OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 08:01:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.3%)
both metaphorically and literally - 155 (46%)
Total Voters: 337

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 318871 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5175 on: July 15, 2013, 02:13:54 AM »

Which animal could a human procreate with to produce apes?

I have never looked into that, and I wouldn't know how or even if that came about, but it is sufficiently intriguing to trigger an interest in the early history of apes.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,010



« Reply #5176 on: July 15, 2013, 02:29:01 AM »

Did the Hebrews know of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla, baboons).
Your research is as good as mine, but I shortly thought of two factors relevant to your question.

1) We can simply apply apes to the relevant category of animals described in the dietary laws of Leviticus 11.
I know this does not specifically answer your question.  Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I would begin by looking up terms like ape, gorilla, and baboon in a bible concordance, and then proceed to the Church Fathers.  I am interested as well, but I cannot promise that I will
have the time to search jewish history high and low for this, but I will let you know if I come across anything.

You question actually signifies an intriguing possibility:
If it can be reasonably shown that no known evidence exists that the ancient Jews were aware of the existence of apes,
then who in the ancient world, if anyone, was aware of the existence of apes?
 
Precisely when and by whom exactly in world history are apes first mentioned in any way?
This leads to my second thought.

2) I have never looked into this and therefore make no claim (yet) as to its veracity, but
several years ago a website of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (before Irinaeus was under house arrest) contained an article which discussed the possibility that apes were not in fact part of God's original creation.  The article asserted that apes were likely the result of human procreation with animals and what Saint Paul referred to in his Epistle to the Romans about the transformation of the image of God into creeping things of the earth, etc.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5177 on: July 15, 2013, 09:51:48 AM »

The article asserted that apes were likely the result of human procreation with animals and what Saint Paul referred to in his Epistle to the Romans about the transformation of the image of God into creeping things of the earth, etc.

Apes don't "creep", they walk on all fours or even upright, on two legs. Or they swing through the trees. So how could anyone describe them as "creeping things"?  Roll Eyes

Also, there is a mention of "apes" in 1 Kings 10:22:

For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 09:53:58 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #5178 on: July 15, 2013, 10:21:03 AM »

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5179 on: July 15, 2013, 05:37:58 PM »

Did the  Hebrews know of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla, baboons).

there is a mention of "apes" in 1 Kings 10:22:
For the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.

She quoted a very relevant verse.  If that verse is historically accurate, then it would answer your question affirmatively that the ancient Hebrews did indeed know about apes at least as far back as Solomon's reign.  However, I consider that verse a forgery by Rabbinical scribes because it is only in their text and not in the Septuagint.  You may differ, but I do not consider Masoretic books as Holy Bible.  

I Kings 10:22 in the Septuagint reads very differently:
"For Solomon had a ship of Tharshish in the sea with the ships of Huram: one ship came to the king every three years out of Tharshish, laden with gold and silver, and wrought stones, and hewn stones. This was the arrangement of the provision which king Solomon fetched to build the house of the Lord, and the house of the king, and the wall of Jerusalem, and the citadel; to fortify the city of David, and Asshur, and Magdal, and Gezer, and Bethhoron the upper, and Jethermath, and all the cities of the chariots, and all the cities of the horsemen, and the fortification of Solomon which he purposed to build in Jerusalem and in all the land, so that none of the people should rule over him that was left of the Hittite and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, who were not of the children of Israel, their descendants who had been left with him in the land, whom the children of Israel could not utterly destroy; and Solomon made them tributaries until this day. But of the children of Israel Solomon made nothing; for they were the warriors, and his servants and rulers, and captains of the third order, and the captains of his chariots, and his horsemen."
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/1-kings/10.html#22

The Septuagint version of this verse never mentions anything about apes or any other animals.
Aside from a superior textual history, the Septuagint version also makes more sense.  
This verse is about Solomon arranging for ships to bring supplies from abroad to build the Temple of God.
What do animals like apes or peacocks have anything to do with building the Temple? They don't.

If the ancient Hebrews knew about apes and gorillas, then this verse is not evidence for it.  
It is evidence that a medieval Rabbinical historical revisionist wanted people to believe they did.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 05:39:40 PM by Dionysii » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5180 on: July 15, 2013, 06:24:53 PM »

You know what? There's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible either!  police

So I'm now going to assert that kangaroos were the product of human procreation with those little moth larvae that live inside Mexican jumping beans.  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,376



« Reply #5181 on: July 15, 2013, 06:42:38 PM »

Ain't no way my great great great great great great great grand pappy came from a homo, especially one called erectus. That's just vulgar. And those people don't even have babies. Scientists are dumb.
Logged

St. Basil is great!

Wonder if he drank goat's milk . . .
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5182 on: July 15, 2013, 06:47:31 PM »

If it can be reasonably shown that no known evidence exists that the ancient Jews were aware of the existence of apes,
then who in the ancient world, if anyone, was aware of the existence of apes?
 
Precisely when and by whom exactly in world history are apes first mentioned in any way?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to this question appears to be the Carthaginian navigator Hanno who discovered gorillas on the west coast of Africa circa 500 years before Christ when he famously circumnavigated the continent of Africa at the behest of the Egyptian Pharaoh.  Therefore, the ancient Jews as well as Egyptians and others likely learned of the existence of apes at this time if not before.  A 'Peryplus of Hanno' (i.e. logbook of the voyage) exists in ancient Greek and English translation.  Herodotus also recorded the history of this when he wrote his histories about 50 years later circa 450 B.C.  

Herodotus's histories include this passage about Hanno's of navigation of western Africa:
"On the third day after our departure thence, having sailed by those streams of fire, we arrived at a bay called the Southern Horn[11]; at the bottom of which lay an island like the former, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full of savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called Gorillae. Though we pursued the men we could not seize any of them; but all fled from us, escaping over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women were however taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us. Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage."
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

This passage suggests that gorillas rather than a tribe of humans are being described since no language is mentioned in addition to the body hair and behavior in all aspects.  Furthermore, the geographical location where Hanno's ships encountered these gorillas is exactly the same where gorillas exist today - west and central Africa.

"In the past, gorilla scientific classification had one species (gorilla) that was divided into three subspecies. Each of these subspecies was distinguished from one another by their geographic location in Africa:
• Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) is the smallest of all three subspecies - weighing around 180 kg (396 lb) for an adult male - and lives in the tropical forests of West Africa. Lowland gorillas in general are similar in appearance. The western lowland gorilla is the most common type of gorilla found in zoological facilities and is the species cared for at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay.
• Eastern lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla graueri) is slightly larger in size weighing up to 220 kg (484 lb) and darker in coloration than the western lowland gorilla. They live in the rainforests of central Africa.
• Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) is the largest and rarest of all three subspecies. Adult males may weigh over 227 kg (500 lb.) They are found at high elevations of the Virunga Volcano range that separates Zaire from Rwanda and Uganda. Their hair is longer and darker than their lowland counterparts due to the colder climate of the high elevation. Mountain gorillas are taller, have a more pointed head, have a wider gap in the middle of the nose, and lack a reddish patch of hair on their heads, common to lowland gorillas
."
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/scientific-classification.htm

The story of Hanno's encounter in both his Peryplus and Herodtus's account is perhaps the earliest historical account of gorillas.
I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 06:48:20 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5183 on: July 15, 2013, 07:01:27 PM »

You know what? There's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible either!  police

So I'm now going to assert that kangaroos were the product of human procreation with those little moth larvae that live inside Mexican jumping beans.  Cool
There is no mention of a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle either. 
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,205



« Reply #5184 on: July 15, 2013, 07:09:23 PM »

Ain't no way my great great great great great great great grand pappy came from a homo, especially one called erectus. That's just vulgar. And those people don't even have babies. Scientists are dumb.

LOL!
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5185 on: July 15, 2013, 07:18:02 PM »

You know what? There's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible either!  police

So I'm now going to assert that kangaroos were the product of human procreation with those little moth larvae that live inside Mexican jumping beans.  Cool
There is no mention of a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle either. 

No offense, but I don't even want to *think* about humans procreating with guns.  Shocked
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5186 on: July 15, 2013, 08:16:17 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5187 on: July 15, 2013, 08:24:16 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #5188 on: July 15, 2013, 08:27:44 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
angels mate with humans and have giant ape children?  That certainly is an...interesting theory.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5189 on: July 15, 2013, 08:39:18 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.
angels mate with humans and have giant ape children?  That certainly is an...interesting theory.

Yes, every man who's ever described the woman he's in love with as "an angel" should be slapped, or jailed, or both. We don't need any more ape-angels, thanks. Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5190 on: July 15, 2013, 08:40:55 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 08:46:45 PM by Dionysii » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #5191 on: July 15, 2013, 08:43:30 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.
Well....that is up for debate. Just because it talks of giants doesn't mean the fossil record matches it.  Heck, there are giants around today, are they also angel-human hybrids? It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 08:45:00 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5192 on: July 15, 2013, 08:51:41 PM »

It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5193 on: July 15, 2013, 09:02:25 PM »

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants...

Well....that is up for debate.

As far as I am concerned, the classification of Gigantopithecus as biblical giants is not up for debate unless evidence is presented.
If I came across evidence that suggested otherwise, then I would gladly consider it.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 09:14:24 PM by Dionysii » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #5194 on: July 15, 2013, 09:13:42 PM »

It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.
lol, that is not my pre-conceived notion.  I'm not smart enough to calculate gene mutations and analyze the fossil record to come up with that data.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5195 on: July 15, 2013, 09:17:44 PM »

It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.

lol, that is not my pre-conceived notion.  I'm not smart enough to calculate gene mutations and analyze the fossil record to come up with that data.

You believe in such data about biological evolution through faith in modern scientists. 
Yes or no?
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #5196 on: July 15, 2013, 09:24:41 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.



I was unaware the Church had a consensus on ape-human babies.... really, Dionysii, you can't just pull ideas out of your rear end and say it overturns theories that have withstood decades and centuries of rigorous examination by those trained to know what they are talking about.

Plus, you do not seem to understand that the Holy Fathers are our guides in the Faith, not in science. As far as science is concerned they were simply men of their times with no special insights. Do you still hold to their Biblically reinforced geocentrism as well?

 
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #5197 on: July 15, 2013, 09:28:53 PM »

It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.

The common ancestor between apes and humans was 5-8 million years ago. That is the closest animal genetically speaking that humans relate to.  There is no way that any sexual contact has resulted in birth between human and animal species for at least 2-3 million years.

lol, that is not my pre-conceived notion.  I'm not smart enough to calculate gene mutations and analyze the fossil record to come up with that data.

You believe in such data about biological evolution through faith in modern scientists. 
Yes or no?
When it comes to science, I study it, I accept some of what is taught by scientists and I reject others.  I don't put blind faith in scientists.  I do my best to look at the physical evidence and see what theories make the most sense.  Angel-human giant ape babies don't come anywhere close to making the most sense.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #5198 on: July 15, 2013, 10:16:02 PM »

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.

So is a convert required to assent to this "consensus" before being allowed to become Orthodox? I ask only for information.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #5199 on: July 15, 2013, 10:23:22 PM »

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.

So is a convert required to assent to this "consensus" before being allowed to become Orthodox? I ask only for information.

My answer would be that assenting to the patristic consensus in regards to the historic worship, doctrines and moral traditions of the Church is kind of the point in identifying with Orthodoxy (the name means "right glory" "right teaching" and "right worship").

However, assenting to the Holy Fathers' ancient and medieval scientific views is not even if these sometimes appear in their Scriptural commentaries.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5200 on: July 15, 2013, 10:37:22 PM »

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.

So is a convert required to assent to this "consensus" before being allowed to become Orthodox? I ask only for information.
No.  To become Orthodox one must accept Orthodox theology, dogma, doctrine.  If it isn't specifically clarified, you can believe what you want.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 10:39:51 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,426



« Reply #5201 on: July 16, 2013, 12:15:35 AM »

Do you still hold to their Biblically reinforced geocentrism as well?

DavidH, I think this is not a useful line of argument. You will have to start out by proving that Einsteins' theory of general relativity is incorrect. There are plenty of things to complain about but I would steer clear of this one, unless you have the background for it. I personally accept that heliocentrism and geocentrism are both valid (even after much brow beating by Sauron in this thread earlier on.
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #5202 on: July 16, 2013, 12:27:34 AM »

Do you still hold to their Biblically reinforced geocentrism as well?

DavidH, I think this is not a useful line of argument. You will have to start out by proving that Einsteins' theory of general relativity is incorrect. There are plenty of things to complain about but I would steer clear of this one, unless you have the background for it. I personally accept that heliocentrism and geocentrism are both valid (even after much brow beating by Sauron in this thread earlier on.

The historical concept of geocentrism held by everyone in Biblical and Patristic times until Copernican Revolution in the 16th century AD to which I was referring is that the Earth is fixed in space, unmoving and unmovable, and the Universe (sun, moon, stars) were embedded in the solid dome firmament which literally revolved around it.

This is the geocentric model the Fathers would have held and that the Bible reflects.

Is that the position you are defending, Opus?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 12:48:13 AM by DavidH » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #5203 on: July 16, 2013, 01:46:07 AM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.
Well....that is up for debate. Just because it talks of giants doesn't mean the fossil record matches it.  Heck, there are giants around today, are they also angel-human hybrids? It is never a good idea to try and fit science into our pre-conceived notions of how something works in our own mind.


Remember how he said the space jump dude had his photo manipulated to create a curved Earth? Hey I think some photo manipulation is going on here too.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #5204 on: July 16, 2013, 07:56:37 AM »

 Smiley  Not sure if you are being serious or not, but this is a pic of the worlds tallest and the worlds shortest man together.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,442


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #5205 on: July 24, 2013, 12:43:50 AM »

OK.  I have not read this thread, and I am not going to.  However, I did see an article that I thought was interesting, and I get the feeling this is the thread where it belongs:

Quote
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe that God played a part in the evolution of humans.

A YouGov survey shows that 62 percent of Americans believe God helped create humans. Thirty-seven percent of those believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years while 25 percent believe human beings evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years but God guided the process. Only 21 percent believe that God did not play a part in human evolution.

Seventeen percent of those polled were not sure if God played a part in the existence of humans.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/23/poll-majority-of-americans-believe-god-played-role-in-human-evolution/
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 12:44:27 AM by Salpy » Logged

Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #5206 on: August 11, 2013, 04:59:09 AM »

Everything I believe was created in seven days. Many now may say but what problem exists if one day was a bigger time. Then this would contradict with the dogma that death existed not before Adam! I have never thought of it and Lord brought it to my mind exactly when some tried to explain that Evolution does not contradict Orthodoxy. So if it was just seven days and evolution as they say take many years then human came no from ape. After all God creates everything directly. Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Human was created directly by God. No evolution.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #5207 on: August 11, 2013, 05:28:10 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

That would be a good reply to just about any post on any thread.  Grin
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #5208 on: August 11, 2013, 05:29:15 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

This fossil record matches Genesis chapter 6.

This belief is not my private interpretation.  It is the consensus of the Church as explicitly expressed by Saints Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.  It is also the belief of Church writers including Augustine and Lactantius among others.



Other fathers argue against that interpretation.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #5209 on: August 11, 2013, 05:30:54 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes
Logged

Peace.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5210 on: August 11, 2013, 08:25:03 PM »

I am unaware of the existence of gorillas anywhere other than west and central Africa in either pre-Christian times or today.

I consider the "Gigantopithecus" fossils of eastern asia corroboration of the biblical record of giants who were not a part of the creation and were in fact a race initiated by the procreation of fallen angels with humans.

Do you have any actual proof of this, other than that it fits with your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures? I mean, proof that someone who doesn't share your interpretation would find compelling?

That would be a good reply to just about any post on any thread.  Grin

And it usually is. Roll Eyes  I have recently learned answers/evidence/proof are only good if the person questioning them is satisfied with the answer, which usually doesn't happen, so it really all boils down to who asks this question first.  Then the discussion, for all intelligent and practical reasons, is finished.  At that point, the thread is dead.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 08:31:03 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5211 on: August 11, 2013, 08:27:54 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 08:32:46 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #5212 on: August 11, 2013, 08:45:18 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.
Logged

Peace.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,426



« Reply #5213 on: August 11, 2013, 09:01:31 PM »

Everything I believe was created in seven days. Many now may say but what problem exists if one day was a bigger time. Then this would contradict with the dogma that death existed not before Adam! I have never thought of it and Lord brought it to my mind exactly when some tried to explain that Evolution does not contradict Orthodoxy. So if it was just seven days and evolution as they say take many years then human came no from ape. After all God creates everything directly. Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Human was created directly by God. No evolution.

These are good statements.

This is a thread that is composed of a myriad of subtopics and totally irrelevant material. It is in need of subcategorization. You picked one of them and there are posts that deal with this topic.

My answer to your one question is YES.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5214 on: August 11, 2013, 09:07:32 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #5215 on: August 11, 2013, 09:42:06 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
that is true
Logged

Peace.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #5216 on: August 11, 2013, 09:43:08 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.

I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5217 on: August 11, 2013, 09:52:47 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.

I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.

This in response to, "For some people, yes."
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5218 on: August 11, 2013, 09:53:56 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.
that is true
Smiley
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #5219 on: August 11, 2013, 09:56:37 PM »

Have you see any evolution happening in the last hundreds of years?
Roll Eyes

Is that all you can say?  You didn't have the ability to actually answer the question?  I will give you the answer.  Its, "No."

The question was worded incorrectly.  Allow me to assist.

Have you seen any species evolve into another species, ever?  That answer is also, "No."
for very good reasons that a simple, serious Google search of academic sources will explain.

For some people, yes.

I suppose by "evolution" you mean "speciation"; not even creationists deny evolution in the broad sense of population-wide changes in genotype or phenotype. But even speciation has been observed, if we mean the rise of a new population that is infertile with its parent stock. Not only that, but some of these new populations are fertile among themselves (to counter the usual objection that morphologically new organisms, like hybrids, are always themselves infertile):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And from this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

I think what's more interesting then trying to disprove speciation is to consider "Darwin's paradox", namely the problem that, despite the supposed gradualness of evolution, we still observe distinct species. Living organisms are not merely an undifferentiated spectrum of transitional forms, but can be clearly (for the most part) categorized into distinct populations with distinct characteristics. Although I think of evolution as true, there is clearly more to understanding life than natural selection. Natural selection has to operate on distinct traits or forms, so where do the forms come from? The answer must lie in physics and chemistry.

This in response to, "For some people, yes."

It was more in response to Nikolaos Greek. Sorry, I shouldn't have included the later replies.
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 0.201 seconds with 74 queries.