OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:17:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   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 (15.9%)
No - 127 (38%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (46.1%)
Total Voters: 334

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 296525 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3195 on: June 29, 2011, 11:59:15 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.

Because you show your utter misunderstanding of science in your statement.

Many scientists still believe in God, so what?

lulz @ secular humanists.

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3196 on: June 29, 2011, 12:07:16 PM »

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.

Are you referring to St Athanasius? I remember minasoliman insisting that St Athanasius believed or taught that animals died before the Fall, but in none of the quotes did the saint say that explicitly. He did talk about man falling "back" into the "natural" law of corruption, but I think that could easily be interpreted to mean that, after the Fall, no longer supported by Grace, Man tends "back" towards his original state, i.e. his state before creation, which is absolute nothing. Without God's grace sustaining the world's existence, the world reverts to where it came from, in other words. This is what death and corruption are in essence: the gradual undoing of creation. Of course, this unraveling process is not instantaneous, which we can attribute to the continuing mercy of God, despite the presence of sin. But we can't believe that the death itself is caused by God, which is kind of the implication of a universe in which death-driven evolution is supposed to be part of God's original plan.

Besides, other Fathers taught explicitly that there was no death of any kind before the Fall. I know minasoliman seemed to subscribe to the idea that only Alexandrian saints were infallible (which I guess makes sense, since he is Coptic), but as an EO I have to believe in the consensus of all the Fathers, so that whatever St Athanasius taught has to be interpreted in the context of Antiochian or other saints who were much more "literal" about Genesis and Creation. Even if one saint's words taken on their own can be made to fit evolutionary theory, that doesn't give me leave to ignore the others whose words are not so compatible with evolution. I still agree with Fr Seraphim Rose that all death, in whatever forms, is the consequence of sin, and not just the death of human beings.

Really the point I was trying to make is that, if our dogmas require a belief in a causal connection between the ancestral sin and the existence of all death or corruption, would it still be possible to affirm these dogmas, while accepting some truth to evolution, if we allow that some kind of death may have preceded its cause in time? Or is the temporal sequence itself of dogmatic significance?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3197 on: June 29, 2011, 12:14:56 PM »

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.

I don't really follow your use of "ontically", by which you appear to intend something different from "temporally". What does it mean if something precedes something else "ontically"?

I also don't accept your idea that animal death doesn't really exist. Obviously, this is similar to the idea Bp Alexander was playing with when promoting his own integrated theory of Orthodox evolutionism. But it's rather questionable, no? Are there Fathers that actually teach this distinction?

I do agree that there was something particular about Paradise. It was a special place, designed for Man, and set apart in some way from the rest of the world. However, I don't believe this entails that the rest of the world was already subject to corruption, a notion explicitly denied in some Fathers (see Fr Seraphim's essay). I don't believe Man's mission was to "spread" Paradise, but rather it was to cultivate and tend it. Maybe that also includes spreading it, but again, I don't take it to mean that the rest of the world was subject to death from the beginning, and that part of Man's mission was to subdue this world of death. He was meant to subdue the earth, certainly, but not because the world was already dying.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #3198 on: June 29, 2011, 12:19:20 PM »

I'll just say this, we must be truly open to follow the evidence where it leads.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3199 on: June 29, 2011, 12:22:29 PM »

I was watching a video on youtube and this guy was talking about how evolution doesn't have truth, those who believe it are misguided. This was a teenage convert and a reader talking, but it made me wonder...

What's the Orthodox Christian stance on evolution?
I think you can probably now see from the controversy that surrounds this topic even in Orthodox circles that there is no official Orthodox stance on evolution. All you're really required to believe is that God is the Creator of all things. Now, regarding the merits of one side vs. the other, I think we might want to consider taking that debate to the Religious Topics sticky on the subject of Creation, Evolution, and Orthodoxy.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3200 on: June 29, 2011, 12:40:19 PM »

I don't really follow your use of "ontically", by which you appear to intend something different from "temporally". What does it mean if something precedes something else "ontically"?

Temporally will work although the full meaning ontically is richer . If we are going to get into the language of ontology then that is language I'll use. But this is hair splitting at this level.

Quote from: Jonathan Gress
I also don't accept your idea that animal death doesn't really exist. Obviously, this is similar to the idea Bp Alexander was playing with when promoting his own integrated theory of Orthodox evolutionism. But it's rather questionable, no? Are there Fathers that actually teach this distinction?

That is fine. It is a radical POV. And one that would be have to be worked out within a larger framework of what death is ontologically. I am not conceited enough to think posting some Cliff Notes to some odd ways of thinking are going to be persuasive, if the reader is unfamiliar with the technical issues at hand. The question of whether a being other than a human can die is an important much discussed point in the question of what is death. If one is not reading that literature, then I can see why there ain't much to glean from it.

Wait for it . . .

Patristic hermeneutics is complicated and more than the quote mining that goes on here. So to answer your question:

First, folks with a strong grounding in Patristics needs to get a strong ground in Continental thought to answer your question, which is happening.

Second, I don't care that much. The Church Fathers are not infallible and nearly everything I've read except quote mining fundie EOs see the Church Fathers not having consensus on many of these issues. I've yet to meet a well educated Priest who would claim to know any definitive answers here they would be binding on an EO to believe. And that is sorta the point about why this is interesting. Cause there ain't any answers.  

Quote from: Jonathan Gress
I do agree that there was something particular about Paradise. It was a special place, designed for Man, and set apart in some way from the rest of the world. However, I don't believe this entails that the rest of the world was already subject to corruption

I didn't imply that necessarily.

Quote from: Jonathan Gress
Fr Seraphim

Fr. Seraphim of Platina? Are you talking about him? Frankly, I hold him in very low regard in any of his "critiques" of "modernity" and the like. He was just a dilettante in his education and arrogant in his grasp of sweep and scope of Western thought. Can't speak to his writing on matters strictly Orthodox per se, but those who I respect have a similar opinion of his grasp of those ideas as well.

This is not to say he wasn't a great man. Just not the best example IMHO to trot as a decent critic of "modernity".

Quote from: Jonathan Gress
I don't believe Man's mission was to "spread" Paradise, but rather it was to cultivate and tend it. Maybe that also includes spreading it, but again, I don't take it to mean that the rest of the world was subject to death from the beginning, and that part of Man's mission was to subdue this world of death. He was meant to subdue the earth, certainly, but not because the world was already dying.

Again I don't think I implied that latter remarks specifically and I think in the former remarks in the quote we are in agreement, just a matter of syntax perhaps.

Again, fascinating stuff.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 12:57:15 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3201 on: June 29, 2011, 12:55:13 PM »

Some notes I have in front of me from my Priest:

Quote
I would like to pass along a text by a somewhat lesser known early Church Father, St. Theophilus of Antioch (2nd c.). It is a very nuanced and insightful commentary on the question of whether or not the first man and woman were created immortal or mortal in Paradise.  He writes the following:
 
“Yet someone will say to us, ‘But wasn’t death a natural function of human nature?  Not at all!  ‘Was man therefore immortal? We do not say that either.  They will then reply, ‘Do you mean man was nothing at all?’  No, that is not at all what we mean.  Rather, by his nature man was no more mortal than immortal.  If he had been created immortal from the beginning, he would have been created divine.  On the other hand, if he had been created mortal, it would have appeared that God was the cause of his death.  Thus he was created neither mortal or immortal, rather, he was capable of both mortality and immortality.  Had he chosen the way of immortality in following the divine commandment, he would have received the gift of immortality as a recompense, and thus he would have become like God.  Since instead he turned toward works of death in disobedience to God, he became himself the cause of his own death.  So it is that God created man free and master of his own destiny.”  (To Autolycus II, 27)
 
He also wrote briefly:  “Man was created in an intermediate situation, neither completely mortal nor absolutely immortal, but capable of both.”  (Ibid. I, 24)

Quote
In an excellent book, entitled, The Theology of Illness, the French Orthodox theologian, Jean-Claude Larchet, offers a further nuanced summary of the approach of the Fathers to the question of humankind’s initial immortality:
 
“The Fathers often nuance their affirmation by saying that man was created “for incorruptibility” (WIS. 2:23), or “for immortality” (St. Gregory of Nyssa), or that man’s nature strives to participate in divine immortality (Sts. Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, and Gregory Palamas), or they speak of the “promise” of incorruptibility and immortality (Sts. Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor), indicating that these values were not definitively acquired from the very beginning as they would have been if they were properties of human nature.”  (Theology of Illness, p. 20-21)

Quote
And here is a fascinating passage that challenges the presumption of science to answer all questions about human origins:
 
“The history of man as it is conceived by human paleontology, as compared with the point of view of Holy Tradition, refers only to the history of humanity outside of paradise.  The Fathers would see homo habilis not as a representative of humanity as he emerged from the hands of God, but as already fallen from his original state, fallen to the lowest state of his “involution,” and beginning to develop himself according to a new mode of existence.  It is important, therefore, to avoid confusing the state of spiritual infancy attributed by the Fathers to Adam at the time of his creation (Sts. Irenaeus, Theophilus, John of Damascus) with the historical “infancy” or a state of underdevelopment that characterized the earliest human beings”  (Ibid., p. 23).

Some texts we've mentioned and have thought about looking at:

God Without Being: Hors-Texte

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309366004&sr=8-1

Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Communion-Personhood-Contemporary-Theologians/dp/0881410292/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=IIF0RGQABCR3F&colid=16XPGOENBTBYY

Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church

http://www.amazon.com/Communion-Otherness-Further-Studies-Personhood/dp/0567031489/ref=pd_sim_b_5

Metropolitan John of Pergamon is a brilliant man and has read Heidegger and Levinas in particular. While I have reservations about his interpretations of the aforementioned thinkers, he has opened a wonderful way of ontological thought and dialog with the serious grappling with ontology that has been going on in the West for the hundred years or so.

Highly recommended.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 12:56:27 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3202 on: June 29, 2011, 01:01:59 PM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.  I've learnt so much about biology, genetics, geology, archaeology, palentology, astro-physics.

It would take up too much space to get into it here.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 01:03:35 PM by joasia » 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3203 on: June 29, 2011, 01:09:15 PM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.
There's a very simple reason why: Creation "science" is NOT science.
Logged
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3204 on: June 29, 2011, 01:13:33 PM »

Quote
Fr. Seraphim of Platina? Are you talking about him? Frankly, I hold him in very low regard in any of his "critiques" of "modernity" and the like. He was just a dilettante in his education and arrogant in his grasp of sweep and scope of Western thought. Can't speak to his writing on matters strictly Orthodox per se, but those who I respect have a similar opinion of his grasp of those ideas as well.

Fr. Seraphim, memory eternal, quoted the holy fathers.  What was so wrong about his writings?  Where do you see him as being arrogant?  If you are going to meline someone and make critisms of your own, then please provide some back up.  He understood very much about Orthodoxy as he also lived as a monk-priest. But, I see that your position is identified as catechumen.  

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
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3205 on: June 29, 2011, 01:17:09 PM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.
There's a very simple reason why: Creation "science" is NOT science.

The science proves young earth.  You obviously didn't see these videos or read up on scientific support of young earth.  I'm not going any further into this with you since you are not familiar, at all, with this subject.
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

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3206 on: June 29, 2011, 01:18:23 PM »

Quote
Fr. Seraphim of Platina? Are you talking about him? Frankly, I hold him in very low regard in any of his "critiques" of "modernity" and the like. He was just a dilettante in his education and arrogant in his grasp of sweep and scope of Western thought. Can't speak to his writing on matters strictly Orthodox per se, but those who I respect have a similar opinion of his grasp of those ideas as well.

Fr. Seraphim, memory eternal, quoted the holy fathers.  What was so wrong about his writings?  Where do you see him as being arrogant?  If you are going to meline someone and make critisms of your own, then please provide some back up.  He understood very much about Orthodoxy as he also lived as a monk-priest. But, I see that your position is identified as catechumen.  



Use the search engine or I will do it for you later. I've been clear about my view on his writings more than three times here. I see you are a newbie here, don't assume I haven't posted my concerns before.

Ain't gotta be a Russian born Orthodox to see that his critiques of Western thinkers are facile and sophomoric.

And note my point about not critiquing his view on Orthodoxy per se.

It helps to read a post before emotionally responding to it.

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3207 on: June 29, 2011, 01:20:43 PM »

@orthonorm:

Thanks for those notes from your priest. I think they're very interesting, and St Theophilus' point about man being capable of either state is obviously very important to bear in mind.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #3208 on: June 29, 2011, 01:41:15 PM »

Adam was the first creature that God filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, he was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, which had died. Adam, by sinning, separated Himself from God's communion of love, and our war is now against those animalistic passions that we have. The Lord Jesus Christ, in becoming incarnate, redeems matter itself and makes it something greater than it ever was before, even at the beginning of creation.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #3209 on: June 29, 2011, 01:41:16 PM »

LOL Young Earth Creationism? Seriously?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3210 on: June 29, 2011, 01:53:34 PM »

Quote
Fr. Seraphim of Platina? Are you talking about him? Frankly, I hold him in very low regard in any of his "critiques" of "modernity" and the like. He was just a dilettante in his education and arrogant in his grasp of sweep and scope of Western thought. Can't speak to his writing on matters strictly Orthodox per se, but those who I respect have a similar opinion of his grasp of those ideas as well.

Fr. Seraphim, memory eternal, quoted the holy fathers.  What was so wrong about his writings?  Where do you see him as being arrogant?  If you are going to meline someone and make critisms of your own, then please provide some back up.  He understood very much about Orthodoxy as he also lived as a monk-priest. But, I see that your position is identified as catechumen.  


Unless you're prepared to show exactly how one's status as a catechumen disqualifies a person from speaking on a topic, simply pointing out that status in an attempt to discredit is an ad hominem that has no place on this forum. You'd be surprised how much some people have studied before deciding to join the Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 04:08:49 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3211 on: June 29, 2011, 01:56:15 PM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.
There's a very simple reason why: Creation "science" is NOT science.

The science proves young earth.  You obviously didn't see these videos or read up on scientific support of young earth.  I'm not going any further into this with you since you are not familiar, at all, with this subject.
Obviously? You obviously know nothing about how much I actually have studied and are therefore not qualified to speak of my level of familiarity with this subject. I used to be a young-earth creationist, and I still recall much of the "science" I heard advanced in support of young-earth creationism. I've just not watched the video nor presented any of my knowledge of the subject because I really haven't had the time to do so since this thread started. I do have more important things to do than embroil myself in a heated debate for hours on end.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 02:03:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3212 on: June 29, 2011, 04:27:44 PM »

Adam was the first creature that God filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, he was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, which had died. Adam, by sinning, separated Himself from God's communion of love, and our war is now against those animalistic passions that we have. The Lord Jesus Christ, in becoming incarnate, redeems matter itself and makes it something greater than it ever was before, even at the beginning of creation.

Nice job asserting as dogma what is precisely under debate here. Do you have any patristic quotes to back this up?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3213 on: June 29, 2011, 04:30:33 PM »

This thread is going in the very same direction as the previous zillion page thread on this subject. Do we really need another one of those? Do you think someone is going to "win" this time?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 04:30:56 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3214 on: June 29, 2011, 04:43:46 PM »

Good point. I think I'll bow out of this one now. It looks like no one is particularly impressed with the idea that animal death could have been retroactively caused by Adam's sin, anyway.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3215 on: June 29, 2011, 04:45:03 PM »

This thread is going in the very same direction as the previous zillion page thread on this subject. Do we really need another one of those? Do you think someone is going to "win" this time?

For the record, I ain't trying to win anything. I thought that there might be the possibility of some actual interesting questions to discuss, not that many answers would probably be found.

Whether or not evolution "happened" is not up for debate. People who say otherwise are just ill-informed.

But what is interesting is for those who do believe in evolution and try to tackle the real "problems" presented by it and the account and understanding of Creation and the Fall.

Again, none of this binding on salvation, but it is of interest to some.

Whether someone wants to misunderstand both science and the Scriptures without much argument is not interesting.

But there is a real interesting problem for those who do believe in evolution and how to deal some of the tough questions.

That is not a game to win but a possibly thought-provoking discussion.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3216 on: June 29, 2011, 04:46:04 PM »

Good point. I think I'll bow out of this one now. It looks like no one is particularly impressed with the idea that animal death could have been retroactively caused by Adam's sin, anyway.

The idea that the Fall may have not only corrupted the earth but the very natural history of the world we live in had occurred to me. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I can think of at least one other example in the Fathers of a "retroactive" effect of the Fall, so it's not completely out of the blue.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 04:46:52 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3217 on: June 29, 2011, 04:47:37 PM »

Good point. I think I'll bow out of this one now. It looks like no one is particularly impressed with the idea that animal death could have been retroactively caused by Adam's sin, anyway.

I think it is interesting, if it not merely speculative. That is not to say I have not been speculating here. But if you have Scriptural or Patristic or Theological or Philosophical sources that fill out that speculative idea, I think it is interesting.

Evolution does pose a significant problem or interesting questions on the nature of the Fall.

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
cs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 31


« Reply #3218 on: June 29, 2011, 06:14:52 PM »

I'm not challenging anyone, but I really don't understand:

If you believe evolution is true, then do you believe Adam and Eve existed? I have a hard time understanding how you could believe Adam and Eve existed if you believe in evolution.
Logged
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3219 on: June 29, 2011, 06:18:08 PM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.
There's a very simple reason why: Creation "science" is NOT science.

The science proves young earth.  You obviously didn't see these videos or read up on scientific support of young earth.  I'm not going any further into this with you since you are not familiar, at all, with this subject.
Obviously? You obviously know nothing about how much I actually have studied and are therefore not qualified to speak of my level of familiarity with this subject. I used to be a young-earth creationist, and I still recall much of the "science" I heard advanced in support of young-earth creationism. I've just not watched the video nor presented any of my knowledge of the subject because I really haven't had the time to do so since this thread started. I do have more important things to do than embroil myself in a heated debate for hours on end.

I was basing my comment on the observation of your response.  Now, you have given me more information about your knowledge which corrects my previous statement. Can we agree on this?  I'm not looking for a heated debate either.  If you have a website or articles that review the errors of these sciences, can you provide them here, for whoever would like to see it for their own personal interests?  
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
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #3220 on: June 29, 2011, 07:45:08 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.

send them these links:
http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html

These two links may save your friends.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3221 on: June 29, 2011, 11:41:07 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.

send them these links:
http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html

These two links may save your friends.
Says who?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3222 on: June 29, 2011, 11:58:23 PM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.
There's a very simple reason why: Creation "science" is NOT science.

The science proves young earth.  You obviously didn't see these videos or read up on scientific support of young earth.  I'm not going any further into this with you since you are not familiar, at all, with this subject.
Obviously? You obviously know nothing about how much I actually have studied and are therefore not qualified to speak of my level of familiarity with this subject. I used to be a young-earth creationist, and I still recall much of the "science" I heard advanced in support of young-earth creationism. I've just not watched the video nor presented any of my knowledge of the subject because I really haven't had the time to do so since this thread started. I do have more important things to do than embroil myself in a heated debate for hours on end.
Having just finished watching the introductory video in this series, I have some notes I jotted down from my own impressions of Eric Hovind's presentation:

1.  Eric presents a false dichotomy between belief in evolution and belief in creationism.
2.  Eric presents a false association of evolution science with atheism (the assertion that evolution science is necessarily atheistic and that one cannot believe that evolution could be part of God's work of creation).
3.  Eric presents a false association of creationism with genuine Christianity. Creationism as we know it today is really a product of fundamentalist Protestant attempts to make their version of Christianity stand up to modern and post-modern criticism. It's really just as flawed as the fundamentalism that gave it birth, since it's built on the same shaky foundation of Protestant thought.
4.  If God did indeed create the world a mere 6000 years ago, wouldn't the fossil record be consistent with that time frame?
5.  False limitation of science to what we can "see, test, and demonstrate". In its essence, science is really a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (from dictionary.com), and theory is basically the attempt to explain what we can observe. What is there in this definition of science that forbids us from observing the historical record the physical world has given us and attempting to offer explanations for what we see in this historical record? Why is this not science, simply because we can't repeat it in a lab?
6.  The assertion that "because science is limited, we can learn nothing from it" really begs the question.
7.  I've never before heard anyone assert that the Big Bang involved rotation.
8.  Untested assertion: "If the Big Bang theory were true, everything in the universe would be distributed evenly." Where does he get that idea? Does Eric have no knowledge of the even distribution of background microwave radiation that astronomers have observed coming from all directions in the universe?
9.  False dichotomy between science and religion: Eric attempts (unconvincingly, AFAIC) to define what science is and show how evolution theory cannot be considered science, but because he presents no third or fourth options outside of science and religion, he automatically presumes that because evolution theory is not science, it MUST be religion. Nowhere, however, does Eric define religion and demonstrate how the theory of evolution matches that definition.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 12:29:06 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #3223 on: June 30, 2011, 02:50:05 AM »

Adam was the first creature that God filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, he was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, which had died. Adam, by sinning, separated Himself from God's communion of love, and our war is now against those animalistic passions that we have. The Lord Jesus Christ, in becoming incarnate, redeems matter itself and makes it something greater than it ever was before, even at the beginning of creation.

Nice job asserting as dogma what is precisely under debate here. Do you have any patristic quotes to back this up?
I didn't assert it as dogma. It's my personal opinion. Honestly, I have no interest in fueling internal Orthodox divisions, which is why I almost never speak on this issue.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3224 on: June 30, 2011, 07:18:34 AM »

Adam was the first creature that God filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, he was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, which had died. Adam, by sinning, separated Himself from God's communion of love, and our war is now against those animalistic passions that we have. The Lord Jesus Christ, in becoming incarnate, redeems matter itself and makes it something greater than it ever was before, even at the beginning of creation.

Nice job asserting as dogma what is precisely under debate here. Do you have any patristic quotes to back this up?
I didn't assert it as dogma. It's my personal opinion. Honestly, I have no interest in fueling internal Orthodox divisions, which is why I almost never speak on this issue.

Sorry, I misunderstood.
Logged
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3225 on: June 30, 2011, 10:18:03 PM »

To PetertheAleut:

I don't think quotes would be effective here.  There are too many points to make.  I've asked before, but would you be able to open a new forum for these specific videos?  It would seperate the discussion from the general topic of evolution and specify the videos on drdino.com.

Here is my response to your comments:

1.  Eric presents a false dichotomy between belief in evolution and belief in creationism.
- See response to #9

2.  Eric presents a false association of evolution science with atheism (the assertion that evolution science is necessarily atheistic/ and that one cannot believe that evolution could be part of God's work of creation).
-  Your comment has two separate points.  He was saying that the Evolutionists don't believe in God. They don't.  They eliminate God from the process as is obvious in their explanations since they never mention God.   The second part is his belief as a Christian. I agree with him on that.

3.  Eric presents a false association of creationism with genuine Christianity. Creationism as we know it today is really a product of fundamentalist Protestant attempts to make their version of Christianity stand up to modern and post-modern criticism. It's really just as flawed as the fundamentalism that gave it birth, since it's built on the same shaky foundation of Protestant thought.
- This sounds like an Evolutionist comment.  Their "version of Christianity" is that God created the world and that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of our souls and that He will come again.  Protestant theology aside, are they wrong about this?  What is Creationism as we know it from the past, then? You're really stretching this one. 

4.  If God did indeed create the world a mere 6000 years ago, wouldn't the fossil record be consistent with that time frame?
- Dr. Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone in 1992.  Google it and read the articles.  The scientists are dumb-founded.  The evolutionist ones, anyway.  They can't explain it.  Now, they are saying that they need to re-assess their views on fossilization.  It's a big problem in their theory.

5.  False limitation of science to what we can "see, test, and demonstrate". In its essence, science is really a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (from dictionary.com), and theory is basically the attempt to explain what we can observe. What is there in this definition of science that forbids us from observing the historical record the physical world has given us and attempting to offer explanations for what we see in this historical record? Why is this not science, simply because we can't repeat it in a lab?
- Theory is speculation.  I propose a theory and then I have to prove it.  When I make a comment, you want proof because you want to see that I am writing about something that actually exists.  Science is observational.  There's nothing false about that.  But, speculating that there was a Big Bang and macro-evolution is.  Basically, this is their opinion.  Why don't you ask them for proof?  I'm surprised that you take their word for it and don't drill them on providing proof.  You certain put a lot more effort in doing that to me.
6.  The assertion that "because science is limited, we can learn nothing from it" really begs the question.
- I don't remember that part in the video.

7.  I've never before heard anyone assert that the Big Bang involved rotation.
-  The Evolutionists don't like to talk about it.  Maybe that's why you never heard about it.

8.  Untested assertion: "If the Big Bang theory were true, everything in the universe would be distributed evenly." Where does he get that idea? Does Eric have no knowledge of the even distribution of background microwave radiation that astronomers have observed coming from all directions in the universe?
- I've read some articles about this, but I really don't see the need to get into it.  His point was talking about the planets. Can we drop this area?  I think it's more important to focus on how something can come from nothing.  Once upon a time, there was nothing and then there was a big explosion.  In physics we learn that there needs to be a force that is the source of reaction.  Creation-evolutionists will say, ah-ha...that's God.  But, you're taking the teaching of Evolutionists who don't believe in God and trying to make the two views fit.  That's another dilemma.  That's the part I don't agree with.

9.  False dichotomy between science and religion: Eric attempts (unconvincingly, AFAIC) to define what science is and show how evolution theory cannot be considered science, but because he presents no third or fourth options outside of science and religion, he automatically presumes that because evolution theory is not science, it MUST be religion. Nowhere, however, does Eric define religion and demonstrate how the theory of evolution matches that definition.
- Maybe we're not looking at the same video because he did an excellent job at explaining that.  He point blank stated that there are only two options: those who believe that the earth was created and those that believe that it created itself.  What third or fourth option are you looking for...aliens from another planet?  The evolution theory is based on speculation.  You, of all people, question our posts and ask us to present support for our comments.  How do you just accept an evolution teaching and not ask for support?  Here, I feel that you are using the double standard because of your own personal beliefs.  The evolution theory is a religion because it's based on the unknown.  Someone has to believe in it to follow it.  Yes, just as we believe in God, but can't provide scientific proof.  The question is, which one is true?  We cannot serve God and mammon.  But, with our faith in Christ, we can prove the events of the Bible and of the New Testament, but just look at what the Evolutionists are preaching.  Can you say that they can offer proof for that?   
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3226 on: July 01, 2011, 12:14:52 AM »

To PetertheAleut:

I don't think quotes would be effective here.  There are too many points to make.  I've asked before, but would you be able to open a new forum for these specific videos?  It would seperate the discussion from the general topic of evolution and specify the videos on drdino.com.

Here is my response to your comments:

1.  Eric presents a false dichotomy between belief in evolution and belief in creationism.
- See response to #9

2.  Eric presents a false association of evolution science with atheism (the assertion that evolution science is necessarily atheistic/ and that one cannot believe that evolution could be part of God's work of creation).
-  Your comment has two separate points.  He was saying that the Evolutionists don't believe in God. They don't.  They eliminate God from the process as is obvious in their explanations since they never mention God.
Don't you think that a hasty generalization? Just because scientists seek a natural explanation for the phenomena they observe doesn't mean they necessarily exclude God from the process.

The second part is his belief as a Christian. I agree with him on that.

3.  Eric presents a false association of creationism with genuine Christianity. Creationism as we know it today is really a product of fundamentalist Protestant attempts to make their version of Christianity stand up to modern and post-modern criticism. It's really just as flawed as the fundamentalism that gave it birth, since it's built on the same shaky foundation of Protestant thought.
- This sounds like an Evolutionist comment.  Their "version of Christianity" is that God created the world and that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of our souls and that He will come again.  Protestant theology aside, are they wrong about this?  What is Creationism as we know it from the past, then? You're really stretching this one.
I really don't think so, since much of the foundation for creationism is a Protestant belief in sola scriptura. If the Scriptures alone are to be our authority for faith and doctrine, then the Scriptures are authoritative even when used as a science text. Creationism is also built on a very literalist interpretation of Scripture, a literalism that isn't universally accepted in the Orthodox Church.

4.  If God did indeed create the world a mere 6000 years ago, wouldn't the fossil record be consistent with that time frame?
- Dr. Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone in 1992.  Google it and read the articles.  The scientists are dumb-founded.  The evolutionist ones, anyway.  They can't explain it.  Now, they are saying that they need to re-assess their views on fossilization.  It's a big problem in their theory.
But how does that disprove evolution? Just because a theory has holes in it based on our limited knowledge of what we observe doesn't mean the theory is bunk. It just means that there are some things we don't know.

5.  False limitation of science to what we can "see, test, and demonstrate". In its essence, science is really a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (from dictionary.com), and theory is basically the attempt to explain what we can observe. What is there in this definition of science that forbids us from observing the historical record the physical world has given us and attempting to offer explanations for what we see in this historical record? Why is this not science, simply because we can't repeat it in a lab?
- Theory is speculation.  I propose a theory and then I have to prove it.  When I make a comment, you want proof because you want to see that I am writing about something that actually exists.  Science is observational.  There's nothing false about that.  But, speculating that there was a Big Bang and macro-evolution is.  Basically, this is their opinion.  Why don't you ask them for proof?  I'm surprised that you take their word for it and don't drill them on providing proof.  You certain put a lot more effort in doing that to me.
I take their word for it? I don't much take anyone's word for anything unless I see proof, and that includes what I've read of modern scientific theories. You can call me a doubting Thomas if you like, because I am. But when I'm convinced by the evidence, I'm also like St. Thomas in that my conviction is extremely difficult to dissolve. I've read enough about biology and astrophysics to be convinced that the Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution are at least plausible--do remember that I once believed in young-earth creationism as you do, so the contrary evidence had to be rather strong to dissuade me from this position. In fact, I see in the Big Bang theory very clear support of my Christian belief that God created the universe and everything therein ex nihilo. Belief in the Big Bang doesn't necessarily require one to be an atheist and can even lead one to deeper faith in God--I suspect very strongly that the same is true of evolution.

6.  The assertion that "because science is limited, we can learn nothing from it" really begs the question.
- I don't remember that part in the video.
That's because the assertion was the whole gist of the video.

7.  I've never before heard anyone assert that the Big Bang involved rotation.
-  The Evolutionists don't like to talk about it.  Maybe that's why you never heard about it.
Maybe it's because the evolution we're talking about on this thread is a theory of a specific scientific discipline known as biology. Those biologists who acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution probably don't talk much about the Big Bang because the latter theory is specific to cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics, subjects on which biologists are not really all that qualified to speak. You're conflating cosmology and biology into one vast scientific conspiracy, just as you conflate evolution with atheism.

8.  Untested assertion: "If the Big Bang theory were true, everything in the universe would be distributed evenly." Where does he get that idea? Does Eric have no knowledge of the even distribution of background microwave radiation that astronomers have observed coming from all directions in the universe?
- I've read some articles about this, but I really don't see the need to get into it.  His point was talking about the planets. Can we drop this area?  I think it's more important to focus on how something can come from nothing.  Once upon a time, there was nothing and then there was a big explosion.  In physics we learn that there needs to be a force that is the source of reaction.  Creation-evolutionists will say, ah-ha...that's God.  But, you're taking the teaching of Evolutionists who don't believe in God and trying to make the two views fit.  That's another dilemma.  That's the part I don't agree with.
Why do you so automatically associate evolutionist and atheist? Again, that strikes me as a hasty generalization.

9.  False dichotomy between science and religion: Eric attempts (unconvincingly, AFAIC) to define what science is and show how evolution theory cannot be considered science, but because he presents no third or fourth options outside of science and religion, he automatically presumes that because evolution theory is not science, it MUST be religion. Nowhere, however, does Eric define religion and demonstrate how the theory of evolution matches that definition.
- Maybe we're not looking at the same video because he did an excellent job at explaining that.  He point blank stated that there are only two options: those who believe that the earth was created and those that believe that it created itself.
That's the problem! He point blank stated that there are only two options, and in so doing he artificially limited the debate to only those two options. What authority does he have to do that?

What third or fourth option are you looking for...aliens from another planet?
reductio ad absurdum  Why do you assume that because I seek more options that the options I seek are such absurd things as space aliens or a flying spaghetti monster? I'm not saying what other options I'm looking for; I'm just suggesting that Eric Hovind shouldn't just limit himself to two.

The evolution theory is based on speculation.
Yes it is, but the speculation is based on what can be observed. Have you heard of such a thing as an educated guess? Particularly a guess that's well supported by the evidence?

You, of all people, question our posts and ask us to present support for our comments.  How do you just accept an evolution teaching and not ask for support?
Because I've already seen the support. Besides, I really don't so much believe in evolution as I do merely keep myself open to the idea that evolution may be a plausible scientific theory and that it's not impossible to recognize evolution as part of God's creative work.

Here, I feel that you are using the double standard because of your own personal beliefs.  The evolution theory is a religion because it's based on the unknown.
That begs the question: Why is that which is based on the unknown necessarily a religion?

Someone has to believe in it to follow it.  Yes, just as we believe in God, but can't provide scientific proof.  The question is, which one is true?
That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other? This you have not proven.

We cannot serve God and mammon.  But, with our faith in Christ, we can prove the events of the Bible and of the New Testament, but just look at what the Evolutionists are preaching.  Can you say that they can offer proof for that?
And just what do you see them preaching?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 03:43:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
joasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Posts: 224



« Reply #3227 on: July 01, 2011, 12:51:29 AM »

Peter, based on your respose below, I don't care to continue this discussion.  Speculation is not based on what is obseved.  Speculation is based on personal ideas.  Nobody has observed the Big Bang or macro-evolution.  And since when would you accept anyone's educated guess here on this Forum?  You always ask for proof.  So don't talk to me about educated guesses.  The Evolutionists don't have any support to back up their guesses.  That's the whole point.  Their guess is not well supported.  You haven't even tried to show the support.  All you do is criticize.  I know your type very well.  You bla bla bla but never produce any significant information.

Quote
The evolution theory is based on speculation.

Yes it is, but the speculation is based on what can be observed. Have you heard of such a thing as an educated guess? Particularly a guess that's well supported by the evidence?

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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #3228 on: July 01, 2011, 12:53:47 AM »

That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other?
I would word this a bit differently.
Evolution is not something "to be believed in". It is not a deity. Scientists don't "believe in" theories unless they are fringe pseudo-scientists. Science is not about "believing in" things. Science is about measurable, observable and repeatable phenomena. There can be no doubt that a process of "natural selection" exists, since we have observed it in our own lifetimes. For example, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains have developed in our own lifetimes- this is a form of "micro-evolution". So no one can say therefore that the process of natural-selection doesn't exist. It exists period. But as soon as I say that "I believe in natural selection", I have completely changed the dialogue. To "believe in" something means to align your value system with the value system of what you believe "in". I acknowledge that Islam exists, but I don't believe "in" Islam. Similarly, I acknowledge that natural selection and evolution exist, but I don't "believe in" natural selection as a moral determiner anyone should choose (someone did once, and 50,000,000 people died as a result.)
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3229 on: July 01, 2011, 01:12:35 AM »

Peter, based on your respose below, I don't care to continue this discussion.  Speculation is not based on what is obseved.  Speculation is based on personal ideas.
And the two are opposed to each other how?

Nobody has observed the Big Bang or macro-evolution.
Nobody here has ever seen Abraham Lincoln, but we can see the evidence that he once lived on this earth and was President of the United States. Likewise, we can see evidence of other events that happened or may have happened in the past.

And since when would you accept anyone's educated guess here on this Forum?  You always ask for proof.
Always? Don't you think that another hasty generalization? How long have you known me on this forum?

So don't talk to me about educated guesses.  The Evolutionists don't have any support to back up their guesses.  That's the whole point.  Their guess is not well supported.
And I beg to differ with you on that. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

You haven't even tried to show the support.  All you do is criticize.
Again, a hasty generalization.

I know your type very well.
No, you only think you do.

You bla bla bla but never produce any significant information.
And how long have you known me on this forum?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3230 on: July 01, 2011, 01:22:31 AM »

That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other?
I would word this a bit differently.
Evolution is not something "to be believed in". It is not a deity. Scientists don't "believe in" theories unless they are fringe pseudo-scientists. Science is not about "believing in" things. Science is about measurable, observable and repeatable phenomena. There can be no doubt that a process of "natural selection" exists, since we have observed it in our own lifetimes. For example, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains have developed in our own lifetimes- this is a form of "micro-evolution". So no one can say therefore that the process of natural-selection doesn't exist. It exists period. But as soon as I say that "I believe in natural selection", I have completely changed the dialogue. To "believe in" something means to align your value system with the value system of what you believe "in". I acknowledge that Islam exists, but I don't believe "in" Islam. Similarly, I acknowledge that natural selection and evolution exist, but I don't "believe in" natural selection as a moral determiner anyone should choose (someone did once, and 50,000,000 people died as a result.)

I remember seeing Richard Lewontin quoted somewhere saying that "the Divine Foot should not be let in the door of science", or something to that effect. It sounds like evolutionism is being placed above mere falsifiability and on a pedestal of philosophical inviolability. It sounds like it is not so much that evolution may be falsified, but that no theories are to be allowed which make any appeal to an intelligent designer of the universe.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3231 on: July 01, 2011, 01:47:06 AM »

That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other?
I would word this a bit differently.
I can appreciate that evaluation of what I just said. I'm not really talking so much about aligning our values systems with the theory of evolution as I am about merely acknowledging that the theory of evolution may be a valid way of explaining what we see in the fossil record. With that in mind, I suppose you're right that I could have worded my argument differently and been more effective. So let me offer this attempt: Why is acknowledgment of the possible validity of the theory of evolution necessarily opposed to belief in a Creator who created the heavens and the earth and all things visible and invisible?

Evolution is not something "to be believed in". It is not a deity. Scientists don't "believe in" theories unless they are fringe pseudo-scientists. Science is not about "believing in" things. Science is about measurable, observable and repeatable phenomena. There can be no doubt that a process of "natural selection" exists, since we have observed it in our own lifetimes. For example, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains have developed in our own lifetimes- this is a form of "micro-evolution". So no one can say therefore that the process of natural-selection doesn't exist. It exists period. But as soon as I say that "I believe in natural selection", I have completely changed the dialogue. To "believe in" something means to align your value system with the value system of what you believe "in". I acknowledge that Islam exists, but I don't believe "in" Islam. Similarly, I acknowledge that natural selection and evolution exist, but I don't "believe in" natural selection as a moral determiner anyone should choose (someone did once, and 50,000,000 people died as a result.)
Agreed.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 01:47:48 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #3232 on: July 01, 2011, 01:54:49 AM »

That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other?
I would word this a bit differently.
Evolution is not something "to be believed in". It is not a deity. Scientists don't "believe in" theories unless they are fringe pseudo-scientists. Science is not about "believing in" things. Science is about measurable, observable and repeatable phenomena. There can be no doubt that a process of "natural selection" exists, since we have observed it in our own lifetimes. For example, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains have developed in our own lifetimes- this is a form of "micro-evolution". So no one can say therefore that the process of natural-selection doesn't exist. It exists period. But as soon as I say that "I believe in natural selection", I have completely changed the dialogue. To "believe in" something means to align your value system with the value system of what you believe "in". I acknowledge that Islam exists, but I don't believe "in" Islam. Similarly, I acknowledge that natural selection and evolution exist, but I don't "believe in" natural selection as a moral determiner anyone should choose (someone did once, and 50,000,000 people died as a result.)

I remember seeing Richard Lewontin quoted somewhere saying that "the Divine Foot should not be let in the door of science", or something to that effect. It sounds like evolutionism is being placed above mere falsifiability and on a pedestal of philosophical inviolability. It sounds like it is not so much that evolution may be falsified, but that no theories are to be allowed which make any appeal to an intelligent designer of the universe.
As I indicate in what you quote, you can "believe in" 'intelligent design' as much as you want, but it will never anything but faith. I am a scientist who believes in God and I believe He is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible. But my belief is not science, but Faith. As a scientist, I examine provable theories and the evidence for them, and apply the knowledge gained from them, but I don't "believe in" Science- I test it. I believe in God, and I certainly don't test Him!
Since science requires that theories be tested, the people who push for Intelligent Design to be accepted as Science are guilty of succumbing to a demonic temptation which Christ Himself rejected: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 02:16:48 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3233 on: July 01, 2011, 02:42:58 AM »

Quote
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?

I deem them credible because they are based on scientific facts. But, how would you know what I'm referring to if you haven't seen them?   You didn't answer my question though. Did you see them?  I can't continue a discussion with you if you haven't reviewed the videos. Can I suggest that a new post be opened in the Review Forum?  People can follow the link, watch the videos and make comments focused on the points that Dr. Hovind makes.   I think it would be a great educational format since teachers are forced to teach only evolution in the school system.
There's a very simple reason why: Creation "science" is NOT science.

The science proves young earth.  You obviously didn't see these videos or read up on scientific support of young earth.  I'm not going any further into this with you since you are not familiar, at all, with this subject.
1.  The young earth creationism Dr. Kent Hovind argues in his videos is based on a literal interpretation of the timelines presented in the Bible. Why do you trust in this approach to reading the Bible? Is this Orthodox?
2.  The "scientific facts" Dr. Hovind presents in his video may call into question some of the assertions of the theory of evolution and may even be consistent with a young earth IF they are in fact true, but they certainly don't PROVE young earth creationism.

Now a few questions:
1.  Why do you trust Dr. Kent Hovind? Have you personally checked his assertions of scientific fact to certify that he wasn't lying? (You do realize that he is now serving time in federal prison for tax fraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Legal_problems)
2.  What other scientific evidence have you read that supports young earth creationism?
3.  If young earth creationism can truly be considered science, then we should be able to test it according to scientific methods. Are the assertions of Dr. Hovind's young earth creationism testable?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 03:10:54 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3234 on: July 01, 2011, 09:38:28 AM »

That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other?
I would word this a bit differently.
Evolution is not something "to be believed in". It is not a deity. Scientists don't "believe in" theories unless they are fringe pseudo-scientists. Science is not about "believing in" things. Science is about measurable, observable and repeatable phenomena. There can be no doubt that a process of "natural selection" exists, since we have observed it in our own lifetimes. For example, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains have developed in our own lifetimes- this is a form of "micro-evolution". So no one can say therefore that the process of natural-selection doesn't exist. It exists period. But as soon as I say that "I believe in natural selection", I have completely changed the dialogue. To "believe in" something means to align your value system with the value system of what you believe "in". I acknowledge that Islam exists, but I don't believe "in" Islam. Similarly, I acknowledge that natural selection and evolution exist, but I don't "believe in" natural selection as a moral determiner anyone should choose (someone did once, and 50,000,000 people died as a result.)

I remember seeing Richard Lewontin quoted somewhere saying that "the Divine Foot should not be let in the door of science", or something to that effect. It sounds like evolutionism is being placed above mere falsifiability and on a pedestal of philosophical inviolability. It sounds like it is not so much that evolution may be falsified, but that no theories are to be allowed which make any appeal to an intelligent designer of the universe.
As I indicate in what you quote, you can "believe in" 'intelligent design' as much as you want, but it will never anything but faith. I am a scientist who believes in God and I believe He is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible. But my belief is not science, but Faith. As a scientist, I examine provable theories and the evidence for them, and apply the knowledge gained from them, but I don't "believe in" Science- I test it. I believe in God, and I certainly don't test Him!
Since science requires that theories be tested, the people who push for Intelligent Design to be accepted as Science are guilty of succumbing to a demonic temptation which Christ Himself rejected: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".

That seems like a pretty bold statement, but I see what you're saying. If you make a dogma like Creation into a falsifiable theory, you are testing the dogma, and hence testing God. So Creation has to be above falsifiability. But I don't think we need to accept Lewontin's words as a corollary, that placing dogma above scientific falsifiability entails excluding dogma from consideration when doing science. The theories that we ourselves come up with to explain nature must be falsifiable, but it could be that some things we observe in nature also touch on dogmas that we hold to. For example, the fact that nature appears to be governed by laws indicates a designer. Natural order is evidence for the Creator, in other words. Once we accept this, we need to accept the possibility that aspects of that order may have been created that way, and did not necessarily arise by some kind of spontaneous generation, as evolution teaches. We have to posit spontaneous generation and evolution only because we exclude a priori the possibility of direct creation. Is there really any we observe in nature that cannot be accounted for by direct creation by God? Apart from whatever changes and motion we can directly observe, I don't think so. It may be scientifically and intellectually unsatisfying to attribute some natural phenomenon that arose in the past to Creation, rather than design our own theories to account for them, but really that's our own psychological problem. It's not a logical necessity.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 09:40:30 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3235 on: July 01, 2011, 07:58:28 PM »

of course interpreting the Biblical timelines literally is Orthodox, thats why the Church tells us that we are currently in the 8th millennium from creation. Even our Paschal cycles are based on Adam being created on Friday March 1, 5508 BC.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3236 on: July 01, 2011, 08:02:47 PM »

That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism) necessarily opposed to each other?
I would word this a bit differently.
Evolution is not something "to be believed in". It is not a deity. Scientists don't "believe in" theories unless they are fringe pseudo-scientists. Science is not about "believing in" things. Science is about measurable, observable and repeatable phenomena. There can be no doubt that a process of "natural selection" exists, since we have observed it in our own lifetimes. For example, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains have developed in our own lifetimes- this is a form of "micro-evolution". So no one can say therefore that the process of natural-selection doesn't exist. It exists period. But as soon as I say that "I believe in natural selection", I have completely changed the dialogue. To "believe in" something means to align your value system with the value system of what you believe "in". I acknowledge that Islam exists, but I don't believe "in" Islam. Similarly, I acknowledge that natural selection and evolution exist, but I don't "believe in" natural selection as a moral determiner anyone should choose (someone did once, and 50,000,000 people died as a result.)

This is the sorta language quibbling I like.

I haven't read Peter's response but I am sure he would agree.

Nice to point out though.

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3237 on: July 01, 2011, 08:05:43 PM »

Too bad the threads got mixed--was hoping to winnow out the debate between reasonable understanding of the world versus creationism and focus on how do we in light of evolution answer some of the hard questions.

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #3238 on: July 01, 2011, 08:06:17 PM »

Bottom line: mix myth and science and you get the worst of both worlds.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 08:06:39 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3239 on: July 01, 2011, 08:07:15 PM »

except Genesis is not myth, in fact its pretty painstakingly de-mythologized.
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 0.212 seconds with 74 queries.