OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 11:25:58 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 - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.3%)
both metaphorically and literally - 155 (46%)
Total Voters: 337

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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 322816 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
philalethe00
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Christian)
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church at Greece
Posts: 93


Photios Kontoglou, Apostle of Orthodox Culture


WWW
« Reply #1260 on: August 15, 2009, 05:05:52 PM »

And another example is when Elder Porphyrius prayed in order for God to reveal to him whether there were alien creatures or not and He actually did.  Wink Smiley
What did God reveal? Inquiring minds want to know. Shocked
Rumor has it, that the answer was not affirmative.  Wink Smiley

Moreover, I agree with both PeterTheAleut and jckstraw72. They refer to different aspects of reality regarding our topic, imho...
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 05:08:07 PM by philalethe00 » Logged

"Look down from heaven, O Lord, upon those who bow their heads unto You, for they do not bow to flesh and blood, but to You, the awesome God".(D. Liturgy, St. John Chrysostom)
"When the world laughs, the saints, in crying, draw the Divine compassion onto humans."(Paul Evdokimov)
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,388


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1261 on: August 16, 2009, 01:46:48 PM »

Quote
On this week's CRTL podcast: Today, many Christians disagree on how best to interpret the Book of Genesis. Some even disagree on how modern scientific theories like evolution should influence theology. But this debate is nothing new. Dr. Peter Bouteneff, a professor at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, has studied and written about how the Early Christians addressed and resolved many of these issues. Tune in to find out about the intersection of scripture, science, creation, the ancient Christian faith -- and how it all applies to today's debates. In a short segment, Fr. Chris talks with IOCC Development Officer Nicholas Chakos at the Antiochian convention.
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.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1262 on: August 16, 2009, 05:34:37 PM »

Shame it was such a short piece, but just goes to show we will always have a variety of opinions on the matter.   Tongue
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 #1263 on: August 18, 2009, 08:19:59 PM »

And another example is when Elder Porphyrius prayed in order for God to reveal to him whether there were alien creatures or not and He actually did.  Wink Smiley
What did God reveal? Inquiring minds want to know. Shocked
Rumor has it, that the answer was not affirmative.  Wink Smiley

Moreover, I agree with both PeterTheAleut and jckstraw72. They refer to different aspects of reality regarding our topic, imho...

yes we have been addressing different issues the entire time. i believe that for an Orthodox Christian the more important issue in this debate is how to properly interpret Genesis.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #1264 on: September 01, 2009, 10:19:55 AM »

Quote
[Since today marks the beginning of the Ecclesiastical year, we also recall its origins as not only the beginning of the Indiction in the Roman Empire but also the date on which it was reckoned that the creation of the world took place. In America at this time September also traditionally marks the beginning of the school year. Since in our schools the youth are bombarded with questions about the creation of the world in their science and history classes, I thought it appropriate to include the following guide which presents Three Tips for Students Going Back to School to Study Evolution. Inevitably every student will be forced to study their origins from a secularist perspective, so I believe this is a helpful guide for Christian students who are about to be taught a Darwinian interpretation of their origins. - J.S.]

Three Tips for Students Going Back to School to Study Evolution

by Casey Luskin

After attending public schools from kindergarten through my masters degree, I learned a few lessons about staying informed while studying a biased and one-sided origins curriculum. My large, inner-city public high school was rich in diversity, and I learned to appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints and backgrounds. Unfortunately, this diversity did not extend into the biology classroom. There I was told there was one, and only one, acceptable perspective regarding origins: neo-Darwinian theory. As students head back to school this year, I want to share some tips I’ve learned to help students stay informed on this topic:

Tip #1: Never opt out of learning evolution. In fact, learn about evolution every chance you get.

Evolutionary biologist Patrick J. Keeling claims in a recent letter to the editor in the journal Science that, after “a creationist visited my biology class,” his class was promised a lecture in evolution, which “never materialized.” He writes, “I wanted to know what we were missing, and why.”

I can empathize with Keeling. I had an analogous but opposite experience studying evolution in high school. At the end of our stridenly pro-Darwin unit on evolution, my public high school biology teacher promised us a debate, which like Keeling’s evolution lecture, never materialized. Then in college, I took many courses covering evolution at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. But just like my experience in high school, there was virtually no meaningful debate or dialogue over the fundamental questions. Neo-Darwinian evolution was always taken as a given. Exactly like Keeling, I wanted to know what I was missing.

Despite the one-sided nature of my education, I’m glad I studied evolution. In fact, the more evolutionary biology I took, the more I became convinced that the theory was based upon unproven assumptions, contradictory methodologies, and supported weakly by the data.

So my first tip is to never be afraid to study evolution. But when you do study evolution, always think critically and keep yourself proactively informed about a diversity of viewpoints (see tips 2 and 3 below).

Tip #2: Think for yourself, think critically, and question assumptions.

Though my professors rarely (if ever) would acknowledge it, I quickly discovered in college that nearly all evolutionary claims are based mostly upon assumptions. Modern evolutionary theory is assumed to be true, and then the data is interpreted based upon Darwinian assumptions. The challenge for you, the truth-seeking student, is to always try to separate out the raw data from the assumptions that guide interpretation of the data.

Keep your eyes out for circular reasoning. You’ll see that very quickly, evolutionary assumptions become “facts,” and future data must be assembled in order to be consistent with those “facts.”

Realize that evolutionary thinking often employs contradictory logic and inconsistent methodologies. The logic employed to infer evolution in situation A may be precisely the exact opposite of the logic used to infer evolution in situation B. Here are a couple examples:

• Biological similarity between two species implies inheritance from a common ancestor (i.e. vertical common descent) except for when it doesn’t (and then they appeal to processes like "convergent evolution" or "horizontal gene transfer").

• Neo-Darwinism predicts transitional forms may be found, but when they’re not found, that just shows that the transitions took place too rapidly and in populations too small to (statistically speaking) become fossilized.

• Evolutionary genetics predicts the genome will be full of useless junk DNA, except for when we discover function for such “junk” DNA. Then evolution predicts that cells would never retain useless junk DNA in the first place.

When both A and (not) A imply evolution, you know a theory is based upon an inconsistent scientific methodology. Keep an eye out for assumptions and contradictory methodologies, for they abound in evolutionary reasoning.

Finally, you must be careful to always think for yourself. Everyone wants to be "scientifically literate," but the Darwin lobby pressures people by redefining “scientific literacy” to mean “acceptance of evolution” rather than “an independent mind who understands science and forms its own informed opinions.” Evolutionary thinking banks on you letting down your guard and letting its assumptions slip into your thought processes. This is why it’s vital that you think for yourself and question assumptions.

Critical thinking showed me what neo-Darwinian evolution was really all about: a set of questionable assumptions, not a compelling conclusion. Self-initiated critical thinking can be a tall task, but seeking the truth is worth every mental calorie expended.

Tip #3: Proactively learn about credible scientific viewpoints that dissent from Darwinism on your own time, even if your classes censor those non-evolutionary viewpoints.

Patrick Keeling’s letter goes on to say what he had to do to learn about evolution: “For the first time in my life, I willingly (eagerly even) picked up my textbook and studiously read it. With growing interest, I realized that evolution made an awful lot of sense, and that I was being hoodwinked by my biology class.”

Keeling’s story sounds sympathetic, but the reality is that it is unrepresentative of the typical experience. The overwhelming majority of students in public high schools, colleges, and universities are not “hoodwinked” into ignorance about evolution, but rather are forced to study pro-Darwin-only curricula that misrepresent, disparage, or simply censor non-evolutionary viewpoints.

In fact, Keeling’s words describe exactly how I felt after studying only the pro-evolution viewpoint in high school and college but then finally discovered that there are credible scientific views that dissent from neo-Darwinism that were never disclosed to us. I was a victim of censorship. I have a strong suspicion that it is my story, not Keeling's, that is much closer to what most people experience.

The Darwinian educational establishment doesn’t make it easy for you to become objectively informed on the topic of evolution, but with a little work on your own, it can be done. The way around the typical one-sided evolution curriculum is to investigate the issue for yourself. Yes, take courses advocating evolution. But also read material from credible Darwin skeptics to learn about other viewpoints. Only then can you truly make up your mind in an informed fashion.

To help you find resources that dissent from Darwinism, in a couple weeks we’ll be releasing a Back to School Guide to Studying Evolution. Stay tuned for more information. In the meantime, check out some of the websites below for updates and resources on evolution:

• IntelligentDesign.org [intelligent design gateway portal]
• EvolutionNews.org Blog
• ID the Future Podcast
• ID-Related books
• Free online pro-ID articles
• UncommonDescent.com weblog
• Creation-Evolution Headlines
• Other web resources

Whatever conclusion you come to, study evolution, think for yourself, think critically, question assumptions, and investigate dissenting viewpoints on your own time!
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1265 on: September 01, 2009, 10:49:16 AM »

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position

here : http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:f17c-P3IXwgJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D660+List+of+signatories+to+%22A+Scientific+Dissent+From+Darwinism%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&lr=lang_en|lang_ro
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #1266 on: September 01, 2009, 11:47:16 AM »

Quote from: Dan-Romania
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position
A nice 17-page list.  This should at least close all discussion of claims that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to silence these voices of dissent.  Yes?

Quote from: ialmisry
(citing Casey Luskin)Though my professors rarely (if ever) would acknowledge it, I quickly discovered in college that nearly all evolutionary claims are based mostly upon assumptions.
This is quite false.  Evolutionary theory, like all science, is based on observation and subsequent conclusions drawn from those observations.  By making a claim like this, Luskin is either displaying an ignorance of the science or a willingness to spin a yarn at the expense of objectivity.
Logged
philalethe00
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Christian)
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church at Greece
Posts: 93


Photios Kontoglou, Apostle of Orthodox Culture


WWW
« Reply #1267 on: September 01, 2009, 02:35:23 PM »

Quote
A nice 17-page list.  This should at least close all discussion of claims that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to silence these voices of dissent.  Yes?
I would not call it a conspiracy. I would call it inertia and conforming "scientific" spirit(OK , maybe not in USA, but certainly in several other countries, including mine).  laugh I hope I am clear.  Smiley The history of science is filled with instances(I remember a lot at this very moment) when there was an obsolete theory, but it was ...risky for one's career (especially for the rationalist layman) to challenge it. You were regarded as eccentric, not to say a bit "out-of-your-mind".

Quote from: ialmisry
(citing Casey Luskin)Though my professors rarely (if ever) would acknowledge it, I quickly discovered in college that nearly all evolutionary claims are based mostly upon assumptions.
This is quite false.  Evolutionary theory, like all science, is based on observation and subsequent conclusions drawn from those observations.  By making a claim like this, Luskin is either displaying an ignorance of the science or a willingness to spin a yarn at the expense of objectivity.
[/quote]
This is what we would call "make believe". Even the epistemologic basis of science does not comply with such notions, which adhere to pure "scientisme"Wink Sorry for being disapproving, but scientisme tends to infuriate me a tiny bit.  Smiley
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 02:54:46 PM by philalethe00 » Logged

"Look down from heaven, O Lord, upon those who bow their heads unto You, for they do not bow to flesh and blood, but to You, the awesome God".(D. Liturgy, St. John Chrysostom)
"When the world laughs, the saints, in crying, draw the Divine compassion onto humans."(Paul Evdokimov)
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1268 on: September 01, 2009, 02:38:37 PM »

stop being deceived , christians...
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1269 on: September 01, 2009, 03:56:50 PM »

It seems this thread continues not getting the point. People continue to discuss two extreme points of view: a universe of 15 or some billion years where natural selection and RANDOM evolution rule, and a universe of 7500 years created in six literal days by God, where there's no space for anything but direct creationism. Why doesn't anybody understand that there's a plenty of possibilities on the subject? Personally, I think the only scientific observation we can do is that the universe exists from 15 billion years, that new species appeared progressively over some two billion years up to man's appearance, and that often these species seem linked to each other in some sort of ideal relatives (the last thing was believed by ultra-creationist scientist and philosophes Linneus, the inventor of the classification of species!). As such, these data are incontrovertible, and only 6-day-creationists doubt them. But how is it that these historical and scientific data are used even by Christians to defend a model where "RANDOM EVOLUTION" of the species occurs, and there's no space for God's action of planning? How can "strict" evolution (i.e. its definition as a random process) be in agreement with Orthodoxy? I just can't get it. We can be fond of science, as I am: I never doubted that the big bang formed the world billion years ago, or that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago... and that men appeared in the modern form around 50000 BC... yet I don't feel I can believe in a nature put together by chaos... this just makes sense for deists, who reject God's action in the world... but we are bound by our Faith to believe in God's action in our universe, not only as an initial force, or as a redeemer, but also as the force that sustains the universe and orders it from chaos to cosmos. Saying that God had no part in the PROCESS of biological evolution, transforming it into a sort of "natural casino" where chance rules, directly denies words such as "And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth grass...'". I can't believe in the use of the word "evolution" when this theory is by definition contradictory to my faith in its definition, and I find myself dishoriented when I see all of you accusing each other: the pro-science and the pro-faith. It's not a matter of science vs faith. Science observes and records data, and develops models to understand nature; faith looks at the Hand of God behind nature, and sees only cosmos where to the scientists reign chaos and chance. My religious definition of evolution is: "the process by which new species are formed by God from other species until all their evolutionary potential is exhausted and the species come to be at their maximum degrees of evolution with no possibility for further progress, according to God's will and plans". This is an entirely different definition, and the use of "random" doesnt' fit in it. I cant' and would never accept that schools or whatever else might impose Darwinism and forget to tell that what is made of apparent chaos is still governed by unknown laws and forces even scientists can't understand, and that religion is one of the explanations alternative to atheist darwinism.
Sorry for my furious soliloquy, but I HAD to tell this.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1270 on: September 01, 2009, 05:08:34 PM »

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position

here : http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:f17c-P3IXwgJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D660+List+of+signatories+to+%22A+Scientific+Dissent+From+Darwinism%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&lr=lang_en|lang_ro
This list is offered as nothing more than an appeal to authority--get enough scientists to sign this document that it looks scientific.  But WHY did they sign the document?  Was each of these scientists motivated by some preconceived notion or by some anti-scientific religious agenda?  Or were these scientists simply motivated by the truly scientific desire to ask questions, and NOT by a total disbelief in evolutionary theory, as you would have us believe?

I'm sorry, but your uncritical appeal to their authority to convince us that we are wrong violates the rules of both good logic and good science.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 05:24:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1271 on: September 01, 2009, 05:11:06 PM »

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Careful examinations of the evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's just good science.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1272 on: September 01, 2009, 05:25:44 PM »

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Careful examinations of the evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's just good science.

Yeah, CAREFUL examinations... but when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1273 on: September 01, 2009, 06:30:30 PM »

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Careful examinations of the evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's just good science.

Yeah, CAREFUL examinations... but when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Are they REALLY posting evolution as a truth, or are creationists merely interpreting scientific statements as if they are positing evolution as a truth?  I used to agree with your take on the scientific community, but I'm not sure anymore that that's a fair assessment.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1274 on: September 01, 2009, 08:41:30 PM »

i had a geology professor who told the whole class that we were fools if we did not believe in evolution. 10 mins later he told us there were millions of years of gaps in the rock layers that can't be explained ....

anyhoo, ive talked to plenty of evolutionists who will say they don't see it as absolute fact, but they function exactly as if they do. same thing with atheism --- they say they're open to the idea of God, but they function as pure, hardcore atheists.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1275 on: September 01, 2009, 08:48:48 PM »

i had a geology professor who told the whole class that we were fools if we did not believe in evolution. 10 mins later he told us there were millions of years of gaps in the rock layers that can't be explained ....
Anecdotal evidence from your experience with only one professor.  Hardly convincing of any widespread, sweeping agenda.

anyhoo, ive talked to plenty of evolutionists who will say they don't see it as absolute fact, but they function exactly as if they do. same thing with atheism --- they say they're open to the idea of God, but they function as pure, hardcore atheists.
And how, in your eyes, does someone function as if they believe evolution to be a fact?  Define this "they function exactly as...", and tell me how this interpretation is not subjective.
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 #1276 on: September 01, 2009, 09:30:04 PM »

i had a geology professor who told the whole class that we were fools if we did not believe in evolution. 10 mins later he told us there were millions of years of gaps in the rock layers that can't be explained ....

anyhoo, ive talked to plenty of evolutionists who will say they don't see it as absolute fact, but they function exactly as if they do. same thing with atheism --- they say they're open to the idea of God, but they function as pure, hardcore atheists.

Particular professors have nothing to do with the subject.

Particular people with their individual understanding (or misunderstanding) of the theory of biological evolution have nothing to do with the subject.

The idea of God belongs to a very intrinsic and legitimate part of the human being which, no matter how legitimate and intrinsic it is, cannot influence of the phenomena of the natural world as we see them. When you come to a mechanic and ask him to fix your broken car, the mechanic you will choose is the one who knows how your car is built, rather than a "mechanic" who has no idea how your car is built but "knows" that your car is moved by the will of God.
Logged

Love never fails.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,987


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #1277 on: September 01, 2009, 09:30:15 PM »

My ADD doesn't allow me the discipline to sift through 28+ pages of posts, but it occurred to me that maybe we're all using different definitions for these words.  Undecided

What exactly is meant by "Evolution" and "Creationism"?
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1278 on: September 02, 2009, 02:56:34 AM »

scientific fact ... not really , as AlexanderOfBergamo said.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1279 on: September 02, 2009, 07:05:10 PM »

when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1280 on: September 02, 2009, 09:59:26 PM »

i had a geology professor who told the whole class that we were fools if we did not believe in evolution. 10 mins later he told us there were millions of years of gaps in the rock layers that can't be explained ....
Anecdotal evidence from your experience with only one professor.  Hardly convincing of any widespread, sweeping agenda.

anyhoo, ive talked to plenty of evolutionists who will say they don't see it as absolute fact, but they function exactly as if they do. same thing with atheism --- they say they're open to the idea of God, but they function as pure, hardcore atheists.
And how, in your eyes, does someone function as if they believe evolution to be a fact?  Define this "they function exactly as...", and tell me how this interpretation is not subjective.

they come out to debate the campus preachers literally every day for hours about creation vs. evolution, bc, as they admit, their entire worldview hinges upon evolution. so they'll say they don't know 100% thats its fact but their lives are centered around the theory and they will ridicule anyone who doesnt believe in evolution. one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
Logged
Thegra
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Unknown
Jurisdiction: Unknown
Posts: 6


« Reply #1281 on: September 02, 2009, 10:52:07 PM »

one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.

All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1282 on: September 03, 2009, 02:46:23 PM »

scientific fact ... not really , as AlexanderOfBergamo said.
Thanks for your understanding!
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Not at all: geocentrism is also a theory, but as you can see it was not true. A theory is a model of explaining nature, which might match more or less well with reality. For its purposes, geocentrism was a good description of the universe up to Copernicus, when it was doubted by another theory. Strict 6-days creation seems to be disproved by geology which furnishes a good point in favour of evolution, but we might still not get the full picture. Evolution supports a random process. I think this is what strikes jckstraw72 when he says scientists behave as atheists: they support chaos and don't see that the processes must be governed by a superior project. A good scientist might say 'Evolution occurs in a way we can't still understand, providing adaptation of the species in a given ecosystem. We don't know if the process is entirely dictated by random modifications or by some unknown law leading from simpler to more complex forms of life". But this is not what the official definition of evolution says. In this sense, science (or at least the official one) sounds entirely atheistic.
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Careful examinations of the evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's just good science.

Yeah, CAREFUL examinations... but when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Are they REALLY posting evolution as a truth, or are creationists merely interpreting scientific statements as if they are positing evolution as a truth?  I used to agree with your take on the scientific community, but I'm not sure anymore that that's a fair assessment.

It is not important how the scientific community presents the theory of evolution (or the evolutionary model, if you prefer). The truth is that in magazines, on TV and in schools (at least in Italy I see this everyday) the alternatives are never discussed. When studying science or history, darwinian evolution is given as a fact, more or less as it is a fact that the earth orbits around the sun or that World War II ended in 1945. It's this attitude which destroys a true freedom of thought and brings many children of today to grow atheists of tomorrow. Even in a country like Italy, where the lesson of religion is present in schools via the Concordate between RCC and Republic, the matter is never touched, thus leaving children without a guide who might see how Genesis and Science can easily match with each other just recognizing God's hand behind the origin of universe and life. It is this lack which is dangerous in our times of relativism, scientism and religious denial. I'm not telling this but by personal experience: most of those of my friends who received Confirmation with me are now atheists, agnostics, or deists (the latter is rare, of course). A few of them don't attend any church but confess themselves as Catholics, and even fewer live fully the Catholic faith but heavily discuss the ecclesiastical authority or see the Bible as a good but mythological fairy tale at the same time!!!

Now the point is that Christian scientists should let their voices be heard louder... they should be public witnesses of God's creative work and power, of his plan that gave origin to such a complex and fascinating world.

That's all I had to say, I think.
In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1283 on: September 03, 2009, 03:05:09 PM »

^ Just one question.  Did you even BOTHER to read ONE of Heorhij's post on this thread?  ONE?  Or one of DOZENS of others on this thread that show that believing in evolution and believing in Jesus Christ are not contradictory?  ONE?  Huh Huh Huh  Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 03:10:06 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1284 on: September 03, 2009, 03:13:24 PM »

when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?

Only to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.

All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.

Well said.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 03:14:05 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1285 on: September 03, 2009, 03:14:55 PM »

I read almost all of them. Still the expression "I believe that evolution is not contradictory with belief in Jesus Christ" is an oxymoron. As I mantioned before, it's the word "evolution" that means a RANDOM change of species from one generation to another which brings to the development of new species. I am not contrary to the "evolution of species". I am contrary to the "RANDOM" change... which is the official definition of this scientific theory. So, i don't believe in evolution, and I think that believing in darwinian evolution contradicts the Christian faith. Since in our culture "evolution" stands for "random/darwinian evolution", the use of evolution without any explicit clarification sounds to me incompatible with the message of Christianity.

Hope I've been clear enough.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1286 on: September 03, 2009, 03:31:54 PM »

when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?

Only to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I have at hand thus defines "theory" and "truth".

Theory: 1) a formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why sth happens or exists: "According to the theory or relativity, nothing can travel faster then light". 2) the principles on which a particular subject is based: "The theory and practice of language teaching". 3) an opinion or idea that sb believes is true but that is not proved: "I have this theory that people prefer being at work to being at home"

Truth: the true facts about sth, rather then the things that have been invented or guessed: "do you think she's telling the truth?" "We are determined to get at the truth" "The truth of the matter is we can't afford to keep all the staff on" "I don't think you are telling me the whole truth about what happened" 2) the quality or state of being based on fact. "There is no truth in the rumors" "There is not a grain of truth in what she says"

In other words: truth is real independently of the theories. A theory, such as geocentrism was (it is in fact known as "the geocentric theory") was disproved by direct observation. A truth cannot be disproved, on the contrary. You can question it, and even find alternative temporary explanations, but truth never changes. This the same for faith, for example: the Trinity is a truth or a theory? Since we can't verify it directly, it is scientifically speaking a theory. Only by faith we can affirm it as a doctrine... there is no maths in the Trinity, no experiment to do... That doesn't mean it is false: it is just unknown if that's true or not. Personally, I'm happy we have no certainties, so that we might truly exercise our faith without a sort of "proof".

I hope I was clear enough.
In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 03:33:51 PM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1287 on: September 03, 2009, 03:42:37 PM »

Since in our culture "evolution" stands for "random/darwinian evolution", the use of evolution without any explicit clarification sounds to me incompatible with the message of Christianity.

"Our" culture?  Whose culture are you talking about?  This is a pan-Orthodox board whose members are found around the globe, not just "Bible Belt, USA", or Bergamo, Italy, for that matter.  

Here's an old post of mine that I think is relevant to the discussion at hand.:


I'm only against those theories that exclude God as creator. I think you can have forms of evolution, which was started/caused by God. However, you cannot have absolute darwinism/evolution, because it takes God out of the picture.

In order to avoid duplication of arguments, could you please seek out the  many discussions we've had? You see, we've been over this topic....ummm, well, quite a few times here at OC.net.  I am expecting Heorhij to enter the picture any second with a reasoned refutation of your remarks, so I will try and save him the trouble....

Scientific theories cannot, by their very nature, either include or exclude God.  It is not within the realm of how science works to incorporate or not incorporate an element of the divine.  Unfortunately, people who are otherwise very competent scientists seem to be incompetent enough in other areas of life that they arrogantly assume, (along with some theologians who should know better) that science has all the answers for any metaphysical  questions that might trouble humanity.  Other theologians who should know better (and many who are simply incompetent and incapable of knowing better) oppose these scientists and apostate(?) theologians, replaying the scene that has been played on the Western stage of civilisation since at least the time of Galileo and probably earlier.  The Western Church, by agreeing to counter "science" on its own playing field (ie, on terms defined by "science"), has condemned itself to losing the war, since only "scientific" criteria of "proof" can be accepted as evidence.  And we all know that if anything isn't rational, it must by definition be irrational, don't we? Wink  After all, we live in the post-Enlightenment West.  Of course, I shouldn't just cite the West and leave out the East, because the whole world is now so under the thraal of Western categories of "normalcy", that it doesn't know what has hit it.  It seems to me that a lot of Orthodox have this kind of knee-jerk reaction to the whole debate and side with "creationists".  It's like they're saying to themselves:  "hmmm.  Orthodoxy is "conservative", right?  Guess I'd better show my conseravative colours and stand up for "creationism"!"  (Of course, Orthodoxy is neither conservative nor liberal, but the living faith of the apostles...but this is a discussion for another thread.)  

BTW, I'd like to pre-empt a bashing from GIC or lubeltri or whoever else who would like to accuse me of being anti-Enlightenment or anti-Western.  I actually think that a lot of good things came out of the Enlightenment.  I really value science, in fact I am a scientist of sorts, though of a much humbler variety than Heorhij.  I don't mean to say that science cannot enter the realm of the metaphysical at times; in fact, fascinating work being done in physics right is going in this direction, and it's mind boggling.  But in the field of evolution?  For now, at any rate, there is no mixture at all.

I am a convinced Orthodox Christian.  I am also a convinced believer in evolution.  Are there things that we don't understand fully?  Absolutely, on both the theological and scientific end of things.  Just because evolution appears to be random is no reason at all to deny God's hand in things.  (How spiritually childish and oafishly cataphatic can one be?  This points to  one reason of several why I personally find this debate so tiresome.)  What appears as being "random" to us limited human creatures indeed hides greater mysteries beyond our understanding.



« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 01:25:28 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1288 on: September 03, 2009, 04:55:44 PM »

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I have at hand thus defines "theory" and "truth".

So what is your point?  First of all, ytterbiumanalyst was speaking of scientific truth.  A scientific theory is as close as science comes to "truth."  If I may be so bold as to say so, ytterbiumanalyst appears to me to be indirectly pointing out that there is really no such thing as "scientific truth", since this is not how science works.  Science deliberately disciplines itself to discovering things about how the physical universe works by using empirical means to try and disprove theories.  In scientific parlance, to say that something is a theory is not the same thing as saying that "it's only a theory" or "my grandmother has a theory about how to make the best brownies".  In the realm of science, theories go through rigourous testing through empirical means of trying to disprove them.  The longer a theory stands up to scrutiny, the more likely its tenets appear to be.  In the case of evolution, this has been shown to be very, very likely.  This is what Mr. Y means when he asks the question "aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?"  A theory that has stood up to an empirical barrage of questioning for a long period  of time is as close as you are ever going to get to "scientific truth", a new oxymoron that has been created on this thread to go with its venerable friend, "scientific proof". 

As I mentioned in the previous post, competent scientists, who are arrogant enough to believe that science answers all questions that anyone might have about anything, become incompetent theologians and philosophers when they cross the line into expressing this publicly.  I might also add, that, ironically, IMHO, they discredit themselves in the scientific community, since they do not seem to understand that science by its very nature has clearly defined limits that do not allow it to venture forth into the worlds of theology and philosophy, new discoveries concerning string theories notwithstanding.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 05:23:07 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1289 on: September 03, 2009, 05:16:17 PM »

Evidently I tend to use the two terms in different ways... a use truth for Truth, always and unchangeably. I am a linguist, so I love to use precise and adequate words when they exist. Of course, I tend to err since I'm not an English speaker myself (I was recently reproached - and for a fully correct reason - due to an inappropriate use of the word "worship" as a synonim for "veneration"). The last reasoning you made is the point of my insistance on the denial of evolution. I don't like compromises. I repeat that I'm no creationist... I believe in those billion years from the Big Bang to the appearance of Man, which official science affirms. But as a thinking being... am I BOUND to subscribe the position of those atheists, who form a large and prevalent section of the scientific community, who ALSO affirm that evolution is a random process? Will my children been taught in schools such a deistic or even atheistic position because it is largely prevalent among scientists? It is not universal, of course. A great (and also criticized for that) scientist of our time, Italian physicist Antonio Zichichi, one of the maximum authorities in the CERN, has publicly shown his concerns with evolutionism, saying that science must be described in the Galilean method of repeatable observation (thus, experimental science) and mathematics. Biology ordinarily is experimental, which makes it science. Paleontology is based both on mathematics and experiments, since to date a dead animal we need to know how fast C14 decays to identify in which strata belong specific creatures. But is the Evolution Theory a science? We can't experiment "live" that dinosaurs finally evolved into birds, and there's no mathematical process in the changes since its a question of "chance" that one mutation would occur, no mathematic rule at all! For that reason, Prof. Zichichi gives Evolutionism no universal value, and qualifies it as one among many possible theories on the subject, and even the most controversial.
I would add that some creaturese are still difficult to catalogue. For example: whence did the "eye" come from during the Cambrian Explosion? We would expect to have prototype eyes appearing over time, but suddenly in the Cambrian Era appeared thousands and thousands of creatures with fully developped and functional eyes. Isn't this a proof against darwinism? Isn't this a demonstration that evolution "jumps forward" (to use a concept present in the intro of X-Men 1) at certain times of history? This is something which contradicts the theory of evolution as it is actually defined, but there's still time to correct it in the future to include those "strange cases" as anormalities imposed by Someone who created everythin'...

In Christ,     Alex

PS: I'll get back to this discussion tomorrow.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1290 on: September 03, 2009, 05:42:04 PM »

Isn't this a demonstration that evolution "jumps forward" (to use a concept present in the intro of X-Men 1) at certain times of history?
And why should we prefer over the time-proved theories of science a man who gets his facts from Hollywood?
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1291 on: September 04, 2009, 07:34:33 AM »

I used the X-Men image as a "concept". I'm not saying X-Men is science, otherwise I would testimony the existence of mutants and metahumans in our days (which is an absurdity).  You continue to misinterpret every single word I write, which shows how poor your arguments are. Now answer to my direct question: where are the pre-cambrian creatures with eyes "in development"? Where are the dinosaurs with partial wings who could not yet fly? Where are those mammals who, according to modern evolutionary theories, began to develop an adaptation to the sea so that they became dolphins? I just think it is easier to admit that there isn't yet any trace of this creatures and that we can't confess an uncertain theory when there's no match with historical data. We know there were blind creatures, and suddenly we find eyed creatures all around the world, but no trace of intermediate states. We can only guess there could be intermediate state, but we can also propose that a sudden mutation in DNA occured so that fully functional eyes appeared in 2-3 generations and we have no true trace of this change as in the official timeline is too short, then affirming a long process of development for the ocular organs. The same can be said of wings (Archeopterix's wings were already functional, so he can't be used alone as a missing ring in the evolutionary chain from dinos to birds) and for the evolution of dolphins and whales. My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"? do you think God created the initial Big Bang singularity, programmed it to have conditions for life, and then let it work by its own? How can you explain when the Bible says things such as "And God made the firmament", or
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived. neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out: The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth: He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths: When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters: When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men." (Ecclesiastes, 8:22-31)? Is God attributing to himself a prerogative he didn't have? Is God saying a falsity? Of course not! God is saying that what he made was is project, that he made things out of nothing and that they were modelled after his design. There is no chaos, for God is a God of order... from chaos the cosmos was formed... because God is the cosmos=order that models and sustains the Earth. Evolution denies this: evolution says that what happens to this world regarding the biological devolpment of life is the product of case, that there's no predictibility, that is a fortunate case that we exist, and not a law of the world has it was projected by God himself. How many people dare to accuse God of being a liar and prefere the earthly and limited wisdom of atheist and deist scientists... Is science a sort of new religion, so that I and many others are accused of a sort of scientific heresy when we express some DOUBTS on the mechanics of darwinism? Is science so superior to religion, that I must obey to scientists and take religion as a fairy tale? I repeat that I'm a concordist. What has been observed by scientists is correct, including the billion years of formation of the universe. But is that enough to believe the entire theory? No, because I think there's no wisdom but from God. Scientists are just looking to objective truths, but try to explain them in a model which is a fruit of pure human speculation which says there is no initial cause in the universe. Those scientists who believe in a projectuality of the universe, on the contrary, can see the hand of God, and see every step in evolution as a providential progress, and I'm on their side, entirely.
If you want you can call me an heretic for not believing in scientific official statements on conjectures. I'm glad of being heretic in human wisdom, and orthodox in divine religion. Everytime I look in the universe I see how marvelous is the God who made all this for us, and how miserable we are in front of God's power.
Please answer to my question on the role you ascribe to God in creation, and maybe we'll understand each other far better, for I can't even think you might believe in pure deism.

In Christ,  trying to keep as humble as I can,
and to listen to your positions opening my mind to them,
        your brother Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1292 on: September 04, 2009, 04:55:07 PM »

Now answer to my direct question: where are the pre-cambrian creatures with eyes "in development"? Where are the dinosaurs with partial wings who could not yet fly? Where are those mammals who, according to modern evolutionary theories, began to develop an adaptation to the sea so that they became dolphins?
Those aren't the right questions. The question is "Where are the ancestors to the modern animals we know and observe?" I don't know the answer to that, as my expertise is in the English and Spanish languages, but if you ask a biologist, they should be able to tell you.

My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.

do you think God created the initial Big Bang singularity, programmed it to have conditions for life, and then let it work by its own?
This is an anachronism. God is not subject to time; what He does, He does from eternity. From our perspective, God has done things, is doing things, and will do things. From His perspective, He does things. We must not ascribe to God the human concept of time, and constrain Him to a linear existence. He does not exist as we do.

There is no chaos, for God is a God of order... from chaos the cosmos was formed... because God is the cosmos=order that models and sustains the Earth. Evolution denies this: evolution says that what happens to this world regarding the biological devolpment of life is the product of case, that there's no predictibility, that is a fortunate case that we exist, and not a law of the world has it was projected by God himself.
You make the same mistake many do: They assume that scientists are out to disprove God's role in creation. This is not so: Real science does not even consider God, but only seeks to understand the natural processes of the universe. In fact, to put God into a scientific equation by necessity makes such an equation unscientific. So you see, scientists do not deny God's existence, but they do not consider His existence. There is a big difference.

How many people dare to accuse God of being a liar and prefere the earthly and limited wisdom of atheist and deist scientists... Is science a sort of new religion, so that I and many others are accused of a sort of scientific heresy when we express some DOUBTS on the mechanics of darwinism? Is science so superior to religion, that I must obey to scientists and take religion as a fairy tale?
Yawn. Wake me up when you come up with something original to say. But first, you might want to read the dozens of posts on this very thread which ask you and others of your persuasion to do some research and come up with a theory of speciation that is superior to Darwin's. When you do, we'll accept it instead of Darwin's. Until you do, you are merely bloviating.

Scientists are just looking to objective truths, but try to explain them in a model which is a fruit of pure human speculation which says there is no initial cause in the universe.
No, they say we cannot know scientifically what the initial cause of the universe is. Big difference. Again, I point you to the analogy of trying to take someone's temperature with a shovel. Both the thermometer and the shovel are useful tools, but can only be used for a single purpose. Similarly, religion and science are both useful, but one cannot use science to prove theology, and one cannot use religion to prove science.

Those scientists who believe in a projectuality of the universe, on the contrary, can see the hand of God, and see every step in evolution as a providential progress, and I'm on their side, entirely.
What of those who can see in the randomness in the universe the beauty of God's creation? I look at the orbits of the Earth, for instance, and I see a rock which has just so happened to land in the gravity well of a small dwarf star in such a way as to create for most of us four distinct and yet complementary seasons. It would be one thing for God to have placed the Earth in just the right position--but it is a far greater power which allows the Earth to place itself, and then uses that placement to create life; which uses that life's propensity to replicate itself to bring about the creation of humanity; and which uses humanity's free will to venerate Him.

In short, I see in the randomness of the universe God's complete desire for the freedom of every person, of every creature, of every object in the universe. God does not control by force; but He uses our choices to bring about His will. This, I think, is not only a more accurate view of God's role in creation than yours, but reveals with greater clarity His infinite goodness.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 04:57:01 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1293 on: September 05, 2009, 03:25:49 AM »

Quote
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.

Science tells you what they want to be as a possibility to prove there is no God, what do you think all this BS and agitation is about , on science rats?the evolution theory is incompatible with the world God has made and with the scripture;it is incompatible with His power to do anything , it`s incompatible with God`s caring , presence and love towards creation , it is incompatible with God`s perfection , making from God and from normality and natural , and from beauty , chaos , mutation denaturing God`s beauty , Almightyness , Perfection , The Caring of God and His presence in the Creation.Let`s not discuss with all the other incompatibilities from Genesis , as the first man , the denaturation of the image of God , the incompatibility with the fall and Eden.This is what Evolution theory does it denaturates the image of God , trough people , by making the image of God like beast without wisedom, by saying that we are from apes , making God`s likeness as an beast or an apes, presenting us an imperfect and mutational God ,uncaring , diminuating God`s presence in the Creation and his Love , diminuating his AllMightyness.

Get your senses back in your head ytterbiumanalyst. If you really wanna see how God made everything read in Genesis and what the apostle says, that He made everything from nothing , trough faith , trough His Word , He said and they came to beeing in an instant , that is how the Church Fathers also say He made all things.You have the Scriptures and the Fathers.Another thing if you people are so smart and any of you who believes the universe/earth is billions of years old , make some math and see that the population of the world in this case would have been overfloated , and now we would walking on thousands and thousands of billion of corpses , just look at a grafic about the groweth of population.Let`s be serious , this mumbo jumbo `science` are just fairy tales.
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: 31,839


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1294 on: September 05, 2009, 04:49:05 AM »

Quote
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.

Science tells you what they want to be as a possibility to prove there is no God, what do you think all this BS and agitation is about , on science rats?
Have you not been reading this thread?  Whereas some scientists may indeed want to prove that there is no God, science itself can desire no such thing, for argument on the existence of the Divine is not properly even within the realm of science.

the evolution theory is incompatible with the world God has made and with the scripture;it is incompatible with His power to do anything , it`s incompatible with God`s caring , presence and love towards creation , it is incompatible with God`s perfection , making from God and from normality and natural , and from beauty , chaos , mutation denaturing God`s beauty , Almightyness , Perfection , The Caring of God and His presence in the Creation.Let`s not discuss with all the other incompatibilities from Genesis , as the first man , the denaturation of the image of God , the incompatibility with the fall and Eden.This is what Evolution theory does it denaturates the image of God , trough people , by making the image of God like beast without wisedom, by saying that we are from apes , making God`s likeness as an beast or an apes, presenting us an imperfect and mutational God ,uncaring , diminuating God`s presence in the Creation and his Love , diminuating his AllMightyness.
Isn't this all just your subjective opinion, especially when ytterbiumanalyst voiced his countering opinion that the scientific observation of creation has only strengthened his awe of the Almighty Creator?

Get your senses back in your head ytterbiumanalyst. If you really wanna see how God made everything read in Genesis and what the apostle says, that He made everything from nothing , trough faith , trough His Word , He said and they came to beeing in an instant , that is how the Church Fathers also say He made all things.You have the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Why should we believe the Fathers on this when they knew nothing of modern science?  Did the Holy Spirit reveal things scientific to the Holy Fathers?  Are we to take the Holy Spirit's revelation to the Fathers as a source for scientific axioms?  Isn't this the mistake Christians made several centuries ago when they argued that we MUST believe the earth to be the center of the universe because the Scriptures and all the Fathers said so?

Another thing if you people are so smart and any of you who believes the universe/earth is billions of years old , make some math and see that the population of the world in this case would have been overfloated , and now we would walking on thousands and thousands of billion of corpses , just look at a grafic about the groweth of population.
1.  What are the numbers we need to plug into this math to get the results you want us to see?
2.  You ask us to look at a population growth graph.  Surely, if one exists, you should be able to submit it to this discussion so we can see it.  Can you do this for us?
3.  Have you failed to take into account the decay of corpses?  What of the production of fossil fuels?

Let`s be serious , this mumbo jumbo `science` are just fairy tales.
Where's your evidence?
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1295 on: September 05, 2009, 05:54:11 AM »

you are just a deceived fool:

here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

so we see in here the estimated population in the world at certain years;

6,7 billions in 2008 , 2,5 billions in 1950 , 1,2 billions in 1850 ,750 millions in 1750 , 310 mil in 1000 , 200 mill in 1, 100 mil in 500 BC , around 10 000 BC is said to be only 1 mill people on earth and on 70 000BC under one mill.Look how much the population has grown in 2000 years .In 2000 years it groweth 33,5 times regarding also the black middle-ages where a big part of the planet died from diseases.In groweth in 2000 years (from year 1 Christ to 2008) as much as it groewth from 70 000BC to 2000BC that is 68 000 years!!! 68 000 years = 2000 x 34 years.Think about that.If the earth is really millions , or billions as they claim , than how come from millions/billions of years untill 70 000BC the population of the world hasn`t even reached 1 million? If we raported to our days in manners of less than ten years the population has grown with at least a million.Sure other times , medicine etc.But Still billions of years!! an tens of thousands of years!!!Even if the population would have grown normally now the earth would have been overfloated , and full of corpses.billions and billions of billions, uncountable.If we consider also the evolution theory , man evolved from apes so at the begining there were not just 2 apes , or 2 humans if you please , but many , so in billions/millions of years they would over populate the entire Universe and planets.Again think think think.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1296 on: September 05, 2009, 07:15:43 AM »

you are just a deceived fool:

here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

so we see in here the estimated population in the world at certain years;

6,7 billions in 2008 , 2,5 billions in 1950 , 1,2 billions in 1850 ,750 millions in 1750 , 310 mil in 1000 , 200 mill in 1, 100 mil in 500 BC , around 10 000 BC is said to be only 1 mill people on earth and on 70 000BC under one mill.Look how much the population has grown in 2000 years .In 2000 years it groweth 33,5 times regarding also the black middle-ages where a big part of the planet died from diseases.In groweth in 2000 years (from year 1 Christ to 2008) as much as it groewth from 70 000BC to 2000BC that is 68 000 years!!! 68 000 years = 2000 x 34 years.Think about that.If the earth is really millions , or billions as they claim , than how come from millions/billions of years untill 70 000BC the population of the world hasn`t even reached 1 million? If we raported to our days in manners of less than ten years the population has grown with at least a million.Sure other times , medicine etc.But Still billions of years!! an tens of thousands of years!!!Even if the population would have grown normally now the earth would have been overfloated , and full of corpses.billions and billions of billions, uncountable.If we consider also the evolution theory , man evolved from apes so at the begining there were not just 2 apes , or 2 humans if you please , but many , so in billions/millions of years they would over populate the entire Universe and planets.Again think think think.

forgive my insult, i tried to edit the insult but i couldn`t ... so here it is
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1297 on: September 05, 2009, 07:33:30 AM »

I don't wanna have to discuss with an extremist darwinian evolutionist on one side, and with an ultra-creationist on the other side. I believe that both positions miss the mark and they show remnants of hatred. I hate science when it has no mathematics or experimental test in it. Science is physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry and zoology... but neither darwinian evolution nor Young Earth creationism are science. I am bound by conscience and faith to leave both of you in your incomplete, extremist and fundamentalist visions, on both sides. I thought my position could easily be understood as a "middle way" between to useless extremes, living more space for God. So take your "randomly evolved apes" on one side and your "clay figurines with a spirit" on the other side. I don't want to discuss with you anymore, especially because you don't tolerate my position, which I express as a result of free speculation. You, ytterbiumanalyst, consider me a fool because I want to underline God's active role in creation; and you, Dan-Romania, want me to renounce to the faith of the Apostle who wrote "Don't you know that the worlds are of old?" and consider me a fool for that. You both contradict the message of Scripture and Tradition:
"Who shall see him, and declare him? and who shall magnify him as he is from the beginning? There are many things hidden from us that are greater than these: for we have seen but a few of his works. But the Lord hath made all things, and to the godly he hath given wisdom." (Wisdom of Sirach, 43:35-37)
Quote
   "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colosseans 2:Cool
   "The mountains also, and the hills, end the foundations of the earth: when God shall look upon them, they shall be shaken with trembling. And in all these things the heart is senseless: and every heart is understood by him: And his ways who shall understand, and the storm, which no eye of man see? For many of his works are hidden: hut the works of his justice who shall declare? or who shall endure? for the testament is far from some, and the examination of all is in the end. He that wanteth understanding thinketh vain things: and the foolish, and erring man, thinketh foolish things" (Wisdom of Sirach, 16:20-23)
   "Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof, When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of the womb: when I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands? I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors: 11 And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves" (Job 38:2-11)

May God have mercy of us all for are vain and useless attempts to discuss what is known to God alone: let's ask for a better wisdom, the wisdom of faith, and for the vain philosophies of humankind.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: I'm glad that you corrected your message, at least I'm no more a fool, as you also aren't, and yttebiumanalyst too. We should just have respect for each other and say that we can freely believe whatever we want. Those who support official science shouldn't accuse creationists to be anachronistic or fool, and creationists shouldn't attack everything which is labelled as science just because most or many scientists are atheists. Let's stay close to what the Bible theologically says:
1)God created all things, visible and invisible, including space, time, matter, energy, and the spiritual beings.
2)Man was made different then other animals, so that he received a sentient spirit and was asked to govern the world as a responsible guardian and not as a master.
3)We are asked to see God's hand in creation, and be thankful for what he did for us, including creating this world
4)We should ask for God's pardon for having been bad guardians to the world, since we are progressively destroying it with our irresponsibility
5)We should ask God to restore in us the image of God, so that the entire universe might benefit from our spiritual change.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1298 on: September 05, 2009, 12:06:20 PM »

I don't wanna have to discuss with an extremist darwinian evolutionist on one side,
Neither do I. Let me know when you find one on this board.

You, ytterbiumanalyst, consider me a fool because I want to underline God's active role in creation;
No, I think you want to limit God's active role in creation to what you can understand. This, I think, is a mistake.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 12:07:18 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1299 on: September 05, 2009, 01:02:57 PM »

My insult Alex was not for you , but for Peter, anyway i took it back, i have nothing against you Alex , even the contrary i appreciate your posts.

I`ve just seen a show on National Geographic about , galaxies , universe , etc.The Universe is an amazing place , and can make one feel really small looking at the enormity of it.

Where does it speak in the Scripture that the world(s) are of old?

I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.I don`t reject totally the possibility for the world to be billions of years, the Universe.Anyway , the Scripture tells us that everything was made by God , He said and they all came in being , the same as the fathers say and teach , and the same I believed even before reading the fathers about this.God is Almighty , sure He could create all into an instances all being and life , but He chose to create it in cycle of days , to make a home and a house for all , the resourses for all , all with patience and organised , with love and caring.He made first the kingdom , and prepared a kingdom for this ruler who is man , to rule upon the fishes of the sea , the beasts on earth , the birds from the sky , He made a place for everything.The Scripture says it was evening and than morning, about every cycle of time of the creation, in totall 6 days of creation.So is a normal day , morning and night.Giving us the understanding and raport as to a human day.I believe God could have done what He said and everything He did in 6 days.And I`m not alone among the fathers many are of this opinion.Anyway God uses time in alegory in many cases , and the six days could have been 6 periods of time , undeterminable.There are also fathers who believe this.But by saying it was night and than morning , i understand that He made all this from non-being to being, trough His Word , as we see in Genesis : "And God said" and as in John says , everything was maybe by the Word and trough the Word, and without Him nothing was made.Also the Apostle Paul says that God made everything from nothing , trough His Word.Also by saying that and if everything was created in an instant, than i think that God made everything in six literal days, as it is possible everything with God.I think in that is shown and revealed God`s Mightyness, that He could create everything in 6 days.Sure He could do it all at once , in one day.But by this we see the order God has instituated , making a place for everything , and finding something suitable for everything, for everything , a room , a place by order and discipline.Not only because of this , but because of His love and caring, for everything and everyone to have a place of it`s own.By the things that God is a Creator and He made even the smallest things , we can see by reading the wisedom books and the psalms of David , Job , etc.Sure Genesis starts with : at the beggining God made the heavens and the earth, and that darkness was over the deep.We also see that the Universe has a lot of black materia , i`m not sure if i used the corect words.It can also be interpret it , the Universe to be this darkness from the beggining as I said in the beggining of my post , the Universe is an imensity.So I don`t exclude the possibility of the Universe being of old and of billions of years, but not people on earth or life on earth.Anyway see my other post regarding the population and overpopulation.Again I am of the opinion that the 6 days from the Creation are 6 days, but i don`t totally exclude the possibility for them to be thousands or even millions/billions.What i`m against of is Evolution and Darwinism.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1300 on: September 05, 2009, 04:13:49 PM »

I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.
If it is true, as you say, that most scientists are atheists, consider the possibility that it is stupidity like this that causes them to reject Christianity.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1301 on: September 05, 2009, 04:25:46 PM »

one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.

All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.

no he didnt mean he'd be a Christian if we'd all accept evolution. He said that evolution is the very foundation of his worldview which therefore gives Him a wholly different worldview than one that is founded upon Christ.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1302 on: September 05, 2009, 04:29:37 PM »

^ Just one question.  Did you even BOTHER to read ONE of Heorhij's post on this thread?  ONE?  Or one of DOZENS of others on this thread that show that believing in evolution and believing in Jesus Christ are not contradictory?  ONE?  Huh Huh Huh  Roll Eyes



he has not satisfactorily demonstrated that. If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good. Thus Christ destroyed His own good creation. It makes God contradictory. The Book of Wisdom specifically tells us that God did not create death. Heorhij can post what he wants, I will side with the Saints and Scripture. I find it really hard to believe that men the likes of St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, Elder Cleopa, etc etc were just too naieve or foolish or whatever to see that evolution and Christ actually go hand in hand.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1303 on: September 05, 2009, 04:30:47 PM »

I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.
If it is true, as you say, that most scientists are atheists, consider the possibility that it is stupidity like this that causes them to reject Christianity.

consider that it is their materialistic worldview borne out of the Enlightenment that leads them to reject Christianity.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1304 on: September 05, 2009, 04:31:30 PM »

If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good.
Not necessarily. We believe that God used death to destroy death and give us eternal life. Could he not also use death to create the infinite diversity of life we see in our universe?
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
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 »   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 0.211 seconds with 74 queries.