Of course I am not saying that the whole of science is a conspiracy- I love science, but true scientific discoveries, not assumptions that are dressed up and taught as facts.If you have read what I have read and listened to what I have listened to by scientists specialising in genetics, biology, biochemistry, physics, over the course of several years, I am sure you will reach the same conclusion.
I am not saying you are dishonest. I am saying your approach was dishonest. Assuming a theory is guilty of malicious intention from the start is a dishonest way to approach truth. It has nothing to do with you personally. I have seen many arguments here where people argue that their view (usually their opinion) is absolute truth and everyone else's view is automatically wrong. (We all know this happened with the Coptic language and missionary threads). I apologize if you thought I was calling you dishonest. I was merely discussing the approach to interpreting evidence.
Regarding using the bible and spiritual arguments, that is fine. But getting different theologies lined up prior to discussing scientific theories is not the same as using theology to explain or discredit science. Additionally, while we are all supposed to be alert from the Devil's tricks, how does this apply to evolution? Are you saying evolution is one of those tricks the devil uses that we are warned about in the bible?
Finally, I want to address this. You said, "for example they say that 98% of the dna of a chimp and man are the same and the age of the earth is billions of years old and mutations that add info can happen and so on but when you go into detail you find that these are based on major assumptions which they do not tell you. So yes what they say is consistent but it doesn't mean that because it is consistent it is true."
I still believe that the problem here is not evolution itself but how you (and others) view science at the philosophical level. While you may absolutely be right that everything evolution claims is based on major assumptions that they don't tell you, the same is true with every field of science. I can speak about my own profession. In dentistry, we have many therapies but we have no idea why our therapies work. We have to assume it works but when you get into details, it always falls back to the unknown. For example, I surgically remove diseased teeth and pupal tissue within a tooth in a very unsterile environment called the mouth. The therapies I use, extraction or root canal, work every time in the sense that it removes disease and the person is healed. But if a medical surgeon practiced this way, not only will he be sued for malpractice, but he will create more disease by working in an unsterile environment. Yet, if you look at the detailed studies of sterilization, surgically sterilizing hospitals often ends up with antibiotic resistant pathogens and more disease or secondary infections at a much higher rate, while not surgically sterilizing the mouth works every time. Why? No one knows. We assume that sterilizing an operating room removes bacteria and promotes a healing environment. But in reality it is still an assumption. And a major assumption I might add that has become a corner stone for the CDC. The same type of major assumptions are found in all fields of medicine (especially oncology), chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, mathematics, astronomy, and all scientific arts. We use therapies and modalities without knowing why it really works and we create theories (which are often based on assumptions) to try to explain consistent results. People spend their lives getting PhD's that challenge assumptions and create new assumptions. Why should evolution be held to a different standard than all other sciences?
don't worry about accusing me, I'm quite used to it by now- you are the third person to dialogue with me and the third to accuse me.
I remembered today a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a couple of atheists in an online forum between evolutionists and creationists. They were both very hostile but towards the end one of them asked me for the name of the book I was telling him about- a physicist who was arguing against the theory, and he said he will buy it and read it. This conversation was a couple of hours and I don't know what happened but I felt there was a very tiny progress made.
I am just wondering about others who might be following this thread- are you also hostile to everything I am saying- do you understand the points I am trying to make or am I not making any sense? I would love to hear from you. Please pm if you don't want to insult me in front of everyone else.
Remnkimi hit the nail on the head when he said your issue isn't so much with the science as it is with the philosophy behind the science.
As for your comment on the Bible, I am not sure what this refuted? I do believe that Scriptures and indeed all of holy tradition is God-breathed and is totally to be dependent on for our salvation. NOT for our science, not for the way we are to conduct our wars, not the way in which we are to still speak etc.
While the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is perfect and true and it is He who we commune with when we read the Scriptures (You search the Scriptures for you think in them you have eternal life, but these are they which testify of Me, yet you are not willing to turn to Me that you might have Life). The language we use, the translations, the history, the science, the descriptions of war, the technology in it are not Perfect. God used human language, imperfect as it is, and breathed His message of salvation to them, but He did not dictate it verbatim like Muslims view the Qur'an (which is why they don't believe translations are the Qur'an). Otherwise we should use the same science that the Prophets used, we shouldn't challenge the method of warfare commanded in the OT, we should use the same technology, and the same language. What God wants us to hear and depend on is the message of salvation, not the science.
I do not think you are listening to the arguments being made here.
Your argument about the devil using evolution falls flat on its face because the devil often uses things even within the Church to tempt me, does that mean we should abandon them? No. All things are lawful, but how do I use them?
You are unable to accept anything I say because it is the opposite of everything you have been hearing all your life- you have been taught that evolution is a scientific fact and also that religion is anti-science.
In order for us to make any progress, can I ask you please to forget that you have been told about the theory of evolution being a fact and the idea that religion is anti-science. To make things a lot easier, please consider that CoptiCOPA is an atheist and we will leave the Holy Bible aside. I ask you to please read what I am saying by laying aside all your presuppositions about me and about the theory of evolution, and instead evaluate it yourself with a clear, independent, and analytical mind. Agreed?
Just to clarify- I am not saying that the verse, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" was written specifically for the theory of evolution. This verse is a spiritual principal that teaches us that we should examine in depth, and not suffice with how things seem on the surface. From now on, I will do my best to exclude quoting from the Holy Bible to you guys.
God willing, I will answer all the points Remnkimi and Katanikhoros have made in due time, but first please let us refocus on what Mina said convinced him about the truth of evolution.
Please be reassured that I have researched this topic in depth- I have always wanted to get to the bottom of it ever since I studied Advanced Level Biology. I am trying to give you the benefit of much research- I am not just trying to argue. I have better things to do. But this is a very dangerous thing to accept which I will show you later, God willing. I have studied it from many aspects. The vast majority, if not all, of the books I read and videos I listen to are from highly qualified scientists.
What has convinced Mina and I dare say many others is the following:
Yes, at the genetic level, this is no difference between "micro" and "macro". Because of the genetic complexity of more complex organisms, the speed of evolutionary change, or genetic change, is different than those at the micro level, but the process is the same. Therefore, the micro/macro distinction is just an arbitrary structural distinction, but functionally, there is no difference.
Let's ask a few basic questions:
Q: Has micro-evolution or variation within a species ever been observed?
A: Yes, definitely, thousands of times.
Q: Has macro-evolution or the creation of a new species ever been observed?
A: No, never.
Q: Have any experiments been done to try to prove macro-evolution, and if so, what has been the result so far?
A: Yes, an ongoing experiment with E-coli bacteria (from 1988 till today), approximately 28 years, with over 60,000 generations of E-coli, the E-coli remain E-coli.
Q: What does this experiment prove?
A: It proves micro-evolution but not macro-evolution as the e-coli remain e-coli.
Q: What is the mechanism for a new species to be created?
A: Mutations that cause an increase of new genetic information.
Q: What do mutations normally cause?
A: Diseases such as Down Syndrome for example.
Q: Is there a single example of a mutation that has caused an increase in genetic information?
A: No. Richard Dawkins was asked this question and he could not think of one single example.
Q: What about gene duplication? What does the scientific article detailing this say?
A: The article says that gene duplication "may haveplayed a key part in... producing the human species" and it also says, "For a duplicated gene to evolve a new function, positively-selected mutations for the new function would need to occur before any loss-of-function mutation. Such mutations seem likely to be much more than beneficial ones, leading to a slight mystery over how exactly duplicated genes have produced the remarkable diversity of existing gene families".
Q: What does this mean about mutations being the underlying mechanism for the creation of new species?
A: A mystery
One species evolving into another has never been observed and even a single example of just one mutation that has added brand new information to the genome has never been observed. If a new species were to be created, it would need not just one but a whole series of new function genes. Nothing remotely supporting this has been observed.
-------------------------
Surely this is like saying:
Pigs walk using a mechanism called movement. Pigs fly using exactly the same mechanism- movement. The only difference between pigs walking which we can see and pigs flying which we have never seen is simply a matter of time. But given the time, pigs fly. This is a fact because pigs walking and pigs flying are basically the same thing as they both use the same mechanism- it's called movement and we can see and prove movement. If you believe that pigs walk, therefore you believe that pigs fly. This is a logical conclusion.
Pigs flying has never been observed. Pigs with wings have never been observed. Macro-evolution has never been observed, even once. The mechanism underlying it, mutations that cause an increase in information, has never been observed, even once.
All I ask of you is to think independently, analytically, and with depth.
Thanks CoptiCopa for your relentless effort. I know its been hard talking to people on this forum. I apologise on their behalf for their rudeness and accusations. You've been very brave, articulated, educated, and brilliant in your responses.
Since I came to this forum, to discuss this topic, my faith in God has dwindled. I still believe in God, but Mina Soliman's God NEVER makes any sense, nor his theology.
These "scientific-servants" have caused immense damage to my faith, and are so arrogant as to find it easy to crush my faith with their "Theistic Evolution" - and yet tell you they have NO time to even respond to your arguments. ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE CHURCH SERVANTS!!!
I have and have always believed in God, but since I met Mina Soliman, I am confused as to why God exists. Somehow he's been through some crazy learning curve with this subject, and its done him a "world of good" - but I feel messed up.
and then we have admins on here that seem to care more about how much letters are being typed in a post than actually if a post is damaging someone's faith or not - and people are asking why Copts are leaving the Church??? Really?? Let me think...
I liked what you wrote that subhumans could have originated before humans were created through some evolutionary process. Sure. There are exceptions to laws in science, and one trend does not mean it applies for everything. GOOD POINT!!
What about the genome project where they found that all humans come from 2 species: a Male Adam and a Female Eve. Scientifically proven that we all came from the 2 very same human beings. No one has anything to say about that??
If I am arrogant, and I caused you to lose faith simply because you asked me to honestly answer your questions, then feel free to disagree with me and continue to think less of me. I would rather I be a heretic in your eyes and you continue in your faith to God, then have me be a source of confusion for you.
My apology to you and to everyone here. I think at this point, my end of the discussion is over. I have written enough.
Perhaps it's time for admins to close this thread, at least temporarily, since it's having a detrimental effect on some here. After all, this is a site and forum attached to a church thus the church should not allow harm or be a vehicle for it, regardless of the idea. I think enough information has been presented on both sides and in the end "you will know them by their fruits". While I've come to disagree on many things presented by Minasoliman & Katanikhoros, I don't think they had ill intentions toward anyone. Everyone is presenting their side because it's what they believe is right or worth pursuing.
What's most important is Christ, the incarnation, salvation and all the things that we have come to know and believe as necessary for our union with the Godhead. Evolution or lack thereof isn't necessary for salvation or for knowing God. It is a postulated theory that tries to organize into coherence the often incoherent and mysterious nature around us. Some fathers were satisfied with the mystery and others tried to know more. Either approach is orthodox and both can love God at the same time.
I say we at least temporarily halt this thread until everyone can catch a breather. And for those politically correct who will jump at this and say this is censure of free speech or the church is suppressing x and y, I remind them that the church is a spiritual institution first. We ought to have the discernment to slow down, irregardless of our passion for truth on either side. And if we see one of our brethren ailing then we ought to have sympathy.
I have too many comments on what Zoxsasi said...and i'll try to be calm in this warm and partially boring work day:
Thanks CoptiCopa for your relentless effort. I know its been hard talking to people on this forum. I apologise on their behalf for their rudeness and accusations. You've been very brave, articulated, educated, and brilliant in your responses.
>> You have no right on this forum or any place in the world to apologize on anyone's behalf. Only be responsible for yourself and your own words.
------------------------
Since I came to this forum, to discuss this topic, my faith in God has dwindled. I still believe in God, but Mina Soliman's God NEVER makes any sense, nor his theology. These "scientific-servants" have caused immense damage to my faith...
>> Then why have you been commenting on this discussion??? If you know that something will affect your faith and view of God negatively, then why take the risk of continuing talking about it or even think of it???
------------------------
...and are so arrogant as to find it easy to crush my faith with their "Theistic Evolution" - and yet tell you they have NO time to even respond to your arguments. ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE CHURCH SERVANTS!!!
>> YOU WERE THE PERSON WHO STIRRED UP THE TOPIC AND ASKED OTHERS TO EXPLAIN FURTHER for you to understand what they are talking about (yes, those words are in caps because i am truly yelling from inside as I am typing). Are they arrogant because they choose to help you understand their point of view and their understanding of things that are beyond your educational knowledge? or because of the fact that they kept up with your confusion and stubbornness? And you have such a great judgement of them to call them "irresponsible church servant"....you are truly a faithful and a model christian to the point that I am truly sad you are not living near me to meet you and learn more from you...
------------------------
I have and have always believed in God, but since I met Mina Soliman, I am confused as to why God exists. Somehow he's been through some crazy learning curve with this subject, and its done him a "world of good" - but I feel messed up.
>> again with the condemnation and even by name this time...i would normally just edit this out from your comment, but i thought that would take away from the picture others are painting of you on this forum....
------------------------
and then we have admins on here that seem to care more about how much letters are being typed in a post than actually if a post is damaging someone's faith or not -
>> sadly, i do care about how much text is put in a comment or a discussion, simply because I believe that this is not ANYONE'S personal blog or diary to just come here and babble. Many other free services on the net are available for this with no censorship (within ethical humane limits)...and everyone is welcomed to take advantage of them...while still being active on this forum or not. Life will still go on.
------------------------
and people are asking why Copts are leaving the Church??? Really?? Let me think...
If a person is leaving our church because of a comment here on our forum, in my worthless opinion, life will go on and it's not a big deal. Orthodoxy is NOT something you read in book, or on forums, or blogs, or study in seminaries. It must be lived, through the Church and our actions in this world. If this is not taking place, then that person (who thinks he is practicing Orthodoxy) has not been truly established in the faith of the Church and the simplest of ideas (correct or incorrect) will destroy the little faith he has.
In conclusion of my yelling, I wanted to close this discussion long ago because we simply kept going around in circles. You had people who are confident in their faith and didn't mind considering scientific discoveries and give them due respect, and others who just kept closed minds denying and crushing any other ideas. I personally don't care about evolution!!!
God have said "be wise as serpents and simple as doves." We must be wise enough to choose what will make us simple enough to love God and live and act in this strange place we live in. If understanding evolution will affect that desired simplicity to reach God, then we must not be looking forward to it.
Comments
Thanks CoptiCopa for your relentless effort. I know its been hard talking to people on this forum. I apologise on their behalf for their rudeness and accusations. You've been very brave, articulated, educated, and brilliant in your responses.
Since I came to this forum, to discuss this topic, my faith in God has dwindled. I still believe in God, but Mina Soliman's God NEVER makes any sense, nor his theology.
These "scientific-servants" have caused immense damage to my faith, and are so arrogant as to find it easy to crush my faith with their "Theistic Evolution" - and yet tell you they have NO time to even respond to your arguments. ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE CHURCH SERVANTS!!!
I have and have always believed in God, but since I met Mina Soliman, I am confused as to why God exists. Somehow he's been through some crazy learning curve with this subject, and its done him a "world of good" - but I feel messed up.
and then we have admins on here that seem to care more about how much letters are being typed in a post than actually if a post is damaging someone's faith or not - and people are asking why Copts are leaving the Church??? Really?? Let me think...
I liked what you wrote that subhumans could have originated before humans were created through some evolutionary process. Sure. There are exceptions to laws in science, and one trend does not mean it applies for everything. GOOD POINT!!
What about the genome project where they found that all humans come from 2 species: a Male Adam and a Female Eve. Scientifically proven that we all came from the 2 very same human beings. No one has anything to say about that??
My apology to you and to everyone here. I think at this point, my end of the discussion is over. I have written enough.
Pray for me.