OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 07:23:39 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 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

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 316814 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1440 on: October 04, 2009, 06:29:50 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process, and the evolutionary model can't make sure previsions, why not call it "statistics" and not "science"? Statistics are equally useful, they apply a mathematical concept (probability) but they still don't have to be accurate. In fact, I can enter a casino and play the roulette 900 times, yet it COULD happen that number 3, despite the statistics, doesn't result of those 900 attempts. I refute to accept "models" as science if they can't make sure assertions. The prototype of science is this: "Given an X system, X always turns into Y". For example, it is science to say: "Given an isolated neutron, this will decay within 15 minutes into a proton, an electron and a neutrino electron, with an exchange of a W boson". The Standard Model foretells this as a consequence of the weak interaction. In other words, the weak interaction, when correctly understood, allows to make certain previsions: if they are verified experimentally, the theory is a very good description of reality, and certainly MORE then just a simple "theory".
On the contrary, evolution proves to be ruled by "vague" laws with even more "vague" conclusions. The fact that evolutionists expected a common ancestor for chimps and humans to be "more chimp-like" and "less human-like" but this theory seems to have been disproved by the recent discoveries, puts some doubts on its ability to make sure previsions.
I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

In Christ,   Alex


The facts bear out the evolutionary prediction exactly.

The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [5][6]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second. [7]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. [8]
Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[8]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

Again this facts.
Oh please, what can one do other than laugh.
Why do people try to insist we have a common ancestor with the chimp?
If links are missing and still missings and DNA`s differ?
Why do some try so much to make us beasts?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1441 on: October 04, 2009, 06:31:04 AM »

cry me a river , evolutionist chum

Ad hominem removed.

-- Nebelpfade
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 03:10:45 PM by Nebelpfade » 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 #1442 on: October 04, 2009, 10:25:36 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process,

No, evolution is not random - it is actually very "deterministic" in that the environment directs it. Mutations are random, yes, but the selection of mutants is done non-randomly.

I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

Well, that's complicated, AFAIK. I can recommend you one interesting book that I am currently using as a text in my experimental Honors "Special Topics" class called "Philosophy and Science." The book, written by A.F. Chalmers, is titled, "What Is This Thing Called Science?" - published by Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1999 (3rd edition), 266 pp., ISBN 0-87220-452-9. Chalmers himself is a retired physicist-experimenter, and he tries to give a very balanced account of science, scientific method, etc. It's not all "black and white," there are, indeed, "gray areas" that some might call "science" and others "non-science."
Logged

Love never fails.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,258


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1443 on: October 04, 2009, 11:21:07 AM »

Actually evolution can be calculated mathematically.  Population genetics is the subject in which one measures the rate of evolution.  In other words, we can calculate how fast living things evolve.

Dan-Romania, do you realize how much of a fool you're making yourself look.  You're not bringing anything substantial to the discussion.

If one considers the DNA evidence, and notices that we share 95-99% of our DNA with chimps, 94% with orangutans, 90% with another monkey species, and then down to 80%, 70%, 60%, 50% to many diverse mammals, and draws a "tree" based on genes, you find a tree quite similar to Darwin's.

I think we also put together the genes of Neanderthal man.  It is this same DNA evidence one uses in forensics or parental confirmation.  If we discount the idea of relation with a chimp, why not discount the DNA techniques used in court?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 11:22:51 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1444 on: October 04, 2009, 12:06:38 PM »

Actually evolution can be calculated mathematically.  Population genetics is the subject in which one measures the rate of evolution.  In other words, we can calculate how fast living things evolve.

Dan-Romania, do you realize how much of a fool you're making yourself look.  You're not bringing anything substantial to the discussion.

If one considers the DNA evidence, and notices that we share 95-99% of our DNA with chimps, 94% with orangutans, 90% with another monkey species, and then down to 80%, 70%, 60%, 50% to many diverse mammals, and draws a "tree" based on genes, you find a tree quite similar to Darwin's.

I think we also put together the genes of Neanderthal man.  It is this same DNA evidence one uses in forensics or parental confirmation.  If we discount the idea of relation with a chimp, why not discount the DNA techniques used in court?

I repet: we have different concepts of science. A rate of evolution is a statistic, not a formula explaining which genes will be modified over time under certain conditions, which is maths. There's only a statistical verification of how much a modification has occured in the past, or a measure of part of DNA which we share with other beings, which is a form of biology which per se doesn't demonstrate evolution. Even Linneus, a very famous creationist, was convinced of this ideal "genealogical tree" of animal life, and I'm sure this is not going to demonstrate evolution: God might have created all forms of animals in 48 hours (or, for a progressive creationist, in some 150 million years) passing from a DNA type to another up to man until the match of 100% with "homo sapian" DNA. That our DNA is very near to that of chimps, well, this is evidence. That we have a common ancestor, that's a very different question, unluckily.

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")
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,258


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1445 on: October 04, 2009, 12:11:02 PM »

I'm not bothered by Dan's attack at all.  The admins shouldn't do anything in my opinion.  Dan's comments are enough to reveal his character, and this just leads people to continue ignoring his comments.

Dear Ortho_cat,

First off, I take literally what is necessary for my faith.  Everything that is in the Nicene Creed, in the councils, including Christ's full humanity, His birth from a Virgin, His divinity, our process of theosis as a result of the unconfused, unaltered, indivisible, and inseparable union of His divinity and His humanity.  I believe in the infallibility and authority of Scriptures.

I don't believe the Scriptures are inerrant.  I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write about the shadow of things to come in the New Testament.  Even the New Testament may have small parts in it that may be self-contradictory, or may not have happened, but this is not as vast as the Old Testament.  St. Paul even likes to allegorize Hagar and Sarah, showing that in every story there's an curtain of meaning behind it.  I believe that as the veil of the Temple was ripped, so did the veil of the Old Testament reveal to us the revelation of Christ.  It no longer becomes the story itself, but the meaning behind the stories.

I do believe that there might have been some true figures, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.  Perhaps, Noah existed, maybe indeed an Adam did exist.  I cannot know for sure.  But understanding science, and knowing that it's not necessary to take literally these stories (as was believed by people taught under the Alexandrian school and even Philo of Alexandria the Jew taught, which is quite astounding since there was no NT revelation for him) and checking the historical relevance, I believe the writings of the OT were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and when writing were writing what they perceive of the world with a message that they may not even have understood.  Also, by Genesis alone, we can see not really a flowing message of one book, but the way Genesis was written was as if it was a compilation.  And it seems Genesis wasn't the first written, as it might have alluded to another book (Jather? I forget).  So literary studies, scientific and historical studies, and plain common sense given to me by God really puts me at a position not to take the literal mostly serious.  And the icing of the cake:  the fact that Church fathers have also not taken parts of the Scripture literally, but saw some as fiction, is the gold standard to which I do the same.

Why else would one write that Eve was formed out of the side of Adam, echoing the blood and water coming out of the side of Christ on the Cross in the formation of our Church?  And the choice of ribs protecting the heart, as the Church the protector of the Orthodox faith?  Why else was it a "tree of Life" unless echoing the Cross itself?  Why else would one write of Noah and the Ark unless it echoes the Church and baptism?  Why else the story of Hagar and Sarah, unless to show that we are no longer children of slavery, but of free, even through an old woman past her birthing age?  Why else the story of the Red Sea, if not also for baptism?  Why else the story of Isaac carrying his own wood if not for Christ carrying the wood of the Cross?  Why else the Old Testament vestments washed with water/oil and then with blood, echoing Christ's baptism and Holy Spirit's descent, and then later His sacrifice?  Why else would the ark hold the Glory of God, or the pots the Manna, and overlaying of gold around the ark, and the rod of Aaron that sprang without water, unless it speaks of the mystery of the pure Theotokos and her virgin birth?  And even the burning bush, a symbol of Christ's divinity and humanity for some fathers, a symbol of the Theotokos bearing Christ for others.  Why else the Babel story unless it be the prophecy of the Apostles speaking in tongues at the Pentecost?

But if you tell me these things happened literally, and it's necessary to believe them literally, then it becomes a stumbling block.  Is it necessary for my faith that the sun was created after plants?  Should it be dogma?  Or is the idea that plants were created after the sun's formation heresy?  Is it necessary for my faith to believe that there was a serpent that actually talked to Eve, or that there was a talking serpent species, or that serpents actually became snakes because of that moment?  Is it necessary to believe that Cain actually married his sisters?  Some Church fathers believed you can have intercourse with angels, and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but is it necessary to believe we can bear the children of rogue angels?  Some Church fathers, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit (I think even St. Athanasius) believed the world was flat.  Should I take their words as inerrant instead of infallible?  Do I really have to believe that the origin of languages resulted from a confusion of tongues at Babel?  Or is it necessary to believe that one should have such strong faith in God so as to kill his own beloved son if God asked me to?  I thought Orthodox Christians rejected the idea that Christ died for the wrath of God the Father (unless one likes me takes the word "wrath" allegorically)?

If you know what is necessary for the faith, and ask yourself honest questions of whether believing this, or putting yourself in the shoes of people who are doing these things something you can relate to or agree to, as well as the historical, scientific, and rational evidence that exists, along with daily prayer and guidance from the thought processes of the Church fathers, then one can discern how to interpret the Bible correctly without rejection of the most important dogmas and morals of the Church.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,258


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1446 on: October 04, 2009, 12:18:06 PM »

Actually evolution can be calculated mathematically.  Population genetics is the subject in which one measures the rate of evolution.  In other words, we can calculate how fast living things evolve.

Dan-Romania, do you realize how much of a fool you're making yourself look.  You're not bringing anything substantial to the discussion.

If one considers the DNA evidence, and notices that we share 95-99% of our DNA with chimps, 94% with orangutans, 90% with another monkey species, and then down to 80%, 70%, 60%, 50% to many diverse mammals, and draws a "tree" based on genes, you find a tree quite similar to Darwin's.

I think we also put together the genes of Neanderthal man.  It is this same DNA evidence one uses in forensics or parental confirmation.  If we discount the idea of relation with a chimp, why not discount the DNA techniques used in court?

I repet: we have different concepts of science. A rate of evolution is a statistic, not a formula explaining which genes will be modified over time under certain conditions, which is maths. There's only a statistical verification of how much a modification has occured in the past, or a measure of part of DNA which we share with other beings, which is a form of biology which per se doesn't demonstrate evolution. Even Linneus, a very famous creationist, was convinced of this ideal "genealogical tree" of animal life, and I'm sure this is not going to demonstrate evolution: God might have created all forms of animals in 48 hours (or, for a progressive creationist, in some 150 million years) passing from a DNA type to another up to man until the match of 100% with "homo sapian" DNA. That our DNA is very near to that of chimps, well, this is evidence. That we have a common ancestor, that's a very different question, unluckily.

In Christ,   Alex


I just want you to realize your words carefully.  Instead of natural laws of mutations, you're saying God himself mutated ape's genes and formed man out of them.  You're simply replacing evolution and the time evolution takes with God, but in essence you're almost conceding to evolution through God just in your own time zone and in your own understanding.

When I'm measuring the rate of speed of cars in a highway, I am not using "a formula explaining which cars will be moving over time under certain conditions," but whatever cars that are moving that I see, I measure.  Likewise with genetics, whatever DNA being observed is changing, that is measured, and DNA is indeed changing all the time through every generation.  In other words, we don't get exactly 100% the same exact genes of half our mother and half our father (although it's pretty close).  They are actually modified before fertilization.  If it can be shown that genes are never mutated in a constant fashion most of the time, then the theory of evolution is doomed.

God bless.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 12:22:00 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,517



« Reply #1447 on: October 04, 2009, 01:41:12 PM »

My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?

I am with you. This is exactly what Genesis teaches and no other. On the other hand, man's unique origin does not prevent us from being subject to God's laws of nature. This means that we do evolve, as scientists have observed.

PS: Dan, please calm down. It is one thing to be forceful in arguing your point, it is another to resort to calling people names. Hurling insults like that does not help anything. In fact, it puts you and your opinions in a questionable light.

PPS: minasoliman has expressed valid reservations, which should be addressed dispassionately, as he is doing. To me at least some of what he says makes sense; must I reject everything that he says because I disagree with other points? Of course not!
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 01:49:42 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1448 on: October 04, 2009, 02:06:35 PM »

I`m not that kind of person is someone says something wrong that to discredit him as someone who can`t say something good, i`ll give to Caeser what belongs to Caeser.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1449 on: October 04, 2009, 08:07:59 PM »

minasoliman,

Thank you for your reply. I have gone down the path which you describe before. It turned out to be a very slippery slope for me. Do you believe in all the miracles that Jesus performed, and events in the Old Testament, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale, which Jesus Himself testified of?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 08:08:21 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1450 on: October 04, 2009, 08:15:54 PM »

cry me a river , evolutionist chum

Ad hominem removed.

-- Nebelpfade


That's a wry sense of humour you have there, Nebelpfade.  laugh
Logged

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

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1451 on: October 04, 2009, 08:23:46 PM »

minasoliman,

Thank you for your reply. I have gone down the path which you describe before. It turned out to be a very slippery slope for me. Do you believe in all the miracles that Jesus performed, and events in the Old Testament, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale, which Jesus Himself testified of?

Ortho_cat,

It's probably an idea to bear in mind that the path that turned out to be a slippery slope for you, because of the way you veiws things, isn't necessarily going to be have the same result for someone else who looks at the same thing through a different lens. For some, taking a literalist view of everything in the bible would be the slippery slope that you experienced. 
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)
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1452 on: October 05, 2009, 02:14:28 AM »

minasoliman -- you say the Alexandrian school taught that it was not necessary to take Genesis literally, but from what I have read the Alexandrian teachers all seemed to have taken it literally (with the exception of Origen). do you have specific statements from them to this effect?

Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1453 on: October 05, 2009, 07:37:34 AM »

I specifically believe in almost all events in Scripture. I even believe in a real Noah. When it comes to some events, though, I know that some stories might have been allegorized. For example, I can image survivors of a local megaflood of cataclysmic proportions (such as the 5600 BC Black Sea Deluge) who could tell that "the entire earth" was destroyed by a flood to the other survivors, because they just saw all lands being submersed under their eyes. A symptom of this historical-but-not-ultraliteralist reading of the Old Testament comes directly from Josephus who, in his Antiquities, quotes Nicolaus of Damascus :
Quote
There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved...
Also, the Tower of Babel is somehow historical. The Mesopotamian area was under a direct control of Sumer (Bible's Shinar or Sennaar), which was the first human civilization to erect tower-like temples, the ziggurats.
Quote
One recent theory first advanced by David Rohl associates Nimrod, the hunter, builder of Erech and Babel, with Enmerkar (i.e., Enmer the Hunter) king of Uruk, also said to have been the first builder of the Eridu temple. (Amar-Sin (c. 2046–2037 BC), third monarch of the Third Dynasty of Ur, later attempted to complete the Eridu ziggurat.) This theory proposes that the remains of the historical building that via Mesopotamian legend inspired the story of the Tower of Babel are the ruins of the ziggurat of Eridu, just south of Ur. Among the reasons for this association are the larger size of the ruins, the older age of the ruins, and the fact that one title of Eridu was NUN.KI ("mighty place"), which later became a title of Babylon.[12] Both cities also had temples called the E-Sagila.
(from Wikipedia, "Tower of Babel" article)
Even when the Bible chooses a more allegorical LANGUAGE to express an historical event (so that the historical event might have a spiritual meaning for all men), that doesn't mean the Bible invents things. Ancestral myths, one could say, are not fairy tales. they are just historical events re-written to convey ethical and spiritual meanings and teachings. The Jews, under God's inspiration, encoded in the Bible this ancestral records of their land into mythified narrations for the purpose of edification, and they also saw God's providential hand in these events.
This includes the original decay of humanity in the Adam and Eve story. While the clay, the rib, the two trees and the serpent can be easily isolated as symbols, the general meaning of the story (i.e. the origin of man decided by God, the end of a Golden Age for humanity and the beginning of the Fallen Age) are directly written in the Scriptures and, of course, in the conscience of the entire Middle East area.

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 #1454 on: October 05, 2009, 07:45:42 AM »

Quote
I just want you to realize your words carefully.  Instead of natural laws of mutations, you're saying God himself mutated ape's genes and formed man out of them.  You're simply replacing evolution and the time evolution takes with God, but in essence you're almost conceding to evolution through God just in your own time zone and in your own understanding.

When I'm measuring the rate of speed of cars in a highway, I am not using "a formula explaining which cars will be moving over time under certain conditions," but whatever cars that are moving that I see, I measure.  Likewise with genetics, whatever DNA being observed is changing, that is measured, and DNA is indeed changing all the time through every generation.  In other words, we don't get exactly 100% the same exact genes of half our mother and half our father (although it's pretty close).  They are actually modified before fertilization.  If it can be shown that genes are never mutated in a constant fashion most of the time, then the theory of evolution is doomed.

God bless.
In fact, cars are driven by humans, so they are subject to an exterior WILL, and this stops every scientific speculation, since we don't know how that WILL could influence the car's motion and speed. Take the same conditions for evolution: we have no proof that evolution isn't guided from outside, otherwise we could draw a formula explaining the process mathematically.

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 #1455 on: October 05, 2009, 08:03:27 AM »

This includes the original decay of humanity in the Adam and Eve story. While the clay, the rib, the two trees and the serpent can be easily isolated as symbols, the general meaning of the story (i.e. the origin of man decided by God, the end of a Golden Age for humanity and the beginning of the Fallen Age) are directly written in the Scriptures and, of course, in the conscience of the entire Middle East area.
Yes, absolutely. We see many biblical stories echoed in other contemporary literature, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the basic story is preserved, along with its moral lessons, but details can be changed. When dealing with ancient literature, it is important to understand the the conventions of myth, fable, parable, and allegory, since these are the genres we are most likely to encounter. Even the histories contain elements of these ancient genres, and therefore should not be taken literally; they were never intended to be.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1456 on: October 05, 2009, 08:34:19 AM »

Quote
I just want you to realize your words carefully.  Instead of natural laws of mutations, you're saying God himself mutated ape's genes and formed man out of them.  You're simply replacing evolution and the time evolution takes with God, but in essence you're almost conceding to evolution through God just in your own time zone and in your own understanding.

When I'm measuring the rate of speed of cars in a highway, I am not using "a formula explaining which cars will be moving over time under certain conditions," but whatever cars that are moving that I see, I measure.  Likewise with genetics, whatever DNA being observed is changing, that is measured, and DNA is indeed changing all the time through every generation.  In other words, we don't get exactly 100% the same exact genes of half our mother and half our father (although it's pretty close).  They are actually modified before fertilization.  If it can be shown that genes are never mutated in a constant fashion most of the time, then the theory of evolution is doomed.

God bless.
In fact, cars are driven by humans, so they are subject to an exterior WILL, and this stops every scientific speculation, since we don't know how that WILL could influence the car's motion and speed. Take the same conditions for evolution: we have no proof that evolution isn't guided from outside, otherwise we could draw a formula explaining the process mathematically.

In Christ,  Alex

But as far as a scientific theory goes, there is no need in proof of an external will. And presupposing an external will is untestable and, worst of all, unfalsifiable.
Logged

Love never fails.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1457 on: October 05, 2009, 10:46:04 AM »

You know what my understanding of "science" is, so it is no use to discuss this: I will never accept your definition of evolution as "science". No maths and/or no experimental proof=no science.
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")
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1458 on: October 05, 2009, 11:01:28 AM »

You know what my understanding of "science" is, so it is no use to discuss this: I will never accept your definition of evolution as "science". No maths and/or no experimental proof=no science.

Just read Chalmers!  Wink
Logged

Love never fails.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1459 on: October 05, 2009, 11:05:13 AM »

Quote
I just want you to realize your words carefully.  Instead of natural laws of mutations, you're saying God himself mutated ape's genes and formed man out of them.  You're simply replacing evolution and the time evolution takes with God, but in essence you're almost conceding to evolution through God just in your own time zone and in your own understanding.

When I'm measuring the rate of speed of cars in a highway, I am not using "a formula explaining which cars will be moving over time under certain conditions," but whatever cars that are moving that I see, I measure.  Likewise with genetics, whatever DNA being observed is changing, that is measured, and DNA is indeed changing all the time through every generation.  In other words, we don't get exactly 100% the same exact genes of half our mother and half our father (although it's pretty close).  They are actually modified before fertilization.  If it can be shown that genes are never mutated in a constant fashion most of the time, then the theory of evolution is doomed.

God bless.
In fact, cars are driven by humans, so they are subject to an exterior WILL, and this stops every scientific speculation, since we don't know how that WILL could influence the car's motion and speed. Take the same conditions for evolution: we have no proof that evolution isn't guided from outside, otherwise we could draw a formula explaining the process mathematically.

In Christ,  Alex

We do have genetic and evolutionary algorithms (and programming) that have shown incredible promise.  It remains extremely primitive, since it remains in its infancy still, but it is really beginning to take off and will grow exponentially in the coming decades.

A lot comes down to, what is your definition of "mathematics" is?  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
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1460 on: October 06, 2009, 11:56:36 AM »

laugh what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.

Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.

What are your thoughts about "Paul Feyerabend"? Have you ever heard of him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 12:01:29 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1461 on: October 06, 2009, 12:00:37 PM »

You know what my understanding of "science" is, so it is no use to discuss this: I will never accept your definition of evolution as "science". No maths and/or no experimental proof=no science.

Just read Chalmers!  Wink

What are your thoughts of Paul Feyerabend?










ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1462 on: October 06, 2009, 12:03:02 PM »

Quote
I just want you to realize your words carefully.  Instead of natural laws of mutations, you're saying God himself mutated ape's genes and formed man out of them.  You're simply replacing evolution and the time evolution takes with God, but in essence you're almost conceding to evolution through God just in your own time zone and in your own understanding.

When I'm measuring the rate of speed of cars in a highway, I am not using "a formula explaining which cars will be moving over time under certain conditions," but whatever cars that are moving that I see, I measure.  Likewise with genetics, whatever DNA being observed is changing, that is measured, and DNA is indeed changing all the time through every generation.  In other words, we don't get exactly 100% the same exact genes of half our mother and half our father (although it's pretty close).  They are actually modified before fertilization.  If it can be shown that genes are never mutated in a constant fashion most of the time, then the theory of evolution is doomed.

God bless.
In fact, cars are driven by humans, so they are subject to an exterior WILL, and this stops every scientific speculation, since we don't know how that WILL could influence the car's motion and speed. Take the same conditions for evolution: we have no proof that evolution isn't guided from outside, otherwise we could draw a formula explaining the process mathematically.

In Christ,  Alex

We do have genetic and evolutionary algorithms (and programming) that have shown incredible promise.  It remains extremely primitive, since it remains in its infancy still, but it is really beginning to take off and will grow exponentially in the coming decades.

A lot comes down to, what is your definition of "mathematics" is?  Tongue

I'm not saying evolution CAN'T be mathematically approached. I just underlined that UP TO NOW there is no precise unique and complete mathematical algorithm explaining evolution, so the entire model is still an embryo theory, so to say, and as such is still in the realm of hypothesis. When a complete and functional mathematical model for evolution will be formulated demonstrating the rationale behind evolution with scientific accuracy and experimental results, I'll be glad to affirm that finally evolutionism has officially entered the pantheon of true science. Up to then, I take evolutionism on the same level as the superstring theory, i.e. an hypothesis to be taken in consideration but yet to be studied upon and demonstrated in the facts.

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")
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1463 on: October 06, 2009, 12:25:21 PM »

Actually evolution can be calculated mathematically.  Population genetics is the subject in which one measures the rate of evolution.  In other words, we can calculate how fast living things evolve.

Dan-Romania, do you realize how much of a fool you're making yourself look.  You're not bringing anything substantial to the discussion.

If one considers the DNA evidence, and notices that we share 95-99% of our DNA with chimps, 94% with orangutans, 90% with another monkey species, and then down to 80%, 70%, 60%, 50% to many diverse mammals, and draws a "tree" based on genes, you find a tree quite similar to Darwin's.

I think we also put together the genes of Neanderthal man.  It is this same DNA evidence one uses in forensics or parental confirmation.  If we discount the idea of relation with a chimp, why not discount the DNA techniques used in court?


The design of a Ford is very similar to a Lincoln. The same is true with Dodge and Chrysler.

Can I ask you a few questions? If the environment directs evolution, then shouldn't we see certain similarities with those of the same environment?







ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1464 on: October 06, 2009, 12:37:05 PM »

H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.

And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.

What laws did you have in mind? I think we all agree that evolution is true at some level........or else, I wouldn't be black, and you wouldn't be white, and others wouldn't be chineese, japaneese, Indian, Mexican............etc.

The problem is when you start talking about us coming from Apes.........etc.

So what laws did you have in mind?









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 12:38:13 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1465 on: October 06, 2009, 12:44:08 PM »

I remember when I was a kid, they said a super volcano destroyed the dinosaurs, now they are saying it was an astroid, 10 years from now, they may say it was some super solar flare or some mega cosmic ray or something.......anything and everything but the flood.


So you're asserting that it was the Flood that killed the dinosaurs?

Yupp


Quote
What scientific evidence is there for that hypothesis?

The same scientific evidence that others use to support their hypothesis......alot of people use the same evidence, but the evidence gotta be interpreted.


Quote
Is that hypothesis even falsifiable through scientific testing?

As far as falsification goes, I will have to roll with Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyerabend.







ICXC NIKA

Fixed quote tags, nothing more.--YtterbiumAnalyst
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 01:31:51 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1466 on: October 06, 2009, 12:54:58 PM »

We had enough problem with Big Cats feasting on our ancestors, how exactly did we survive with dinosaurs around?
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
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1467 on: October 06, 2009, 01:18:00 PM »

We had enough problem with Big Cats feasting on our ancestors, how exactly did we survive with dinosaurs around?

If our environment directs evolution, then dinosaurs are still around, they just look smaller.

But in regards to your question, I will just say, our ancestors have dragon stories all over the planet.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 01:19:54 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1468 on: October 06, 2009, 02:48:03 PM »

We had enough problem with Big Cats feasting on our ancestors, how exactly did we survive with dinosaurs around?

If our environment directs evolution, then dinosaurs are still around, they just look smaller.

But in regards to your question, I will just say, our ancestors have dragon stories all over the planet.









ICXC NIKA

In fact, the major evolutionist theory is that birds are dinosaurs in their evolved form. Nothing new under the sun.
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")
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1469 on: October 06, 2009, 03:09:36 PM »

Primitive man (with rather small brains) battling giant, carnivorous dinosaurs is a little different than a gecko problem.

To do with dragons, our ancestors also enjoyed their tall tales, that eventually took over as folklore and mythology.  The joys of oral traditions, ignorance, and superstition.
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
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,284


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1470 on: October 06, 2009, 05:28:39 PM »

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

Quote
QUOTE:
"WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi,"....
....
And they could walk upright, on two legs, when on the ground.

To read the rest, please visit the link....

'Ardi' and human evolution, on NPR's On Point with Ashbrook.


'Ardi' is an Ardipithecus; CLCA is the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 05:37:29 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #1471 on: October 06, 2009, 06:12:26 PM »

You know what my understanding of "science" is, so it is no use to discuss this: I will never accept your definition of evolution as "science". No maths and/or no experimental proof=no science.

Just read Chalmers!  Wink

What are your thoughts of Paul Feyerabend?

He was a very interesting philosopher-postmodernist, an existentialist (Kierkegaardian) in a way, who dedicated his life to refutation of the idea that there exists one universal, "one-size-fits-it-all" scientific method. Although he is very selective and often subjective in the way he proves his point (for example, picking and choosing what he wants from the writings of Galileo), he has made a lot of interesting and valid statements. However, the conclusion that Feyerabend arrived at - that "everything goes," and you can freely choose between science and woodoo or some such, and there is no telling just what will give you more truth, - is wrong. Chalmers analyzes this in great depth in his book.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1472 on: October 07, 2009, 12:40:26 AM »

This includes the original decay of humanity in the Adam and Eve story. While the clay, the rib, the two trees and the serpent can be easily isolated as symbols, the general meaning of the story (i.e. the origin of man decided by God, the end of a Golden Age for humanity and the beginning of the Fallen Age) are directly written in the Scriptures and, of course, in the conscience of the entire Middle East area.
Yes, absolutely. We see many biblical stories echoed in other contemporary literature, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the basic story is preserved, along with its moral lessons, but details can be changed. When dealing with ancient literature, it is important to understand the the conventions of myth, fable, parable, and allegory, since these are the genres we are most likely to encounter. Even the histories contain elements of these ancient genres, and therefore should not be taken literally; they were never intended to be.

the Scriptures are different as they come from the true God. The Church (both Antiochian and Alexandrian schools) has indeed thought the Genesis history to be literal. Similarities to other myths only boosts that position.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1473 on: October 07, 2009, 01:10:35 AM »

Quote
Primitive man (with rather small brains) battling giant, carnivorous dinosaurs is a little different than a gecko problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1yjS2vbi4



Quote
To do with dragons, our ancestors also enjoyed their tall tales, that eventually took over as folklore and mythology.  The joys of oral traditions, ignorance, and superstition.

Where there is smoke there is fire. You know, at onetime, a good number of western european scientists didn't believe in the existence of the African Gorilla either. But their cynicism didn't mean a thing to those who actually experienced them, and spoke about it.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 01:17:45 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1474 on: October 07, 2009, 01:19:43 AM »

You know what my understanding of "science" is, so it is no use to discuss this: I will never accept your definition of evolution as "science". No maths and/or no experimental proof=no science.

Just read Chalmers!  Wink

What are your thoughts of Paul Feyerabend?

He was a very interesting philosopher-postmodernist, an existentialist (Kierkegaardian) in a way, who dedicated his life to refutation of the idea that there exists one universal, "one-size-fits-it-all" scientific method. Although he is very selective and often subjective in the way he proves his point (for example, picking and choosing what he wants from the writings of Galileo), he has made a lot of interesting and valid statements. However, the conclusion that Feyerabend arrived at - that "everything goes," and you can freely choose between science and woodoo or some such, and there is no telling just what will give you more truth, - is wrong. Chalmers analyzes this in great depth in his book.

Thanks







ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1475 on: October 07, 2009, 09:08:13 AM »

minasoliman -- you say the Alexandrian school taught that it was not necessary to take Genesis literally, but from what I have read the Alexandrian teachers all seemed to have taken it literally (with the exception of Origen). do you have specific statements from them to this effect?



I don`t think Origen has taken Genesis all metaphoricall.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,258


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1476 on: October 09, 2009, 01:52:03 AM »

Quote
Paul Feyerabend

I haven't heard of him.  And frankly, lately, I have gotten incredibly busy, which is why I'm just starting to reply to your messages now.  At this moment, I can answer questions that I can give on my feet.  So I'm afraid I won't give you an opinion of him any time soon.

Quote
The design of a Ford is very similar to a Lincoln. The same is true with Dodge and Chrysler.

Can I ask you a few questions? If the environment directs evolution, then shouldn't we see certain similarities with those of the same environment?

Evolution is a multifactorial process.  We know that the main drive of evolution is genetics, but other environmental factors that already have been answered by Hardy and Weinberg are at work, such as migration, selectivity, population size, etc.

I don't understand how you use the word "environment" here.  It seems like you're limiting the definition to a certain geographical area, which is not what environment is meant.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,258


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1477 on: October 09, 2009, 01:55:03 AM »

minasoliman -- you say the Alexandrian school taught that it was not necessary to take Genesis literally, but from what I have read the Alexandrian teachers all seemed to have taken it literally (with the exception of Origen). do you have specific statements from them to this effect?

Just because they took parts of Genesis literally does not discount the methodology.  Things change overtime as understand more the knowledge of the physical world we live in.  Therefore, I think it's important to understand what they felt was the most important dogmas for an Orthodox Christian to believe, and they embellish on these dogmas by writing of their own views of things.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,258


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1478 on: October 09, 2009, 02:06:58 AM »

minasoliman,

Thank you for your reply. I have gone down the path which you describe before. It turned out to be a very slippery slope for me. Do you believe in all the miracles that Jesus performed, and events in the Old Testament, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale, which Jesus Himself testified of?

That's a good question.  In my view, Christ showed a pattern of giving parables and allegories for His audience.  Now, do I believe in the Jonah story?  Honestly, all I'm arguing is one doesn't have to believe literally in these figures to be Orthodox.  These should not matter on the central faith/dogma in Orthodoxy, of things that we should take literally that go along with it.

So my answer concerning Christ's proclamation of Jonah as a sign for the Jews is precisely this:  He's appealing to Jewish minds.  Therefore, instead of giving the a parable on moral/theological issues, why not give them a story they already know.  This is the sign they seek, the sign will be of something similar to Jonah's story, i.e. Jonah's three days in the belly of the beast is like Christ's three days in the depths of Hades.  Count those days, Jews, Christ said, because on the third day, I will rise again, like Jonah did, and just as Jonah saved the Ninevites (which should be considered strange as to why God may be interested in people outside the nation of Israel), Christ will save the world.  I don't think there's an indication that Christ said Jonah's story should be taken literally.  If you read the story, it reads just like any other parable Christ preached.  There was once a poor man named Lazarus....

Just because the name "Lazarus" is there, does it mean the man actually existed?  Well, maybe, but that's not the point Christ is trying to portray.  The POINT is the meaning behind the story.  Before Christ, none of these stories had no meaning, no point, just some morality mixed in with, "You better listen to God or you get smitten."  Now with Christ, the curtain of the temple seems to be lifted to reveal a whole new side of things.

So, no, if we're going to argue whether Jonah really existed or not, I think we're missing the bigger picture Christ is making.  Believing in the existence of Jonah is not helpful or harmful to the Orthodox dogmas or faith at all, imho.

Do I believe that Adam and Eve existed?  Do I believe that Noah existed?  Do I believe that Job or Jonah existed?  I don't know, but I don't think that matters as much as what something like the Nicene Creed and the anathemas of Ephesus teaches.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,084


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1479 on: October 09, 2009, 02:22:01 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.

Selam

 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 02:28:59 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,473


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1480 on: October 09, 2009, 02:38:05 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?
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 #1481 on: October 09, 2009, 02:56:48 AM »

Views of the Holy Fathers and Scientific Discoveries

Adherents of a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible about the creation of the world often cite the Church’s Holy Fathers to defend their position. In doing so, they do not justify the correctness of their own views so much as they unwittingly "see the nakedness of the father" (Gen. 9:22). Indeed, although many Holy Fathers were highly educated people, neither theology nor the natural sciences of their time had yet reached full maturity. Therefore one ought not to take every thought expressed by one Holy Father or another to be the Church’s teaching — especially in questions of science, which was then at a rudimentary stage. The Church is only error-free in its catholic conscientiousness, its concillarity.

St. Barsanuphius the Great expressed the Church’s treatment of the problem of inaccurate or erroneous opinions of individual Church Fathers most clearly. In response to a monk’s question about the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the complete rehabilitation of all sinners (including demons) damned to fiery Gehhenna, St. Barsanuphius wrote:

Do not think that people, even the saints, can completely comprehend all the profundities of God; for the Apostle says: ‘For we know in part, and we prophesy in part’ (1 Cor. 13:9)… Saints who have become teachers, whether by themselves or compelled by others, have been rather successful, surpassed their own teachers and, with approval from above, set forth new teaching, but at the same time maintained that which they received from their former teachers, that is, incorrect instruction. When they were subsequently successful and became spiritual teachers, they did not pray to God that He would make revelations to them concerning their first teachers: whether what they were taught was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but, considering them wise and intelligent, they did not question their words; and thus their teachers’ opinions were mixed with their own instruction, and these Saints sometimes said that which they had learned from their own teachers, and sometimes that which they had perceived with their own minds.

If you say, "Why did God in His grace not prevent them from being in error for the good of others who would later read their writings?" then you can say about any sinner, "Why didn’t God in His grace prevent him from sinning, when He knew that he would tempt many with his sins, and many would come to harm through him?" In such case all of human life would no longer be free, but subject to force. Why, are there not maxims in Scripture that are a stumbling block to those ignorant of the spiritual meaning? So, must we say, Why did God not reveal the spiritual meaning of the Scripture to everyone so that people would not come to harm, but gave the Saints, who lived in different times, the task of explaining everything necessary? That is exactly what the teachers and interpreters were ordained for, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:28-30)… As the Lord showed us the path of life through the Prophets and Apostles, though every one of them spoke from himself, and God did not prophesy through any of them exclusively, but allowed what one had left out by Divine will to be said by another, thus did God do with the Saints who came after them: what some of them say unclearly is expounded by those who follow them, so that God is always glorified by His Saints.


Other Holy Fathers treat this question similarly. Venerable John Cassian the Roman, in his discussion of Blessed Augustine’s books, notes, "Even quite learned men have something that may be called into question and examined."

Holy Patriarch Photius also gives an Orthodox assessment of the erroneous opinions found among the Holy Fathers: "How often did difficult predicaments compel some Fathers to express themselves imprecisely, some to speak in adaptation to circumstances under enemy attack, and some to speak in human ignorance, to which they, too, succumbed? If some spoke imprecisely, or for reasons unknown to us even deviated from the upright path, but there was no investigation and no one called upon them to prove the truth, then we leave them among the ranks of fathers, exactly as if they had not spoken such, partly because of their life’s eminence and virtuous reputation, and partly because of the purity of their faith otherwise; but we shall not follow their words where they have sinned."

Blessed Augustine himself, in the conclusion of his book "On the Trinity," wrote, "Lord, God the Single, God the Trinity, may what I said in this book from You be received as Your own; but if I did say anything from myself, may You and Your people forgive me."

St. Mark of Ephesus wrote: "There is a big difference between what is said in the canonical writings and the traditions of the Church, and what is written by the individual teacher unofficially or even taught by him; the first, given by God, we must believe… but the second we should not believe unconditionally or accept without question. For it is possible for someone to be a teacher, but not speak completely correctly. For what need would there be for Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils if none of them were able to deviate from the truth at all? To some measure Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Gregory the Wonderworker slipped in this; though one of them bore a martyr’s crown and the other’s name itself dominates for praise."

St. Basil the Great speaks thus of Holy Martyr Dionysius of Alexandria (commemorated on Oct. 5, old calendar): "I am not delighted by all that is written by this man; and there are some things that I do not approve of in the least. For, perhaps, it was he… who first spread the seeds … of anomeic impiety. I think that the reason for this is not misdirection of the soul, but the burning desire to oppose Savelius."

The Orthodox Church teaches completely unambiguously that when the Holy Fathers have discordant opinions, we must check our views with those of not just one or several respected Fathers, but with the council teaching of the Church. If we ought not to blindly accept all the opinions of the Holy Fathers individually concerning dogmatic questions -- that is, questions unconditionally important for our salvation -- then we certainly do not have the right to raise to the rank of truth information now outdated but widely accepted in ancient times about geography, medicine and the natural sciences, only on the basis that it was stated by a Holy Father. For the Holy Fathers used the scientific data of their time not for the sake of confirming or rejecting them, but to lead people with their help to contemplate God, His qualities and His deeds in the world, to thereby to edify the people. "I have one goal — to convert everything to the edification of the Church," wrote St. Basil the Great (Discourse on the Six Days, tome 1, p. 132). "Investigation of the essence of every being, whether falling under our speculation or subject to our feelings… [will serve the edification of the Church not a little"] (pp. 13-14).

It is completely natural that the Holy Fathers might have made mistakes when using the natural science of their time. For example, the same St. Basil the Great says in his Discourse on the Six Days: "Some have even noted that felled and burnt pines have turned into oaks" (p. 88); "Who can doubt that the air is not fiery, and not incandescent?" (p. 53); "What would prevent the Red Sea from flooding all of Egypt, which is a dent in comparison?… Egypt is lower than the Black Sea…" (pp. 65-66); "Fire… jointly occupied all of the overhead space" (pp. 67-68); "Every element, as a result of general quality, unites with the element adjacent to it, and as a result of contact, unites with the opposite element, too. For example, the earth, being dry and cold, unites with water by relationship of their coldness, and through water joins with air, because water, posed in the middle between the earth and air… touches… with coldness to the earth, and with humidity to the air" (71). St. John of Damascus, describing scientific data in his Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith, usually anticipates them with the words, "they say that …" However, he also asserts that "the comets are a sign announcing the death of the king" (p. 62 [134]); "there are twelve winds" (p. 66 [138]). He also accepts Aristotle’s teachings about the four elements. Naturally, no one these days shares these views.

St. Gregory of Nyssa’s explanation of the physiology of the dream is also erroneous. No one now would say seriously that "when food boils on the inside from natural heat, vapors… gather in volumes of the head like smoke seeping through cracks of a wall. That is why, evaporating from there through the channels of the senses, they spread through the body, while unavoidably the sense stops, pressed back by the passage of these vapors" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, St. Petersburg, 1995, p. 40).

And, certainly, one must not demand that a Christian reading the Holy Fathers declare the Phoenix real, about which the prominent Church Father of the I-II centuries, Holy Martyr Clement of Rome, says: "Near Arabia there is a bird called the Phoenix. It is born alone only and lives for 500 years. As it approaches its death, it… makes itself a nest into which, when its time comes, it enters and dies. From the decaying body a worm is born that, feeding on the moisture of the dead animal, becomes fledged" (1st Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter XXV. Works of the Apostolic Fathers, Riga, 1994, p. 128). Tertullian speaks of the same bird.

One could cite other erroneous views that have sometimes been held by the Holy Fathers. But what has been mentioned here will suffice, because our objective is not to undermine their authority, but merely to establish the necessity of taking a sensible approach when citing their private opinions. Taking this into account, for the sake of fairness it must be said that sometimes one Church Father or another was ahead of the scientific knowledge of his time by many centuries in his views. In this respect Bishop Nathaniel’s (L’vov) article about St. Basil the Great, in which he compiles many striking thoughts about the great saint, is very valuable. See Bishop Nathanail’s "Discussions of Faith" at the address: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/russian/ apolog_nathanail.htm .

Of great significance in the Holy Fathers’ experience is that they never opposed contemporary scientific data with their views. And here they left us a valuable lesson: it is reasonable to use the revelations of science — insofar as they may help us to gain a deeper understand of some facets of the universe. But one should do so with caution, taking into account the limits of the human intellect and the instability of scientific theories.

The idea of nature’s participation in the steps of creation is justifiably inadmissible to Orthodox thought only if the hypothesis of an evolutionary development of living things, from the simple to the more sophisticated, detracts from the Creator. The unsubstantiated statement that "the Bible teaches — but you say…" holds no weight. Orthodox tradition in particular knows how complex, unobvious and different can be interpretations of some parts of the Holy Scripture.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm#_Toc67449471
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,084


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1482 on: October 09, 2009, 03:08:25 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science. Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often a contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.

Also, as I have pointed out on other posts, the theory of macro evolution does have moral and theolgical consequences. For example, the Bible says that God "created" man and woman. This clearly indicates a past tense event, not an ongoing process. Thus, if macro evolutionary theory is correct, then human beings are still evolving. The logical implication of this would be that we are not yet "fully human," thus respect for human life is severly undermined. If macro evolutionary theory is correct, then who decides who and what is "fully human?" Darwinism has led to the insidious ideas that Africans are less human than Caucasions, that Jews are less human than Arians, and that the unborn are less human than the rest of us.

As I said earlier, I thank God for the clear Teaching of my Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

Selam
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 03:22:47 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
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 #1483 on: October 09, 2009, 03:12:49 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science. Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.

Selam

"Atheistic presupposition." What about the presupposition that acknowledging the role of evolution in biological and other natural processes must necessarily be atheistic?
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,473


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1484 on: October 09, 2009, 03:15:30 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science.
But what is legitimate science, and why is it legitimate?

Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).
Do you see "secular" science arrogating to itself sole authority to discover truth about the natural world?  Even if it is, how are our "secular" scientists proclaiming themselves "experts" that we ignorant sheep must follow blindly?

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?
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 »   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 0.194 seconds with 75 queries.