OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 10:30:48 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  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 54 (15.7%)
No - 133 (38.6%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 345

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 344273 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1035 on: June 18, 2009, 06:53:48 PM »

lol, good ole Scripture Catholics, the King of Proof-texting.  laugh

---

Anyways, here is a piece I love from Fr. Alexander Men (of Blessed Memory)'s lecture "The Six Days of Creation".

Quote
Of course at this point you are thinking: But what of scientific hypotheses? I have a clear answer for that. Scientific concepts are the products of analytical reasoning. If in the Revealed Word man had received such materials as Ohm's law and Einstein's theory we wouldn't have to think at all. It would all be laid out for us. We would cease to be a creative, inquiring being and become the very caricature of humanity. I can find no better way to describe it than the character in Gogol who would just open his mouth and a dumpling would fly, ready-made, into it. Why do we need to think? Why are we given a brain at all?

God gave us thinking so we could come to scientific truths by ourselves, through searching, arguing and improvement. This is a blessed process. Everyone who is involved in science to any degree knows of the great happiness and creative ordeals the pursuit of knowledge entails. I would not want to live in a world where God just packed everything I need into my head ready-made.

[...]

So man must ever think and seek. Disaster theory, in which the world is periodically ravaged by cataclysmic floods and life begins anew each time, evolution by adaptation, Darwinian evolution by natural selection, theories based on contemporary genetics, holism, finalism, many, many different theories. And I think I will be pleased if they continue to appear, these many theories, arising one after another, displacing one another and revealing layer after layer of knowledge. And from time to time mankind will have to set aside many of the conclusions his reason had previously reached in the light of new knowledge.

Source

He obviously addresses Genesis too, but his healthy view towards science and inquiry is particularly great to see.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1036 on: June 19, 2009, 05:03:51 PM »

so the question is, who in the Orthodox Church bore witness against a literal understanding of Genesis before the influence of evolution came around? Did anyone at all?

St. Augustine, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage....

In terms of modern day bishops we have at least Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo), Bishop Alexander (Mileant) of Blessed memory, Archbishop Michael (Mudyugin) of Blessed memory, Bishop Nathanael (L'vov) of Blessed Memory, and Bishop Basil (Rodzyanko)...

Among theologians we have E.M. Andreiev, Protopresbyter Basil Zenkovski, Protopresbyter Nikolai Ivanov, Prof. N.N. Pheoletov, V.S. Solovyov, Protopresbyter Stephan Lyashevski, Prof. lazar Milin, Fr. Dumitru Staniloe....

you shoulda kept up with the thread. i already provided a quote from St. Clement of Alexandria that shows that he believed in literal days. St. Augustine said anyone who puts forth a timeline other than that given in Genesis is to be mocked, and Origen was anathematized for views that concerned Genesis.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1037 on: June 19, 2009, 05:06:11 PM »

Quote
1900 yrs of consistent teaching (Scripture, Fathers, Saints, icons, canons, calendar, hymns, etc) is much more reliable, unless ya'll are just willing to say that the Church just didnt really know Genesis until science enlightened us.

Much more reliable for what purpose? Theological or scientific? Though the Fathers may have disagreed on the literal interpretation of Genesis, they certainly saw it within the context of their scientific knowledge - and that would have a great impact on how they interpretated it.

theological. You have yet to demonstrate that a single Father didnt interpret Genesis literally. youre still stuck on the length of the days -- try to deal with the rest of the creation story.

i dont have my headphones with me now -- ill have to watch the Jaroslav videos later. his son attends my parish, itd be interesting to see what he thinks about all this.






« Last Edit: June 19, 2009, 05:07:51 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1038 on: June 19, 2009, 05:10:25 PM »

and regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism -- i was honestly asking for references to the Fathers because I have not looked into that issue either way. I don't have much time now but I'll take a look at that Catholic's page later. thanks for posting it.
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 #1039 on: June 19, 2009, 05:25:11 PM »

and regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism -- i was honestly asking for references to the Fathers because I have not looked into that issue either way. I don't have much time now but I'll take a look at that Catholic's page later. thanks for posting it.

Please also find out what the Fathers thought or wrote about electrons, protons, plasma, electromagnetic field, point mutations, DNA reparation, homeotic mutations, genetic drift, and especially prions.
Logged

Love never fails.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1040 on: June 19, 2009, 05:29:03 PM »

and regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism -- i was honestly asking for references to the Fathers because I have not looked into that issue either way. I don't have much time now but I'll take a look at that Catholic's page later. thanks for posting it.

Please also find out what the Fathers thought or wrote about electrons, protons, plasma, electromagnetic field, point mutations, DNA reparation, homeotic mutations, genetic drift, and especially prions.

im gonna guess they didn't have much to say about those things ....
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #1041 on: June 19, 2009, 06:14:24 PM »


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html


Again, note that the author of this essay is citing the unanimous consent of the Fathers (i.e., patristic consensus) as the authority for why we should continue to accept no substitute for the geocentric view of the universe.

This is interesting.  I knew of another RC "geocentric" proponent named Robert Sungenis.  But that there is more then one of this breed is intriguing and frankly a bit boggling.  The former gentleman even has a two volume work Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right on this subject along with other writings of ummm dubious arguments.   

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.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1042 on: June 19, 2009, 06:52:01 PM »

1900 yrs of consistent teaching (Scripture, Fathers, Saints, icons, canons, calendar, hymns, etc) is much more reliable, unless ya'll are just willing to say that the Church just didnt really know Genesis until science enlightened us.

Much more reliable for what purpose? Theological or scientific? Though the Fathers may have disagreed on the literal interpretation of Genesis, they certainly saw it within the context of their scientific knowledge - and that would have a great impact on how they interpretated it.

theological. You have yet to demonstrate that a single Father didnt interpret Genesis literally. youre still stuck on the length of the days -- try to deal with the rest of the creation story.

Huh If it's more reliable for the purpose of theology, why are you insisting that it be read as a scientific explanation for Creation/Nature? Clearly St Augustine is a single Father who didn't interpret Genesis literally. I've already shown you that St Augustine, who believed in an instantaneous creation, didn't even believe there were any days. And I've moved on from length of days several posts ago, not that I was ever stuck on length of days in the first place.

Quote
i dont have my headphones with me now -- ill have to watch the Jaroslav videos later. his son attends my parish, itd be interesting to see what he thinks about all this.

Be sure to let us know.  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 19, 2009, 06:56:04 PM by Riddikulus » 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)
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #1043 on: June 19, 2009, 07:02:53 PM »

Doesn't the Theory of Relativity teach us that there is no 'center point' of the universe, and based upon that orbital centers are arbitrary selections?  Scientists calculate the center of our "solar" system as the sun because of the easier mathematical calculations involved, as well as the fact that the pattern is repeated in other systems.  The sun provides warmth for the planets and has the greatest gravitational pull, but the gravitational field is still interdependent upon the bodies that rotate "with" (not necessarily "around") it.  But any body can be selected as the "center"; the point viewed as not being in motion.  So if we choose a center, then it is simply preference or random.  If that is the case, then is there anything wrong with siding with the patristic consensus on religious grounds (i.e. Biblical cosmology)?

Of course this doesn't help the case for the firmament actually holding back water, but it does show that geocentrism is not obsolete as a model, it is simply one possible model based on personal, relative perception.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2009, 07:15:36 PM by Alveus Lacuna » 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 #1044 on: June 19, 2009, 07:36:48 PM »

and regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism -- i was honestly asking for references to the Fathers because I have not looked into that issue either way. I don't have much time now but I'll take a look at that Catholic's page later. thanks for posting it.

Please also find out what the Fathers thought or wrote about electrons, protons, plasma, electromagnetic field, point mutations, DNA reparation, homeotic mutations, genetic drift, and especially prions.

im gonna guess they didn't have much to say about those things ....

And yet you are not guessing they didn't have much to say about evolution. But the reason they didn't is the same.
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1045 on: June 19, 2009, 07:38:37 PM »

Doesn't the Theory of Relativity teach us that there is no 'center point' of the universe, and based upon that orbital centers are arbitrary selections?  Scientists calculate the center of our "solar" system as the sun because of the easier mathematical calculations involved, as well as the fact that the pattern is repeated in other systems.  The sun provides warmth for the planets and has the greatest gravitational pull, but the gravitational field is still interdependent upon the bodies that rotate "with" (not necessarily "around") it.  But any body can be selected as the "center"; the point viewed as not being in motion.  So if we choose a center, then it is simply preference or random.  If that is the case, then is there anything wrong with siding with the patristic consensus on religious grounds (i.e. Biblical cosmology)?

Of course this doesn't help the case for the firmament actually holding back water, but it does show that geocentrism is not obsolete as a model, it is simply one possible model based on personal, relative perception.

Right, and so is the creation of the entire kosmos in six literal days, and the special creation of every single known biological species.
Logged

Love never fails.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #1046 on: June 19, 2009, 07:56:08 PM »

Right, and so is the creation of the entire kosmos in six literal days, and the special creation of every single known biological species.

Wait, what?
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #1047 on: June 19, 2009, 08:53:18 PM »

Doesn't the Theory of Relativity teach us that there is no 'center point' of the universe, and based upon that orbital centers are arbitrary selections?  Scientists calculate the center of our "solar" system as the sun because of the easier mathematical calculations involved, as well as the fact that the pattern is repeated in other systems.  The sun provides warmth for the planets and has the greatest gravitational pull, but the gravitational field is still interdependent upon the bodies that rotate "with" (not necessarily "around") it.  But any body can be selected as the "center"; the point viewed as not being in motion.  So if we choose a center, then it is simply preference or random.  If that is the case, then is there anything wrong with siding with the patristic consensus on religious grounds (i.e. Biblical cosmology)?

Of course this doesn't help the case for the firmament actually holding back water, but it does show that geocentrism is not obsolete as a model, it is simply one possible model based on personal, relative perception.

but that does not appear to be the argument of Robert Sungenis, for example, who says that the Sun and planets all orbit around the Earth while our planet does not rotate.  That is, I think, somewhat different then choosing a center.

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.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1048 on: June 19, 2009, 09:41:10 PM »

Doesn't the Theory of Relativity teach us that there is no 'center point' of the universe, and based upon that orbital centers are arbitrary selections?  Scientists calculate the center of our "solar" system as the sun because of the easier mathematical calculations involved, as well as the fact that the pattern is repeated in other systems.  The sun provides warmth for the planets and has the greatest gravitational pull, but the gravitational field is still interdependent upon the bodies that rotate "with" (not necessarily "around") it.  But any body can be selected as the "center"; the point viewed as not being in motion. 

That's correct, there is no centre point of the universe. Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I'm not advocating acceptance of a heliocentric cosmos, merely that the arguments used on that geocentric url are typical of those used by creationists against the Theory of Evolution, even down to the bad scientific options.

Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric

In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected, for practical reasons, and in such systems the origin in the mass, solar mass or the center of mass of the solar system are frequently selected. However, such selection of coordinates has only practical implications and not philosophical or physical ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_modern_science

Quote
So if we choose a center, then it is simply preference or random.  If that is the case, then is there anything wrong with siding with the patristic consensus on religious grounds (i.e. Biblical cosmology)?

Of course this doesn't help the case for the firmament actually holding back water, but it does show that geocentrism is not obsolete as a model, it is simply one possible model based on personal, relative perception.

You mean for the purposes of Theology? Geocentrism is obsolete as a scientific model. Thanks to men like Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc, we have advanced from a geocentric concept of our heavens to an astoundingly, complex, intriguing tapestry of the full cosmos. We don't know it all and we don't intend to throw over the knowledge we have gained to limit science to biblical cosmology. And if one did chose to side with the patristic consensus on theological grounds would anyone sensible advocate the overthrowing of science in favour of it? Somehow, I can't picture the cry going up to teach geocentricism in schools instead of our modern understand of cosmology. Grin

Edited for clarity.... naturally  Roll Eyes

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: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1049 on: June 20, 2009, 02:19:40 AM »

so the question is, who in the Orthodox Church bore witness against a literal understanding of Genesis before the influence of evolution came around? Did anyone at all?

St. Augustine, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage....

In terms of modern day bishops we have at least Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo), Bishop Alexander (Mileant) of Blessed memory, Archbishop Michael (Mudyugin) of Blessed memory, Bishop Nathanael (L'vov) of Blessed Memory, and Bishop Basil (Rodzyanko)...

Among theologians we have E.M. Andreiev, Protopresbyter Basil Zenkovski, Protopresbyter Nikolai Ivanov, Prof. N.N. Pheoletov, V.S. Solovyov, Protopresbyter Stephan Lyashevski, Prof. lazar Milin, Fr. Dumitru Staniloe....

you shoulda kept up with the thread. i already provided a quote from St. Clement of Alexandria that shows that he believed in literal days. St. Augustine said anyone who puts forth a timeline other than that given in Genesis is to be mocked, and Origen was anathematized for views that concerned Genesis.
Yeah, your word against Ukiemeister's. Roll Eyes  Who's right?
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1050 on: June 20, 2009, 03:35:45 AM »

so the question is, who in the Orthodox Church bore witness against a literal understanding of Genesis before the influence of evolution came around? Did anyone at all?

St. Augustine, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage....

In terms of modern day bishops we have at least Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo), Bishop Alexander (Mileant) of Blessed memory, Archbishop Michael (Mudyugin) of Blessed memory, Bishop Nathanael (L'vov) of Blessed Memory, and Bishop Basil (Rodzyanko)...

Among theologians we have E.M. Andreiev, Protopresbyter Basil Zenkovski, Protopresbyter Nikolai Ivanov, Prof. N.N. Pheoletov, V.S. Solovyov, Protopresbyter Stephan Lyashevski, Prof. lazar Milin, Fr. Dumitru Staniloe....

you shoulda kept up with the thread. i already provided a quote from St. Clement of Alexandria that shows that he believed in literal days. St. Augustine said anyone who puts forth a timeline other than that given in Genesis is to be mocked, and Origen was anathematized for views that concerned Genesis.

“For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.” - Justin Martyr
(Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])

“As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven” - St. Cyprian of Carthage
(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])

“That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day." - St. Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])

"St. Augustine said anyone who puts forth a timeline other than that given in Genesis is to be mocked"

You say this, yet St. Augustine himself believed that creation occurred instantenously.

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” - St. Augustine
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1051 on: June 20, 2009, 04:56:35 AM »

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12605.msg331441.html#msg331441
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1052 on: June 20, 2009, 08:36:23 AM »

Right, and so is the creation of the entire kosmos in six literal days, and the special creation of every single known biological species.

Wait, what?

Something based on personal, relative perception of people who lived in the pre-scientific times, including many Fathers of the Church. They did not interpret Genesis figuratively and believed in the literal creation of the universe in literal six days, as well in the special creation of the biological species, merely because that was their personal perception - no other one simply entered their minds. People like Origen were, of course, exception; but Origen was a neo-Platonist, i.e. a "semi-Pagan," so no wonder his teachings were anathematized.
Logged

Love never fails.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1053 on: June 20, 2009, 02:26:11 PM »


read there
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1054 on: June 20, 2009, 05:26:10 PM »

Is there a particular reason you posted the same link to the same post twice within the course of three posts?
Logged
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #1055 on: June 22, 2009, 11:07:32 AM »

I agree, but it's not only that, Dan-Romania.
I think that God's intention was not to inform people* about how He created the world, they just needed someone to rely on, a way out of the hell they were living.


*people who had witnessed massive orgies, human sacrifices and were forced to live as slaves with idolatrous pagans
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1056 on: June 25, 2009, 03:32:56 PM »

and regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism -- i was honestly asking for references to the Fathers because I have not looked into that issue either way. I don't have much time now but I'll take a look at that Catholic's page later. thanks for posting it.

Please also find out what the Fathers thought or wrote about electrons, protons, plasma, electromagnetic field, point mutations, DNA reparation, homeotic mutations, genetic drift, and especially prions.

im gonna guess they didn't have much to say about those things ....

And yet you are not guessing they didn't have much to say about evolution. But the reason they didn't is the same.

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though. However there are several modern Saints who do comment on evolution ...

i never got to use a scanner so i took pictures of the icons of Adam and Eve and some others in Fr. Seraphim's book, some are blurry but most are good. you can see them here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2877862&id=9316336&l=f1b8199515

as for the Jaroslav Pelikan video: I simply believe he's wrong when he says that most Christians interpreted the days symbolically. I have never seen evidence of that, just seen it asserted. The Church's adoption of the Byzatine Creation Era calendar speaks to the contrary. And again, the length of the days is just the tip of the iceberg in all this, its relatively unimportant, because allegorical days doesnt necessarily mean evolution happened in those days. a lot more must be worked out before we can make that conclusion.

as for the geocentrist page ... theres a clear difference between these quotes and the quotes i have provided, and Fr. Seraphim provides in his book. in the majority of these quotes they are simply pointing to the movements of our solar system as an illustration of another point. a recurring one was glorifying God's majesty in giving us an ordered creation -- thats the main point. they will say something like, "see, the sun moves in its course just the same, every day." thats an illustration of the point, but it would work just as well if they said the earth moves in its course the same every day. or they say how God caused the sun to stand still for Joshua, thus glorifying God for His miracle -- pointing out the power of God is the point -- the point would remain the same if they simply said that God made the day longer (however he woulda done that).

a different example -- St. Clement of Rome points to the phoenix as an illustration of the Resurrection. should we question the Resurrection because he used a faulty illustration? obviously not. so the Fathers are pointing to cosmology as an illustration -- there's no indication in those quotes that  they are speaking dogmatically, as when they say it is impermissible to interpret the days allegorically, or when St. John of Damascus says that an allegorical understanding of Genesis is an Origenist heresy.

also, what doctrine would be affected by a swtich from geocentrism to heliocentrism? i can't think of any.

and from a scientific POV there is an obvious difference here -- scientists can study our solar system in the here and now and see if the earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth -- even if this is done indirectly and from a relative POV, it can still be done today. the descent from a common ancestor was observed by no one. what is observed is remains from the past, not the actual past happening. these remains must be interpreted, and only if the foundational assumptions of those interpretations are correct is the interpretation correct. i used the example of glasses before. I can first-hand observe that glasses correct my vision. there is no question of that. it is actually testable in the here and now, and can be demonstrated to anyone. evolution is obviously not in the same league.

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 #1057 on: June 25, 2009, 03:46:01 PM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

However there are several modern Saints who do comment on evolution ...

Sorry, they aren't saints to me. Just AREN'T. Period. Serafim Rose is an ignoramus and weirdo. He fantasized a lot and his fantasies aren't interesting to me in the least.

and from a scientific POV there is an obvious difference here -- scientists can study our solar system in the here and now and see if the earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth -- even if this is done indirectly and from a relative POV, it can still be done today. the descent from a common ancestor was observed by no one. what is observed is remains from the past, not the actual past happening. these remains must be interpreted, and only if the foundational assumptions of those interpretations are correct is the interpretation correct. i used the example of glasses before. I can first-hand observe that glasses correct my vision. there is no question of that. it is actually testable in the here and now, and can be demonstrated to anyone. evolution is obviously not in the same league.

But do you see the structure of the atom, or of elementaruy particles? Those things aren't directly observable either.
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1058 on: June 25, 2009, 04:06:55 PM »

as for the geocentrist page ... theres a clear difference between these quotes and the quotes i have provided, and Fr. Seraphim provides in his book. in the majority of these quotes they are simply pointing to the movements of our solar system as an illustration of another point. a recurring one was glorifying God's majesty in giving us an ordered creation -- thats the main point. they will say something like, "see, the sun moves in its course just the same, every day." thats an illustration of the point, but it would work just as well if they said the earth moves in its course the same every day. or they say how God caused the sun to stand still for Joshua, thus glorifying God for His miracle -- pointing out the power of God is the point -- the point would remain the same if they simply said that God made the day longer (however he woulda done that).
Nice dodge. Tongue  The reason Riddikulus posted the link to the geocentrism page was to show how you and the defender of geocentrism are both using quotes from the Fathers and citing a "universal patristic consensus" to prove a particular point of view that runs totally counter to what we now understand from scientific observation.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1059 on: June 25, 2009, 06:48:13 PM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

However there are several modern Saints who do comment on evolution ...

Sorry, they aren't saints to me. Just AREN'T. Period. Serafim Rose is an ignoramus and weirdo. He fantasized a lot and his fantasies aren't interesting to me in the least.

so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

and from a scientific POV there is an obvious difference here -- scientists can study our solar system in the here and now and see if the earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth -- even if this is done indirectly and from a relative POV, it can still be done today. the descent from a common ancestor was observed by no one. what is observed is remains from the past, not the actual past happening. these remains must be interpreted, and only if the foundational assumptions of those interpretations are correct is the interpretation correct. i used the example of glasses before. I can first-hand observe that glasses correct my vision. there is no question of that. it is actually testable in the here and now, and can be demonstrated to anyone. evolution is obviously not in the same league.

But do you see the structure of the atom, or of elementaruy particles? Those things aren't directly observable either.


i don't know how those things are studied, but their impact can be studied in the here and now since those things are still with us. in the case of evolution you can only study remains from the past, the actual process of the past several billion years cannot be observed. huge difference.



Fixed some quote tag issues, nothing more...  -PtA
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 03:01:52 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1060 on: June 25, 2009, 06:50:53 PM »

as for the geocentrist page ... theres a clear difference between these quotes and the quotes i have provided, and Fr. Seraphim provides in his book. in the majority of these quotes they are simply pointing to the movements of our solar system as an illustration of another point. a recurring one was glorifying God's majesty in giving us an ordered creation -- thats the main point. they will say something like, "see, the sun moves in its course just the same, every day." thats an illustration of the point, but it would work just as well if they said the earth moves in its course the same every day. or they say how God caused the sun to stand still for Joshua, thus glorifying God for His miracle -- pointing out the power of God is the point -- the point would remain the same if they simply said that God made the day longer (however he woulda done that).
Nice dodge. Tongue  The reason Riddikulus posted the link to the geocentrism page was to show how you and the defender of geocentrism are both using quotes from the Fathers and citing a "universal patristic consensus" to prove a particular point of view that runs totally counter to what we now understand from scientific observation.

and i explained why i don't see the similarity. there's a clear difference between a concensus arising strictly from Scriptural interpretation that has doctrinal import and is spoken of dogmatically and has found its way into every area of Church life, and a concensus that arises from the surrounding culture that is used to illustrate other dogmatic points, has no doctrinal value, and has no import in other areas of church life such as icons, canons, and hymns.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1061 on: June 25, 2009, 06:53:49 PM »

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Great Vespers, at Aposticha, Stichera to the Resurrection: "and having slain death, He hath given us life, having raised up fallen Adam, the common ancestor of all, in that He loveth mankind."

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Liturgy, Beatitudes: "Thou didst also raise up together with Adam all those who came from Adam as they cried out to Thee, Remember us also when Thou comest in Thy kindgom."
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 #1062 on: June 25, 2009, 07:08:29 PM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

No one understands it personally. Scripture is interpreted by the CHURCH. I am the Church, too. Smiley

However there are several modern Saints who do comment on evolution ...


Sorry, they aren't saints to me. Just AREN'T. Period. Serafim Rose is an ignoramus and weirdo. He fantasized a lot and his fantasies aren't interesting to me in the least.

so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

I do not know their views on mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, speciation, etc. But if they wrote somewhere that the currently existing theory of biological evolution must be wrong because of these and these and these Scriptural reasons - then I would have to be very sorry to conclude that they all were as much weirdoes and wacos as Fr. Seraphim was.

and from a scientific POV there is an obvious difference here -- scientists can study our solar system in the here and now and see if the earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth -- even if this is done indirectly and from a relative POV, it can still be done today. the descent from a common ancestor was observed by no one. what is observed is remains from the past, not the actual past happening. these remains must be interpreted, and only if the foundational assumptions of those interpretations are correct is the interpretation correct. i used the example of glasses before. I can first-hand observe that glasses correct my vision. there is no question of that. it is actually testable in the here and now, and can be demonstrated to anyone. evolution is obviously not in the same league.


But do you see the structure of the atom, or of elementaruy particles? Those things aren't directly observable either.



i don't know how those things are studied, but their impact can be studied in the here and now since those things are still with us. in the case of evolution you can only study remains from the past, the actual process of the past several billion years cannot be observed. huge difference.

But the ongoing evolution CAN be observed, and IS observed.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 07:10:11 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1063 on: June 26, 2009, 03:00:34 AM »

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Great Vespers, at Aposticha, Stichera to the Resurrection: "and having slain death, He hath given us life, having raised up fallen Adam, the common ancestor of all, in that He loveth mankind."

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Liturgy, Beatitudes: "Thou didst also raise up together with Adam all those who came from Adam as they cried out to Thee, Remember us also when Thou comest in Thy kindgom."
These hymns aren't self interpreting, so you can't draw from these hymns any surefire statement that Adam was a historical man.  Only be reading into these hymns your belief that Adam was a specific individual can you derive this from the hymns, which is essentially the epitome of circular reasoning.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1064 on: June 26, 2009, 01:18:46 PM »

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Great Vespers, at Aposticha, Stichera to the Resurrection: "and having slain death, He hath given us life, having raised up fallen Adam, the common ancestor of all, in that He loveth mankind."

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Liturgy, Beatitudes: "Thou didst also raise up together with Adam all those who came from Adam as they cried out to Thee, Remember us also when Thou comest in Thy kindgom."
These hymns aren't self interpreting, so you can't draw from these hymns any surefire statement that Adam was a historical man.  Only be reading into these hymns your belief that Adam was a specific individual can you derive this from the hymns, which is essentially the epitome of circular reasoning.

Adam is clearly not being used as a symbol for all humanity in these hymns, because He is called  the common ancestor of all! How is that in any way a symbol?! And in the second he is mentioned along with all those that came from him. If he is merely used a symbol then what that hymn is saying is Jesus raised up all men and all men that came from that all men. Its a pretty big stretch to say that Adam isnt spoken of as a literal first man in those hymns. only by reading into these hymns your view that Adam is an allegory which is unsupported by anything in the Church can you derive that from the hymns.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 01:20:01 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1065 on: June 26, 2009, 01:23:19 PM »

No one understands it personally. Scripture is interpreted by the CHURCH. I am the Church, too. Smiley

and yet you choose to ignore what the Church has taught in all its avenues of teaching for 2000 years ...

Quote
Sorry, they aren't saints to me. Just AREN'T. Period. Serafim Rose is an ignoramus and weirdo. He fantasized a lot and his fantasies aren't interesting to me in the least.

Quote
so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

Quote
I do not know their views on mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, speciation, etc. But if they wrote somewhere that the currently existing theory of biological evolution must be wrong because of these and these and these Scriptural reasons - then I would have to be very sorry to conclude that they all were as much weirdoes and wacos as Fr. Seraphim was.

yes, the Saints are weirdos bc they don't agree with you. that sounds so Orthodox.

and from a scientific POV there is an obvious difference here -- scientists can study our solar system in the here and now and see if the earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth -- even if this is done indirectly and from a relative POV, it can still be done today. the descent from a common ancestor was observed by no one. what is observed is remains from the past, not the actual past happening. these remains must be interpreted, and only if the foundational assumptions of those interpretations are correct is the interpretation correct. i used the example of glasses before. I can first-hand observe that glasses correct my vision. there is no question of that. it is actually testable in the here and now, and can be demonstrated to anyone. evolution is obviously not in the same league.


Quote
But do you see the structure of the atom, or of elementaruy particles? Those things aren't directly observable either.



Quote
i don't know how those things are studied, but their impact can be studied in the here and now since those things are still with us. in the case of evolution you can only study remains from the past, the actual process of the past several billion years cannot be observed. huge difference.

Quote
But the ongoing evolution CAN be observed, and IS observed.

yes, of course minor changes are seen today. but taking those minor changes and assuming that you can extrapolate into major changes for the previous several billion years is not scientific at all. its a huge assumption, and why should i accept the assumptions that
1. it occurred the same way in the past, despite the fact that Tradition tells us of a fall from Paradise and a global flood in which the earth was returned to its early chaotic state, and
2. that minor changes (fruit fly becomes a different fruit fly) necessarily lead to major changes (common ancestor of apes and humans gives rise to apes and humans)? there is literally no evidence of macroevolution if i dont accept those assumptions.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 01:26:29 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1066 on: June 26, 2009, 01:37:53 PM »

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Great Vespers, at Aposticha, Stichera to the Resurrection: "and having slain death, He hath given us life, having raised up fallen Adam, the common ancestor of all, in that He loveth mankind."

Sunday Octoechos, Tone 1, Liturgy, Beatitudes: "Thou didst also raise up together with Adam all those who came from Adam as they cried out to Thee, Remember us also when Thou comest in Thy kindgom."
These hymns aren't self interpreting, so you can't draw from these hymns any surefire statement that Adam was a historical man.  Only be reading into these hymns your belief that Adam was a specific individual can you derive this from the hymns, which is essentially the epitome of circular reasoning.

Adam is clearly not being used as a symbol for all humanity in these hymns, because He is called  the common ancestor of all! How is that in any way a symbol?! And in the second he is mentioned along with all those that came from him. If he is merely used a symbol then what that hymn is saying is Jesus raised up all men and all men that came from that all men. Its a pretty big stretch to say that Adam isnt spoken of as a literal first man in those hymns. only by reading into these hymns your view that Adam is an allegory which is unsupported by anything in the Church can you derive that from the hymns.
I didn't put forth my opinion on what these hymns mean, all I did was question your interpretation of them.  Do you not see that you are now putting words into my mouth?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 05:29:32 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1067 on: June 26, 2009, 01:39:48 PM »

yes, of course minor changes are seen today. but taking those minor changes and assuming that you can extrapolate into major changes for the previous several billion years is not scientific at all.
So, are you also a scientist and therefore in position to tell a trained professor of biological science what science is?  Hell, even I can tell you how much of an oversimplification this statement you just put forth is! Shocked
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 01:42:28 PM by PeterTheAleut » 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 #1068 on: June 26, 2009, 01:47:56 PM »

yes, of course minor changes are seen today. but taking those minor changes and assuming that you can extrapolate into major changes for the previous several billion years is not scientific at all.
So, are you also a scientist and therefore in position to tell a trained professor of biological science what science is?  Hell, even I can tell you how much of an oversimplification this statement you just put forth is! Shocked

Story of my life, PtA.  Grin
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1069 on: June 26, 2009, 02:55:55 PM »

Quote
I do not know their views on mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, speciation, etc. But if they wrote somewhere that the currently existing theory of biological evolution must be wrong because of these and these and these Scriptural reasons - then I would have to be very sorry to conclude that they all were as much weirdoes and wacos as Fr. Seraphim was.

yes, the Saints are weirdos bc they don't agree with you. that sounds so Orthodox.
No less Orthodox than your assertion that the Saints are infallible. Wink
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1070 on: June 26, 2009, 08:53:51 PM »

No one understands it personally. Scripture is interpreted by the CHURCH. I am the Church, too. Smiley

and yet you choose to ignore what the Church has taught in all its avenues of teaching for 2000 years ...

so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

If any creationist wishes to challenge the present scientific data on Evolution, they need to support their claims by the scientific method. If modern science is incorrect, the creationist needs to prove it. They need to gather together a collection of data through observation and experimentation; they need to formulate and test the hypotheses.

The Scientific Method:

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. (cont'd at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)


Quote
yes, of course minor changes are seen today. but taking those minor changes and assuming that you can extrapolate into major changes for the previous several billion years is not scientific at all. its a huge assumption, and why should i accept the assumptions that
1. it occurred the same way in the past, despite the fact that Tradition tells us of a fall from Paradise and a global flood in which the earth was returned to its early chaotic state, and
2. that minor changes (fruit fly becomes a different fruit fly) necessarily lead to major changes (common ancestor of apes and humans gives rise to apes and humans)? there is literally no evidence of macroevolution if i dont accept those assumptions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent

jckstraw72,

It appears you have your work cut out for you. You need to get a degree in biology and do whatever is necessary to prove modern science wrong. First and foremost, you need to understand what you are talking about.
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)
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #1071 on: June 27, 2009, 05:15:04 PM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

Because the science of Biology is not the subject of the Scriptures, nor is it a subject that the ECF knew about.  How could they have any relevant comment upon something of which they knew nothing? 



so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

One might suggest that they are counted as saints due to their theology or devotion or humility or other things.  But none of them were apparently learned in biology.


Quote
Quote
But do you see the structure of the atom, or of elementaruy particles? Those things aren't directly observable either.


i don't know how those things are studied, but their impact can be studied in the here and now since those things are still with us. in the case of evolution you can only study remains from the past, the actual process of the past several billion years cannot be observed. huge difference.

Studying "remains from the past" has been a source of knowledge in many fields including Archeology, Anthropology, Geology (consider the one derided but now accepted ideas of Plate Tectonics, Continental Drift, the "Missoula Floods" that swept over parts of what is now Washington and Oregon and that the Mediterranean Sea was once a closed off desert thousands of feet deep in places with a bottom of layers of salt and minerals and remains of creatures (small but creatures).

Ebor


« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 05:16:43 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.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1072 on: June 28, 2009, 10:14:55 PM »

Quote
I do not know their views on mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, speciation, etc. But if they wrote somewhere that the currently existing theory of biological evolution must be wrong because of these and these and these Scriptural reasons - then I would have to be very sorry to conclude that they all were as much weirdoes and wacos as Fr. Seraphim was.

yes, the Saints are weirdos bc they don't agree with you. that sounds so Orthodox.
No less Orthodox than your assertion that the Saints are infallible. Wink

i made no such assertion. i have referenced ancient and modern Saints, church hymns, icons, canons, Scripture, and the Church calendar. ya'll have provided 3 Patristic quotes and some modern scientists.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1073 on: June 28, 2009, 10:16:49 PM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

Quote
Because the science of Biology is not the subject of the Scriptures, nor is it a subject that the ECF knew about.  How could they have any relevant comment upon something of which they knew nothing? 

the question at hand is how to interpret Genesis. i have very little interest in diving into science.



so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

Quote
One might suggest that they are counted as saints due to their theology or devotion or humility or other things.  But none of them were apparently learned in biology.

they were illumined by God, thus I will give credence to their teachings on Scripture over those of scientists.


« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 10:17:15 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1074 on: June 28, 2009, 10:18:56 PM »

perhaps its just me, but i really dont think this thread can go much further. i could post more of the same from icons, and hymns and Saints, but you've made it clear that you're not concerned with the Church's teachings on its own Scripture, so we have no common ground to work from here. we can continue if ya'll want, but I'm not sure what else there is to say.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1075 on: June 29, 2009, 12:53:55 AM »

Quote
I do not know their views on mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, speciation, etc. But if they wrote somewhere that the currently existing theory of biological evolution must be wrong because of these and these and these Scriptural reasons - then I would have to be very sorry to conclude that they all were as much weirdoes and wacos as Fr. Seraphim was.

yes, the Saints are weirdos bc they don't agree with you. that sounds so Orthodox.
No less Orthodox than your assertion that the Saints are infallible. Wink

i made no such assertion. i have referenced ancient and modern Saints, church hymns, icons, canons, Scripture, and the Church calendar. ya'll have provided 3 Patristic quotes and some modern scientists.
The truth of one's convictions are not measured by number of "supporters".
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1076 on: June 29, 2009, 12:57:43 AM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

Quote
Because the science of Biology is not the subject of the Scriptures, nor is it a subject that the ECF knew about.  How could they have any relevant comment upon something of which they knew nothing? 

the question at hand is how to interpret Genesis. i have very little interest in diving into science.
And yet you seem to want to spend a lot of time telling us ignoramuses what science is and making scientific proclamations from saintly theologians who knew nothing of biology.


so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

Quote
One might suggest that they are counted as saints due to their theology or devotion or humility or other things.  But none of them were apparently learned in biology.

they were illumined by God, thus I will give credence to their teachings on Scripture over those of scientists.
And the Holy Fathers were illumined by God regarding the science of biology?  And scientists are not illumined by God?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,942


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1077 on: June 29, 2009, 01:01:58 AM »

perhaps its just me, but i really dont think this thread can go much further. i could post more of the same from icons, and hymns and Saints, but you've made it clear that you're not concerned with the Church's teachings on its own Scripture, so we have no common ground to work from here. we can continue if ya'll want, but I'm not sure what else there is to say.
Oh, we're concerned with the Church's teachings on its own Scripture, all right.  We just don't find the case you've made here convincing.  For one, you're presenting as evidence the works of experts in theology who knew virtually nothing about biology.  And for two, I don't believe the Holy Fathers to be the infallible dogmatic authority of the Church in separation from the catholic consciousness of all the faithful.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #1078 on: June 29, 2009, 10:16:37 AM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

Quote
Because the science of Biology is not the subject of the Scriptures, nor is it a subject that the ECF knew about.  How could they have any relevant comment upon something of which they knew nothing? 

the question at hand is how to interpret Genesis. i have very little interest in diving into science.

As a theological work that tells that God created the Universe, but doesn't tell us the nuts-and-bolts process?

If you have very little interest in science, that is your right, but then you do not have knowledge of what scientists really do and what they really say. So how could you say that they are wrong or how do you know that they are "interpreting Genesis"?




Quote
so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

Quote
One might suggest that they are counted as saints due to their theology or devotion or humility or other things.  But none of them were apparently learned in biology.

they were illumined by God, thus I will give credence to their teachings on Scripture over those of scientists.


I haven't come across any paleontologists or geologists teaching on Scripture.  The ones I've read have been on the fossils, the data and the methods used.  Have you found some who say that they are "teaching in Scripture" or is that your idea that they are and you are conflating religion and science?

 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 10:17:11 AM 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.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1079 on: June 29, 2009, 11:25:35 AM »

haha i never said the Fathers commented on evolution! that doesnt mean their work is totally irrelevant though.

I think it IS totally irrelevant, because they could not possibly have the first clue about what the biological evolution is.

who cares? they understand Scripture. go back and read the OP ....

Quote
Because the science of Biology is not the subject of the Scriptures, nor is it a subject that the ECF knew about.  How could they have any relevant comment upon something of which they knew nothing? 

the question at hand is how to interpret Genesis. i have very little interest in diving into science.
Quote
And yet you seem to want to spend a lot of time telling us ignoramuses what science is and making scientific proclamations from saintly theologians who knew nothing of biology.

im putting forth what the Fathers say about Scripture. nothing more. this is abundantly obvious -- please deal with my actual position rather than your straw man.


so St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and others like Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, and Elder Cleopa arent Saints in your eyes. You know darn well I've already mentioned and quoted them several times. You're just choosing to ignore that.

Quote
One might suggest that they are counted as saints due to their theology or devotion or humility or other things.  But none of them were apparently learned in biology.

they were illumined by God, thus I will give credence to their teachings on Scripture over those of scientists.
Quote
And the Holy Fathers were illumined by God regarding the science of biology?  And scientists are not illumined by God?

the Holy Fathers were illumined concerning the interpretation of Scripture. this is the only thread on which I have ever seen that denied. Sorry, I don't consider non-Orthodox and atheist scientists who deny the Church's understanding of Genesis to be illumined.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 11:25:55 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   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 0.203 seconds with 74 queries.