OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 04:27:01 PM *
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 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

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 328842 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3150 on: June 28, 2011, 10:02:24 AM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
Why? In what do you hope we'll be instructed?
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,300



« Reply #3151 on: June 28, 2011, 11:32:47 AM »

I believe in evolution inasmuch as I believe in genetics. I find science fascinating, but when people start debating literal Genesis I just can't give a ****.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,300



« Reply #3152 on: June 28, 2011, 11:38:41 AM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
Why? In what do you hope we'll be instructed?
This is the guy who says that if you believe in evolution you support the Nazi pogrom.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #3153 on: June 28, 2011, 12:11:17 PM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.

Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 12:16:33 PM by pasadi97 » Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,300



« Reply #3154 on: June 28, 2011, 12:22:57 PM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.

Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
No one says that.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3155 on: June 28, 2011, 12:32:21 PM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.

Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
This site you offer as instructive of the "other" side of the debate is a Protestant apologetics site. What bearing do they have on what the Orthodox have to say about evolution? Also, considering all the things you preach against Protestantism on this forum, why do they suddenly become credible when it's evolution you're attacking?
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3156 on: June 28, 2011, 02:27:21 PM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.

You can't repeat evolution in a lab. Evolution is useful theory in that it seems to mesh with the evidence found and helps explain what we see in history and in labs, but evolution itself has not, cannot, be repeated clinically. Many other things, pasturization for example, can be repeated. Because of this, it disproved the long-held belief in spontaneous generation.

Evolution has been proven a reliable explanation, that's correct, and so yes it is a good theory. But, also remains a theory, because although it provides a reliable explanation of that which is observed, it cannot itself be clinically observed and repeated.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
mabsoota
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,520


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3157 on: June 28, 2011, 02:39:25 PM »

from what i've seen of the coptic church, we're not that keen on it.
egyptian, babylonian, hebrew and indian medicine predates european medicine and culture by hundreds of years, so we are not that interested in some crazy british guy's theory
 Wink
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3158 on: June 28, 2011, 03:39:34 PM »

Mix myth and science and you get the worst of both worlds.

It is simply a false dichotomy. Folks clinging to a "literal" reading of Genesis (do they believe Adam saw God's back?) whatever that means, have bought into the prevailing Western metaphysical tradition that truth is primary a statement of correspondence.

That's why I love it when EOs make a big deal about being "Eastern", when they fall pretty much into the same metaphysical traps as the "Westerns".

« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 03:40:01 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #3159 on: June 28, 2011, 07:41:35 PM »

No
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #3160 on: June 28, 2011, 07:51:18 PM »

You can't repeat evolution in a lab.

I'm not sure this is an entirely true statement.

I mean, if I beam ultraviolet light on a population of rats all day and a significant portion of the white ones get skin cancer and die before having much of a chance to reproduce, within only a few generations the population of rats will be significantly blacker, if not entirely so. Isn't this evolution, albeit by artificial selection?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,637


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #3161 on: June 28, 2011, 08:02:45 PM »

Quote from: orthonorm
It is simply a false dichotomy. Folks clinging to a "literal" reading of Genesis (do they believe Adam saw God's back?) whatever that means, have bought into the prevailing Western metaphysical tradition that truth is primary a statement of correspondence.

I heard an explanation once that 'the back' referred to the back of the Lord's head- no, I'm not kidding- when God walked past Moses and showed him how to conduct the morning prayer reading. The reason was, that if you saw the front of God's face, you would die. This was said in an online audio class, but I can't remember which site. (Sorry.)
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #3162 on: June 28, 2011, 08:02:57 PM »

yes. evolution is a fact- changes in allele frequencies in populations occur.

there is nothing in orthodoxy that requires rejecting anything about science or the natural world. there are some protestants and others who have certain beliefs that may not be compatible with evolution but those are failings of their beliefs.

the counterarguments against evolution are either flat out lies/misrepresentations or reflect a misunderstanding of what evolution is and isn't.

don't get me wrong- there are lots of interesting questions and challenges presented by evolution and there are Orthodox writers/theologians who are wrestling with those issue (e.g. the problem of evolution involving death....but how can there have been death pre-fall?)
Logged
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #3163 on: June 28, 2011, 08:09:02 PM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.

thank you. one of the many lame arguments against evolution is that "it's only a theory, it hasn't been proven". all that shows is that the person talking doesn't really understand what a theory is. "theory" doesn't mean "something unproven" or that it isn't inaccurate.

that said, that evolution has occurred and been undeniably documented is a fact.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #3164 on: June 28, 2011, 08:13:48 PM »

Quote from: orthonorm
It is simply a false dichotomy. Folks clinging to a "literal" reading of Genesis (do they believe Adam saw God's back?) whatever that means, have bought into the prevailing Western metaphysical tradition that truth is primary a statement of correspondence.

I heard an explanation once that 'the back' referred to the back of the Lord's head- no, I'm not kidding- when God walked past Moses and showed him how to conduct the morning prayer reading. The reason was, that if you saw the front of God's face, you would die. This was said in an online audio class, but I can't remember which site. (Sorry.)

Interesting.

On the other hand, I'm quite sure St John Chrysostom was adamant in his sermons on Genesis that God has neither feet nor hands nor a back.

While the fathers may have said that the Genesis narrative must be understood "literally", I believe what they meant by that word was something more nuanced than what we seem to take from it.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,637


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #3165 on: June 28, 2011, 08:32:45 PM »

Well, I don't think the Lord is only the height of an average person either,  Cheesy but the gist may have been that the Lord could appear that way, if He wished to do so, just so Moses could find Him comprehensible for a brief time. If God appeared in His full glory, poor Moses' head would explode. Sort of the way God allowed certain people to see angels and not freak out.  angel Just a thought.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #3166 on: June 28, 2011, 08:37:09 PM »

Quote from: orthonorm
It is simply a false dichotomy. Folks clinging to a "literal" reading of Genesis (do they believe Adam saw God's back?) whatever that means, have bought into the prevailing Western metaphysical tradition that truth is primary a statement of correspondence.

I heard an explanation once that 'the back' referred to the back of the Lord's head- no, I'm not kidding- when God walked past Moses and showed him how to conduct the morning prayer reading. The reason was, that if you saw the front of God's face, you would die. This was said in an online audio class, but I can't remember which site. (Sorry.)

Interesting.

On the other hand, I'm quite sure St John Chrysostom was adamant in his sermons on Genesis that God has neither feet nor hands nor a back.

While the fathers may have said that the Genesis narrative must be understood "literally", I believe what they meant by that word was something more nuanced than what we seem to take from it.

the Fathers had no concept of the existence of Japan, or the Americas, may have thought the Earth was flat, probably had all sorts of weird thoughts on medicine, etc. they should be read for theological/spiritual truth. yes, a bit of that bumps up against science with regard to the creation story but i'm comfortable with the notion that the Fathers weren't infallible in all respects- they were men that lived over a thousand years ago and are limited by the knowledge that was available at that time. of course some of their writing, while timeless, will be of the time and subject to certain limitations of that age. it's okay.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3167 on: June 28, 2011, 08:47:30 PM »

so we are not that interested in some crazy british guy's theory
 Wink

You do realize that this statement demonstrates you have no idea what "evolution" is, even when made in jest.

It is a ranging study of phenomena that cross many disciplines that like most things is work out through argument and experimentation with much disagreement among the experts in the fields.

No one on this planet can give a full account of "evolution". Just like no one is able to give a full account of the phenomenon of "gravity".

FWIW, that crazy British guy was quite interesting and became probably more "pious" after his findings than he was before. The results of his observations tore his worldview apart and his journals are wonderful reading.

One thing we do know: the account of creation in the Bible ain't science nor is scientifically accurate. But that ain't no problem, unless you are a fundie and many EOs are underneath their claims of "Easternism".

Truth is disclosed in many ways, in fact, the Greek word for truth means just that: disclosure.

What is disclosed is informed by how one engages with the world.

Frankly evolution is irrelevant to everyone except those getting paid to study it. It's like lay people putting effort into studying "gravity".

The Genesis Myth discloses a truth of a people and God's relationship with them from the beginning and foreshadows the completion of that relationship with the entirety of creation. This is more important for us to ponder than some scientific phenomenon.

As I've said, the mythological character of the story of creation in Genesis ain't a weakness, it is a strength. It reveals to us spiritual and psychological truths about our humanity and its relationship to the divine. A truths I find more important than the development of the earthworm.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3168 on: June 28, 2011, 09:16:34 PM »

You can't repeat evolution in a lab.

I'm not sure this is an entirely true statement.

I mean, if I beam ultraviolet light on a population of rats all day and a significant portion of the white ones get skin cancer and die before having much of a chance to reproduce, within only a few generations the population of rats will be significantly blacker, if not entirely so. Isn't this evolution, albeit by artificial selection?

That would be micro-evolution which is observable in a lab, and has been. I'm speaking more along the lines of macro-evolution (what creationists often call "particles-to-people" evolution), the developing of new species. This has not been observed. And is difficult also because biology doesn't really have a universal definition of "species."

thank you. one of the many lame arguments against evolution is that "it's only a theory, it hasn't been proven". all that shows is that the person talking doesn't really understand what a theory is. "theory" doesn't mean "something unproven" or that it isn't inaccurate.

that said, that evolution has occurred and been undeniably documented is a fact.

Umm...I'm pro-evolution? As in, I'm not making the "it's just a theory" argument. Just in case someone missed that part...
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #3169 on: June 28, 2011, 09:19:02 PM »

You can't repeat evolution in a lab.

I'm not sure this is an entirely true statement.

I mean, if I beam ultraviolet light on a population of rats all day and a significant portion of the white ones get skin cancer and die before having much of a chance to reproduce, within only a few generations the population of rats will be significantly blacker, if not entirely so. Isn't this evolution, albeit by artificial selection?

That would be micro-evolution which is observable in a lab, and has been. I'm speaking more along the lines of macro-evolution (what creationists often call "particles-to-people" evolution), the developing of new species. This has not been observed. And is difficult also because biology doesn't really have a universal definition of "species."

Cool. I think we are on the same page.

I think this exchange may be useful for some people on both sides of the divide, so I'm glad for it.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,637


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #3170 on: June 28, 2011, 09:19:38 PM »

Well, do you expect new species to come about in one day? "Hey, look, I just set up the microscope, and already, we've got a horse!"

That's not how it works.  Tongue
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #3171 on: June 28, 2011, 09:22:46 PM »

I'm sure I'm just repeating what everyone said, but I don't work in the evolutionary biology field, and therefore, I don't think about it too much.

During my evangelical years, I was put in the situation where I had to debate the topic often. Everyone I knew had a stance on the evolution vs. creationism debate (I know, that's what they called it), and I felt strange that part of me just didn't care. Like other said, if it's evolution as we generally know it, I still don't think it's going to change my faith at all. A year ago I was just able to start letting go of sola scriptura and I was able to accept that Genesis may not give out all the facts, in terms of the details of creation. And still, look at me! I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. Etc. etc. etc. It works for me.

It sounds kind of silly to say, though, "Hey, I don't care how the world was created. Whatever." (Sorry, I have some other pressing issues to worry about Wink ) I'm starting realize that it's okay to accept some of these things as a mystery.

I have some friends who aren't even Christians anymore because they couldn't get past evolution. I wish that they could see that it's not necessarily incompatible with faith in God.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 09:23:27 PM by IsmiLiora » Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,167



« Reply #3172 on: June 28, 2011, 09:26:01 PM »

I heard an explanation once that 'the back' referred to the back of the Lord's head- no, I'm not kidding- when God walked past Moses and showed him how to conduct the morning prayer reading. The reason was, that if you saw the front of God's face, you would die. This was said in an online audio class, but I can't remember which site. (Sorry.)
 Difficult to say.  The Hebrew word used in Exodus is אחור.  It is similar to our English noun "back," which means "hinder side," "back part."  I could not prove or disprove it based on the Hebrew, although the argument would be better of the text read, "Back of the head."
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3173 on: June 28, 2011, 09:32:00 PM »

Cool. I think we are on the same page.

I think this exchange may be useful for some people on both sides of the divide, so I'm glad for it.

Cool. I think so, too.  Smiley

Well, do you expect new species to come about in one day? "Hey, look, I just set up the microscope, and already, we've got a horse!"

That's not how it works.  Tongue

That's right, it doesn't work that way, which is why it's hard to claim macro-evolution as undisputable science fact. Can't really repeat it, or even observe it: it takes millions of years! That said, it doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming evidence for it and that we shouldn't consider it. It's a fairly logical hypothesis and fits the evidence observed. It works. Until we uncover something better or meet overwhelming evidence against it, why not keep using it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3174 on: June 28, 2011, 09:32:16 PM »

Literalism as an approach to scripture is one problem; literalism as an approach to the material creation is a more pervasive one, underlying most contemporary debates about "science and religion," and it's also the one most people are unaware of. Creation is symbolic- it is not meant to be understood in and for itself, but to draw us to higher spiritual truths. This understanding pervades scripture and the Fathers but is sadly absent from the pointless debates about creation vs. evolution.

"...[Every] literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovic
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 09:34:11 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 907



« Reply #3175 on: June 28, 2011, 09:35:48 PM »

There are the "Compatibilists" who say that evolution is possible. There is no official definition one way or another, but the right answer is somewhere in between.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #3176 on: June 28, 2011, 09:59:40 PM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.

As very well they should, since science cannot afford to be dogmatic. Looking at this from a scientific point of view, we may yet find a theory that explains the facts better than our current theory. We may uncover data we've never known before, data that requires a new explanation. If we're exercising the scientific method correctly, we have a responsibility to always maintain the falsifiability of a theory, because only then can we keep ourselves open to new information. That's the problem I see with creation "science": it's not falsifiable; therefore, it's not open to being corrected by new information.

Excellent points.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 10:07:50 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #3177 on: June 28, 2011, 10:07:26 PM »

When I was an Orthodox Jew I was taught that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), and that He did it in 6 literal days. When I was a Traditional Roman Catholic, I was taught the same thing.
I see no reason to change what I believe now, as I become an Orthodox Christian.
In addition, I certainly don't believe that man evolved from primates, however I do recognize that evolutions take place within species to adapt to changing situations.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3178 on: June 28, 2011, 11:06:40 PM »

When I was an Orthodox Jew I was taught that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), and that He did it in 6 literal days. When I was a Traditional Roman Catholic, I was taught the same thing.
I see no reason to change what I believe now, as I become an Orthodox Christian.
In addition, I certainly don't believe that man evolved from primates, however I do recognize that evolutions take place within species to adapt to changing situations.

Guess you are still on board with the whole Sun revolves around the earth thing as well.

BTW, man is a primate if we don't cut language too finely, which no one can do here without google.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3179 on: June 28, 2011, 11:48:28 PM »

The evolution theory is a lie.  So there.  I've said it.  I'm bracing myself for the impact now.
Logged

Stillness,  prayer, love and self-control are a four-horsed chariot bearing the intellect to Heaven. (Philokalia 2: p.308 - #24) - St. Thalassios

The proper activity of the intellect is to be attentive at every moment to the words of God.   (Philokalia 2: p. 308 - # 30) - St. Thalassios
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3180 on: June 28, 2011, 11:57:42 PM »

The evolution theory is a lie.  So there.  I've said it.  I'm bracing myself for the impact now.

Actually, no impact. Being used to fundies and living in the home to one of the three "Creation Science" museums in the world, such silliness doesn't even register.

Now sometimes it is funny. The museum's science fair held for kids had a list of rules which were side splitting (pardon the punlikery).

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3181 on: June 29, 2011, 12:52:52 AM »

No
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Now would you care to elaborate?
Logged
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #3182 on: June 29, 2011, 03:52:25 AM »

It is rather boring confronting yet another thread about evolution and whether it upsets the Christian tradition.

The problem is most of you are approaching the issue from a Western perspective.  You are looking at it through the eyes of Western Scholarism - which is interesting for people who claim they are Orthodox.

We are not chimpanzees - we are made in the image of God.  Not that we necessarily might look like God but that we have the ability to become 'like God'.

We, have transcended our animalism and have climbed out of the primordial slime and have developed the ability to think of something that is beyond ourselves.  We are capable of self-transcending integration with what we have called God.  Chimps cannot do that.  We can.

Harping on our past, however slimy or even interesting that past may be, does nothing for our future.  It does not matter all that much where we came from.  It is where we are going that is important.    
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 03:53:10 AM by wayseer » Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3183 on: June 29, 2011, 07:35:02 AM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.

Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
This site you offer as instructive of the "other" side of the debate is a Protestant apologetics site. What bearing do they have on what the Orthodox have to say about evolution? Also, considering all the things you preach against Protestantism on this forum, why do they suddenly become credible when it's evolution you're attacking?

Actually, I've seen these videos.  Dr. Hovind's explanations, on the scientific basis, shows how the evolution theory is a lie.  He provides alot of references, which you, Peter, always need.  And his message about what is happening in the US schools is very important.  There is also ICR.org.   I've learnt so much about actual science opposed to the fantasies we were taught in school.  Have you seen these videos?
Logged

Stillness,  prayer, love and self-control are a four-horsed chariot bearing the intellect to Heaven. (Philokalia 2: p.308 - #24) - St. Thalassios

The proper activity of the intellect is to be attentive at every moment to the words of God.   (Philokalia 2: p. 308 - # 30) - St. Thalassios
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3184 on: June 29, 2011, 08:10:09 AM »

The problem is most of you are approaching the issue from a Western perspective.  You are looking at it through the eyes of Western Scholarism - which is interesting for people who claim they are Orthodox.

It seems "Western" is just another boogeyman like "Protestant" and "fundamentalist"- it's a fun word to throw around on internet boards in the absence of a substantive argument, and everyone can come up with his own definition to fit the people he's attacking.

The obvious silliness in the above usage is that Darwinism and modern scientism are also products of "Western Scholarism." Goofy creation parks that show Adam riding dinosaurs are just the other side of the same coin.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #3185 on: June 29, 2011, 08:44:19 AM »

When I was an Orthodox Jew I was taught that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), and that He did it in 6 literal days. When I was a Traditional Roman Catholic, I was taught the same thing.
I see no reason to change what I believe now, as I become an Orthodox Christian.
In addition, I certainly don't believe that man evolved from primates, however I do recognize that evolutions take place within species to adapt to changing situations.

Guess you are still on board with the whole Sun revolves around the earth thing as well.

BTW, man is a primate if we don't cut language too finely, which no one can do here without google.
  Why do you assume that becaise I reject an obvious falsehood, that I reject all science? Until secular humanists took over in the worlds of science and academia, most scientists were believers in God.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,637


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #3186 on: June 29, 2011, 08:51:46 AM »

Quote from: Iconodule
It seems "Western" is just another boogeyman like "Protestant" and "fundamentalist"- it's a fun word to throw around on internet boards in the absence of a substantive argument, and everyone can come up with his own definition to fit the people he's attacking.

True.  Smiley If everything 'Western' is bad, am I not supposed to enjoy looking at the sunset?  Wink
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,817



« Reply #3187 on: June 29, 2011, 09:14:11 AM »

It is rather boring confronting yet another thread about evolution and whether it upsets the Christian tradition.

The problem is most of you are approaching the issue from a Western perspective.  You are looking at it through the eyes of Western Scholarism

Scholasticism?
- which is interesting for people who claim they are Orthodox.

We are not chimpanzees - we are made in the image of God.  Not that we necessarily might look like God but that we have the ability to become 'like God'.

We, have transcended our animalism and have climbed out of the primordial slime and have developed the ability to think of something that is beyond ourselves.  We are capable of self-transcending integration with what we have called God.  Chimps cannot do that.  We can.

Harping on our past, however slimy or even interesting that past may be, does nothing for our future.  It does not matter all that much where we came from.  It is where we are going that is important.    
If that were 100% accurate, why do we have Genesis?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 09:24:44 AM by ialmisry » 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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3188 on: June 29, 2011, 09:21:31 AM »

wayseer likes to use the word "Western" a lot.

Wayseer, please explain how anything in this thread has yet to do with "Western Scholasticism". Is there an "Eastern Scholasticism"?

Without googling, could you provide a coherent definition of what "Scholasticism" means?

If the "West" remained "Scholastic", Darwin would have never developed his theory.

And do you realize that some of those "Scholastics" preserved the writings of the Church Fathers both "East" and "West" during the Middle Ages. You can thank my people for that.

And whatever you were trying to get at that had merit, I already addressed in my post.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3189 on: June 29, 2011, 09:58:42 AM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.

Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
This site you offer as instructive of the "other" side of the debate is a Protestant apologetics site. What bearing do they have on what the Orthodox have to say about evolution? Also, considering all the things you preach against Protestantism on this forum, why do they suddenly become credible when it's evolution you're attacking?

Actually, I've seen these videos.  Dr. Hovind's explanations, on the scientific basis, shows how the evolution theory is a lie.  He provides alot of references, which you, Peter, always need.  And his message about what is happening in the US schools is very important.  There is also ICR.org.   I've learnt so much about actual science opposed to the fantasies we were taught in school.  Have you seen these videos?
But why do you deem them credible?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3190 on: June 29, 2011, 10:33:05 AM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.

Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
This site you offer as instructive of the "other" side of the debate is a Protestant apologetics site. What bearing do they have on what the Orthodox have to say about evolution? Also, considering all the things you preach against Protestantism on this forum, why do they suddenly become credible when it's evolution you're attacking?

Actually, I've seen these videos.  Dr. Hovind's explanations, on the scientific basis, shows how the evolution theory is a lie.  He provides alot of references, which you, Peter, always need.  And his message about what is happening in the US schools is very important.  There is also ICR.org.   I've learnt so much about actual science opposed to the fantasies we were taught in school.  Have you seen these videos?
But why do you deem them credible?

Quote mining. That is what the so-called "creation scientists" do.

Something everyone here should be familiar with from experience with fundie hermeneutics and lay Patristic hermeneutics.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #3191 on: June 29, 2011, 11:15:40 AM »

The creationist point that always struck me as the most important was the incompatibility of evolutionary origin of man and other species with the dogma that God did not create death. There has to be a causal connection between the sin of Adam and the introduction of death into the universe, as St Paul stated. Attempts to integrate evolutionism and Orthodox dogma, such as Bp Alexander Mileant's, inevitably resort to drawing a distinction between death in humans and death in other animals. The idea is that death may have occurred among our non-human ancestors, but this kind of death does not "count"; only the death following upon the first sin of the first human couple counts. However, this idea seems to be contradicted by the dogma that the universe was cursed for Adam's sake (Genesis, St Paul), which implies that death and corruption, wherever and whenever it is found in the world, is entirely a consequence of the sin of our first (human) parents.

I had a speculative thought concerning this. What if a causal connection does not entail a certain temporal sequence? What if we can say that Adam's sin caused all the death that may have preceded him in time, as well as the death that followed him? I don't know whether this idea is theologically tenable, but since I haven't seen it argued for or against anywhere, I thought I might as well just put it out there and see what others think.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3192 on: June 29, 2011, 11:32:44 AM »

The creationist point that always struck me as the most important was the incompatibility of evolutionary origin of man and other species with the dogma that God did not create death.
In the main Evolution/Creation thread, we discussed this issue. Apparently, some Church Fathers believed that animals were created naturally to die, and God gave Adam and Eve the potential to escape this natural death. A & E "fell", and death entered the human world, but theosis is the process of entering into eternal Life.
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.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3193 on: June 29, 2011, 11:43:56 AM »

The creationist point that always struck me as the most important was the incompatibility of evolutionary origin of man and other species with the dogma that God did not create death. There has to be a causal connection between the sin of Adam and the introduction of death into the universe, as St Paul stated. Attempts to integrate evolutionism and Orthodox dogma, such as Bp Alexander Mileant's, inevitably resort to drawing a distinction between death in humans and death in other animals. The idea is that death may have occurred among our non-human ancestors, but this kind of death does not "count"; only the death following upon the first sin of the first human couple counts. However, this idea seems to be contradicted by the dogma that the universe was cursed for Adam's sake (Genesis, St Paul), which implies that death and corruption, wherever and whenever it is found in the world, is entirely a consequence of the sin of our first (human) parents.

I had a speculative thought concerning this. What if a causal connection does not entail a certain temporal sequence? What if we can say that Adam's sin caused all the death that may have preceded him in time, as well as the death that followed him? I don't know whether this idea is theologically tenable, but since I haven't seen it argued for or against anywhere, I thought I might as well just put it out there and see what others think.

My Priest and I have been discussing these matters at length. Not because they are a stumbling block or anything, but because of some of my background and some of the stuff he has read on the matter.

IMHO, the "East" just doesn't have a decent history of fundamentally examining ontology and thus falls into as many problems as the "West". Fortunately, the West produced 20th Century Continental thought which critically took back up the radical notions implied by ontology of the ancient world. And it is these thinkers that more and more academic EO theologians are looking to for help with such questions.

The question must be asked if "death" preceded man ontically (to put in your words "chronologically" or "temporally"), what do we mean by death ontologically and are beings other than humans able to die?

I do reject the notion that in His foreknowledge that God "built" into creation death knowing of Adam's sin. Then again, I am not sure any creature other than man is capable of dying. And the Church Fathers are not in agreement that man was created to be immortal as such either. Which leads to the question is man capable of being mortal but not capable of death? Personally, I do not like this "existentializing" of the Fall. That in the lost of the innocence man fell into a knowledge of Good and Evil and thus knew shame, anger, fear, anxiety, etc. toward the world including his mortality which would then be death. Following this line of thinking man being mortal yet not able to die even if the Fall had not happened then Christ still would have come to bring humanity into its full expression.

Again, I find that line of thought problematic.

We must also keep in mind that creation was "good" but not all of creation was the Garden of Eden. Adam's and Eve's vocation was to spread that garden and to procreate. And we must remember that there ain't nothing much said in Genesis between Adam's and Eve's creation and their fall. They didn't even have a single offspring within the Garden.

But I do think that for those who wish to pursue such issue academically, then one will have to deal with the ontological nature of death and to do that one is going to have to come to grips with Continental thought.

These are the real questions. The arguing over the truth of "evolution" is just silly.

Thankfully none of this matters as such.

Again, I go back to the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Last Judgement.

While I believe I can give a more coherent and sophisticated exegesis of the myth of the Fall than your average EO or any Christian, I fail worse on nearly every other account that truly matters when we are called to be Christians.

But knowing that mortality preceded man, we are stuck with some difficult questions. Thankfully (or unfortunately for some of us) the answers we come up ain't what will be judge by in the fullness of the love of God.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3194 on: June 29, 2011, 11:56:25 AM »

The creationist point that always struck me as the most important was the incompatibility of evolutionary origin of man and other species with the dogma that God did not create death.
In the main Evolution/Creation thread, we discussed this issue. Apparently, some Church Fathers believed that animals were created naturally to die, and God gave Adam and Eve the potential to escape this natural death. A & E "fell", and death entered the human world, but theosis is the process of entering into eternal Life.

This is true. But also see my comments on the possible difference between death and mortality.

I hold close to your concise summation. But the problem is ontically speaking, when did "humanity" come into being via evolution and thus were able to fall?

Frankly, I find the question of the Fall to be one of those ontological reversals of how we typically view matters.

If Adam and Eve had free will, how would it ever had been revealed save through disobedience? If one  has no memory of a history of anyone making a choice nor has made a choice for oneself which was not in concert with the will of God, how would you ever know such a choice were possible until that state were broken?

IOW, in virtue of making a mistake did we come to know our ability to exercise our will and to be able to ponder it.

So it seems to me, without getting too technical, the creation of Adam and Eve begins not in their obedience ontologically, but in their disobedience. Only in the wake of the rift between man and God did man come to know himself as such. This is the upshot of the eating of fruit of the tree of Good and Evil. But prior to that state of awareness were they mortal? I don't know. And I don't like the answer of yes.

Again, these are just quick ramblings from some back and forths with my Priest emailwise and face to face.

It is an interesting "problem".

Wondering if evolution is "true" ain't.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 0.185 seconds with 74 queries.