OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 05:49:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 318377 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3735 on: September 28, 2011, 12:04:00 AM »

^^ Thanks for your efforts to scare me into your camp, but fear tactics do nothing to dispel my doubts.  Wink

i didnt use any scare tactics and you didnt respond to anything i said  Grin
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3736 on: September 28, 2011, 12:05:14 AM »

there is at least one Ecumenically ratified Canon that binds us to hold to at least a portion of the Creation account in a literal sense:
Councils are not Roman Popes.

Keep your infallibility to yourself.

might i suggest that as an inquirer you certainly have more learning to do...?

Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3737 on: September 28, 2011, 12:07:27 AM »

there is at least one Ecumenically ratified Canon that binds us to hold to at least a portion of the Creation account in a literal sense:
Councils are not Roman Popes.

Keep your infallibility to yourself.

What? Ecumenical councils are infallible, and local councils that have been accepted by the whole Church. Where we differ from Rome is in not believing any single bishop to be infallible. It's not like we reject the very notion of infallibility.

thank you Jonathan. if you take away the Church's infallibility then its no different than any Protestant denomination.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #3738 on: September 28, 2011, 12:13:49 AM »

there is at least one Ecumenically ratified Canon that binds us to hold to at least a portion of the Creation account in a literal sense:
Councils are not Roman Popes.

Keep your infallibility to yourself.

What? Ecumenical councils are infallible, and local councils that have been accepted by the whole Church. Where we differ from Rome is in not believing any single bishop to be infallible. It's not like we reject the very notion of infallibility.

thank you Jonathan. if you take away the Church's infallibility then its no different than any Protestant denomination.

This question is not as settled as you guys are making out.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3739 on: September 28, 2011, 12:15:46 AM »

^^ Thanks for your efforts to scare me into your camp, but fear tactics do nothing to dispel my doubts.  Wink

i didnt use any scare tactics and you didnt respond to anything i said  Grin

I guess this means our discussion is over then, doesn't it?
Logged

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

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3740 on: September 28, 2011, 12:16:07 AM »

there is at least one Ecumenically ratified Canon that binds us to hold to at least a portion of the Creation account in a literal sense:
Councils are not Roman Popes.

Keep your infallibility to yourself.

What? Ecumenical councils are infallible, and local councils that have been accepted by the whole Church. Where we differ from Rome is in not believing any single bishop to be infallible. It's not like we reject the very notion of infallibility.

thank you Jonathan. if you take away the Church's infallibility then its no different than any Protestant denomination.

This question is not as settled as you guys are making out.

and you reference which Saints to demonstrate a division?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3741 on: September 28, 2011, 12:16:49 AM »

^^ Thanks for your efforts to scare me into your camp, but fear tactics do nothing to dispel my doubts.  Wink

i didnt use any scare tactics and you didnt respond to anything i said  Grin

I guess this means our discussion is over then, doesn't it?

yes, refusing to deal with what is being said usually does end a discussion.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,425



« Reply #3742 on: September 28, 2011, 12:38:03 AM »

And at least according to Wikipedia, human parthenogenesis is first attested in a laboratory. In fact, the article also says, "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild." In short, you didn't really have a point, you were just trying to sound superior.  Roll Eyes

Jonathon, I think the only conclusion that can be made from the statement than parthenogenesis has not been documented in the wild, is that it is rare, rather than common.  The fact that parthenogenesis was documented in rabbits ~80 years ago, and the fact that we are not very different from rabbits, would allow one to justifiably speculate that parthenogenesis is possible in humans. It doesn't really matter if the frequency is one in 1000, 100,000, 10,000,000, or 1,000,000,000, the possibility is still there.

I would guess that my not having taken any evolutionary biology course would not make me a good choice as someone to address the concerns of Alveus Lacuna,above. Your thoughts on that matter,having dealt with me, would be appreciated.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #3743 on: September 28, 2011, 12:43:59 AM »

there is at least one Ecumenically ratified Canon that binds us to hold to at least a portion of the Creation account in a literal sense:
Councils are not Roman Popes.

Keep your infallibility to yourself.

What? Ecumenical councils are infallible, and local councils that have been accepted by the whole Church. Where we differ from Rome is in not believing any single bishop to be infallible. It's not like we reject the very notion of infallibility.

thank you Jonathan. if you take away the Church's infallibility then its no different than any Protestant denomination.

This question is not as settled as you guys are making out.

and you reference which Saints to demonstrate a division?

It is not a foundational principle of Orthodoxy, as I understand things.

Father Ambrose has elsewhere said that the very concept of infallibility is foreign to Orthodoxy. I'm not sure how true that is, but I don't believe councils are the sole locus of the infallibility of the Church (which I do not question, by the way).

I might do some research on the point.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #3744 on: September 28, 2011, 12:46:01 AM »

I don't think that particular canon needs to disagree with evolution.  It's affirming that the first man's cause of death was sin, but didn't describe the details.  If man was by nature immortal, then that is heresy.  But if man is by nature mortal, but created in immortal grace, then that is purely Orthodox and need not contradict the science of evolution.

Second, from what I understand, it has been taught that councils and the Scriptures are in two natures, human and divine, divine inspiration with human touches that are not necessarily inerrant, but spiritually and dogmatically infallible.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3745 on: September 28, 2011, 12:58:43 AM »

And at least according to Wikipedia, human parthenogenesis is first attested in a laboratory. In fact, the article also says, "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild." In short, you didn't really have a point, you were just trying to sound superior.  Roll Eyes

Jonathon, I think the only conclusion that can be made from the statement than parthenogenesis has not been documented in the wild, is that it is rare, rather than common.  The fact that parthenogenesis was documented in rabbits ~80 years ago, and the fact that we are not very different from rabbits, would allow one to justifiably speculate that parthenogenesis is possible in humans. It doesn't really matter if the frequency is one in 1000, 100,000, 10,000,000, or 1,000,000,000, the possibility is still there.

I would guess that my not having taken any evolutionary biology course would not make me a good choice as someone to address the concerns of Alveus Lacuna,above. Your thoughts on that matter,having dealt with me, would be appreciated.

I suppose that's a valid point. Is there any miracle that couldn't receive a naturalistic explanation on the grounds that the probability of such an occurrence in nature was greater than zero, however small?

What do you think of Sauron's argument that belief in miracles (which is necessary for any traditional Christian, including, I presume, himself) does not constitute special pleading? Earlier he insisted that we must reject any creationist arguments that rest on changes in physical laws on the grounds that such laws are observed everywhere to be constant. But it surely follows from that reasoning that we cannot accept the existence of miracles, i.e. of events that defy universal laws. Or we must reinterpret miracles as simply very low probability events, not events that contradict absolute universals (which is how they have been traditionally understood).

Is the misunderstanding between us because he doesn't realize that Creation was traditionally seen as a miracle in itself? He goes on about the bad science behind creationism (I suppose a fair point with respect to Protestant literalists), but if you simply treat Biblical Creation as a miracle unanalyzable by ordinary natural science, on what grounds could we continue to reject it, if we are willing to accept miracles elsewhere? As I noted above, the problem could be that even if the event were miraculous, it should have left evidence of its occurrence. Other miracles are small enough that we don't predict there to be much if any positive evidence for their occurrence (speaking here of miracles that no one here has personally witnessed, of course), so we can choose to believe in them in the absence of negative evidence. For (Biblically literal) Creation, the Flood, etc, the negative evidence is unfortunately all around us, and the positive evidence conspicuously lacking.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 01:05:45 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #3746 on: September 28, 2011, 01:16:49 AM »

And at least according to Wikipedia, human parthenogenesis is first attested in a laboratory. In fact, the article also says, "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild." In short, you didn't really have a point, you were just trying to sound superior.  Roll Eyes

Jonathon, I think the only conclusion that can be made from the statement than parthenogenesis has not been documented in the wild, is that it is rare, rather than common.  The fact that parthenogenesis was documented in rabbits ~80 years ago, and the fact that we are not very different from rabbits, would allow one to justifiably speculate that parthenogenesis is possible in humans. It doesn't really matter if the frequency is one in 1000, 100,000, 10,000,000, or 1,000,000,000, the possibility is still there.

I would guess that my not having taken any evolutionary biology course would not make me a good choice as someone to address the concerns of Alveus Lacuna,above. Your thoughts on that matter,having dealt with me, would be appreciated.

I suppose that's a valid point. Is there any miracle that couldn't receive a naturalistic explanation on the grounds that the probability of such an occurrence in nature was greater than zero, however small?

What do you think of Sauron's argument that belief in miracles (which is necessary for any traditional Christian, including, I presume, himself) does not constitute special pleading? Earlier he insisted that we must reject any creationist arguments that rest on changes in physical laws on the grounds that such laws are observed everywhere to be constant. But it surely follows from that reasoning that we cannot accept the existence of miracles, i.e. of events that defy universal laws. Or we must reinterpret miracles as simply very low probability events, not events that contradict absolute universals (which is how they have been traditionally understood).

Is the misunderstanding between us because he doesn't realize that Creation was traditionally seen as a miracle in itself? He goes on about the bad science behind creationism (I suppose a fair point with respect to Protestant literalists), but if you simply treat Biblical Creation as a miracle unanalyzable by ordinary natural science, on what grounds could we continue to reject it, if we are willing to accept miracles elsewhere? As I noted above, the problem could be that even if the event were miraculous, it should have left evidence of its occurrence. Other miracles are small enough that we don't predict there to be much if any positive evidence for their occurrence (speaking here of miracles that no one here has personally witnessed, of course), so we can choose to believe in them in the absence of negative evidence. For (Biblically literal) Creation, the Flood, etc, the negative evidence is unfortunately all around us, and the positive evidence conspicuously lacking.

To accept belief in God and to accept evolution, and that God created all things, even through the laws of science which include evolution, it makes all of creation that much more miraculous.  For how can our Pantrocrator who is just that much more powerful and beyond intelligent can think of not only creating all things out of non-existence, but that when they do exist in the materialistic sense that He programs them in the most perfect manner to lead it to the human nature.

Even more so, if I am alive today talking to you about this after billions of years of this process, how much more should we be able to trust in God's will with what He is doing today, sustaining the universe in the way He sees fit, and He sees it best while not violating nature's free will.  It's so incredible and so unbelievable, only God can do this.  Earlier someone mentioned evolution takes away or ruins the majesty of creation.  But if you were to have the mind of a scientist, you would be in awe.  Now if you have the mind of a theistic scientist, you can't even imagine.  That's a miracle indeed.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 01:19:02 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3747 on: September 28, 2011, 01:34:22 AM »

And at least according to Wikipedia, human parthenogenesis is first attested in a laboratory. In fact, the article also says, "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild." In short, you didn't really have a point, you were just trying to sound superior.  Roll Eyes

Jonathon, I think the only conclusion that can be made from the statement than parthenogenesis has not been documented in the wild, is that it is rare, rather than common.  The fact that parthenogenesis was documented in rabbits ~80 years ago, and the fact that we are not very different from rabbits, would allow one to justifiably speculate that parthenogenesis is possible in humans. It doesn't really matter if the frequency is one in 1000, 100,000, 10,000,000, or 1,000,000,000, the possibility is still there.

I would guess that my not having taken any evolutionary biology course would not make me a good choice as someone to address the concerns of Alveus Lacuna,above. Your thoughts on that matter,having dealt with me, would be appreciated.

I suppose that's a valid point. Is there any miracle that couldn't receive a naturalistic explanation on the grounds that the probability of such an occurrence in nature was greater than zero, however small?

What do you think of Sauron's argument that belief in miracles (which is necessary for any traditional Christian, including, I presume, himself) does not constitute special pleading? Earlier he insisted that we must reject any creationist arguments that rest on changes in physical laws on the grounds that such laws are observed everywhere to be constant. But it surely follows from that reasoning that we cannot accept the existence of miracles, i.e. of events that defy universal laws. Or we must reinterpret miracles as simply very low probability events, not events that contradict absolute universals (which is how they have been traditionally understood).

Is the misunderstanding between us because he doesn't realize that Creation was traditionally seen as a miracle in itself? He goes on about the bad science behind creationism (I suppose a fair point with respect to Protestant literalists), but if you simply treat Biblical Creation as a miracle unanalyzable by ordinary natural science, on what grounds could we continue to reject it, if we are willing to accept miracles elsewhere? As I noted above, the problem could be that even if the event were miraculous, it should have left evidence of its occurrence. Other miracles are small enough that we don't predict there to be much if any positive evidence for their occurrence (speaking here of miracles that no one here has personally witnessed, of course), so we can choose to believe in them in the absence of negative evidence. For (Biblically literal) Creation, the Flood, etc, the negative evidence is unfortunately all around us, and the positive evidence conspicuously lacking.

To accept belief in God and to accept evolution, and that God created all things, even through the laws of science which include evolution, it makes all of creation that much more miraculous.  For how can our Pantrocrator who is just that much more powerful and beyond intelligent can think of not only creating all things out of non-existence, but that when they do exist in the materialistic sense that He programs them in the most perfect manner to lead it to the human nature.

Even more so, if I am alive today talking to you about this after billions of years of this process, how much more should we be able to trust in God's will with what He is doing today, sustaining the universe in the way He sees fit, and He sees it best while not violating nature's free will.  It's so incredible and so unbelievable, only God can do this.  Earlier someone mentioned evolution takes away or ruins the majesty of creation.  But if you were to have the mind of a scientist, you would be in awe.  Now if you have the mind of a theistic scientist, you can't even imagine.  That's a miracle indeed.

Interesting. I guess your starting point is that human nature is so self-evidently amazing that any naturalistic system that comes up with it must be the work of God. I never thought of it that way before, but it sounds promising.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #3748 on: September 28, 2011, 01:37:53 AM »

And at least according to Wikipedia, human parthenogenesis is first attested in a laboratory. In fact, the article also says, "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild." In short, you didn't really have a point, you were just trying to sound superior.  Roll Eyes

Jonathon, I think the only conclusion that can be made from the statement than parthenogenesis has not been documented in the wild, is that it is rare, rather than common.  The fact that parthenogenesis was documented in rabbits ~80 years ago, and the fact that we are not very different from rabbits, would allow one to justifiably speculate that parthenogenesis is possible in humans. It doesn't really matter if the frequency is one in 1000, 100,000, 10,000,000, or 1,000,000,000, the possibility is still there.

I would guess that my not having taken any evolutionary biology course would not make me a good choice as someone to address the concerns of Alveus Lacuna,above. Your thoughts on that matter,having dealt with me, would be appreciated.

I suppose that's a valid point. Is there any miracle that couldn't receive a naturalistic explanation on the grounds that the probability of such an occurrence in nature was greater than zero, however small?

What do you think of Sauron's argument that belief in miracles (which is necessary for any traditional Christian, including, I presume, himself) does not constitute special pleading? Earlier he insisted that we must reject any creationist arguments that rest on changes in physical laws on the grounds that such laws are observed everywhere to be constant. But it surely follows from that reasoning that we cannot accept the existence of miracles, i.e. of events that defy universal laws. Or we must reinterpret miracles as simply very low probability events, not events that contradict absolute universals (which is how they have been traditionally understood).

Is the misunderstanding between us because he doesn't realize that Creation was traditionally seen as a miracle in itself? He goes on about the bad science behind creationism (I suppose a fair point with respect to Protestant literalists), but if you simply treat Biblical Creation as a miracle unanalyzable by ordinary natural science, on what grounds could we continue to reject it, if we are willing to accept miracles elsewhere? As I noted above, the problem could be that even if the event were miraculous, it should have left evidence of its occurrence. Other miracles are small enough that we don't predict there to be much if any positive evidence for their occurrence (speaking here of miracles that no one here has personally witnessed, of course), so we can choose to believe in them in the absence of negative evidence. For (Biblically literal) Creation, the Flood, etc, the negative evidence is unfortunately all around us, and the positive evidence conspicuously lacking.

To accept belief in God and to accept evolution, and that God created all things, even through the laws of science which include evolution, it makes all of creation that much more miraculous.  For how can our Pantrocrator who is just that much more powerful and beyond intelligent can think of not only creating all things out of non-existence, but that when they do exist in the materialistic sense that He programs them in the most perfect manner to lead it to the human nature.

Even more so, if I am alive today talking to you about this after billions of years of this process, how much more should we be able to trust in God's will with what He is doing today, sustaining the universe in the way He sees fit, and He sees it best while not violating nature's free will.  It's so incredible and so unbelievable, only God can do this.  Earlier someone mentioned evolution takes away or ruins the majesty of creation.  But if you were to have the mind of a scientist, you would be in awe.  Now if you have the mind of a theistic scientist, you can't even imagine.  That's a miracle indeed.

Interesting. I guess your starting point is that human nature is so self-evidently amazing that any naturalistic system that comes up with it must be the work of God. I never thought of it that way before, but it sounds promising.

 Smiley

With the right foundations, that the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom, no discovery in science will take that away, even evolution.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3749 on: September 28, 2011, 02:06:44 AM »

the evolutionists here are assuming that the Fathers understanding of Genesis was merely according to the science of their day, or simply to an ignorance of science. so your entire objection rests on whether or not the Saints were actually looking to secular studies for the answers to sacred Scripture. can anyone prove that the Fathers' interpretations were according to faulty science rather than holiness and divine inspiration? many of the Fathers say that knowledge of the pre-fallen world is completely closed off to human efforts -- so it has nothing to do with science, no matter how updated it is. rather, they say, knowledge of that time can come only from divine revelation. many such statements can be read here: http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/knowledge-of-creation-and-paradise-are-beyond-human-effort/ . is anyone else able to demonstrate that, contrary to what the Fathers have said about how to understand creation and the pre-fallen world, the Fathers were actually just limited by primitive science? and just to throw this out there - many of our Saints that have lived since Darwin were in fact very educated, but they continued to look to God for the answers to such questions.

This is easy. If the Fathers' interpretations were wrong, they must not have been based on divine inspiration.


Is it possible that the pre-fallen cosmos was entirely different from the cosmos we know today and that it obeyed totally different laws of physics? I suppose that it is so possible. However, this belief is totally inadmissible in any scientific approach to the question, since there's no way at all that such a religious belief could ever be proven false. The idea of such an idyllic world that followed a totally different set of laws is indeed completely outside the reach of science, but that doesn't make it a complete fiction. Therefore, you really can't say with any certitude that they're wrong.

This logical fallacy is called special pleading.
So what? It's only a logical fallacy if you assume the scientific presumption that things always have been as we see them today. But science is actually not qualified to say that. You, however, are all too quick to judge as ridiculous any possible idea that a cosmos could have existed wherein the laws of physics as we know them today simply did not apply. How are you qualified to say such a thing? Are you really that arrogant?

I know and have acknowledged many times on this thread the uniformitarian presumption of science and have often even defended it as part of the very foundational bedrock of the scientific method, but I also have to recognize that uniformitarianism is itself a logical presumption that begs the question. And just as science is unable to tell us with certainty what happened before the Big Bang, so also is science unable to tell us with certainty that a paridisical world with totally different physical laws never existed.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3750 on: September 28, 2011, 02:19:50 AM »

the evolutionists here are assuming that the Fathers understanding of Genesis was merely according to the science of their day, or simply to an ignorance of science. so your entire objection rests on whether or not the Saints were actually looking to secular studies for the answers to sacred Scripture. can anyone prove that the Fathers' interpretations were according to faulty science rather than holiness and divine inspiration? many of the Fathers say that knowledge of the pre-fallen world is completely closed off to human efforts -- so it has nothing to do with science, no matter how updated it is. rather, they say, knowledge of that time can come only from divine revelation. many such statements can be read here: http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/knowledge-of-creation-and-paradise-are-beyond-human-effort/ . is anyone else able to demonstrate that, contrary to what the Fathers have said about how to understand creation and the pre-fallen world, the Fathers were actually just limited by primitive science? and just to throw this out there - many of our Saints that have lived since Darwin were in fact very educated, but they continued to look to God for the answers to such questions.

This is easy. If the Fathers' interpretations were wrong, they must not have been based on divine inspiration.


Is it possible that the pre-fallen cosmos was entirely different from the cosmos we know today and that it obeyed totally different laws of physics? I suppose that it is so possible. However, this belief is totally inadmissible in any scientific approach to the question, since there's no way at all that such a religious belief could ever be proven false. The idea of such an idyllic world that followed a totally different set of laws is indeed completely outside the reach of science, but that doesn't make it a complete fiction. Therefore, you really can't say with any certitude that they're wrong.

it must be getting nigh on the Apocalypse, Peter -- i now agree with you a second time!
Don't get too excited. I still think you excessively dogmatic on the issue of Genesis and creation. I just find Sauron's dogmatism just as arrogant and destructive as yours.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 02:21:15 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3751 on: September 28, 2011, 08:18:43 AM »

there is at least one Ecumenically ratified Canon that binds us to hold to at least a portion of the Creation account in a literal sense:
Councils are not Roman Popes.

Keep your infallibility to yourself.

What? Ecumenical councils are infallible, and local councils that have been accepted by the whole Church. Where we differ from Rome is in not believing any single bishop to be infallible. It's not like we reject the very notion of infallibility.

thank you Jonathan. if you take away the Church's infallibility then its no different than any Protestant denomination.

This question is not as settled as you guys are making out.

and you reference which Saints to demonstrate a division?

Well, which saints talk about "infallibility", of councils or anything else?

That said, on this particular question (the mortality or immortality of Adam) there is plenty of patristic and liturgical material which would back up the canon.

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.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3752 on: September 28, 2011, 09:12:51 AM »

No, it doesn't. It forces me to think that Genesis isn't geological science, but theological mythology. Useful for answering the questions of primitive man regarding his physical surroundings, but nothing whatsoever to do with dating the age of the universe. This particular point has nothing to do with evolutionary philosphy.

well thats an interesting idea, but the notion that Genesis is mere mythology is not found in any of the Orthodox commentaries on Genesis. you can certainly hold to that idea, but you can't try to claim that its an Orthodox view of Scripture.

You appear never to have heard of St. Augustine of Hippo. I commend his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" to your attention, wherein he advised against a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Quote
The evidence does not tell you that the world is old - a certain interpretation of the evidence tells you that the world is old. its your choice whether or not to accept that interpretation. i don't, and so there's no deception. the Church teaches that there was a time before sin and death, and since there was no death and decay in that time period there are thus no artifacts or remains from that time period for scientists to examine. thus, as the Fathers point out continuously, the pre-lapsarian world does not belong to science - there's nothing about it that scientists could study. why that simple and traditional idea is so appalling to you I don't understand.

If there was no death, how did the nitrogen cycle work? Why were people given the command to "be fruitful and multiply" in a world with no death? This would result in trillions of humans on the planet within 40 generations, even assuming a conservative birth rate of less than two offspring per parent.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3753 on: September 28, 2011, 09:13:50 AM »

And at least according to Wikipedia, human parthenogenesis is first attested in a laboratory. In fact, the article also says, "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild." In short, you didn't really have a point, you were just trying to sound superior.  Roll Eyes

You had to check Wikipedia to find that out?

Feel free to respond to the other points of my post. Or not.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3754 on: September 28, 2011, 09:16:43 AM »

What do you think of Sauron's argument that belief in miracles (which is necessary for any traditional Christian, including, I presume, himself) does not constitute special pleading? Earlier he insisted that we must reject any creationist arguments that rest on changes in physical laws on the grounds that such laws are observed everywhere to be constant. But it surely follows from that reasoning that we cannot accept the existence of miracles, i.e. of events that defy universal laws. Or we must reinterpret miracles as simply very low probability events, not events that contradict absolute universals (which is how they have been traditionally understood).

I never said that. Please do not use the expression "special pleading", as you apparently do not understand it or my argument.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3755 on: September 28, 2011, 09:21:20 AM »

Don't get too excited. I still think you excessively dogmatic on the issue of Genesis and creation. I just find Sauron's dogmatism just as arrogant and destructive as yours.

Dogmatism does not mean what you seem to think it means. My opinions have only been descriptions of the physical universe, and those opinions are always subject to change based on the evidence. That is the opposite of dogmatic.

And, as I have told you earlier in this thread, it is not arrogant to say what I know to be true. What is arrogant is for people who have little to no scientific literacy making wild claims that openly defy overwhelming scientific evidence.

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #3756 on: September 28, 2011, 09:34:31 AM »

No, it doesn't. It forces me to think that Genesis isn't geological science, but theological mythology. Useful for answering the questions of primitive man regarding his physical surroundings, but nothing whatsoever to do with dating the age of the universe. This particular point has nothing to do with evolutionary philosphy.

well thats an interesting idea, but the notion that Genesis is mere mythology is not found in any of the Orthodox commentaries on Genesis. you can certainly hold to that idea, but you can't try to claim that its an Orthodox view of Scripture.

You appear never to have heard of St. Augustine of Hippo. I commend his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" to your attention, wherein he advised against a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Quote
The evidence does not tell you that the world is old - a certain interpretation of the evidence tells you that the world is old. its your choice whether or not to accept that interpretation. i don't, and so there's no deception. the Church teaches that there was a time before sin and death, and since there was no death and decay in that time period there are thus no artifacts or remains from that time period for scientists to examine. thus, as the Fathers point out continuously, the pre-lapsarian world does not belong to science - there's nothing about it that scientists could study. why that simple and traditional idea is so appalling to you I don't understand.

If there was no death, how did the nitrogen cycle work? Why were people given the command to "be fruitful and multiply" in a world with no death? This would result in trillions of humans on the planet within 40 generations, even assuming a conservative birth rate of less than two offspring per parent.


Sauron
 You keep asking the same question about the nitrogen cycle and death.  This has already been answered, even though I may disagree with it.  It's believed by certain creationists that the Fall caused the laws of science to give us what we have today.

"fruitful and multiply" is the antithesis of death.  Sure if we get to the nitty gritty details of embryology and find a lot of "death" processes in it.  But keep in mind the views of the other, who finds the pre-fall conditions a mystery and that God was able to get these processes working within the acceptable framework in Paradise.  And many do believe that we'll continue to be fruitful and multiply when we enter into eternity with God.  So I'm not sure why you would equate that expression with death when it was commanded of Adam and Eve before they disobeyed God.

I hope you can keep that in mind so that this thread doesn't continue in circles.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3757 on: September 28, 2011, 09:39:14 AM »

I'm going to toot my own horn again and point to this thread I started, where I give what I think to be a better take on the question, one which is critical of modern science but very distinct from typical "creationism".

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25971.0.html
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 09:45:36 AM 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.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3758 on: September 28, 2011, 10:02:23 AM »

Sauron
 You keep asking the same question about the nitrogen cycle and death.  This has already been answered, even though I may disagree with it.  It's believed by certain creationists that the Fall caused the laws of science to give us what we have today.

I don't believe I ever received an answer. Simply sayng, "oh, the laws of the universe were different back then" is not an answer. They need to say how they were different, and how they know. I suspect the reason I have not received these answers is that they need to consult a reference to know what the nitrogen cycle is.

Quote
"fruitful and multiply" is the antithesis of death.  Sure if we get to the nitty gritty details of embryology and find a lot of "death" processes in it.  But keep in mind the views of the other, who finds the pre-fall conditions a mystery and that God was able to get these processes working within the acceptable framework in Paradise.  And many do believe that we'll continue to be fruitful and multiply when we enter into eternity with God.  So I'm not sure why you would equate that expression with death when it was commanded of Adam and Eve before they disobeyed God.

I thought the reason I mentioned it was pretty clear after I stated how large the earth's population would be if nothing ever died. Overpopulation is bad enough right now when people die. Care to imagine the state of the planet if nothing ever died yet reproduction still occurred? Assuming two offspring per parent, after 40 generations, there would over 2.199 trillion people on the planet.

For more on this topic, I commend to your attention the classic Star Trek episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles".
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


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


WWW
« Reply #3759 on: September 28, 2011, 11:22:09 AM »

I don't believe I ever received an answer. Simply sayng, "oh, the laws of the universe were different back then" is not an answer. They need to say how they were different, and how they know. I suspect the reason I have not received these answers is that they need to consult a reference to know what the nitrogen cycle is.

Sauron, people think in simple terms, with simple minds.  The Bible was written for simple people.  A clear understanding is that Adam and Eve did not experience personal mortality until after they disobeyed God.  I hope you understand that at the very least.

The laws of nature include death.  But in Paradise (or the Garden of Eden), there was no death, therefore, the natural laws were different.  They acknowledge that this is a mystery, and so that rules out the idea of "how they were different" because they can't answer that, since they already said it's a mystery.  To keep hammering the point that they "must" explain something that's a mystery is not a fair understanding of the discussion at hand.

Quote
I thought the reason I mentioned it was pretty clear after I stated how large the earth's population would be if nothing ever died. Overpopulation is bad enough right now when people die. Care to imagine the state of the planet if nothing ever died yet reproduction still occurred? Assuming two offspring per parent, after 40 generations, there would over 2.199 trillion people on the planet.

For more on this topic, I commend to your attention the classic Star Trek episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles".


Again, they'll probably tell you mystery.  The how doesn't matter.  In faith, whenever one asks how, it's not necessary, and therefore never explained.  For instance, when Christ healed the blind, He didn't explain how His spit mixed with dirt fixed the man's optic nerve.  Would it be fair for you to ask about the mysterious healing of the blind how that was done?

After the Fall, they'll tell you, "Yes, of course, there was plenty of death."  But before that, it's all mystery at least the Garden of Eden was mystery.

There are better ways to argue for science, but not this way.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 11:23:58 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,425



« Reply #3760 on: September 28, 2011, 11:46:38 AM »


I suppose that's a valid point. Is there any miracle that couldn't receive a naturalistic explanation on the grounds that the probability of such an occurrence in nature was greater than zero, however small?

From reading this thread I would guess probably not and it is akin to those who believe in an RNA world as a matter of faith at this point.  For example, the probability of parthenogenesis is extremely low (a number that will probably come from ongoing DNA profiling for paternity lawsuits). This, times the probability of of acquiring a Y chromosome (which in its self represents two extremely low probabilities: tetragametic chimerism and additional rare events that somehow results in a female capable of reproducing) would likely give a probability that is much less than all humans that have ever existed. In other words, I would call it a miracle, even though the probability is above zero.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3761 on: September 28, 2011, 11:54:34 AM »

I don't believe I ever received an answer. Simply sayng, "oh, the laws of the universe were different back then" is not an answer. They need to say how they were different, and how they know. I suspect the reason I have not received these answers is that they need to consult a reference to know what the nitrogen cycle is.

Sauron, people think in simple terms, with simple minds.  The Bible was written for simple people.  A clear understanding is that Adam and Eve did not experience personal mortality until after they disobeyed God.  I hope you understand that at the very least.

Ok, but physical reality is not simple.

Quote
The laws of nature include death.  But in Paradise (or the Garden of Eden), there was no death, therefore, the natural laws were different.  They acknowledge that this is a mystery, and so that rules out the idea of "how they were different" because they can't answer that, since they already said it's a mystery.  To keep hammering the point that they "must" explain something that's a mystery is not a fair understanding of the discussion at hand.

I do not consider death to be a "law of nature". That is just not how scientific laws work.

And, it is not my understanding that is lacking. "It's a mystery" is not an explanation.

Here is the problem: if people want to use science to try to shore up their religious beliefs, fine, but they need to be equally willing to subject their religious beliefs to be proven wrong by science. This is my entire theme that some still cannot grasp. I do not use science to support any of my religious beliefs, and I also do not use my religious beliefs to say that any scientific principle is wrong.

Quote
Quote
I thought the reason I mentioned it was pretty clear after I stated how large the earth's population would be if nothing ever died. Overpopulation is bad enough right now when people die. Care to imagine the state of the planet if nothing ever died yet reproduction still occurred? Assuming two offspring per parent, after 40 generations, there would over 2.199 trillion people on the planet.

For more on this topic, I commend to your attention the classic Star Trek episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles".


Again, they'll probably tell you mystery.  The how doesn't matter.  In faith, whenever one asks how, it's not necessary, and therefore never explained.  For instance, when Christ healed the blind, He didn't explain how His spit mixed with dirt fixed the man's optic nerve.  Would it be fair for you to ask about the mysterious healing of the blind how that was done?

After the Fall, they'll tell you, "Yes, of course, there was plenty of death."  But before that, it's all mystery at least the Garden of Eden was mystery.

There are better ways to argue for science, but not this way.

I think this "how" question is perfectly fair. I am not asking for a scientific explanation of healing an ailment. I am asking about a very mundane issue that is a current matter of concern: overpopulation. How would an exponentially increasing population be dealt with? Was the divine plan for the planet to be overpopulated? I suspect not.

This is no different than asking how the pandas and koalas on the Ark ate. Is that also a "mystery"?



Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3762 on: September 28, 2011, 12:03:38 PM »


I suppose that's a valid point. Is there any miracle that couldn't receive a naturalistic explanation on the grounds that the probability of such an occurrence in nature was greater than zero, however small?

From reading this thread I would guess probably not and it is akin to those who believe in an RNA world as a matter of faith at this point.  For example, the probability of parthenogenesis is extremely low (a number that will probably come from ongoing DNA profiling for paternity lawsuits). This, times the probability of of acquiring a Y chromosome (which in its self represents two extremely low probabilities: tetragametic chimerism and additional rare events that somehow results in a female capable of reproducing) would likely give a probability that is much less than all humans that have ever existed. In other words, I would call it a miracle, even though the probability is above zero.

This is a good explanation that shows my different approach. Many people would say that the fact of parthenogenesis is proof that the Virgin Birth is possible. I do not say that and simply say the event occurred as an article of faith.

(on the merits, parthenogenesis in human would result in female offspring, anyway)
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3763 on: September 28, 2011, 12:31:00 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 12:32:17 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3764 on: September 28, 2011, 12:38:46 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.

Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3765 on: September 28, 2011, 01:04:42 PM »

If I may, the Virgin Birth is proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Creation in Genesis 1-2 is not. Thats how I can accept the Virgin Birth but doubt YEC. The 7 day creation is NOT a "mandatory" of the faith. The Virgin Birth of our Lord is. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to steel doors.

God created all things including nature. I have always held that God set up nature within certain boundaries and let it run. To use an argument the last time this came up, God will not stop a tornado from going just because you built a house in tornado alley. However, if God decides to do something miraculous and overrules nature, he can.

Quote
but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process
Ah, well then. Apparently the extraordinarily vast amount of scientists (who I ALSO believe are wrong) must have missed that email...darn outlook express......may I have the link for a nonbiased firm that has these findings?

Might I also say the following:

Believing in intelligent design (evolutionary or not) does not in any way diminish the miracle and majesty of our Lord God's creation and love for us.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3766 on: September 28, 2011, 01:13:00 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.



So it seems that you would be willing to accept YECism if you were convinced that it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, despite the lack of scientific evidence?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3767 on: September 28, 2011, 01:14:01 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.



So it seems that you would be willing to accept YECism if you were convinced that it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, despite the lack of scientific evidence?
Thank God it never will be.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3768 on: September 28, 2011, 01:15:57 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.



So it seems that you would be willing to accept YECism if you were convinced that it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, despite the lack of scientific evidence?

Why would it seem that way?

Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3769 on: September 28, 2011, 01:16:15 PM »

If I may, the Virgin Birth is proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Creation in Genesis 1-2 is not. Thats how I can accept the Virgin Birth but doubt YEC. The 7 day creation is NOT a "mandatory" of the faith. The Virgin Birth of our Lord is. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to steel doors.

God created all things including nature. I have always held that God set up nature within certain boundaries and let it run. To use an argument the last time this came up, God will not stop a tornado from going just because you built a house in tornado alley. However, if God decides to do something miraculous and overrules nature, he can.

Quote
but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process
Ah, well then. Apparently the extraordinarily vast amount of scientists (who I ALSO believe are wrong) must have missed that email...darn outlook express......may I have the link for a nonbiased firm that has these findings?

Might I also say the following:

Believing in intelligent design (evolutionary or not) does not in any way diminish the miracle and majesty of our Lord God's creation and love for us.

PP

If you are right that a belief in the literal, factual truth of Biblical Creation is not necessary for salvation, then I agree. But I'm not sure about that. This is not because I believe an age of 7500 years is necessary for salvation, but because the doctrine that God did not create death is necessary for salvation, and this doctrine cannot be reconciled with the belief that death existed before the first humans.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3770 on: September 28, 2011, 01:17:19 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.



So it seems that you would be willing to accept YECism if you were convinced that it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, despite the lack of scientific evidence?

Why would it seem that way?



Because you are willing to accept other things contradicted by science on the grounds they are articles of faith, such as the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth of Christ.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3771 on: September 28, 2011, 01:20:23 PM »

If I may, the Virgin Birth is proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Creation in Genesis 1-2 is not. Thats how I can accept the Virgin Birth but doubt YEC. The 7 day creation is NOT a "mandatory" of the faith. The Virgin Birth of our Lord is. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to steel doors.

God created all things including nature. I have always held that God set up nature within certain boundaries and let it run. To use an argument the last time this came up, God will not stop a tornado from going just because you built a house in tornado alley. However, if God decides to do something miraculous and overrules nature, he can.

Quote
but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process
Ah, well then. Apparently the extraordinarily vast amount of scientists (who I ALSO believe are wrong) must have missed that email...darn outlook express......may I have the link for a nonbiased firm that has these findings?

Might I also say the following:

Believing in intelligent design (evolutionary or not) does not in any way diminish the miracle and majesty of our Lord God's creation and love for us.

PP

If you are right that a belief in the literal, factual truth of Biblical Creation is not necessary for salvation, then I agree. But I'm not sure about that. This is not because I believe an age of 7500 years is necessary for salvation, but because the doctrine that God did not create death is necessary for salvation, and this doctrine cannot be reconciled with the belief that death existed before the first humans.

That sounds like a personal problem.

By the way, Adam and Eve were given plants to eat. Did they have to eat? Could they have starved if they decided not to eat?

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3772 on: September 28, 2011, 01:20:57 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.



So it seems that you would be willing to accept YECism if you were convinced that it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, despite the lack of scientific evidence?

Why would it seem that way?



Because you are willing to accept other things contradicted by science on the grounds they are articles of faith, such as the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth of Christ.

How are those contradicted by science?

Did Adam breathe?

Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3773 on: September 28, 2011, 01:26:05 PM »

If I may, the Virgin Birth is proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Creation in Genesis 1-2 is not. Thats how I can accept the Virgin Birth but doubt YEC. The 7 day creation is NOT a "mandatory" of the faith. The Virgin Birth of our Lord is. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to steel doors.

God created all things including nature. I have always held that God set up nature within certain boundaries and let it run. To use an argument the last time this came up, God will not stop a tornado from going just because you built a house in tornado alley. However, if God decides to do something miraculous and overrules nature, he can.

Quote
but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process
Ah, well then. Apparently the extraordinarily vast amount of scientists (who I ALSO believe are wrong) must have missed that email...darn outlook express......may I have the link for a nonbiased firm that has these findings?

Might I also say the following:

Believing in intelligent design (evolutionary or not) does not in any way diminish the miracle and majesty of our Lord God's creation and love for us.

PP

If you are right that a belief in the literal, factual truth of Biblical Creation is not necessary for salvation, then I agree. But I'm not sure about that. This is not because I believe an age of 7500 years is necessary for salvation, but because the doctrine that God did not create death is necessary for salvation, and this doctrine cannot be reconciled with the belief that death existed before the first humans.

That sounds like a personal problem.

By the way, Adam and Eve were given plants to eat. Did they have to eat? Could they have starved if they decided not to eat?



It may be personal, but it's also shared by many others. I mean, do you accept that God did not create death, but that it entered into the world through Adam's sin? If so, how do you reconcile this with a belief in evolution and the existence of death before sin existed? If you can convince me the two are reconcilable, I would be thrilled, since I haven't been able to figure out how to reconcile the two beliefs.

My understanding is that they did not have to eat the plants, but the plants were given for their innocent enjoyment. There was no possibility of starvation.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3774 on: September 28, 2011, 01:40:21 PM »

the evolutionists here are assuming that the Fathers understanding of Genesis was merely according to the science of their day, or simply to an ignorance of science. so your entire objection rests on whether or not the Saints were actually looking to secular studies for the answers to sacred Scripture. can anyone prove that the Fathers' interpretations were according to faulty science rather than holiness and divine inspiration? many of the Fathers say that knowledge of the pre-fallen world is completely closed off to human efforts -- so it has nothing to do with science, no matter how updated it is. rather, they say, knowledge of that time can come only from divine revelation. many such statements can be read here: http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/knowledge-of-creation-and-paradise-are-beyond-human-effort/ . is anyone else able to demonstrate that, contrary to what the Fathers have said about how to understand creation and the pre-fallen world, the Fathers were actually just limited by primitive science? and just to throw this out there - many of our Saints that have lived since Darwin were in fact very educated, but they continued to look to God for the answers to such questions.

This is easy. If the Fathers' interpretations were wrong, they must not have been based on divine inspiration.


Is it possible that the pre-fallen cosmos was entirely different from the cosmos we know today and that it obeyed totally different laws of physics? I suppose that it is so possible. However, this belief is totally inadmissible in any scientific approach to the question, since there's no way at all that such a religious belief could ever be proven false. The idea of such an idyllic world that followed a totally different set of laws is indeed completely outside the reach of science, but that doesn't make it a complete fiction. Therefore, you really can't say with any certitude that they're wrong.

it must be getting nigh on the Apocalypse, Peter -- i now agree with you a second time!
Don't get too excited. I still think you excessively dogmatic on the issue of Genesis and creation. I just find Sauron's dogmatism just as arrogant and destructive as yours.

haha, dont worry - i didnt pee my pants or anything
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3775 on: September 28, 2011, 01:43:10 PM »

Sauron, why is it OK to accept on faith that the Virgin Birth happened, without addressing the problem of the extreme low probability of it ever occurring, and the fact that parthenogenesis could not result in male offspring, but it's not OK to accept on faith that Creation happened as recorded in Genesis 1-2 despite the fact that geology, paleontology and biology all show evidence for a very different creation process? If creationists stopped trying to use science to shore up their belief in the literal truth of Creation, and simply affirmed that it happened as dogma, would you continue to insist they provide scientific justification for their belief? And if you agreed not to insist that they justify a miracle, would you still refuse to accept the literal truth of Genesis yourself? If so, why? Would your refusal be for scientific reasons, or theological reasons?

If YECs simply said that their beliefs are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence, that would be honest and I would not challenge them for proof since they would be in agreement with me on scientific grounds. I would still have serious theological objections to YEC beliefs, however.

For a better treatment of this topic in general, I commend C.S. Lewis's Miracles to your attention.



So it seems that you would be willing to accept YECism if you were convinced that it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, despite the lack of scientific evidence?
Thank God it never will be.

PP

interestingly, St. John Chrysostom said that God gave us such a clear and detailed Creation account bc He is concerned for our salvation. St. Theophan the Recluse also said that Darwin and his followers deserve to be added to the anathemas in the Rite of Orthodoxy. For Elder Paisios evolution is blasphemy, and St. Justin Popovich and Fr. George Calciu say that evolution degrades the dignity of man - so we certainly have prominent voices in the Church who view it as necessary to keep the traditional interpretation.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3776 on: September 28, 2011, 01:43:42 PM »

Don't get too excited. I still think you excessively dogmatic on the issue of Genesis and creation. I just find Sauron's dogmatism just as arrogant and destructive as yours.

Dogmatism does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Dogmatism to me is what I say it means. You're all too willing to condemn as fools those who disagree with your opinions, and that makes you dogmatic. It doesn't matter if those opinions are subject to change.

My opinions have only been descriptions of the physical universe, and those opinions are always subject to change based on the evidence. That is the opposite of dogmatic.

And, as I have told you earlier in this thread, it is not arrogant to say what I know to be true.
It is arrogant, though, for you to portray that you're better than anyone else here because of what you "know" to be true.

What is arrogant is for people who have little to no scientific literacy making wild claims that openly defy overwhelming scientific evidence.
I notice you haven't yet addressed my statements regarding how the uniformitarian principle itself begs the question. You don't know uniformitarianism to be absolutely true, yet you argue as though it is.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3777 on: September 28, 2011, 01:50:34 PM »

That sounds like a personal problem.

By the way, Adam and Eve were given plants to eat. Did they have to eat? Could they have starved if they decided not to eat?



It may be personal, but it's also shared by many others. I mean, do you accept that God did not create death, but that it entered into the world through Adam's sin? If so, how do you reconcile this with a belief in evolution and the existence of death before sin existed? If you can convince me the two are reconcilable, I would be thrilled, since I haven't been able to figure out how to reconcile the two beliefs.

My understanding is that they did not have to eat the plants, but the plants were given for their innocent enjoyment. There was no possibility of starvation.

The phrase "create death" does not make sense to me. It does like "create falling" or "create tying". Death is an action, not a thing.

I think it is implied that they needed to eat. The instruction was not, "I give you these to eat if you feel like it". Also, eating is how we get energy to do things. Unless Adam and Eve were creating energy in their bodies, they needed to eat so they could walk around. Why have a tree called "the tree of life"? And of course, if they ate, they would have to poop.

Moreover, the warning to Adam and Even that they would surely die if they ate of the fruit would make no sense in a world where nothing died because they would have no concept of it.

But if you are interested in compatibility, see these for starters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826 (talk by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware - go to the 1:29:00 mark or so)
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm (Bishop Alexander (Mileant) - note the section Death: when did it appear?)

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3778 on: September 28, 2011, 01:57:15 PM »

Dogmatism does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Dogmatism to me is what I say it means. You're all too willing to condemn as fools those who disagree with your opinions, and that makes you dogmatic. It doesn't matter if those opinions are subject to change.

I am sorry, but words have meanings. If I do not fit the definition of dogmatic, then I am not dogmatic. You may wish to confirm this with your dictionary. Or better yet, your priest by asking, "is dogma subject to change?" Please post your findings here!

Quote
My opinions have only been descriptions of the physical universe, and those opinions are always subject to change based on the evidence. That is the opposite of dogmatic.

And, as I have told you earlier in this thread, it is not arrogant to say what I know to be true.
It is arrogant, though, for you to portray that you're better than anyone else here because of what you "know" to be true.

I haven't portrayed myself as being better than anyone. If I have had a better command of the facts than you or others, such people should feel bad about discussing matters where they had no business having an opinion. As you admitted before, many of the participants here are "completely ignorant of science". Guess what? That means their opinions about science don't count.

Quote
What is arrogant is for people who have little to no scientific literacy making wild claims that openly defy overwhelming scientific evidence.
I notice you haven't yet addressed my statements regarding how the uniformitarian principle itself begs the question. You don't know uniformitarianism to be absolutely true, yet you argue as though it is.

I already addressed the uniformitarian principle earlier in the thread. That you do not like it does not mean that I did not do so.

You don't know that I am not an angel sent to enlighten you, yet you argue as though you do.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3779 on: September 28, 2011, 02:02:45 PM »

Dogmatism does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Dogmatism to me is what I say it means. You're all too willing to condemn as fools those who disagree with your opinions, and that makes you dogmatic. It doesn't matter if those opinions are subject to change.

I am sorry, but words have meanings. If I do not fit the definition of dogmatic, then I am not dogmatic. You may wish to confirm this with your dictionary. Or better yet, your priest by asking, "is dogma subject to change?" Please post your findings here!
You're picking out something that doesn't matter. You appear all too quick to condemn as fools those who disagree with your opinions. That makes you dogmatic.

Quote
My opinions have only been descriptions of the physical universe, and those opinions are always subject to change based on the evidence. That is the opposite of dogmatic.

And, as I have told you earlier in this thread, it is not arrogant to say what I know to be true.
It is arrogant, though, for you to portray that you're better than anyone else here because of what you "know" to be true.

I haven't portrayed myself as being better than anyone. If I have had a better command of the facts than you or others, such people should feel bad about discussing matters where they had no business having an opinion. As you admitted before, many of the participants here are "completely ignorant of science". Guess what? That means their opinions about science don't count.

Quote
What is arrogant is for people who have little to no scientific literacy making wild claims that openly defy overwhelming scientific evidence.
I notice you haven't yet addressed my statements regarding how the uniformitarian principle itself begs the question. You don't know uniformitarianism to be absolutely true, yet you argue as though it is.

I already addressed the uniformitarian principle earlier in the thread. That you do not like it does not mean that I did not do so.
You're not reading what I said. I said that you haven't yet addressed my statement that uniformitarianism itself is an assumption that begs the question.

You don't know that I am not an angel sent to enlighten you, yet you argue as though you do.
Comparing yourself to angels now, are you?
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 0.226 seconds with 75 queries.