Wow, you really don't understand science or evolution. Please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, don't bring your Protestant Fundamentalism with you into Orthodoxy.
We aren't Protestants and we don't need Protestant ideas in our church. If you want to be a fundamentalist, find, but get out of the church and do it elsewhere. Join the Protestant fundie rednecks or the unorthodox schismatics like the "True Orthodox" fundamentalists, but don't treat Orthodoxy like it is a new place for you to insert your heretical Protestant fundamentalist views.
Since when is believing literally what the Bible says Protestant fundamentalism?I'm sure if you went back 200 years and asked any Orthodox priest if the world was created in six literal days, they would have said 'yes' without a doubt.
So you're basically saying that it's not possible for an Orthodox Christian to be a creationist and that all Orthodox Christians who believe in creation are heretics. Do you believe that it is not a valid theological opinion for an Orthodox Christian to hold?
In the Orthodoxy Study Bible, the study notes on Creation say that with regard to evolution, the Orthodox Church has not dogmatised any particular view.
Move on to higher levels of interpretation and understand that the Bible isn't a scientific document and isn't a historical textbook.
Can you prove this from the Scripture or the Fathers?
Your point being? You do know that there are probably at least 1 or 2 Saints in our hagiography that probably didn't exist right?
How do you know they didn't exist?
Do you also believe that dragons exist?
Yes, I do. The modern world has created a new word for them - dinosaurs
That mountains literally move from one spot to the other?
God can do anything.
God is not limited to human science.
This is exactly my point. God can do anything He chooses to, since He is omniscient. However, atheistic and materialistic scientists do limit themselves to human science and that's why they have to come up with ridiculous theories like evolutionism to explain how we got here.
1. We can deduce the speed of light from experiments and observations. (It's 300,000 meters per second)
2. We can use telescopes to see light from billions and billions of lightyears away. (Farthest observed: 13.14 Billion lightyears)
3. We can then conclude that there were objects in the Cosmos at least 13.14 Billion years ago.
There is no way the Cosmos are 7500 years old.
It's possible that the speed of light in the past was not the same as it is now. I have a book with a somewhat complex assessment of this very issue, and I can post the relevant chapter if you're interested.
No human is infallible except for Our Lord. What I was trying to say was that most of these saints you quote were speaking from a position of ignorance with regards to science.
Okay, so let's see what Our Lord said with regard to the creation of man.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)
Now, according to the evolutionist world view, the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Man only arose in the last few million years. Jesus said that God made man from the beginning, but evolutionism places billions of years between the 'beginning' and the 'evolution' of the first man.
This leaves us with a dilemma.
1. Was Jesus lying?
2. Was Jesus ignorant of modern science?
3. Was Jesus right?
If option 1 or option 2 is correct, then Jesus is not God. However, we have it on the best authority (the first 2 Ecumenical Councils) that Jesus Christ is indeed God. So therefore, the only logical answer is 3. Therefore, evolutionism is false. QED.
To say "science has been proven wrong" is also an incorrect statement. The theory of evolution is a theory which has the backing of a lot of data. It has not been proven wrong yet. At the same time, it has not been proven to the point of being a "law". Theories are not things that are inherently false, theories aren't guesses. Theories are things which have been discovered through a profound amount of measurable, observable data which has not yet been proven wrong.
Did you know that Darwin wrote his "theory" without any evidence? The only evidence that Darwin had was evidence of "micro-evolution" - variation among species. This is a scientific fact. However, macro-evolution - one kind of animal changing into another - has never been observed, tested and demonstrated, and therefore, is not scientific. If it had really happened, there would be thousands or millions of transitional fossils, which there aren't.
Evolutionists look at bones and fossils and when they see homologous features in different species, they claim that this is proof that they had a common ancestor. However, there is another explanation - they had a common designer.
The earth is not flat
The Bible never says it is.
the earth is not the physical center of the universe
How do you know? You haven't explored the entire universe and plotted a map of it. The earth could very well be at the centre of the universe.
the earth is not only 6.000 years old
If man had been here on earth for millions of years, the earth would be overpopulated, even with a ridiculously small population growth rate.
the earth doesn't have water suspended literally below and above
It's possible that there used to be a water canopy over the earth, but it was destroyed in the flood. Kent Hovind puts forwards some compelling evidence for a water canopy in his second creation seminar
the sun and other planets do NOT revolve around the earth
The Bible never says they do.
We know for a fact there was never a worldwide flood, and there isn't even enough water to cover the entire earth. We know there was probably a massive flood, but it wasn't worldwide.
Seashells have been found near the top of Mount Everest. It must have been underwater at some point. Dr Walter Brown puts forward some compelling evidence for the Flood in his book In the Begining
You also cannot say that science contradicts scripture because it simply doesn't. Genesis is not to be taken literally and if you think it is, then that only shows you to be spiritually immature and your interpretation to be extremely clouded.
Jckstraw has provided sufficient quotes from the Fathers to show that Scripture is to be interpreted literally. I presume you have Scriptural or Patristic quotes to prove your point.