OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 06:19:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I am turning into a creationist ;D  (Read 9009 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« on: November 10, 2003, 11:04:23 AM »

I have just made some amazing discoveries. For ages I had wondered about creationist science, but hadn't had the chance or bothered to check it out more than absolutely marginally (if at all). My first pastor said that the theory of evolution and not taking Genesis literally is a possibility. However, I ran into many Orthodox who literally believe the creation accounts. I wondered how this could be, given all the scientific evidence for evolution and the universe being 5 billion years old. Well, what if the theories could be debunked?

I recently found an excellent and systematic "textbook" in Serbian, available on one website, written by a priest with a scientific background. IT IS WAAAAY KEWL!!!!!!!! It challenges various things that science has to say against Genesis. It shows how modern science is full of falsehood and badly interpreted data. For a less systematic but still informative website in English, I suggest you look at <<www.creationists.org>>. And there are other books and websites on this subject. Did you know that there are works of cave art and Inca art that apparently depict dinosaurs (for example Inca stones with eg. a diplodocus and a French cave carving that albeit crudely may depict a mammoth in a head to head collision with a dino?) I could go on about what I've discovered but haven't got the time.

N.B. just because I mention creationists.org doesn't mean I would read that and other sites at 100% face value: some of the things in it (eg. Bible quotes etc) may not necessarily be correct interpretations, as they may not have been written by Orthodox people. Just a note.
Logged

NULL
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2003, 12:31:40 AM »

While I have my evolutionary doubts, most people shouldn't be entering into this conflict.

These battles, out in the open, are inevtiably dominated by two groups who are both doggedly wrong. First, there are the atheistic types who dogmatize evolution as a rejoinder to religious faith. This position is questionable in its science; and in science, if your opinions are questionable they might as well be wrong.

Basically they make two scientific mistakes. First, they assume that they know enough about the mechanisms of evolution. They don't. There's a lot of speculation about how genetic change enters into this, and it seems to me, based on what they are finding out about cloning (namely, that it doesn't work very well on animals) that there are some fundamental elements of genetic transmission that they don't know anything about. Also, they really don't know much about how this change could produce new structures.

Second, it's pretty clear that they don't know much about what forces may or may not drive evolution. This is something that is very controversial in the field, and Steven Gould for one has attacked the Established Position at length. I don't agree with him entirely, but it's clear that "survival of the fittest" isn't all that's going on.

(As a parenthesis, there is a prevalent lack of appreciation of human breeding as it plays a part in the domestication of animals.)

These people make a lot of metaphysical mistakes too, but their main problem is that they presume that they know a whole lot more than they actually do know.

On the other hand, we get the Genesis literalists. These people immediately get into trouble because you can't get all the way through the second chapter without pulling contradictions out of the text. And one simply cannot read the rest of scripture in this way.

What's worse is that, since most of these people are terribly naive about textual reading, they can't do proper science. Anyone who tries to walk up and prove that the dinosaurs are not old is going to fail miserably. There's simply too much good science that isn't going to be refuted by people who are unlearned. The evidence of a series of different forms and creatures, of which man is a relatively late example, is not ever going to go away, and any work that tries to do so is trash and not worth considering.

Both of these groups criticize each other viciously, and both of them are in essence correct about the other. The problem is that knowing this doesn't help. Yes, the one camp is a bunch of arrogant atheists with axes to grind; yes, the other camp is ignorant and willing to do bad science in Jesus' name. That doesn't get you anywhere on the question.

Where it does leave you is in a middle ground where some sort of development is accepted, but in which there is plenty of room for God direct the outcome as much as He needs to.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2003, 12:34:45 AM »

Creationism does violence to the text of Genesis. It yankes it out of its historical and literary context and forces a meaning upon it which God did NOT intend it to have.  It keeps the reader from reading the text as the word of God and turns it into a textbook.  If you want to believe the world was created in 6 days, fine, it can't be proven or disproven.  But creation "science" just tries to account for everything with some rather wild theories.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2003, 02:20:25 AM »

Just last year I ended a rather heated argument between a "fundamentalist" and myself over 'Creationism vs. Evolution' with the following  question:
"Why couldn't  the Lord have CREATED evolution?"
From the look on my opponent's face I knew I scored big. (It's a beautiful sight to see the 'lights' turn on.)

The article linked below addresses cosmology from an Orthodox perspective, but interpolation to Darwin should be easy. I also have a half-finished (sigh) monograph specifically addressing 'Darwinism' (prompted by aforementioned argument ) and I'll dig it up if necessary.

http://www.orthodox.clara.net/cosmology.htm
Enjoy,
Demetri
Amateur Astronomer, Amateur Optical Fabricator, and Amateur Breadwinner according to Mrs. Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2003, 03:03:38 AM »

Are any of you familiar with Robert Sungenis' work on this topic?
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2003, 03:05:23 AM »

Science is never content to say it knows everything but always strives to push the boundaries of knowledge. What this means is that we will no doubt be seeing better theories than Darwin's coming to light in the future as we better understand the fields of genetics etc. They will always fall short IMO because they almost all try to describe a universe devoid of God.

There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the natural laws (in reality, supranatural) of God's creation, but it is an exercise in futility if we leave God out of the picture.

We exist, the universe, time, space, light, matter, because God wills it out of His boundless love. If He so willed it, everything would cease to be in an instant without so much as a squeak or pop, let alone a bang.

John
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2003, 08:48:00 AM »

Are any of you familiar with Robert Sungenis' work on this topic?

I've just looked up his notorious challenge and I am not impressed.

His "challenge" essentially proves that any sufficiently pig-headed person can resist any explanation thrown at him, no matter how good or bad it is. The correct answer, of course, is to challenge back the phrase "revolves around". [physics geeking] Let's ignore the rest of the universe and concentrate on the solar system. I'm going to make a couple of assumptions to save time: that Newtonian mechanics works on an interplanetary level, and that space is essentially flat on the scale which we are working at (and thus Euclidean geometry works). (That interplanetary space flight works is a sufficient proof of these principles.)

OK, so what does "revolves around" mean? Well, what it should mean is that, in an inertial frame of reference, one body is essentially standing still, and the other is moving around it. "Inertial frame" means looking at the system so that the net momentum is zero, or in other words, that the system as a whole isn't going anywhere.

One can deduce the position of the various bodies through astronomical observation, and indeed what one finds is that, if you take the sun as a fixed point, the planets move in Keplerian orbits in accordance with Newtonian mechanics-- which is to say, in ovals. (Well, not exactly, because there are various irregularities which turn out to be due to the gravitational interactions of the planets. This is going to be long enough as it is, for crying out loud.) This motion also gives the mass of the sun, and we already know the mass of the earth.

OK, so now we take the pin out of the sun and sum up all the momentum of the planets, and apply enough reciprocal motion to the sun to make the whole thing zero out. And what do we find? That the sun is hardly moving at all!! [/physics geeking]

OK-- this is something we've known for, oh, 250 years-- Newton himself, after all, went through the same gyrations. The only way to make Earth the center of the universal inertial frame is to posit that the rest of the universe has the precise mass and motion to counterpoise the required motion of the sun. At this point my brain starts to hurt, and surely one cannot prove this to be true (and if you keep pursuing the astronomy it appears that it isn't true).

So why is he issuing this challenge? Well, because (a) he's a biblical literalist, and thus can't get past Genesis 2 without double-talk; (b) he is a religious authoritarian who cannot accept that churches do issue opinions when they are incompetent to do so; and (c) he swallows all the bogus implications of a Copernican universe that the secularist extremists like to work out-- hook, line, and sinker!

This guy is a crank. Avoid him.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2003, 08:53:59 AM by Keble » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2003, 08:58:34 AM »

A footnote: I make some attempt to follow what the cosmologists are up to, and of late I have noted a deeply speculative quality to their speech. Much of what they are saying isn't really scientific, and increasingly they fall into language that smells very religious.

It's also clear that we are running into one of those periods where understanding has been hugely outstripped by information.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2003, 09:45:28 AM »

This is an interesting thread.

I think Keble makes a very good point about the false dichotomy presented in this debate, and that the advocates of the two extreme positions are both guilty as framing it as such.

I believe the Intelligent Design movement offers a much stronger challenge to Darwinism, both scientifically and metaphysically, without falling into the trap of having to defend Bishop Usher's young Earth chronology.  I tend to believe the Earth is much younger than commonly taught, but, based on the evidence, I also think it's significantly older than the 6000 years preached by strict young earth creationists.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2003, 09:51:37 AM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2003, 09:51:28 AM »

Googling for his name turned up a disturbing article concerning antisemitic writings and remarks he has made over the years.
Logged
moronikos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ...and they were first called Christians in Antioch
Posts: 150


I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2003, 11:36:31 AM »

Are any of you familiar with Robert Sungenis' work on this topic?

IMHO, Sungenis is not to be taken seriously.  He seems to be a few fries short of a happy meal--if you know what I mean.  Gary Hoge, a fellow RC, disproved Sungenis' theories about geocentrism
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2003, 12:15:03 PM »

Are any of you familiar with Robert Sungenis' work on this topic?

IMHO, Sungenis is not to be taken seriously.  He seems to be a few fries short of a happy meal--if you know what I mean.  Gary Hoge, a fellow RC, disproved Sungenis' theories about geocentrism

Looking at Mr. Hoge's site, it appears that Mr. Sungenis's thinking is as loopy as Chandra's path over the Earth' surface.
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2003, 12:25:52 PM »

This a great question! As a biologist I've often wondered why one point of view HAS to cancel out the other. Why can they not work together? Evolution driven by the Lord.

Just last year I ended a rather heated argument between a "fundamentalist" and myself over 'Creationism vs. Evolution' with the following  question:
"Why couldn't  the Lord have CREATED evolution?"
From the look on my opponent's face I knew I scored big. (It's a beautiful sight to see the 'lights' turn on.)

The article linked below addresses cosmology from an Orthodox perspective, but interpolation to Darwin should be easy. I also have a half-finished (sigh) monograph specifically addressing 'Darwinism' (prompted by aforementioned argument ) and I'll dig it up if necessary.

http://www.orthodox.clara.net/cosmology.htm
Enjoy,
Demetri
Amateur Astronomer, Amateur Optical Fabricator, and Amateur Breadwinner according to Mrs. Demetri


Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2003, 12:51:28 PM »

I think one must be careful to differentiate "evolution", which may simply mean "change with time", from "Darwinism", which refers to that grand metaphysical claim that all living things are descended from one single cell organism via undirected natural causes.  While there is certainly empiric evidence for the former on a limited scale, proving the latter is much more problematic scientifically.  Also the former is perfectly compatible with Christian theism while the latter is clearly antithetical to it.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2003, 01:10:51 PM »

I was turned into a newt once. I got better.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2003, 01:20:52 PM »

I agree, Innocent. This isn't a binary situation.  Creation, what little we know of it, is a rich and marvelous and incredible thing.  Just looking at a small area, I know that *I* wouldn't have been able to come up with some of the creatures found in the Burgess Shale like Opabinia or Anomalocaris or Wiwaxia, but God made them and much more.  There's a whole universe out there and the Heavens are telling the Glory of God.

Sorry, I'll calm down now.

Just last night at dinner, we had both science and religion while talking about where the moon came from, black-body radiation and the Big Bang which came to "God said, "Let there be Light!".  

Ebor

edited for typing errors
« Last Edit: November 11, 2003, 04:08:17 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2003, 02:57:23 PM »

I'm so glad I don't have to be a Bible thumping fundie to be Orthodox! Smiley  Back in my Protestant days I was often scolded for suggesting that the earth might be a lot older than just 6,000 years.
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2003, 08:20:00 PM »

Quote
Back in my Protestant days I was often scolded for suggesting that the earth might be a lot older than just 6,000 years.  
Quote

That's what would happen to me. My colleague is a bit of a fundie...each time he brings up this or any other religious-based topics I'll quickly divert the subject onto music or the weather.

Anyway back to Sungenis, in one of his papers he gives his interpretation of Genesis 1 which I thought was interesting:

As for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first day...the second day...the third day...and so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which "day" preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus' Hebrew Grammar, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).

The most conclusive evidence that the word "day" in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase "and there was evening and morning," which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of "evening and morning" in Scripture shows that it always refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of "evening and morning" in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).

There are some cases in which the words "morning" or "evening" appear separately with the word "day," some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages "evening and morning" are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.

If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 ("let them be for days and for years") or Genesis 3:14 ("dust shall you eat all the days of your life"). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days are always in view.


This also sounds interesting:

The truth is that the Fathers and doctors hardly diverge at all from Protestant creationists...


Any comments?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2003, 08:20:55 PM by Byzantino » Logged
Athanasius
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2003, 10:31:07 PM »

I have my doubts about evolutionary theory. I simply cannot believe that all of this complexity arose purely by chance. If evolution took place I think it would have had to have been intiated and guided by God.
I do not think young earth creationism is even remotely reasonable. I personally find the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1 very convincing.

Athanasius
Logged

God became man that man might become God-St. Athanasius
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2003, 10:35:45 PM »

I believe in evolution but do not think it was all by chance. I believe it has been and always will be guided by the Lord.  

I have my doubts about evolutionary theory. I simply cannot believe that all of this complexity arose purely by chance. If evolution took place I think it would have had to have been intiated and guided by God.
I do not think young earth creationism is even remotely reasonable. I personally find the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1 very convincing.

Athanasius
Logged
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2003, 10:28:49 AM »

Well, it seems to me that some people on this forum are less inclined toward creationism than those on Nicholas' Orthodox forum or the Orthodox Converts mailing list! Anyway, the creationist treatise I found gives very reasonable arguments for the world being only 6000 years old. It systematically calls into question much of what science has taught about the origins of the world, from carbon dating to geological earth layers. It suggests that some of modern science is based on assumptions that can be proven false. I don't know if it's necessarily true, but what this tract states seems amazingly feasible.
Logged

NULL
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2003, 11:21:07 AM »

Well, it seems to me that some people on this forum are less inclined toward creationism than those on Nicholas' Orthodox forum or the Orthodox Converts mailing list!

I haven't found anything in the E-Cafe about this, but I have to say that it would be a sad commentary on the quality of discourse there if they predominately endorse creationism.

Quote
Anyway, the creationist treatise I found gives very reasonable arguments for the world being only 6000 years old. It systematically calls into question much of what science has taught about the origins of the world, from carbon dating to geological earth layers. It suggests that some of modern science is based on assumptions that can be proven false.

All of these arguments are junk. I don't even have to read them to know that, but if you would care to send me a few, I will gladly debunk them.


Quote
I don't know if it's necessarily true, but what this tract states seems amazingly feasible.

It's like this:

Let's look at Robert Sungeris again for a moment. This man is supposed to be a great Catholic apologist, but his advocacy of geocentrism is just whacky, and his "defense" of it is junk reasoning. It's not just that he makes mistakes of logic; it's that the whole form of his "reasoning" is incoherent. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that a scientific instrument which my father helped design is now on its way out of the solar system (it's the one on Voyager that is in the news now) is sufficient proof that the scientists know what they're doing and that anyone who disagrees with their model of planetary motion is incompetent to do so.

The situation in geology is not so cut-and-dried, but if you are having trouble telling the bad thinking from the good, isn't it time to defer to experts instead of to obscure Serbian tracts?
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2003, 11:33:57 AM »

Quote from: erracht on Today at 09:28:49am
Quote
Well, it seems to me that some people on this forum are less inclined toward creationism than those on Nicholas' Orthodox forum or the Orthodox Converts mailing list!

 
Quote from: Keble
Quote
I haven't found anything in the E-Cafe about this, but I have to say that it would be a sad commentary on the quality of discourse there if they predominately endorse creationism.

I believe erracht is not talking about eCafe, which is run by Nik Stanosheck but rather Nicholas' Forum, run by Nicholas in Texas.   It's a nice, small, board.  Moronikos is a regular there.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2003, 12:57:01 PM »

Ah, David, so I see. I have found a little gem there.....
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2003, 04:59:06 PM »

I've never liked those kinds of message boards. I like it when they are broken up into separate folders like this board. Its much easier to navigate. At least I think so.

Quote from: erracht on Today at 09:28:49am
Quote
Well, it seems to me that some people on this forum are less inclined toward creationism than those on Nicholas' Orthodox forum or the Orthodox Converts mailing list!

 
Quote from: Keble
Quote
I haven't found anything in the E-Cafe about this, but I have to say that it would be a sad commentary on the quality of discourse there if they predominately endorse creationism.

I believe erracht is not talking about eCafe, which is run by Nik Stanosheck but rather Nicholas' Forum, run by Nicholas in Texas.   It's a nice, small, board.  Moronikos is a regular there.  
Logged
Athanasius
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2003, 04:28:57 PM »

I agree about Sungenis. As far as justification or sola scriptura or the nature of the eucharist, his writing is great. But when it comes to science he's just plain batty!
Personally I simply cannot see how virtually every scientific field (biology, astronomy, geology, chemistry, etc.) could all be wrong on the age of the earth. It's just too much to believe.

Athanasius
Logged

God became man that man might become God-St. Athanasius
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2003, 04:27:32 AM »

The only argument that makes any kind of sense to me is that the universe was created as a mature entity with complex systems already in motion. So while only moments old, it had the apparent age of something that had already been in existence for millions of years, just as Adam appeared to be many years old at his creation despite no having existed moments before. FOr example, when God put lights in the sky, he not only created the stars, but also the light that had been apparently streaming from them for millions of years, otherwise they would not have been visible for many years until light from them finally began reaching the earth. Light travels fast, but it is not instantanious.

The creation of the universe was a supranatural event so we should expect there to be apparent contradictions in the physical evidence. This is not unlike that seen by a doctor examining a patient who has just been miraculously healed completely of terminal cancer.

John.
Logged
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2003, 07:11:55 AM »

We seem to be on the same wavelength, John. Here are a few of the arguments against traditional science given by the textbook:

1) scientists base part of their claim that the Earth is zillions of years old on studying geological layers of earth/soil. They assume that all the layers developed at the same pace as they do today, timing the ages of the various layers at this pace, whereas some may have developed far quicker (during creation, the Flood etc).

2) in a layer supposedly 200 million or so years old, a fossil of a MODERN WOMAN was found! Similarly, dinosaur footprints have been found overlapping with human ones. The book argues that dinosaurs died out after climactic changes that occurred after the flood. Noah could have put dino eggs on the Ark, thus saving space.

3) evolution of animals & humans seems to be disproven by it being hard to find "missing links". I myself once thought that a primitive bird fossil, Archeopteryx, was like a missing link between birds and reptiles, because although it had feathers and wings, it also had a long bony tail, claws on its wings and a beak/snout with a set of teeth. However, the book indicates that this fossil's similarity to modern birds is closer than some scientists will have it be, that for example modern birds rarely have claws and that at any rate, it was found in the same layer as more modern-looking bird remains, so it couldn't have been their ancestor. This seems logical when I think of a modern mammal, the playpus, which has a "beak" and lays eggs, yet is not said to have evolved from birds. Similarly, the book mentions that fossils said to be human ancestors are really apes (when some of them are examined, they may indeed, I'd say, seem closer to apes than to people, eg. the "Australopithecus" and at any rate, many of the supposed "hominid species" exist only as VERY fragmentary remains. Homo
Erectus and Neanderthal people seem to really just have been races of modern humans, and the author mentions that if you gave a Neanderthal a shave and a haircut, he would look quite different from normal drawings of "primitive man" - his illustration shows  him as looking just like, say, a modern North African.

4) I could go on with better arguments than these based on astronomy, geology and biology, but being pressed for time, let me just mention Noah's Ark. The book says that since the Ark landed on Mount Ararat, it got frozen in the ice there. But this ice sometimes melts. During WWI, Russian aviators saw the Ark from their airplanes and St. Tsar Nicholas ordered and expedition there. They photographed the remains of the Ark, and even found Noah's sacrificial altar. Alas, the Bolsheviks soon came to power, and destroyed their findings. Note that, according to the Bible, the Ark was humongous, quite longer than a soccer field, and had ideal dimensions for a ship, which mere mortals would likely not have been able to calculate with the knowledge of the day. It could easily have held many animal species if the specimens were taken young, as well as provisions and living quarters.

I may post more later...
Logged

NULL
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2003, 09:32:00 AM »

I've decided to rewrite this and concentrate on two items.

Similarly, dinosaur footprints have been found overlapping with human ones.

That would be Glen Rose, Texas. The original footprints are in fact all dinosaur footprints, some of which are elongated and therefore have an extremely superficial resemblance to human prints. Just to help things out, the locals have apparently been making fake footprints to sell to the tourists. Here is an example of typical decent examination of the prints.

This is a particularly egregious example of bad creationist science-- so bad that, as I am told, most creationists B.I. (Before Internet) had abandoned it. Now, of course, the internet allows nonsense persist indefinitely; but it also allows all of us to look the stuff up and find out the truth. In this case there are many, many sites exposing the "footprints". So why should I take some Serbian tract's word on the matter?

I should also note that the whole discussion of these footprints presumes that the processes that the scientists postulate actually do take place. Dinosaurs do step in mud, which is covered by other sediments, and these are progressively turned to rock. One may quibble about the time frame, but considering that recorded Egyptian history covers something like 2/3s the supposed creationist age of the earth, there's very little place to put the dinosaurs in this time span.

Then we have the ark.

Quote
4) I could go on with better arguments than these based on astronomy, geology and biology, but being pressed for time, let me just mention Noah's Ark. The book says that since the Ark landed on Mount Ararat, it got frozen in the ice there. But this ice sometimes melts. During WWI, Russian aviators saw the Ark from their airplanes and St. Tsar Nicholas ordered and expedition there. They photographed the remains of the Ark, and even found Noah's sacrificial altar. Alas, the Bolsheviks soon came to power, and destroyed their findings. Note that, according to the Bible, the Ark was humongous, quite longer than a soccer field, and had ideal dimensions for a ship, which mere mortals would likely not have been able to calculate with the knowledge of the day. It could easily have held many animal species if the specimens were taken young, as well as provisions and living quarters.

Says who?? This is just an urban legend. Which Russian aviators? What are their names? Who recorded their story? How do we know the Bosheviks did anything-- especially on Turkish territory?

The fundamental problem in all of this is that there is no intellectual dialogue going on here. It's all just a bunch of unsupportable assertions, propped up by references to dubious authorities. It doesn't survive perr review at all.

And it all is really based on the theory that evolutionary theory is like a sweater knitted from a single strand, where one can break the fabric at one point, and it will all fall apart. But that just isn't so. Against these few feeble attempts at refutation stands an enormous mountain of corroboration, and it is a fabric of many threads. That there are holes, nobody denies. But the fabric holds in spite of them.

And why should you believe a tract anyway?

« Last Edit: November 14, 2003, 11:25:53 AM by Keble » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2003, 10:05:54 AM »

Keble, thanks for your post above. If OC.net ever has a "Stephen
Jay Gould" Award, I'm nominating you. Good work.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2003, 10:26:35 AM »

erracht, I didn't say that I hold to the explanation that I gave, I only said that it is the only one that seems to make any kind of sense to me.

Generally I am pretty non-commital on this issue as, like Keble has shown, there is too much bad science and unsubstantiated information involved in many of the creationist arguments. I am not sufficiently well enough educated in the scientific disciplines to comment, so I generally keep my mouth shut on this topic lest I find that my foot has suddenly found its way there Grin

I believe God created the universe and leave it at that. Genesis was not written as a scientific treatise on the subject so I try to avoid reading it as such.

John.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2003, 12:50:50 PM »

Genesis, while not a technical "scientific treatise", seems to be at least written in the form of a historical narrative.  While there may be some poetic expressions used particularly in the creation accounts, the events are depicted in the context of the entire Scripture as having actually taken place.  For example, Adam is listed in the geneology of Jesus along with other historical figures, and Jesus is contrasted with the first Adam in Romans 5.  Christ makes reference to Abel and Noah and others from Genesis and considers them historical. Both Jesus and Peter (2 Peter 3) make reference to the flood of Noah, and the latter seems to consider it a universal deluge and not a local one.  What is more, I've read several comments from ECFs regarding the events of Genesis as being historical (Origen and Clement of Alexandria may have been exceptions, from what I remember).

OTOH, this certainly doesn't prove that the whole of earth's history can be squeezed into the  6000 years advocated by many young earth creationists.  We seem to have good historical and archealogical evidence for human civilization going back at least 10,000 years. The Bible itself seems to show evidence of gaps in some of its geneologies making an exact Biblically derived chronology of the world impossible.  Plus there are the uniformitarian geological dating methods (especially the radiometric dating methods) that indicate the earth itself may be about 4.5 billion years old.  

However, though these methods are widely accepted, they seem to be based on some unprovable naturalistic assumptions which may raise questions about their ultimate validity.  What I mean is that the assumptions behind some of these methods (ie constant decay rates; no initial "daughter" elements present; no effect from external physical processes) seem to (me, at least) rule out a priori singularities (or "catastrophies") which could conceivably alter the chronology derived from such uniformitarian methods.  In other words, these dating methods may dismiss acts of divine fiat (creation or creations and supernatural judgements such as the Deluge) out of hand by the nature of their presumed starting premises.  However, if indeed a universal flood occurred, then this would seem to have had profound effects on geological processes making uniformitarianism ultimately untenable.  How much of an effect this would have on dating the earth I don't know, because even an universal flood may not be able to explain all the geophysical data available.  I'm not a geologist so I'll have to plead ignorance.

So while many "arguments" for a very young earth have been discredited, based on the above considerations I remain skeptical that the earth is as old as currently believed.  This is not because I'm anti-science; it's because I question some of the metaphysical assumptions underlying the methodology of secular scientists. (Which is consistent with the moniker, "Doubting Thomas"  Smiley )
« Last Edit: November 14, 2003, 12:51:46 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,379


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2003, 02:43:30 PM »

I believe God created the universe and leave it at that.

Amen.  The topic is interesting and all, but in the end, I wonder sometimes why we care about this stuff so much.  There is plenty of stuff in the Bible to keep us busy: the Commandments, the Psalms, the Gospels, etc.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2003, 03:11:35 PM »

30 years or so ago it would take a couple of doobies  to attempt to answer this eternal question, but now I have trouble relating to yesterday.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2003, 03:21:11 PM »

30 years or so ago it would take a couple of doobies to attempt to answer this eternal question, but now I have trouble relating to yesterday.
james

Once again, "Cause and Effect" is validated!  Grin
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2003, 05:27:41 PM »

TomS,

Wish I could blame the sins of my youth, sad to say its the roller coaster of age, downhill after 40.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2003, 08:14:50 PM »

TomS,

Wish I could blame the sins of my youth, sad to say its the roller coaster of age, downhill after 40.

james

No! No! It HAS to have been the doobies (please)!!! You are only 6 years older than me!!!!

 :cwm36:
« Last Edit: November 14, 2003, 10:52:18 PM by TomS » Logged
spaceviking
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2003, 01:59:04 PM »

As a geologist, and only recently baptised orthodox christian, I find this topic extremely interesting.  I applaud those who question the things they hear, but I would emphasize that one must question everything equally.

The basic problem here is that there is a ton of information that one must be familiar with in order to make an educated decision on this topic, and most people don't have the 10 or more years that it takes to acquaint themselves thoroughly with this subject, so they must listen to what other people have to say, then decide who to believe.  

Speaking for those of us who have spent 10 years or more learning about these and related topics, I will tell you that there is NO scientific debate on the subject of the age of the Earth.  Science prides itself on questioning EVERYTHING, and if I, as a geologist, could prove that Earth was younger than 4.5 billion years, I would do it in a hearbeat, and become famous in the process.  So the fact that there is no scientific debate on this subject at all should tell you that either all the scientists are conspiring to push an athiestic dogma or that there is overwhelming scientific proof that the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old.  

If you espouse the former option, please remember that a large portion of the scientists working today, and throughout history, were and are churchgoing christians.  

As for evolution, one thing that frustrates scientists to no end in this debate is that critics only poke holes in the existing theory but do not put forward theories that explain all of the evidence.  It is remarkable to me that Darwin proposed his theory without any knowledge of genetics, and all new discoveries in that field have confirmed and strengthened his theory.  

If you want to doubt what you hear, which as a thinking person you should absolutely do, then please keep an open mind and look for cogent arguments on both sides, then make your own decision.  

Paul
Logged
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2003, 02:38:00 PM »

Quote
Amen.  The topic is interesting and all, but in the end, I wonder sometimes why we care about this stuff so much.  There is plenty of stuff in the Bible to keep us busy: the Commandments, the Psalms, the Gospels, etc.

One of the drip...drip...drips of fundagelicalism that drove me nutty was the near obsession with this subject (and others) when I knew there just HAD to be more to Christianity.
Logged
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2003, 02:39:09 PM »

I forgot to say ... Welcome spaceviking !
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2003, 02:47:30 PM »

As for evolution, one thing that frustrates scientists to no end in this debate is that critics only poke holes in the existing theory but do not put forward theories that explain all of the evidence.  It is remarkable to me that Darwin proposed his theory without any knowledge of genetics, and all new discoveries in that field have confirmed and strengthened his theory.  


That's somewhat of an overstatement, IMHO.  There is a growing movement of scientists who not only demonstrate glaring flaws in certain aspects of Darwinian mythology but who also seek to offer positive criteria for identifying intelligent design.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2003, 03:19:02 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2003, 02:48:58 PM »

The thing that cracks me up about creationism is the absolute insistence upon a literal 6 24 hour day creation IGNORING that time was not created til the 4th day.  sheesh.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2003, 03:01:59 PM »

Actually, I'm inclined to believe that there are 3 seperate creations discussed in Genesis.  2 in Gen1, and a third in Gen2.  But that's just my view on it.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2003, 03:16:23 PM »

The thing that cracks me up about creationism is the absolute insistence upon a literal 6 24 hour day creation IGNORING that time was not created til the 4th day.  sheesh.

That's an interesting statement.  I might agree with you if you really meant that the SUN and MOON weren't created until the 4th day, thereby arguing against literal 24-hour days.  TIME, however, was created at the beginning or else it would be meaningless to speak of the first, second, and third "days" PRECEDING the fourth "day"
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2003, 03:25:09 PM »

Time is a function of the sun and moon; therefore there cannot be Time without the sun and moon.  

Scripture says that to the Lord a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like a day.  Remember: the text in question, was written by a finite man trying to understand an infinite God.  

Day is more than just a measure of time.  It is also a reference to a period of existence or prominence of a person or thing. Smiley
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2003, 03:50:18 PM »

Time is a function of the sun and moon; therefore there cannot be Time without the sun and moon.  

Well, time is measured locally (ie, on the earth) in reference to the sun and moon, but time itself preceded the creation of the sun and moon whether one subscribes to the Big Bang or to strict six 24-hour-days "Creationism".  For example, most scientists believe the Big Bang preceded the formation of the earth (and the sun and moon, for that matter) by at least several billion years.  During this time many physical processes are said to have taken place in the space-time universe.

Quote
Scripture says that to the Lord a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like a day.  Remember: the text in question, was written by a finite man trying to understand an infinite God.  

This is true, but from our vantage point "one day" and "1000 years" both refer to specific periods of time.  To the Lord, however, who is ABOVE time, both are seen in the same way by Him.  Smiley

Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
lutheraninquirer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2003, 07:00:17 PM »

There really is quite an amusing debate on this same subject going on at catholic-convert.com.  I had no idea there was such a vocal "fundamentalist Catholic" minority who insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2003, 07:13:24 PM »

Quote
There really is quite an amusing debate on this same subject going on at catholic-convert.com.

There's some cool animations on that forum.
Logged
spaceviking
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


OC.net


« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2003, 07:19:54 PM »

As for evolution, one thing that frustrates scientists to no end in this debate is that critics only poke holes in the existing theory but do not put forward theories that explain all of the evidence.  It is remarkable to me that Darwin proposed his theory without any knowledge of genetics, and all new discoveries in that field have confirmed and strengthened his theory.  


That's somewhat of an overstatement, IMHO.  There is a growing movement of scientists who not only demonstrate glaring flaws in certain aspects of Darwinian mythology but who also seek to offer positive criteria for identifying intelligent design.

I have to admit I'm not totally versed in Intelligent Design, although a quick perusal of the Discovery Institute Web site leads to a fruitless search for what they actually think happened.  It seems they might contend that:
1) Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (bya)
2) Designer "creates" life ~4 bya
3) Micro-organisms undergo micro-evolution for 3.5 bya
4) Designer induces Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago
5) Designer periodically causes macro-evolution over the next 500 million years
6) Designer finally causes macro-evolution from a common ancestor of humans and monkees.

I would be interested if the ID (intelligent design) people made some specific hypotheses based on their theory for particular instances of evolution.  Like why did the "designer" wait 4.5 billion years before bringing about humans?  

Science is judged by publishing in scientific journals: while ID people cite a number of articles, none of them actually explain the theory of ID.  Unless we accept the idea that the science community is actively suppressing ID because of some atheistic, materialistic conspiracy, we are forced to conclude that those articles don't exist because their science is faulty.

Paul
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2003, 09:15:07 PM »


I have to admit I'm not totally versed in Intelligent Design, although a quick perusal of the Discovery Institute Web site leads to a fruitless search for what they actually think happened.  It seems they might contend that:
1) Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (bya)
2) Designer "creates" life ~4 bya
3) Micro-organisms undergo micro-evolution for 3.5 bya
4) Designer induces Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago
5) Designer periodically causes macro-evolution over the next 500 million years
6) Designer finally causes macro-evolution from a common ancestor of humans and monkees.

There is actually a variety of viewpoints under the ID umbrella.  Some like biochemist Michael Behe accept the general idea of common descent.  Others like Bill Dembski would not.  Both would agree that proposed Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for ALL the complex diversity of life, namely irreducibly complex microbiological systems and complex specified information.  Remember, the ID movement is very young so I wouldn't expect an ambitious account of the entire earth's history anytime soon (spelling out every single instance in which an intelligent agent has ever acted).  The immediate goal is to put the idea of intelligent design on the table to explain phenomena which Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for.

Quote
I would be interested if the ID (intelligent design) people made some specific hypotheses based on their theory for particular instances of evolution.  Like why did the "designer" wait 4.5 billion years before bringing about humans?
 

Speculating into why the "designer" did things the way "he" did is not the goal of the scientific program of design.  Such belongs to philosophy and ultimately perhaps theology.  ID is interested in formulating testable criteria in identifying the work of an intelligent agent(s).


Quote
Science is judged by publishing in scientific journals: while ID people cite a number of articles, none of them actually explain the theory of ID.

Not quite true.  They have begun writing books and articles that do just that.  The Design Inference by Dembski  discusses the theoretical criteria for establishing intelligent agency.

Quote
Unless we accept the idea that the science community is actively suppressing ID because of some atheistic, materialistic conspiracy, we are forced to conclude that those articles don't exist because their science is faulty.
 

Wow, do you really doubt this?  The Darwinian establishment is and has been dominated by metaphysical naturalists (at the very least, by methodological naturalists) for decades.  Such a philosophical mindset is diametrically opposed to the possibility of a transcedent intelligence which is capable of acting in the material universe. The Darwinian creation myth is the reigning paradigm in our secular society and is defended with great zeal by those who go to great lengths to dismiss a priori ANYTHING that might smack of a Creator.   By their sheer numbers and positions entrenched in secular academia, one could say there is at least an ipso facto "conspiracy" among Darwinists to suppress any movement that could represent a potentially competitive paradigm to their pet theory.  (In addition to that, the ID movement is relatively new which could be another reason for the apparent lack of peer reviewed articles.)
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Aidan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 126



« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2011, 04:54:35 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2011, 05:09:01 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?

Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #52 on: October 06, 2011, 05:41:49 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?

Give him until 2019 to answer, that way he has as much time as you did.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,541



« Reply #53 on: October 06, 2011, 05:42:04 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?

Not to rain on your parade, and I'm not saying that your points and/or questions are not worth discussing, but I wouldn't expect a response from spaceviking any time soon, considering that he hasn't signed on since December 19, 2003, one day after he/she registered Smiley  Anyway, never mind me... continue on...
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #54 on: October 06, 2011, 06:28:37 AM »

^ Says Mr. Notorious thread bumper.  Tongue Cheesy
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,405


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2011, 08:48:14 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 08:48:44 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aidan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 126



« Reply #56 on: October 06, 2011, 09:41:01 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,405


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 06, 2011, 09:47:50 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 09:53:46 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aidan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 126



« Reply #58 on: October 06, 2011, 10:13:40 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Sorry, I'm only a quasi nerd so I don't understand the reference.
My wife belongs to a Japanese (quasi) Buddhist organisation and their belief about creation is as I have described it. I find it very f f appealing. I find OUR belief less appealing to the imagination although I don't deny it. My perception is probably at fault.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 06, 2011, 10:39:07 AM »

While I have my evolutionary doubts, most people shouldn't be entering into this conflict.

These battles, out in the open, are inevtiably dominated by two groups who are both doggedly wrong. First, there are the atheistic types who dogmatize evolution as a rejoinder to religious faith. This position is questionable in its science; and in science, if your opinions are questionable they might as well be wrong.

Basically they make two scientific mistakes. First, they assume that they know enough about the mechanisms of evolution. They don't. There's a lot of speculation about how genetic change enters into this, and it seems to me, based on what they are finding out about cloning (namely, that it doesn't work very well on animals) that there are some fundamental elements of genetic transmission that they don't know anything about. Also, they really don't know much about how this change could produce new structures.

Second, it's pretty clear that they don't know much about what forces may or may not drive evolution. This is something that is very controversial in the field, and Steven Gould for one has attacked the Established Position at length. I don't agree with him entirely, but it's clear that "survival of the fittest" isn't all that's going on.

You are right, it isn't. But there certainly are other driving forces of evolution: migrations (gene flow), sudden disappearance of certain alleles or genotypes because of a catastrophy (genetic drift), non-stochastic sexual reproduction.

Also, homeotic mutations seem to be very interesting because they explain, at least to some extent, the non-linear, "jumping" nature of the biological evolution.
Logged

Love never fails.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2011, 11:32:56 AM »

non-stochastic sexual reproduction.

Who wants that?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 06, 2011, 12:21:31 PM »

non-stochastic sexual reproduction.

Who wants that?

The "dominants."  Lips Sealed
Logged

Love never fails.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2011, 12:32:20 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?

Anyway, why are we all encouraging thread necromancy?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #63 on: October 06, 2011, 12:34:12 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?

Anyway, why are we all encouraging thread necromancy?

More or less dangerous than a Ouija board?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,916


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2011, 01:42:14 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?

Anyway, why are we all encouraging thread necromancy?
Especially when we have a sticky on Religious Topics that you never have to dig up?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #65 on: October 06, 2011, 01:46:45 PM »

Creationism does violence to the text of Genesis. It yankes it out of its historical and literary context and forces a meaning upon it which God did NOT intend it to have.  It keeps the reader from reading the text as the word of God and turns it into a textbook.  If you want to believe the world was created in 6 days, fine, it can't be proven or disproven.  But creation "science" just tries to account for everything with some rather wild theories.

anastasios

Thank you for this, Father.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,405


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #66 on: October 06, 2011, 02:04:41 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 02:07:24 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,916


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2011, 02:10:58 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday. Does anybody bother to check date/time stamps anymore?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 02:11:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2011, 03:20:26 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday. Does anybody bother to check date/time stamps anymore?

nope!  Kiss
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #69 on: October 06, 2011, 03:25:52 PM »

I just assume any of the related threads I clicked on are all from 2004. I laugh every time I see a resurrected one from such a long time ago.

Although it's better than cluttering up the boards with new threads.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,081



« Reply #70 on: October 06, 2011, 03:52:17 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday. Does anybody bother to check date/time stamps anymore?

nope!  Kiss
Yes
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 03:52:48 PM by Gamliel » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #71 on: October 06, 2011, 03:55:42 PM »

I just assume any of the related threads I clicked on are all from 2004. I laugh every time I see a resurrected one from such a long time ago.

Although it's better than cluttering up the boards with new threads.

Bring back the real avatars finally.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #72 on: October 06, 2011, 03:57:38 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.

I think the second passage can be understood as God shaping everything from formless matter after it had already been created from nothing on the first day (anyway, citing the book of Wisdom is hardly evidence that the original meaning of Genesis was not creation ex nihilo, given that by all accounts Wisdom was composed centuries later than Genesis).

As for the first quotation, those notes reflect the opinion of some secular biblical scholars and don't have any doctrinal authority. I would be interested to see some patristic quotes that Genesis should not be interpreted as teaching creation ex nihilo.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,837


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #73 on: October 06, 2011, 03:57:59 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday.
...Forum Post Creationism?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #74 on: October 06, 2011, 03:58:35 PM »

I just assume any of the related threads I clicked on are all from 2004. I laugh every time I see a resurrected one from such a long time ago.

Although it's better than cluttering up the boards with new threads.

Bring back the real avatars finally.
Don't you guys know how to use Google?
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,837


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #75 on: October 06, 2011, 03:58:40 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.

I think the second passage can be understood as God shaping everything from formless matter after it had already been created from nothing on the first day (anyway, citing the book of Wisdom is hardly evidence that the original meaning of Genesis was not creation ex nihilo, given that by all accounts Wisdom was composed centuries later than Genesis).

As for the first quotation, those notes reflect the opinion of some secular biblical scholars and don't have any doctrinal authority. I would be interested to see some patristic quotes that Genesis should not be interpreted as teaching creation ex nihilo.
Did God create what we call "nothing"?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #76 on: October 06, 2011, 03:59:06 PM »

Creationism does violence to the text of Genesis. It yankes it out of its historical and literary context and forces a meaning upon it which God did NOT intend it to have.  It keeps the reader from reading the text as the word of God and turns it into a textbook.  If you want to believe the world was created in 6 days, fine, it can't be proven or disproven.  But creation "science" just tries to account for everything with some rather wild theories.

anastasios

Thank you for this, Father.

I'm not sure Fr A would continue to endorse these statements. Wink
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #77 on: October 06, 2011, 04:00:27 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.

I think the second passage can be understood as God shaping everything from formless matter after it had already been created from nothing on the first day (anyway, citing the book of Wisdom is hardly evidence that the original meaning of Genesis was not creation ex nihilo, given that by all accounts Wisdom was composed centuries later than Genesis).

As for the first quotation, those notes reflect the opinion of some secular biblical scholars and don't have any doctrinal authority. I would be interested to see some patristic quotes that Genesis should not be interpreted as teaching creation ex nihilo.
Did God create what we call "nothing"?

Well, how can "nothing" be created? It's like asking how can God die.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,837


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #78 on: October 06, 2011, 04:03:14 PM »


Well, how can "nothing" be created? It's like asking how can God die.
If it's nothing relative to something, it can be.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #79 on: October 06, 2011, 04:14:58 PM »

Oh nothingness . . . How I have longed for you.

Let's see how your ontologists handle this.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #80 on: October 06, 2011, 05:02:37 PM »

Oh nothingness . . . How I have longed for you.

Let's see how your ontologists handle this.



I'm turning all pointless conversations over to the experts. Wink
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #81 on: October 06, 2011, 05:10:59 PM »

Oh nothingness . . . How I have longed for you.

Let's see how your ontologists handle this.



I'm turning all pointless conversations over to the experts. Wink

Yeah, except I really haven't read much of an account from a Church Father on the nothing nor nothingness. Sure they sorta work out that apophatic stuff, but that is JV thought.

Nothingness?

It is really is varsity philosophiez.

Thought some smart guy would suggest a reading. I'm baiting for such elsewhere.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 05:11:39 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #82 on: October 06, 2011, 05:36:45 PM »

Could it be that God is the "nothing" out of which he created all things? If all things that exist are created by him, couldn't he be other than something that exists, therefore "nothing"? Do I know what the heck I'm talking about?  Undecided
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,916


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #83 on: October 06, 2011, 05:53:23 PM »

Could it be that God is the "nothing" out of which he created all things?
I don't think so, since then all things would be consubstantial with God--all things would be Divine. We believe that God is everywhere present filling all things, but we don't believe that God IS all things or that all things are God.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #84 on: October 06, 2011, 06:45:15 PM »

Could it be that God is the "nothing" out of which he created all things?
I don't think so, since then all things would be consubstantial with God--all things would be Divine. We believe that God is everywhere present filling all things, but we don't believe that God IS all things or that all things are God.

That answers my question as to knowing what I was talking about.  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,541



« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2011, 10:06:00 PM »

^ Says Mr. Notorious thread bumper.  Tongue Cheesy

Well, but I generally bump threads just for the sheer pleasure of resurrecting threads. Behold, I bring life to dead men's bones. I don't actually expect responses from many of the people I respond to. Though since I sometimes respond to one of my own posts from 6+ years ago, sometimes my thread bump is itself a response, and my response is a response to my own response. Right-o!
Logged
Tags: creationism evolution Genesis 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.276 seconds with 113 queries.