Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Creation and evolutionary theory, II


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
403 replies to this topic

#81 Yuri Zharikov

Yuri Zharikov

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:06 PM

This is the clearest analysis I have seen:



This is good too (http://www.fritzwagn...f_contents.html)

On Biological Phenomenalism and Charles Darwin



[. . . The] success of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century [ is a source of bewilderment to the historian of ideas]. The evolution of the forms of life, as we observed [earlier in the text], was treated thoroughly in the biological theory of the eighteenth century. The creational theory of the species was abandoned; the idea of a chronological succession of living forms from primitive to the most complicated was conceived. The increase of phenomenal knowledge concerning their unfolding was acknowledged, but the insight was also gained that the idea of an evolution of living forms did not bring us one step nearer to an understanding of the mystery of the substance that was evolving through the chain of forms.
The chain of evolutionary forms as a whole was just as much of an ultimate datum in ontology as previously had been the single species. No speculative prolongation of the chain into inorganic matter and no raising of the question of whether organic forms originated in inorganic matter could change the problem either. Such speculation simply meant pushing the mystery of the potentiality that unfolded morphologically in time a step further back without understanding it any better. . . . By the time of Kant the problem of evolution was reduced to its phenomenal proportions.
And now, in the nineteenth century, as if nothing had happened, a new phenomenal theory of evolution, operating with the conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, natural selections, etc., had a popular success and became a mass creed for the semieducated. A theory that, assuming that it was empirically tenable, could at best furnish an insight into the mechanics of evolution without touching its substance was accepted as a revelation concerning the nature of life and as compelling a reorientation of our views concerning the nature of man and his position in the cosmos.
. . . . A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life.
The principal causes of this transformation of phenomenal relations into a phenomenal reality are well known. Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view into a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in proper relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.
Moreover, the will to create a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century.
The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secularistic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.
The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man is the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature—irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved. . . . [T]he substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival . . . .

CW Vol 25 (HPI-VII)
Chapter 1 Phenomenalism
§ 1e. Biological Phenomenalism, pp184-187.








TABLE OF CONTENTS


VOEGELIN MAIN PAGE


NEXT QUOTATION



#82 Yuri Zharikov

Yuri Zharikov

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:13 PM

Sorry, I could not help but to add this one from the same source.

------------
A further trait connected with the transfer of pathos is the rise of aggressive dilettantism in philosophical matters. Again, this is not a question of simple ignorance or dilettantism that may occur at any time. The new and dangerous element is the readiness of the dilettante to impose his ignorance as a standard on others. Clarke's " I do not understand" in answer to Leibniz's exposition of the problems of time and space is the ominous symptom of the new attitude. He really does not understand – and that settles the argument in his favor. What the scientistic dilettante cannot understand must not be proposed in discussions of a problem.... What Newton had to say in his definitions of space affected the formation of political ideas immeasurably. The social success of Newton's theory of absolute space is the first great instance of successful dilettantic theories, advanced either by scientists themselves or (after the transfer of the pathos of science on a relevant scale) by the great spiritual eunuchs of the nineteenth century. Without the prestige effect of scientism, such major intellectual scandals as the social success of Positivism, or Darwinian evolutionism, or Marxism would be unthinkable.

CW Vol 24 (HPI-VI),
REVOLUTION AND THE NEW SCIENCE,
Chapter 4, The English Quest for the Concrete,
§ 3. Absolute Space and Relativity, pp 211-213.




#83 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 05 May 2008 - 08:57 PM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

This is good too (http://www.fritzwagn...f_contents.html)

On Biological Phenomenalism and Charles Darwin


. . . . A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life.

The principal causes of this transformation of phenomenal relations into a phenomenal reality are well known. Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view into a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in proper relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.

Moreover, the will to create a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century.

The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secularistic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.

The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man is the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature—irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved. . . . [T]he substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival . . . .

This is quite in line with what I stated in post #13 of the "Could man's creative power have collectively created science?" thread.

In +, James

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:33 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#84 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 05 May 2008 - 09:52 PM

Part of the concern over evolutionary theory seems to be its counter-Christian influence on societal development. And I'm inclined to believe that running one's life according to evolutionary principles is counter-Christian. After all, the standard of fitness according to natural selection is, "Did you survive long enough to have kids -- lots and lots of them?" Compare that with the Christian elevation of virginity as a noble way of life: "Not only did you not have kids -- you didn't have them on purpose!"

By these standards, Catholic families have the best chance at winning the evolutionary struggle. Catholic priests, on the other hand, are much more prone to dying out as a species. ;)

#85 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 06 May 2008 - 10:03 PM

By these standards, Catholic families have the best chance at winning the evolutionary struggle.

Oops. I stand corrected. Mormon polygamist patriarchs are #1.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ref=mpstoryview

#86 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:12 PM

I think we are straying a bit. This is not the "castigate other faiths" forum. Let's get back to patristic teachings on creation and evolutionary theory.

Herman

#87 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:41 PM

Oh, for heaven's sake...lighten up a little, will ya? Besides, even if the reasoning behind having so many kids is grounded more in faith than in survival, the fact is that the outcome of these faith's practices is that their followers come out ahead of the curve with regard to natural selection. A guy with 36 kids would be considered very successful in a society run according to evolutionary theory.

As for Catholic priests, let's look at them vs. the Protestant side of things. A Catholic priest is ordained presumably because he has a firm grasp of the faith, is able to teach the faith to others, and perhaps most importantly, is able to provide in his own life an example of how others should live their lives. Now, given all that, take into account the fact that most Catholic priests have zero children. Again, the person who is supposed to be the most constant Christ-like example to the congregation is not allowed to breed. Without getting into an argument about "nature vs. nurture" and free will and all that, how much sense does this really make?

Now flip over to the Protestant side of things. Who are some of the most successful and/or well-known Protestant pastors/evangelists today?

1) Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham).
2) Joel Osteen (son of John Osteen).
3) Robert A. Schuller (son of Robert H. Schuller).

Some other mentionables:

4) Andy Stanley (son of Charles Stanley)
5) Logan Sekulow (son of Christian lawyer/activist Jay Sekulow)
6) Melissa Scott (widow of Gene Scott)

What is the "draw" of these heirs-apparent, if not the fact that they were related to persons already considered trustworthy by the present generation?

Now think about your priests. If, say, 30 years from now, your priest's son became a priest himself, wouldn't the son's parentage be an automatic "plus" in his corner? Not a guarantee, of course -- Adam had Cain as well as Abel, Isaac had Esau as well as Jacob, etc., etc. -- but it would at least be a positive influence, right? At the very least, you might surmise that the son could very well possess whatever genetic advantages were present in the father which facilitated his priestly service (e.g., a calm demeanor, charisma, voice, a sharp memory, etc.).

#88 Deanna Leonti

Deanna Leonti

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 May 2008 - 04:44 AM

Anthropology Class taught
"the Evolutionary Theory"
are changes in the genetic make-up of a population over generations.

through;

natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, genetic drift and gene flow differential reproductive success are mechanism of modern theory of evolution.

#89 Deanna Leonti

Deanna Leonti

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 May 2008 - 04:49 AM

M. Partyka

Now flip over to the Protestant side of things. Who are some of the most successful and/or well-known Protestant pastors/evangelists today?

1) Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham).
2) Joel Osteen (son of John Osteen).
3) Robert A. Schuller (son of Robert H. Schuller).

Some other mentionables:

4) Andy Stanley (son of Charles Stanley)
5) Logan Sekulow (son of Christian lawyer/activist Jay Sekulow)
6) Melissa Scott (widow of Gene Scott)

What is the "draw" of these heirs-apparent, if not the fact that they were related to persons already considered trustworthy by the present generation?

Now think about your priests. If, say, 30 years from now, your priest's son became a priest himself, wouldn't the son's parentage be an automatic "plus" in his corner? Not a guarantee, of course -- Adam had Cain as well as Abel, Isaac had Esau as well as Jacob, etc., etc. -- but it would at least be a positive influence, right? At the very least, you might surmise that the son could very well possess whatever genetic advantages were present in the father which facilitated his priestly service (e.g., a calm demeanor, charisma, voice, a sharp memory, etc.).



Does anyone have an idea what ever happened to the children of the Apostles?, or past & present clergy's offspring?


http://childrenofpriests.org/web/

Edited by Deanna Leonti, 07 May 2008 - 05:17 AM.


#90 RichardWorthington

RichardWorthington

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 07 May 2008 - 12:39 PM

Does anyone have an idea what ever happened to the children of the Apostles?, or past & present clergy's offspring?


This is actually an interesting question. We all know that they were married, and St Peter's mother-in-law has been famously used to go against clerical celibacy. But, doing a quick web search, and thinking of all the saints lives, and apocryphal gospels and stories, their children seem never to have been mentioned! (Unless we consider the rather amusing story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the whole I'm-annoyed-with-the-western-churches phenomenon!)

Richard

#91 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 May 2008 - 12:46 PM

The above series of posts highlights one troubling whole in evolutionary theory. We don't really know what "selective advantage" means. Is there a selective advantage to being moral? Spiritual? Spending your life in prayer and meditation? Writing a sonnet? A Platonic dialogue. A Divine Mystagogy? What possible genetic advantage is there to these? Useless byproducts, like an appendix?

#92 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 07 May 2008 - 01:08 PM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Does anyone have an idea what ever happened to the children of the Apostles?, or past & present clergy's offspring?

Tradition has it that the wedding where Jesus miraculously transformed water into wine was Peter's, and that right after it, Peter left his wife to follow Christ, thus remaining celibate.

He only went through the wedding because he made a commitment before he met the Lord. He was simply honoring it and his fiance.

I don't know of any other Apostle being married, certainly not John and no wives are mentioned for the others. So I believe that none of them sired children at all.

I know what happened only to the offspring of clergy that I am personally acquainted with.

In +, James

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:32 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#93 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 03:11 AM

Tradition has it that the wedding where Jesus miraculously transformed water into wine was Peter's, and that right after it, Peter left his wife to follow Christ, thus remaining celibate. He only went through the wedding because he made a commitment before he met the Lord. He was simply honoring it and his fiance. I don't know of any other Apostle being married, certainly not John and no wives are mentioned for the others.

Never heard of that tradition before. St. Paul speaks of the apostles' spouses in 1 Cor 9:5 -- "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" The early Fathers I've read seemed okay with the idea of the apostles' having been married, albeit chastely and with an eye to procreation only (which is the general attitude of the Fathers concerning married relations). None of the Fathers mention any children of the apostles, though, and I haven't seen any reference to an apostle's wife other than Peter's.

#94 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 03:28 AM

The above series of posts highlights one troubling whole in evolutionary theory. We don't really know what "selective advantage" means. Is there a selective advantage to being moral? Spiritual? Spending your life in prayer and meditation? Writing a sonnet? A Platonic dialogue. A Divine Mystagogy? What possible genetic advantage is there to these? Useless byproducts, like an appendix?

Not to sound like a college student, but in terms of natural selection, any one of these traits is only as advantageous to you as it helps you score with the opposite sex (or at least survive until such time as you can so score) and have lots of babies. Remember, on the natural selection scale, zero kids equals zero points. Ultimately, this is why thinking of society in evolutionary terms leads nowhere. Under natural selection, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II both score a zero, while the inner-city drug dealer with 12 kids by six different women is a high-scorer. No civilized society grades on that kind of scale, nor should it. "Whoever dies with the most kids wins" is adequate if survival is the only goal worth fighting for, but I don't think human society has sunk to that level just yet.

#95 Deanna Leonti

Deanna Leonti

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 04:57 AM

Selective Advantage
A genetic advantage of one organism over its competitors that causes it to be favored in survival and reproduction rates over time.

Natural Selection
Natural selection is the natural process in which the fittest in a group of offspring survive to pass on their heritable traits to subsequent generations while those less fit die off leaving no offspring and thereby terminating the traits characterizing the less fit organism. Darwin theorized that this process could account for changes in the characteristic traits of species over time and eventually produce wholly new species and different types of organisms.

Mutation
An alteration of the genetic material of a cell that may be caused either by spontaneous changes or by external forces (such as radiation). Mutations that occur in the gametes (sex cells) of an organism are heritable. Mutations are thought to be the primary mechanism of variation upon which natural selection operates.

Sexual
Sexual selection is a from of natural selection that results from differential mating success in male due to competition, in females due choice.

Genetic Drift
Genetic drift is the random change in gene frequencies due to sampling variations that occur in a finite, small population.

Gene Flow
Gene flow is the movement of Genes from one population to another, or from one part of a population to another as a result of interbreeding.

Adaption
Both a process & result of a beneficial adjustment of organisms to their environment

2 distinct modes of how to view the world that Anthropologists use to frame their inquiries:
Standard Sociological Model based on concepts from the Enlightenment and Genesis and the Indigenous Tribal Model.

Darwin's great idea was to develope the mechanism of "Natural Selection" that gave an
answer to the "how" of evolution in biological organisms.

"Evolution Theory "is also based upon evidence, changing species by selection of genes that are not goal directed.

Anthropology 101 notes
&
www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Selective_Advantage

Edited by Deanna Leonti, 08 May 2008 - 05:35 AM.


#96 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 01:45 PM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Never heard of that tradition before. St. Paul speaks of the apostles' spouses in 1 Cor 9:5 -- "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" The early Fathers I've read seemed okay with the idea of the apostles' having been married, albeit chastely and with an eye to procreation only (which is the general attitude of the Fathers concerning married relations). None of the Fathers mention any children of the apostles, though, and I haven't seen any reference to an apostle's wife other than Peter's.

God speaks to most of us Orthodox Christians via two means. They are Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. This is stated in Orthodox Catachism books.

Holy Tradition is 'word of mouth' as passed down through the ages from Christ to/through the Apostles, through generations of Bishops and priests right up to the present day. Peter's wedding is from that Orthodox source.

So, for example, Archbishop Averky wrote and had published a paper that described the items that Christ wrote in the dust when he saved the woman being condemned for adultry.

One Holywood movie showed it to be a simple image of a fish and then had the next scene show Jesus feeding thousands from a couple fish and loaves.

But Holy Tradition gives actual words, and when you know them you understand why the three accusers became 'petrified' with fear, leaving off from their finger-pointing and walking away.

About the quote from 1 Cor. 9:5. It seems to have a different meaning to the original KJV which reads:

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Ce'phas?" (1 Cor. 9:5 KJV).

In the above quote, it can be seen that there is no indication of apostles being married.

The original KJV has priority when seeking accurate interpretations of the Bible, and then it falls below the Greek to English translations in its accuracy because the Protestant "re-writers" of the Bible into modern language took some liberties with passages that seemed inplausable to them, having not the Holy fathers as guides in their efforts.

CHRIST IS RISEN! James

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:31 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#97 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 08 May 2008 - 02:29 PM

If that is what the Orthodox catechism states, then it is most surely wrong, because what it is saying is that God is history! Something in the past.

#98 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 02:46 PM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

"Holy Tradition is 'word of mouth' as passed down through the ages from Christ to/through the Apostles, through generations of Bishops and priests right up to the present day." This is basic Orthodox church- (I won't say Sunday because classes are generally held on saturdays)-school teaching.

How can you say "it is most surely wrong"? The statement does not say that God is history. You would then call the Holy Bible merely a written history by that same rational'.

Christ's teachings are passed down to us by word of mouth (as well as via Holy Scripture). No one said anything about diminishing God to history (other than you of course).

I think we are straying too far off topic for this thread. I'll make no more comments about Holy Tradition in it.

Christ is Risen! James

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:31 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#99 Yuri Zharikov

Yuri Zharikov

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 01:13 AM

Post 95 (a set of textbook definitions from population genetics), presumably written in response to Owen's question about what is selective advantage, requires some comments.

First, it is not traits but individuals that are selected and in individuals "traits" - expressions of genetic information modulated by the environment - are packaged, which makes selection for a trait often an abstract notion and an exception rather than a rule.

Second, in real life mortality in 99.9% of cases is stochastic (random), i.e. it is not related to physical fitness of an individual provided in fact one could define what fitness is without getting into tautology, survival=fitness=survival, etc.

Third, if an individual fails to reproduce, its genetic trait or traits do not disappear, but rather frequency of a particular gene in a population is reduced.

Fourth, there is no consistent evidence that sexual selection (a kind of natural selection) actually selects for genetically heritable traits for the same reason as given in the first point - it is an individual that is selected for by the opposite sex, not a trait. Individuals generally select for individuals of the opposite sex that appear to be better producers. To have a potentially high fecundity is not a trait but a combination of many genetic traits and a favourable nurturing environment, so it cannot be inherited in a direct way.

Fifth, selection (to be selective, ha, ha) can act only on highly deleterious mutations and when they are phenotypically expressed. 99.9% of mutations are in the range from mildly deleterious to near neutral and they come in packages, and so they are not expressed in an apparent way and cannot be selected against. For this reason all populations gradually accumulate mutation load, which sooner or later leads to a genetic meltdown (those dealing with endangered species in tiny populations are particularly keenly aware of this).

Sixth, (follows from fifth) selection cannot keep up with natural degradation of genetic information that occurs due to mutations.

Seventh, mutations, genetic drift and any segregation of populations into smaller groups (e.g. artificial selection) has only one result - loss of genetic information and degradation of the overall gene pool. It is the context in which "adaptation" should be understood. If a population is exposed to an extreme selector (e.g. a series of harsh winters) that completely eliminates an mono-genetic trait through loss of the fraction of the population possessing the trait and the trait in fact is lost, this only means that the species/population has been genetically impoverished, not improved.

Eighth (and final point). If one thinks of population genetic processes (in post 95) in the same terms as for example improvement/adaptation of computer software, legislation or kitchen appliances (i.e. addition, improvement and sophistication of functions and elements), he’s got it exactly backwards. Population genetics processes lead only to expression (and eventual loss) of that which already exists (is God-given). They produce zero new stuff.

#100 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 02:22 AM

Holy Tradition is 'word of mouth' as passed down through the ages from Christ to/through the Apostles, through generations of Bishops and priests right up to the present day. Peter's wedding is from that Orthodox source.

Need I remind you of how St. Irenaeus, barely two generations removed from St. John, claimed it was a verified and reputable tradition of the Church that Christ lived to be fifty years old?

About the quote from 1 Cor. 9:5. It seems to have a different meaning to the original KJV which reads: In the above quote, it can be seen that there is no indication of apostles being married.

Let's look at that again:

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Ce'phas?" (1 Cor. 9:5 KJV).

Paul asks, "Don't I have the right to be married?" and then he gives examples of married persons of high rank in the Church: "other apostles,...the brethren of the Lord, and Ce'phas". Essentially, he's saying, "I could be married just as they are, but I choose not to be."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users