Poll

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

Yes
65 (16%)
No
157 (38.7%)
both metaphorically and literally
184 (45.3%)

Total Members Voted: 406

Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 1182400 times)

Alkis and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,125
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
Re: Views and opinions of evolution?
« Reply #3330 on: August 01, 2011, 03:40:26 AM »

Then why are you so afraid of the legitimate science of evolutionary theory? Because it undermines your false images of what true faith really is?

I am not at all afraid of legitimate science. I'm just very careful not to confuse philosophical dogma with scientific evidence.

As Orthodox Christians, we cannot ignore the philosophical implications of science. And regarding evoltuionary theory, I will continue to point out that it is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verified scientific law.

Actually, Gebre, evolutionary theory is neither a scientific philosophy nor an empirically verified scientific law.

I beg to differ. Evolutionary theory (i.e. macro evolution) is a scientific philosophy, not empirical fact.

Selam

I have a lot of sympathy with your position, Gebre, but I think your use of terms is both confused and confusing to others.

In science, all "empirical facts" are "theories" which could be disproven by a single instance of a theory-shattering phenomenon. For example, if I dropped an apple tomorrow in ordinary conditions (ceteris paribus) and, instead of falling to the ground, it simply hovered in the air, the "theory" of gravity (which we pretty much all treat as an "empirical fact" these days) would suffer a massive blow, if not be outright disproven. I mean, tomorrow, the earth could start to rotate in the other direction, throwing all sorts of other "empirical facts" into profound doubt.

I think what you are getting at is that the empirical evidence for macro-evolution is comparatively scant in comparison to other, more well-established scientific theories such as gravity and the basic laws of physics (I think you also have another, better-put-separately point about the near-religious quality evolutionism exhibits in this society -- is that correct?).

I think a lot of good points coming from your side of this debate are lost when the terms are not put right.


Yes, I agree. Empirical evidence is not the same thing as scientific law. Thank you for clarifying this, and I should have been more precise with my wording.

Evolutionary theory is not scientific law; it is a theory, and a theory that is based primarily upon a presuppositional philosophy rather than empirical evidence. The empirical data put forth in support of evolutionary theory can be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending upon the philosophical framework of those who are doing the interpreting.


Selam

Thank you for answering this.

I think you need to be a bit more careful about your use of the phrase "empirically proved", because all this phrase really means in science is "there is some evidence backing up the theory in question and we will stick with it until better evidence going the other way turns up".

Ultimately, the interpretation of all empircal evidence depends upon the philosophical framework of the interpreter: for instance, the evidence in support of the theory of gravity being true depends upon the presupposition that the laws of the universe are at least relatively stable and that phenomena are predictable as a result of this. A true pre-Socratic might not even accept such commonly-assumed presuppositions.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 03:43:31 AM by akimori makoto »
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3331 on: August 01, 2011, 03:41:09 AM »
I don't have to explain away something that you cannot explain to begin with.

What do you mean I can not explain it? I'm an evolutionary biology major, so if you have a question about the mechanics of evolution feel free to ask.

You tend to just blow me off when you don't know what you're talking about. You claim I cannot explain evolution, but you've never asked me to.
Forgive my sins.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,986
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3332 on: August 01, 2011, 04:17:14 AM »

I don't have to explain away something that you cannot explain to begin with.

What do you mean I can not explain it? I'm an evolutionary biology major, so if you have a question about the mechanics of evolution feel free to ask.

You tend to just blow me off when you don't know what you're talking about. You claim I cannot explain evolution, but you've never asked me to.


I would love for you to explain it to me. But let's start another thread for that. My main concern here is to stick with the two issues I have repeatedly raised.


Selam
"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Views and opinions of evolution?
« Reply #3333 on: August 01, 2011, 07:41:52 AM »
Evolutionary theory is not scientific law; it is a theory, and a theory that is based primarily upon a presuppositional philosophy rather than empirical evidence.
How do you know this for certain?


Because the theory has yet to be empirically verified. In fact, evolutionary theory is actually neither verifiable nor falsifiable by the rigid criteria of the scientific method. The theory hinges upon certain assumed presuppositions, such as an antiquated age of the earth
As I understand it, the theory of evolution is not based on a belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old; rather, the theory that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is based on the theory of evolution, the amount of time necessary for evolution to produce the speciation of life that we see today. I know your church teaches that the earth is only 6000-7000 years old, or so you say, but I don't believe that's universal Orthodox dogma, unless you wish to argue that the EO are outside the Church.

and a uniformitarian rate of change.
Which is a sounder assumption than the assumption that a catastrophic event threw everything out of whack. With no evidence in the data to verify the supposition of a catastrophic event, I don't see how assertion of a catastrophic event can even be admissible in the debate over evolution.


You are making my point. The age of the earth cannot be empirically proven, so we have to make certain presuppositions. Uniformitarianism may be quite logical, and I have no problem with it from a scientific standpoint as long as the scientists operating from that presupposition maintain that it is exactly that- a presuppostional starting point. Evolutionary theory tries to prove itself factual by claiming that it is factual. It's like saying, "The best color is blue, because blue is the best color." Say it early and often enough, and people will come to believe it. 1st graders read and hear about the earth being billions of years old, so naturally they never learn to question it. So by the time they get to middle school, they have had a presupposition instilled in their minds as a fact. Evolution thus becomes very palatable, and anyone who questions it is looked upon as an idiot.


Selam


Kind of like what you think of people that believe in evolution?

For the record, if you don't think that evolutionary theory follows empirical evidence then you are a fool, all the evidence points to evolution, you just ignore it.

Gabre are you a troll?
Forgive my sins.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3334 on: August 01, 2011, 07:42:01 AM »
I think Gabre is trolling, he really can't be serious...
Forgive my sins.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,179
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3335 on: August 01, 2011, 08:03:24 AM »
Philosophers could hold up this thread as a rather banal exhibit of eternal recurrence.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline mabsoota

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,859
  • Kyrie eleison
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox (Coptic)
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3336 on: August 01, 2011, 09:02:41 AM »
actually lots of educated people believe that evolution as taught in most institutions is not necessarily accurate.
gebre menfes kidus is not a troll, he is entitled to his opinion.
 :)

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3337 on: August 01, 2011, 09:09:32 AM »
and asking if he is a troll and saying he surely can't be serious is only proving his point. i, for one, completely agree with him. and yes, im completely serious.

Offline theo philosopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3338 on: August 01, 2011, 09:15:25 AM »
Over 3,000 posts, I would hope he's more than a troll by now!

Gabre, what about the dating of the world do you reject? Or, let's make it easier, something we can observe, such as light from distant galaxies. We know that light can only travel so fast, and that the light from these galaxies could not make it to us in 6,000 years. Wouldn't this give us some evidence that at least the cosmos is billions of years old?
“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3339 on: August 01, 2011, 09:25:55 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

Offline theo philosopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3340 on: August 01, 2011, 09:42:01 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3341 on: August 01, 2011, 10:30:22 AM »
I think Gabre is trolling, he really can't be serious...

A bit close to ad hominem. I understand that you two do not agree but "trolling" has a connotation of saying something just to stir things up. I have been following Gebre for a while now and one thing that one cannot accuse him of is "trolling." I call on you, unofficially, to apologize to Gebre and retract your accusations. Thanks, Second Chance

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3342 on: August 01, 2011, 02:58:41 PM »
I apologize for using such harsh language I suppose.

But he accuses me of not being able to answer questions he hasnt asked me, in my opinion that's a man just trying to stir up trouble. He's been tip toeing around the argument for sometime now.
Forgive my sins.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3343 on: August 01, 2011, 02:58:42 PM »
Over 3,000 posts, I would hope he's more than a troll by now!

Gabre, what about the dating of the world do you reject? Or, let's make it easier, something we can observe, such as light from distant galaxies. We know that light can only travel so fast, and that the light from these galaxies could not make it to us in 6,000 years. Wouldn't this give us some evidence that at least the cosmos is billions of years old?

I agree, it also explains why we can only see a "portion" of the current universe, because parts of it are too far away and the light has yet to reach us.

I'll stop with Gabre when he brings a decent argument to the table.  8) All he currently says is "You are all wrong because you contradict my interpretation of Genesis". We have empirical evidence for our scientific beliefs...Gabre does not.
Forgive my sins.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,986
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3344 on: August 02, 2011, 01:40:11 AM »
Over 3,000 posts, I would hope he's more than a troll by now!

Gabre, what about the dating of the world do you reject? Or, let's make it easier, something we can observe, such as light from distant galaxies. We know that light can only travel so fast, and that the light from these galaxies could not make it to us in 6,000 years. Wouldn't this give us some evidence that at least the cosmos is billions of years old?

I agree, it also explains why we can only see a "portion" of the current universe, because parts of it are too far away and the light has yet to reach us.

I'll stop with Gabre when he brings a decent argument to the table.  8) All he currently says is "You are all wrong because you contradict my interpretation of Genesis". We have empirical evidence for our scientific beliefs...Gabre does not.


I've been very clear that Genesis is not a scientific textbook. What I have said is that there are two fundamental issues that make it difficult to reconcile Orthodoxy with theistic evolution. I continue to stick with these two issues without being sidetracked. We can discuss the age of the earth and the empirical evidence for evolution on a separate thread if you wish.


[BTW, I don't know what a "troll" is, but I figure it's not complimentary. Thanks to those of you who defended me against that label.  :)]


Selam
"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3345 on: August 02, 2011, 01:49:16 AM »
I apologize for using such harsh language I suppose.

But he accuses me of not being able to answer questions he hasnt asked me, in my opinion that's a man just trying to stir up trouble. He's been tip toeing around the argument for sometime now.
I wouldn't accept that as an apology, for a true apology seeks not to justify the offensive action as you just did.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 34,866
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3346 on: August 02, 2011, 01:51:01 AM »
I agree, it also explains why we can only see a "portion" of the current universe, because parts of it are too far away and the light has yet to reach us.

I'll stop with Gabre when he brings a decent argument to the table.  8) All he currently says is "You are all wrong because you contradict my interpretation of Genesis". We have empirical evidence for our scientific beliefs...Gabre does not.

His name is Gebre Menfes Kidus ;)

We can discuss the age of the earth and the empirical evidence for evolution on a separate thread if you wish.

The age of the earth is one thing, but wouldn't a new thread on "the empirical evidence for evolution" simply be merged back into this thread?
"The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny--it is the light that guides your way." - Heraclitus

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3347 on: August 02, 2011, 01:51:28 AM »
Over 3,000 posts, I would hope he's more than a troll by now!

Gabre, what about the dating of the world do you reject? Or, let's make it easier, something we can observe, such as light from distant galaxies. We know that light can only travel so fast, and that the light from these galaxies could not make it to us in 6,000 years. Wouldn't this give us some evidence that at least the cosmos is billions of years old?

I agree, it also explains why we can only see a "portion" of the current universe, because parts of it are too far away and the light has yet to reach us.

I'll stop with Gabre when he brings a decent argument to the table.  8) All he currently says is "You are all wrong because you contradict my interpretation of Genesis". We have empirical evidence for our scientific beliefs...Gabre does not.


I've been very clear that Genesis is not a scientific textbook. What I have said is that there are two fundamental issues that make it difficult to reconcile Orthodoxy with theistic evolution. I continue to stick with these two issues without being sidetracked. We can discuss the age of the earth and the empirical evidence for evolution on a separate thread if you wish.
What's wrong with discussing them on this thread?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,986
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3348 on: August 02, 2011, 01:53:12 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.




^ This is one of the main points I wish to make. Evolutionism and Creationism both hinge upon certain presuppositions. I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions. It makes perfect sense to assume that the rate of change we observe now is the same rate of change that has always occurred. Fine. No problem, just as long as evolutionists concede that there is an alternative possibility.

Selam

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,986
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3349 on: August 02, 2011, 01:56:18 AM »

Over 3,000 posts, I would hope he's more than a troll by now!

Gabre, what about the dating of the world do you reject? Or, let's make it easier, something we can observe, such as light from distant galaxies. We know that light can only travel so fast, and that the light from these galaxies could not make it to us in 6,000 years. Wouldn't this give us some evidence that at least the cosmos is billions of years old?

I agree, it also explains why we can only see a "portion" of the current universe, because parts of it are too far away and the light has yet to reach us.

I'll stop with Gabre when he brings a decent argument to the table.  8) All he currently says is "You are all wrong because you contradict my interpretation of Genesis". We have empirical evidence for our scientific beliefs...Gabre does not.


I've been very clear that Genesis is not a scientific textbook. What I have said is that there are two fundamental issues that make it difficult to reconcile Orthodoxy with theistic evolution. I continue to stick with these two issues without being sidetracked. We can discuss the age of the earth and the empirical evidence for evolution on a separate thread if you wish.
What's wrong with discussing them on this thread?


Nothing wrong with it. This is certainly the thread for it. But before the most recent merger, I was raising two specific issues that I wanted theisitic evolutionists to address. So, for now, I won't allow myself to be sidetracked from those two issues. I'm going to stay on point.


Selam
"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3350 on: August 02, 2011, 02:34:48 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.




^ This is one of the main points I wish to make. Evolutionism and Creationism both hinge upon certain presuppositions. I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions. It makes perfect sense to assume that the rate of change we observe now is the same rate of change that has always occurred. Fine. No problem, just as long as evolutionists concede that there is an alternative possibility.
What alternative possibility do you propose?

One of the fundamental guiding principles of science is that theories must be falsifiable. How do you falsify the alternative possibility of a one-time catastrophic event for which we have no evidence?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 02:36:35 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3351 on: August 02, 2011, 07:40:50 AM »
I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions.
And by "prove" do you mean, say, "directly observe Homo hablis evolving into Homo erectus"?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 07:41:32 AM by Jetavan »
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.

Offline theo philosopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3352 on: August 02, 2011, 09:09:44 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.




^ This is one of the main points I wish to make. Evolutionism and Creationism both hinge upon certain presuppositions. I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions. It makes perfect sense to assume that the rate of change we observe now is the same rate of change that has always occurred. Fine. No problem, just as long as evolutionists concede that there is an alternative possibility.

Selam



Well of course there is an alternative possibility. Of course the earth could have been created in 6 days and we should take Genesis literally on that account. But the evidence we currently have simply doesn't match up.

Anyway, I'm standing by my previous question and I won't start a new thread because:

1) Not to sound rude, but you don't own this thread. It's a sticky at the top so as to not flood the board with creation vs. evolution topics

2) The questions I asked align perfectly with the current thread, so there's no reason to branch off

But you said earlier that Genesis isn't a scientific textbook. I agree, but wouldn't this mean that under such an assumption we're not longer obligated to take Genesis literally? Certainly we take the Resurrection literally due to the literary style and the importance of it being literal. But the Genesis story - with exception to Adam and Eve - isn't written in the same style nor does its literal nature have the same importance. So long as we believe in a literal Adam and Eve, what theological problems exist in believing in evolution?
“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3353 on: August 02, 2011, 09:35:00 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.




^ This is one of the main points I wish to make. Evolutionism and Creationism both hinge upon certain presuppositions. I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions. It makes perfect sense to assume that the rate of change we observe now is the same rate of change that has always occurred. Fine. No problem, just as long as evolutionists concede that there is an alternative possibility.

Selam



Well of course there is an alternative possibility. Of course the earth could have been created in 6 days and we should take Genesis literally on that account. But the evidence we currently have simply doesn't match up.



the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3354 on: August 02, 2011, 09:42:33 AM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

Quote
I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

well, everything only looks old if you accept evolutionary presuppositions. I dont accept them, and thus everything does not look old to me. I accept the Scriptures as interpreted by the Saints as the first and highest authority, and thus I do not feel deceived in any way.

Quote
Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

im not sure i really understand what point you are making here, but again, there is only an appearance of age if you lend credence first to modern day scientists and only second to the Fathers.

Quote
Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.



i've come to the conclusion based on what is there in the Church. the Scriptures, Fathers, icons, canons, hymnography, etc all paint a literal picture of Genesis (of course with deeper spiritual meanings too, but never to the exclusion of the literal level). so thats the framework i would approach your question about stars from. i realize its not a scientific approach, but i dont really have any desire for it to be so. the Fathers also continuously warn us that the pre-fallen world is inaccessible to us by any human efforts and that in these matters we shouldn't try to go beyond what has been given to us in the Church. I believe they are completely right on this, so I do not look to science to give me the answers about creation and the world before the fall, but only to the Church.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 09:44:08 AM by jckstraw72 »

Offline CBGardner

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
  • Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3355 on: August 02, 2011, 11:03:54 AM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 11:04:10 AM by CBGardner »
Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3356 on: August 02, 2011, 11:17:58 AM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

I suppose it's the dating thing again. Assuming all of the eroded geological features and fossils could have been put down with the flood, why is it that there is a broad correlation between apparent age of geological strata and of the fossils? Of course, there are details that are uncertain, but in general you do have fossils that look hundreds of millions of years old preserved in rocks that look hundreds of millions of years old, and thousand year old remains in thousand year old strata.

I can understand the argument that nature changed after the Fall, so that we can't project back onto Creation what we know about the world now. It's not a falsifiable position, but at least it's internally logical. Since the Flood happened after the Fall, however, it doesn't get off so easy. Whatever the Flood caused should have obeyed the laws of physics as we know them now, so it's much harder to argue that extremely ancient fossils were deposited by an event that occurred only a few thousand years ago.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3357 on: August 02, 2011, 12:29:32 PM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Considering that I'm pretty sure Noah's Ark was not a literal account...  ::)
Forgive my sins.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3358 on: August 02, 2011, 12:29:32 PM »
I've been very clear that Genesis is not a scientific textbook. What I have said is that there are two fundamental issues that make it difficult to reconcile Orthodoxy with theistic evolution. I continue to stick with these two issues without being sidetracked. We can discuss the age of the earth and the empirical evidence for evolution on a separate thread if you wish.

Those two "fundamental" issues that you brought up, one of them is only fundamental in your opinion, the other isn't about evolution in the first place.
Forgive my sins.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3359 on: August 02, 2011, 12:29:33 PM »
This is one of the main points I wish to make. Evolutionism and Creationism both hinge upon certain presuppositions. I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions. It makes perfect sense to assume that the rate of change we observe now is the same rate of change that has always occurred. Fine. No problem, just as long as evolutionists concede that there is an alternative possibility.

If there was ANY proof of another possibility we would look into it. Science is based on facts, not opinions.
Forgive my sins.

Offline theo philosopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3360 on: August 02, 2011, 01:01:29 PM »
im not Gebre, buuut, the light from those stars could have been reaching earth from their moment of their creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults, although they were literally as young as infants, the trees and other plants were created fully grown although they were literally seconds old, etc, and so the light of the stars could have created already reaching earth, although the stars were only seconds old.

I respect this argument because it does follow a good line of reasoning, but it also seems a bit like special pleading. "Why does everything look old?" Well, because that's just how God created it. End of the debate.

Likewise, when it comes to Jesus turning water into aged wine or Adam and Eve being created as adults, there's also an adjacent natural process that comes along with those things. We also know of the process for children to grow into adulthood. We know of the process of fermenting wine. But with the issue of the cosmos, there is no adjacent natural process, thus the appearance of age seems completely superfluous. There would be no reason to create the universe with the appearance of age unless there were a natural process in place, but this would be contradictory as there is only one universe (that we know of).

Secondly, the answer begs the question. Ultimately, the conclusion that everything simply appeared as is literally described in Genesis is what's being questioned. Thus, you're using the conclusion to support the premises, which is begging the question - there's no way to truly argue against your stance.




^ This is one of the main points I wish to make. Evolutionism and Creationism both hinge upon certain presuppositions. I don't have any problem with the presuppositional starting point of evolutionists, as long as they admit there is no way to prove their presuppositions. It makes perfect sense to assume that the rate of change we observe now is the same rate of change that has always occurred. Fine. No problem, just as long as evolutionists concede that there is an alternative possibility.

Selam



Well of course there is an alternative possibility. Of course the earth could have been created in 6 days and we should take Genesis literally on that account. But the evidence we currently have simply doesn't match up.



the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.

It's my understanding that the Church has no official teaching on the matter, so I think it's faulty to appeal to the Church's authority on this matter. Rather, it's an area open to disagreement, so certainly looking to science helps.

If you toss out science, however, then what are we left with? You've essentially ended the debate by establishing your own rules without offering a valid reason as to why we shouldn't look to science (again, sans official Church teachings, an appeal to Church authority is quite empty).
“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3361 on: August 02, 2011, 01:43:44 PM »
You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.)
That's a gross misrepresentation of science. Science starts with the presupposition that we must look first for natural explanations of natural events. It doesn't require any presupposing belief that God is or is not real.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3362 on: August 02, 2011, 01:46:22 PM »
I love evolution, because evolution first loved me. :angel:
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.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,421
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3363 on: August 02, 2011, 01:58:46 PM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years?

Because a 40 day worldwide flood would not produce said major geological effects. Erosion doesn't speed up by millions of years in proportion to the amount of water covering the territory around an object.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 01:59:13 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,619
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3364 on: August 02, 2011, 04:11:45 PM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3365 on: August 02, 2011, 04:56:48 PM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.


One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3366 on: August 02, 2011, 05:57:01 PM »
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.

The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
Forgive my sins.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3367 on: August 02, 2011, 06:01:50 PM »
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.

The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
I suspect that jckstraw likes to posit a patristic consensus where there is none. It's actually very easy to do--just post the contrary evidence.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 06:02:35 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3368 on: August 02, 2011, 08:27:26 PM »
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.

The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.

but the question is: would St. Augustine be persuaded by evolution? I see no reason to think he would be. He speaks very strongly against the idea of an old earth. He says that anyone who accepts a timeline other than that given in Scripture deserves to be mocked and not even seriously debated. He also maintains that there was no death before man sinned. he even says that we cannot adequately judge the works of God by what we see:

Quote
City of God, Book XII.XXIV
For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God's hand is God's power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind.


furthermore, I see no reason to believe that St. Augustine would accept the presupposition of uniformitarianism, given what he says about Genesis, and therefore he would not accept the "evidence" that is dependent upon that presupposition.

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3369 on: August 02, 2011, 08:28:08 PM »
the evidence of evolutionary scientists of course doesn't match up with a literal Genesis, but when trying to understand Genesis its the teaching of the Church that matters. Scripture, of course, does not belong to scientists, but rather to the Church. Thus, the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is overwhelmingly strong.

The evidence for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is just as strong.

Saint Augustine, suggested Genesis should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
I suspect that jckstraw likes to posit a patristic consensus where there is none. It's actually very easy to do--just post the contrary evidence.

i've been saying all along that people are welcome to post the Patristic evidence to the contrary, but still waiting on that one ...

Offline CBGardner

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
  • Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3370 on: August 02, 2011, 09:08:01 PM »
Don't kill my flood theories! I was raised on Kent Hovind!

But seriously my parents had all the tapes and we would have the neighborhood kids over to watch them with us and my parents taught some class at church on em hahaha.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 09:08:51 PM by CBGardner »
Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos

Offline theo philosopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3371 on: August 02, 2011, 09:20:12 PM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.


One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?

Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.
“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3372 on: August 02, 2011, 11:26:11 PM »
i've been saying all along that people are welcome to post the Patristic evidence to the contrary, but still waiting on that one ...


"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." - "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" by St. Augustine (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2:9)


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" by St. Augustine. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19)
Forgive my sins.

Offline celticfan1888

  • Production Operator - Chemtrusion
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,026
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3373 on: August 02, 2011, 11:26:13 PM »
i've been saying all along that people are welcome to post the Patristic evidence to the contrary, but still waiting on that one ...

Oh and,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" - City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6 by St. Augustine
Forgive my sins.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #3374 on: August 03, 2011, 05:58:24 AM »
Why do evolutionists seem to discount the flood? If there was a world wide flood (which I believe there was) then wouldn't that have major geological effects? Can canyons and valleys be explained in 40 days rather than 2 million years? We know the world was at first watered by underwater wells, not rain, and those busted open. It seems there is a lot in Genesis that can account for physical, geological change that is just glossed over. You can't look only at science because 99.999% of science starts with the presupposition that God isn't real (and we know thats wrong.) You have to try and synthesize the two.

Short answer: no.

If I'm reading the topo map correctly, the area around the Grand Canyon is on the order of half a mile above sea level. OK, well, imagine that flooded; major erosive effects become most intense as the water starts to expose the land. What that amounts to is that there simply isn't enough flow after that to account for the erosion. We know how fast the processes are, and while a canyon being emptied of water is going to erode faster than one with the comparative trickle we have now, the process is not millions of times faster. One must consider that even at the current low flow rate, probably thousands of times more water as flowed through the canyon than could ever flow through it in a few months even if it were always full.


One could argue that the Flood, being a miraculous event, may well have had more destructive and erosive effects than a similar natural event. Special pleading, of course, but then all accounts of miracles are special pleading, aren't they?

Well I wouldn't say that all miracles would be a case of special pleading. For instance, when it comes to the Resurrection, St. Paul refers to about 500 witnesses that people could talk to to verify that the resurrection occurred. Likewise, most miracles performed are generally done before witnesses where we can rely on the testimony of people we're hearing. When it comes to the flood we have no witnesses to say, "This was a miracle that caused entropy to occur at an accelerated rate."

While it is possible that the flood would cause erosion, which would give the appearance of age, I just don't see it as plausible. Mostly because, as I noted earlier, most miracles that come with the appearance of age generally mimik a natural cause that is already established and known. With evolution or the age of the earth, there would be no other nature cause to mimik, meaning there would be no need to make the earth look old.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there are or were no witnesses to the Flood. Weren't Noah and his family witnesses? Or do you mean to say that we don't have any written testimonies by Noah or his family members attesting to the Flood? Wouldn't that be the same as the fact that we have no written testimonies of those 500 witnesses of the Resurrection? We only have St Paul's word (not an eyewitness) that these witnesses existed, just as we only have the word of Genesis that the Flood occurred.