evolution would contradict this belief.



Yes, H. erectus is a perfect example of a transitional fossil between our ape like anscestors and anatomically modern humans.

[size=-1]

If a man named Jesus was crucified 2000 years ago then he would have definately been a Homo Sapien, homo sapiens have been around for tens of thousands of years.



I was always under the impression that Christ died to save you from a spiritual death rather then a physical death. If Christ died to save you from literal death, why do ALL Christians still die? If you believe Christ died to save you from literal biological death, then you are clearly wrong because guess what, EVERYONE STILL DIES.

[quote[If Christ's death was to save our souls and our bodies, when did our bodies become corrupt under an evolutionary perspective?

you said "H. erectus is a perfect example of a transitional fossil between our ape like anscestors and anatomically modern humans"

how is this? evolutionary scientists conjure up and imagine evidence like this to give their itching ears what they want to hear, homo erectus IS NOT evidence of a transitional fossil, humans come in many shapes and sizes and diseases like rickets affect their shape, you shouldnt believe everything you read, are you aware that most of these half human claims have been disproven as fraud or hybrids?

homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence,

so please get the facts straight,

 

[huggybear]

I've spent the better part of twenty years now practising the science of chemistry, and yet I have never once observed an atom in the present, nor even a molecule comprised of tens of thousands of atoms. Am I likewise doing something which is "not even good science"? By your interpretation, that would seem to be the case, and yet experiment after experiment succeeds without ever once invoking a deity. It would seem that good science and good Christianity are not related.
I am constantly forced to speculate on the unobservable world of the atomic and molecular scale, does this contradict what Christ has already revealed to us about the nature of matter? What was it that Christ revealed about the nature of matter, again..?

you dont see the territory god covers, you try to figure out "how" something works not "why" it works, if you can give a non supernatural explanation of how matter is created, then please do, science will never answer the question of where all the matter in the universe came from, so people can logically conclude,if they want to that god did it,without science saying no it didnt,

 

[Tomk80]

you dont see the territory god covers, you try to figure out "how" something works not "why" it works, if you can give a non supernatural explanation of how matter is created, then please do, science will never answer the question of where all the matter in the universe came from, so people can logically conclude,if they want to that god did it,without science saying no it didnt,

Logically conclude based on what? Not knowing how something happened does not validate a different conclusion that is equally unsupported. If you don't know how something happened, the valid conclusion to draw is that you don't know how something happened. Nothing more, nothing less.