OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 03:45:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.9%)
No - 127 (38%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (46.1%)
Total Voters: 334

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 296272 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4365 on: September 14, 2012, 02:07:59 AM »

And why is that a problem?  Is not there an element of mystery that we can adhere to until the questions you pose are answered by God?  Does a good Orthodox Christian presume to know all things?  Did the "God of Orthodox saints" reveal to us all things?  I mean the pettiness of your questions astounds me as to how you, an Orthodox, asks them expecting concrete answers, when in fact, there are many other issues in Orthodoxy that have nothing to do with evolution that Orthodox Christians leave unanswered with no problems as well, such as the afterlife.  It boggles my mind that you don't get that.  But it's okay.  I'm not interested in convincing you.  Either you want to ask the question honestly and with humility, or just don't bother wasting your time if my answers will never satisfy you.

And why is that a problem? You don't see the problem when you claim one theory to be scientific and at the same time having no idea how this theory would work? Your theory can't explain the origin of anything (cell, cell structures, behavior of those, cellular organizations, organs, organisms and so on and so forth) and you blame me asking you petty questions. I thought scientific theory should have at least some understanding of what it says. Your other questions seem strange. Why all of a sudden would you leave an element of mystery in scientific theory? That's fine with me, but don't call it scientific. I would not mind for example the theory be called mysterious theory or something along that line. This is perfect description of it since there's nothing clear in that theory other than the mantra "life came through evolution over long time and through random mutations". Sorry, but I can't see any evolutionist doing better job.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4366 on: September 14, 2012, 03:44:32 AM »

Any evolutionist feel free to challenge what is said here.

When it comes to evolutionary theory (ET) abiogenesis (AG) somehow stands alone. Evolutionists want us to believe that abiogenesis is absolutely different animal while in principle it is not. Both abiogenesis an evolutionary theory require (at least what they think) huge time scale and certain types of chemical reaction. Given enough time scale this chemical reactions will guarantee the formation of new cell (in case of AG) and new organisms (in case of ET). Chemical reactions should be the substrate on which AG will guarantee new cell formation. There's one difference though. This is the environment where these reactions should take place. Namely in AG case environment is at least until certain point nature. In case of ET the environment is a cell where very specific conditions are created. I will not discuss it here now but still there's certain similarities that these 2 environments share. In the end all these in my opinion puts both theories on the same scale and if one claims ET works then one can also claim AG works. There's no excuse that "If we can't explain how AG will work that does not mean ET has same problems".

But most important is that AG is just logically absurd and practically impossible. AG says that cell somehow was derived through the evolution of inorganic nature. All theories of AG are vague about how this is possible. But I say it is impossible. Cell can't function at all if it has all the elements to perform its function. Even most simple cell needs several hundred (if you want several dozens) proteins and DNA chain which will encode all these proteins. Logic here is very simple and only obstinate person will try to disregard it. If there was anything before the functioning cell that could not maintain its environment, that did not possess all proteins and all DNA, it would be dead. This means every single prior generation must have been cell even if it was simpler then next generation. All AG theories break this principle. Say RNA world theory (RNAW). In order for any RNA to maintain its function it needs cellular machinery. It can't replicate unless it is in a special environment and thus it will be destroyed without such an environment. In nature such an environment is only cell.

In conclusion, no cell can be formed by gradual modification of inorganic nature. It may only be formed if all chemicals of a given cell are formed at the same time and under the same "hood". i.e. if under cellular membrane all proteins and DNA/RNA and whole cellular machinery come together. This is called miracle and it has no chance of happening. Even if we assume such thing is possible to be formed randomly (the chance of which would be astronomically law), I don't think ET-ists would use it as theory. Besides if one cell can be formed by such miracle, this will obviate the need for ET since any other cell can be formed through such miracle. So ET-ist are stuck with miracles or they have to find the way out of it. One way is to say that life was seeded on the earth. Of course one has to get whole cell from out-of-space and not just components (like proteins, DNA and so on). If only components came such a way it would still be destroyed without cellular environment. Thus ET-ist have 2 options: 1) Cell was created here on earth through miracle 2) Cell was seeded from out-of-space to the earth. Second one is so obviously absurd that it does not even deserve any discussion (it still requires explanation of origin of earthly cell in a completely unknown environment). It requires more miracles and most astute science fiction writer to come up with some outline.
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4367 on: September 14, 2012, 07:59:03 AM »

Quote
Quote
You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth ) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.
Yes, exactly. But I don't think it is petty point. For me it is very important point. Imagine for a second: If you thought the theory of evolution was Satan's work what would you do in that case? Would you not try to show others, who have not fallen under it yet, that the theory is not scientific at all and even so is not Orthodox? I can tell you one thing: I've seen guys who believed in this theory (without even having any knowledge of biology whatsoever) and who have relinquished it after my discourses with evolutionist.

I've seen close friends who after learning biology became scandalized by their Church indoctrinations of Bibliolatry and became atheists
That's pretty much the only purpose of evolutionary theory: separate man from God.

Quote
But since the issue is not so petty, then let's talk about "my God" and "your God", and let's discuss together before we decide if something is petty or not, what is the difference between my God and your God?
My God is one who created man in his image. My God created whole universe and participates in it forever. If my God withdrew Himself from the universe the universe would collapse instantaneously. My God created everything perfect (planets, stars, plants, animals and man) and nothing needs any type of improvement or so called evolution. My God tells me to trust his Saints in whom my God speaks. The Saints of my God say that evolutionary theory is theory of Evil one. Saints say that spreading Evil theory is not good. My God created perfect man as He created everything else perfect. This man needs no evolution and he/she will not ever evolve. He/She will become god by God's grace following Orthodox faith.

Now you tell me if your God and my God is the same? Does He let you spread the theory of evolution? Did he create perfect man without any evolution? Where does your God's evolution leads us in the next step of improvement? Who are we supposed to become after long time of random DNA mutations take place in our genome?

Yes, we have one creator, all of us. But if you think we worship same God then all of us (Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox Christians and so on) worship same God which I believe is totally wrong.

I believe in One God, God the Father, the Pantocrator, Who created heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen.

I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not created, co-essential with the Father, by Whom all things were made, Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man.  He was crucified for us at the time of Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.  On the third day, He rose from the dead according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens.  He is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

Truly, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.

I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.  I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age.

The difference between you and me Ativan, I can actually say something about God, not something I presume God believes.  You like to make God a God of petty problems, but you said nothing about God Himself in His eternity. The problems you have are transient, and God is eternal, and I concentrate on eternal things as more important than anything else, be it physically true or not.  My acceptance of evolutionary theory did not sway me from my Orthodox faith, unlike what you like to believe.  In fact, many of these people I know who left Christianity were Protestants, which says a lot about their conception of God.

If you honestly depend on whether evolution is true or not to believe in God, then we don't believe in the same God.  To me, whether evolution can be proven or not, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  I depend on prayer and the sacramental life of the Church to believe in Him.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 08:24:53 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.
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4368 on: September 14, 2012, 08:09:49 AM »

Quote
Quote
You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth ) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.
Yes, exactly. But I don't think it is petty point. For me it is very important point. Imagine for a second: If you thought the theory of evolution was Satan's work what would you do in that case? Would you not try to show others, who have not fallen under it yet, that the theory is not scientific at all and even so is not Orthodox? I can tell you one thing: I've seen guys who believed in this theory (without even having any knowledge of biology whatsoever) and who have relinquished it after my discourses with evolutionist.

I've seen close friends who after learning biology became scandalized by their Church indoctrinations of Bibliolatry and became atheists,
Strange.  I became disenchanted with the notion of evolution after I learned biology.
Tell me about your biology class.
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.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #4369 on: September 14, 2012, 10:01:50 AM »

Quote from: ativan on September 02, 2012, 12:39:30 AM
Quote
minasoliman

Orthodox teaching says that human is composed of spirit, soul and body as opposed to animals who are composed of soul and body only. Let me make a little clarification of the terms so that terms don't get on our way. By "soul" I mean that immortal thing that God put in man and that make man man and that make man different from animals. By "spirit" I mean something immaterial that gives every living organism it feature of being alive. Basically let's call "soul" that thing which puts man as a special one in creation.

Now, Orthodox evolutionists adhere to an idea that man was evolved from something non-man. There has to be the very first being (or first beings if such being got souls at the same time on time scale) who received soul. Let's call that one "Lucky" and denote it by letter L. Now my questions are: 1) What was the genetic composition of that first body L that qualified to be called man and that received the soul? Here I don't expect a detailed genetic map but more of an answer if L's genetics was exactly like ours. 2) Certainly, L's parents did not have the soul since L was the first one who got the soul. L's parents would not be much different from L himself since L would have inherited from his parents genetic material same way it is inherited now. There could have been maybe a little bit of point mutations in L's parents gametes but L would still look like their parents like us who look like our mothers and fathers. Why would these unfortunate parents not receive the immortal soul? Weren't they genetically men?

and lastly: 3) Did All-Mighty and Omniscient  God wait in time until certain genetic combination would come through evolution before God would impart the immortal soul to such a being? And how did He know that through some random mutations such a combination would be reached at some point of time?

I'd love to know how one can claim to be Orthodox, have answers to these and be also evolutionist.

Ill have a try at it.

#1 Adam was the first to receive a spirit. I believe I made it clear that animals can also have souls. The first person Adam was an embodied spirit. His body could have easily bin passed down from a different. Dare I say life form. Clearly though, the substance of Adam is a spirit.
 #2 They were animals not endowed with a spirit. A person is someone who has self awareness.
#3 You are clearly seeing things from your own perspective. Lets not forget God is Omniscient. Time and space isn't an issue for him. Its an issue for us who live in it.
That's fine for new age theology. But we (Orthodox people) believe that man is not just his immortal spirit. Man is composed of spirit, body and soul. And all of these was created by God. We believe that Adam's creator and parent was God only, not animal (from whom Adam inherited at least his body) and God.

As far as you answer for the 3d question goes you are putting your word into my mouth. I did not imply at all that God could not create his creation like this. Quite opposite to that. Since for omnipotent and omniscient God it is required He knows all his creation in its entirety. Consequently, there can't be anything random in nature. There can't be any random mutation. Each mutation has to have purpose however small it can be. Each mutation has to be known to God and each mutation has to happen by God and nothing without him. Besides, if anything is happening outside of time and space we can't even talk about evolution which implies some development in time.

Just out of curiosity: since we all agree God is omniscient and omnipotent God could have created Adam and Eve exactly the way it is written in the Bible but somehow some of you don't believe in such a creation. Why is that? What's wrong with the story of creation in the Bible that you can't accept it but are ready to accept most absurd theory which has no scientific and logical basis?

The biblical story is very accurate. Before we go on. I will ask you to again redefine what Adam is. Is he spirit or flesh?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 10:02:12 AM by Tzimis » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4370 on: September 14, 2012, 06:06:04 PM »

Quote
Quote
You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth ) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.
Yes, exactly. But I don't think it is petty point. For me it is very important point. Imagine for a second: If you thought the theory of evolution was Satan's work what would you do in that case? Would you not try to show others, who have not fallen under it yet, that the theory is not scientific at all and even so is not Orthodox? I can tell you one thing: I've seen guys who believed in this theory (without even having any knowledge of biology whatsoever) and who have relinquished it after my discourses with evolutionist.

I've seen close friends who after learning biology became scandalized by their Church indoctrinations of Bibliolatry and became atheists,
Strange.  I became disenchanted with the notion of evolution after I learned biology.
Tell me about your biology class.
Classes, collective over many years.  They failed to prove their case and continue to do so.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 06:12:25 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4371 on: September 14, 2012, 06:11:45 PM »

Quote
Quote
You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth ) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.
Yes, exactly. But I don't think it is petty point. For me it is very important point. Imagine for a second: If you thought the theory of evolution was Satan's work what would you do in that case? Would you not try to show others, who have not fallen under it yet, that the theory is not scientific at all and even so is not Orthodox? I can tell you one thing: I've seen guys who believed in this theory (without even having any knowledge of biology whatsoever) and who have relinquished it after my discourses with evolutionist.

I've seen close friends who after learning biology became scandalized by their Church indoctrinations of Bibliolatry and became atheists
That's pretty much the only purpose of evolutionary theory: separate man from God.

Quote
But since the issue is not so petty, then let's talk about "my God" and "your God", and let's discuss together before we decide if something is petty or not, what is the difference between my God and your God?
My God is one who created man in his image. My God created whole universe and participates in it forever. If my God withdrew Himself from the universe the universe would collapse instantaneously. My God created everything perfect (planets, stars, plants, animals and man) and nothing needs any type of improvement or so called evolution. My God tells me to trust his Saints in whom my God speaks. The Saints of my God say that evolutionary theory is theory of Evil one. Saints say that spreading Evil theory is not good. My God created perfect man as He created everything else perfect. This man needs no evolution and he/she will not ever evolve. He/She will become god by God's grace following Orthodox faith.

Now you tell me if your God and my God is the same? Does He let you spread the theory of evolution? Did he create perfect man without any evolution? Where does your God's evolution leads us in the next step of improvement? Who are we supposed to become after long time of random DNA mutations take place in our genome?

Yes, we have one creator, all of us. But if you think we worship same God then all of us (Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox Christians and so on) worship same God which I believe is totally wrong.

I believe in One God, God the Father, the Pantocrator, Who created heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen.

I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not created, co-essential with the Father, by Whom all things were made, Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man.  He was crucified for us at the time of Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.  On the third day, He rose from the dead according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens.  He is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

Truly, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.

I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.  I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age.

The difference between you and me Ativan, I can actually say something about God, not something I presume God believes.  You like to make God a God of petty problems, but you said nothing about God Himself in His eternity. The problems you have are transient, and God is eternal, and I concentrate on eternal things as more important than anything else, be it physically true or not.  My acceptance of evolutionary theory did not sway me from my Orthodox faith, unlike what you like to believe.  In fact, many of these people I know who left Christianity were Protestants, which says a lot about their conception of God.

If you honestly depend on whether evolution is true or not to believe in God, then we don't believe in the same God.  To me, whether evolution can be proven or not, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  I depend on prayer and the sacramental life of the Church to believe in Him.
I hope both of you realize you are doing the same thing each is claiming the other does.  Both are opinions based on what you think while claiming to know the mind of God, which we can only guess based on what He has presented to us.  In other words, neither of you can lay claim to your declarations as 100 percent factual.  What I am asking is to give a little to the other and realize you don't dictate to God how he operates.

This, of course, is strictly related to statements of Gods thoughts, your God, my God hubub, etc.  and has nothing to do with evolution or the lack of evidence to support it.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 06:17:27 PM by Kerdy » 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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4372 on: September 14, 2012, 08:20:00 PM »

Quote
Quote
You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth ) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.
Yes, exactly. But I don't think it is petty point. For me it is very important point. Imagine for a second: If you thought the theory of evolution was Satan's work what would you do in that case? Would you not try to show others, who have not fallen under it yet, that the theory is not scientific at all and even so is not Orthodox? I can tell you one thing: I've seen guys who believed in this theory (without even having any knowledge of biology whatsoever) and who have relinquished it after my discourses with evolutionist.

I've seen close friends who after learning biology became scandalized by their Church indoctrinations of Bibliolatry and became atheists
That's pretty much the only purpose of evolutionary theory: separate man from God.

Quote
But since the issue is not so petty, then let's talk about "my God" and "your God", and let's discuss together before we decide if something is petty or not, what is the difference between my God and your God?
My God is one who created man in his image. My God created whole universe and participates in it forever. If my God withdrew Himself from the universe the universe would collapse instantaneously. My God created everything perfect (planets, stars, plants, animals and man) and nothing needs any type of improvement or so called evolution. My God tells me to trust his Saints in whom my God speaks. The Saints of my God say that evolutionary theory is theory of Evil one. Saints say that spreading Evil theory is not good. My God created perfect man as He created everything else perfect. This man needs no evolution and he/she will not ever evolve. He/She will become god by God's grace following Orthodox faith.

Now you tell me if your God and my God is the same? Does He let you spread the theory of evolution? Did he create perfect man without any evolution? Where does your God's evolution leads us in the next step of improvement? Who are we supposed to become after long time of random DNA mutations take place in our genome?

Yes, we have one creator, all of us. But if you think we worship same God then all of us (Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox Christians and so on) worship same God which I believe is totally wrong.

I believe in One God, God the Father, the Pantocrator, Who created heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen.

I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not created, co-essential with the Father, by Whom all things were made, Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man.  He was crucified for us at the time of Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.  On the third day, He rose from the dead according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens.  He is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

Truly, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.

I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.  I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age.

The difference between you and me Ativan, I can actually say something about God, not something I presume God believes.  You like to make God a God of petty problems, but you said nothing about God Himself in His eternity. The problems you have are transient, and God is eternal, and I concentrate on eternal things as more important than anything else, be it physically true or not.  My acceptance of evolutionary theory did not sway me from my Orthodox faith, unlike what you like to believe.  In fact, many of these people I know who left Christianity were Protestants, which says a lot about their conception of God.

If you honestly depend on whether evolution is true or not to believe in God, then we don't believe in the same God.  To me, whether evolution can be proven or not, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  I depend on prayer and the sacramental life of the Church to believe in Him.
I hope both of you realize you are doing the same thing each is claiming the other does.  Both are opinions based on what you think while claiming to know the mind of God, which we can only guess based on what He has presented to us.  In other words, neither of you can lay claim to your declarations as 100 percent factual.  What I am asking is to give a little to the other and realize you don't dictate to God how he operates.

This, of course, is strictly related to statements of Gods thoughts, your God, my God hubub, etc.  and has nothing to do with evolution or the lack of evidence to support it.
I have not mentioned evolution in my understanding of who God is at all.  I agree with you.  Read my post again.  You practically said the same thing I said.  I said if our understanding of God depends on whether evolution is true or not, then we have a low view of God, on top of the fact that I told him I believed essentially what is considered not by me, but by the Nicene Church fathers as 100% factual.  That is why I didn't claim to know what God thinks, but who God is, and all I did was quote the Nicene Creed.

As for your bio class, so they taught it to you and you decided not to believe it?  What is your major, or your occupation, if you don't mind.  You don't have to answer it, but it does have to do with biology, I'd be interested to hear your scientific thoughts.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 08:27:37 PM 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.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4373 on: September 14, 2012, 09:20:25 PM »



I have not mentioned evolution in my understanding of who God is at all.  I agree with you.  Read my post again.  You practically said the same thing I said.  I said if our understanding of God depends on whether evolution is true or not, then we have a low view of God, on top of the fact that I told him I believed essentially what is considered not by me, but by the Nicene Church fathers as 100% factual.  That is why I didn't claim to know what God thinks, but who God is, and all I did was quote the Nicene Creed.

As for your bio class, so they taught it to you and you decided not to believe it?  What is your major, or your occupation, if you don't mind.  You don't have to answer it, but it does have to do with biology, I'd be interested to hear your scientific thoughts.
I just want to make sure none of us get into an area where we are attacking each other, not saying you were headed that direction.

Again, you believe whatever theory you want.  I'll hold out for proof instead of possibilities before I junk biblical creation.  Mans science fails to support its own theory of creation, IMO.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4374 on: September 15, 2012, 06:28:49 PM »

I hope both of you realize you are doing the same thing each is claiming the other does.  Both are opinions based on what you think while claiming to know the mind of God, which we can only guess based on what He has presented to us.  In other words, neither of you can lay claim to your declarations as 100 percent factual.  What I am asking is to give a little to the other and realize you don't dictate to God how he operates.

This, of course, is strictly related to statements of Gods thoughts, your God, my God hubub, etc.  and has nothing to do with evolution or the lack of evidence to support it.
I don't think I ever suggested that I know what God's thoughts are. I was pretty clear that I believe in His saints and his saints say and they say it's a theory of evil (see for example Father Paisius of Athos). Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise? It is one thing that theory has no scientific evidence and and quite another thing why the theory is spread around.

Also, I've pointed out what it means "my God or somebody else's God" is different. I've said it clearly that we all have same Creator. But our notions and understanding of God is what is meant by "my God" and "his/her God". Let me ask you this, if you don't mind. Surely, Muslims and Christians have same Creator and same God but do we worship same God?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4375 on: September 15, 2012, 06:49:44 PM »

If you honestly depend on whether evolution is true or not to believe in God, then we don't believe in the same God.  To me, whether evolution can be proven or not, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  I depend on prayer and the sacramental life of the Church to believe in Him.
I know for sure that evolution is false. I don't need anybody to tell me that it is false scientifically. But I do think and am sure that the reason theory is spread is to sway man from God to give them pseudo-scientific support for the possibility of life arising by itself and developing by itself. It is part of Satan's plan. Evolutionary theory is not scientific theory but religious ideology and if it becomes part of any religion that religion is in no way Orthodox Christian religion. So, yes since the God we believe is based on different notions we believe in different God regardless of the fact is God is independent of what we think about Him.

Some iconoclasts had same Nicene creed. Did they believe in same God as Orthodox Christians?
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4376 on: September 15, 2012, 07:08:27 PM »

If you honestly depend on whether evolution is true or not to believe in God, then we don't believe in the same God.  To me, whether evolution can be proven or not, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  I depend on prayer and the sacramental life of the Church to believe in Him.
I know for sure that evolution is false. I don't need anybody to tell me that it is false scientifically. But I do think and am sure that the reason theory is spread is to sway man from God to give them pseudo-scientific support for the possibility of life arising by itself and developing by itself. It is part of Satan's plan. Evolutionary theory is not scientific theory but religious ideology and if it becomes part of any religion that religion is in no way Orthodox Christian religion. So, yes since the God we believe is based on different notions we believe in different God regardless of the fact is God is independent of what we think about Him.

Some iconoclasts had same Nicene creed. Did they believe in same God as Orthodox Christians?
Actually iconoclasm was considered associated with deficient Christology.  To reject icons is to reject the Icon of our salvation.  I'm not at all too clear of the history of iconoclasm, but at the very least this is what I understand from my EO brothers.

In addition, iconoclasm has been condemned by an ecumenical council.  I'm not iconoclast, and the same time, I know no ecumenical council condemning evolution.

In fact, Eastern Orthodox were the ones who helped me realize compatibility of Orthodoxy with evolution, whether it be His Eminence the late Metropolitan Alexander Mileant via online, or the Greek bishops and priests I befriended in my undergraduate years.  And thus far, for 6 years since I accepted that, I have grown closer and closer to God, concentrating on more important issues for my spirituality than evolution.  Now you have people like Fr. Thomas Hopko, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Romanides, and many others today in the Eastern Orthodox Church that have no problem with evolution, and these names will be no small names.

Now, you may not believe you and I worship the same God.  That's fine.  But if the assumption of other church fathers who believed that evolution is evil because it's atheistic, then I sympathize with their views, but I disagree that evolution separates man from God.

As I've shown before, the first 400 years of Church fathers, probably the Apostles themselves, believed that angels had offspring with women who gave birth to the Nephilim.  Later on, the Church fathers decided to stray from that overwhelming idea in the history of the Church for the first time.  Why?  Because the Creed was never touched.  It is why St. John Cassian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine can all contradict St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Methodius, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome, St. Justin Martyr, etc. on the issue of the Nephilim.  Likewise, Fr. Thomas Hopko, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Romanides, etc. are also giving the Church a change in a direction of an opinion that has nothing to do with Orthodox dogma.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 07:23:33 PM 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.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4377 on: September 15, 2012, 07:37:01 PM »

I hope both of you realize you are doing the same thing each is claiming the other does.  Both are opinions based on what you think while claiming to know the mind of God, which we can only guess based on what He has presented to us.  In other words, neither of you can lay claim to your declarations as 100 percent factual.  What I am asking is to give a little to the other and realize you don't dictate to God how he operates.

This, of course, is strictly related to statements of Gods thoughts, your God, my God hubub, etc.  and has nothing to do with evolution or the lack of evidence to support it.
I don't think I ever suggested that I know what God's thoughts are. I was pretty clear that I believe in His saints and his saints say and they say it's a theory of evil (see for example Father Paisius of Athos). Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise? It is one thing that theory has no scientific evidence and and quite another thing why the theory is spread around.

Also, I've pointed out what it means "my God or somebody else's God" is different. I've said it clearly that we all have same Creator. But our notions and understanding of God is what is meant by "my God" and "his/her God". Let me ask you this, if you don't mind. Surely, Muslims and Christians have same Creator and same God but do we worship same God?
Again, I just wanted to ensure no one got into trouble.  If I misunderstood I apologize.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,227


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #4378 on: September 15, 2012, 09:38:42 PM »

I don't think I ever suggested that I know what God's thoughts are. I was pretty clear that I believe in His saints and his saints say and they say it's a theory of evil (see for example Father Paisius of Athos). Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise? It is one thing that theory has no scientific evidence and and quite another thing why the theory is spread around.

Also, I've pointed out what it means "my God or somebody else's God" is different. I've said it clearly that we all have same Creator. But our notions and understanding of God is what is meant by "my God" and "his/her God". Let me ask you this, if you don't mind. Surely, Muslims and Christians have same Creator and same God but do we worship same God?

I'm sorry, but this is wildly farcical. An Orthodox Christian- who confesses the creed- is hardly near the same category of error as a Muslim who denies the Triune God and salvation through Christ. Belief in evolution does not negate belief that God is the Creator of all things, it is merely a belief in how He accomplished that end.

You're grandstanding.
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4379 on: September 16, 2012, 01:13:37 AM »

Logged

Forgive my sins.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4380 on: September 16, 2012, 06:08:11 PM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4381 on: September 16, 2012, 06:36:55 PM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.

i dont understand where people get this idea. here is what St. Luke says:

Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4382 on: September 16, 2012, 09:10:36 PM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.

i dont understand where people get this idea. here is what St. Luke says:

Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


Prooftexts are for Protestant Evangelicals and their ideological spawn.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4383 on: September 16, 2012, 09:14:09 PM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.

i dont understand where people get this idea. here is what St. Luke says:

Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


Prooftexts are for Protestant Evangelicals and their ideological spawn.

i've found that the charge of "proof-texting" is most often from those who simply don't like the quote that has been provided. feel free to demonstrate that he believed other than what this quote shows.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 09:15:16 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4384 on: September 16, 2012, 09:18:49 PM »

Actually iconoclasm was considered associated with deficient Christology.  To reject icons is to reject the Icon of our salvation.  I'm not at all too clear of the history of iconoclasm, but at the very least this is what I understand from my EO brothers.

In addition, iconoclasm has been condemned by an ecumenical council.  I'm not iconoclast, and the same time, I know no ecumenical council condemning evolution.
To follow your logic there's nothing in Creed that says anything about using or not using icons. Since you think the Creed is the only item to have in common (at least that what you have indicated) to say people worship same God then iconoclast believed in the same god the Orthodox did. There are many denominations which believe in Nicene Creed:
Quote
The Nicene Creed (Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the creed or profession of faith (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως) that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene (play /ˈnaɪsiːn/) because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.

The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Anglican Church, the Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and many Protestant denominations, forming the eponymous mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.
If you want to tell me that Lutherans, Anglicans, Many Catholics  (some of whom do not believe in certain sacraments, some of whom allow gay marriage and so on and about which nothing is said in the Creed and nothing is said by Church Fathers in the ecumenical councils) believe in the same God as Eastern Orthodox Christians do that's fine, I will say that is your opinion and I completely disagree with that. I myself say they have different God and I will not pray with them and I will not participate in communion with them.

Quote
I know no ecumenical council condemning evolution.
Ecumenical Councils did not say anything about Evolution because they all new God created Adam and Eve and nobody before Adam and Eve was created as their predecessors. I am 100 % sure that none of them was evolutionist (theistic or otherwise). Based on the same logic since nothing was discussed about many new age things (Christian Yoga, Christian Zen, Meditation practices and so on) and since these practices do not contradict the Creed then believing in Creed and following these practices make them Orthodox Christians and they believe in the same God. I strongly disagree with that and say that they do not.

Quote
Likewise, Fr. Thomas Hopko, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Romanides, etc. are also giving the Church a change in a direction of an opinion that has nothing to do with Orthodox dogma.
They maybe well-educated Bishops and priests (which they are) but for me anybody who teach evolution is compatible with Orthodoxy are not authorities of the Orthodox teachings. I do not want to attend church where Priest/Archbishop teaches evolution is right and ecumenism is OK. On the other hand I have my complete trust in Fr. Paisios, Fr. Gabriel of Mtkheta and Saints like him. In fact these Saints brought me back in the Church. They teach clearly that evolution is blasphemous.

minasoliman, 1) Why is it that you will not accept Biblical account of Creation? 2) Is the Creation (including creation of life and creation of man) mystery or not? 3) With this evolution into what does man evolve? 4) What is theological meaning of evolution, I mean, why God would allow evolution?
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4385 on: September 16, 2012, 11:07:29 PM »

I just told you that your Church showed that iconoclasts had bad Christology.  If they did, then they may confess the Creed, but in reality, they don't adhere to it 100%.  If they really knew the Creed in its depth, they wouldn't adhere to iconoclasm.

minasoliman, 1) Why is it that you will not accept Biblical account of Creation? 2) Is the Creation (including creation of life and creation of man) mystery or not? 3) With this evolution into what does man evolve? 4) What is theological meaning of evolution, I mean, why God would allow evolution?

1) Well that's a sweeping accusation.  I disagree with your interpretation of it, but that doesn't mean I don't accept it.
2) Yes, when creating things out of non-existence, there is an element of mystery.  When creating things out of already existent material, then that's a realm that science can study.  Not everything has been figured out, but certainly that doesn't stop from enjoyable investigation.  For me, as a believer in God, I study what God has chosen to do to go from one stage of being to another in His creation, and how He might have done this.
3) I don't understand the question
4) If you can tell me what is the theological meaning of the separation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic substances, or about the attraction of positive and negative ions, or the life cycle of a drosophila, then I will make one up for you about evolution.  If you can tell me why does God allow gravitational forces to work in the way they do, or why does God allow light to go as fast as it does, or why does God allow sound to travel as fast as it does, then I'll see if I can come up with why God allowed evolution. Wink

When your Church decides to get an ecumenical council and condemn the heresies of Fr. Thomas Hopko, Fr. John Erickson, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Dragas, etc., then perhaps we can talk about our "different gods."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 11:15:33 PM 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.
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4386 on: September 16, 2012, 11:37:48 PM »


Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


I think this quote is a great example to demonstrate where I will disagree with this saint.  Here, St. Luke is saying that "Darwinism" "declares that man...has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead."  Already, this presupposition, this foundation of the rejection of evolution is incorrect.  As I mentioned earlier, there is not one molecule, not one subatomic structure that moves around without the grace of God.  God is involved in every minute detail of an atom, molecule, enzyme, gene, cell, tissue, organ, organism, population, etc.  God's grace is involved in every scientific property of every particle.  God's grace is also involved in the evolving populations.  As environments change, God's hand is also in the change of species if He wills it.  Even amidst man's free will, when I touch a patient, and treat him/her, I think God is also working through me.  "Unless the Lord builds the house, the laborers labor in vain."

The rest of the quote is an appeal against nature, but that is also not true, since nature has shown genetic similarities and corresponding timelines of genetic evolution.  However, there is no theological substance in that argument either.  The only part of theological substance is when St. Luke makes an accusation that evolution makes God useless, which I say is preposterous, and it's just the same rubbish atheists want to hear.  In fact, there were atheists who also disagreed with Darwinism and attacked Darwin at his time.  Atheism is independent of the science of evolution.  Atheism has existed before simply as a philosophy of materialism.  Science studies materials, yes, but materialism is a philosophy, not a science, and to assume science is ALL there is, all that exists, is an assumption, not a verifiable or falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

Earlier in this thread, I believe people with reasonable minds can agree it's not the process of evolution that is the problem.  It's perfectly fine to be a theist and evolutionist.  But it is the fact that death had to exist before the Fall.  And that is the crux.  But to argue whether nature proves it or not, whether it separates God or not is not applicable anymore, since it's found to be untrue after all.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 11:39:55 PM 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.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4387 on: September 17, 2012, 12:17:57 AM »

I just told you that your Church showed that iconoclasts had bad Christology.  If they did, then they may confess the Creed, but in reality, they don't adhere to it 100%.  If they really knew the Creed in its depth, they wouldn't adhere to iconoclasm.

minasoliman, 1) Why is it that you will not accept Biblical account of Creation? 2) Is the Creation (including creation of life and creation of man) mystery or not? 3) With this evolution into what does man evolve? 4) What is theological meaning of evolution, I mean, why God would allow evolution?

Quote
1) Well that's a sweeping accusation.  I disagree with your interpretation of it, but that doesn't mean I don't accept it.
I did not accuse you. I think it is quite clear what the question was asking. I will rephrase it: Why don't you accept literal accounts of the Bible (Adam being created from earth and Eve from his rib)?


Quote
2) Yes, when creating things out of non-existence, there is an element of mystery.  When creating things out of already existent material, then that's a realm that science can study.  Not everything has been figured out, but certainly that doesn't stop from enjoyable investigation.  For me, as a believer in God, I study what God has chosen to do to go from one stage of being to another in His creation, and how He might have done this.
So, since life (including man) was created out of existing material then there's nothing mysterious in it.

Quote
3) I don't understand the question
Since everything evolves starting from simple to more complicated then man must also evolve into something. Mutations in man always happen and the environment constantly change. These things will lead to future man. So what is this future man? What is his shape/form? What is his moral? What is his religion? What is his relationship to his kins? and so on.

Quote
4) If you can tell me what is the theological meaning of the separation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic substances, or about the attraction of positive and negative ions, or the life cycle of a drosophila, then I will make one up for you about evolution.  If you can tell me why does God allow gravitational forces to work in the way they do, or why does God allow light to go as fast as it does, or why does God allow sound to travel as fast as it does, then I'll see if I can come up with why God allowed evolution. Wink
First of all I don't agree with many things you've mentioned. But anyways, I don't think your questions have something common with mine. Maybe my question was more of a "guess my mind" thing. But this is where I was getting to: God could've created every single life form directly without them going into any evolution. Does this evolution has any significance to life itself or to man in particular?

Quote
When your Church decides to get an ecumenical council and condemn the heresies of Fr. Thomas Hopko, Fr. John Erickson, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Dragas, etc., then perhaps we can talk about our "different gods."
In Orthodox Church nowadays even Satan has entered and penetrated. This is how the Evil One works. I can't wait for ecumenical council to know that it is so. Besides, there's going to be no more Ecumenical council only pseudo-ecumenical council of devil. I don't have same God as Evil one. I don't worship same god as Kuraev does. This is simple truth.

I will respond NicholasMyra's  distortion of the fact as if St. Luke of the Crimea did not think it was evil theory and I will give quotes of many great Saints, what they say on evolution.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4388 on: September 17, 2012, 01:20:12 AM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.

i dont understand where people get this idea. here is what St. Luke says:

Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


Prooftexts are for Protestant Evangelicals and their ideological spawn.

i've found that the charge of "proof-texting" is most often from those who simply don't like the quote that has been provided. feel free to demonstrate that he believed other than what this quote shows.

Read the whole piece you quoted from with an open mind and a little purity of heart.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4389 on: September 17, 2012, 01:38:18 AM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.
Here's that chapter where Saint talks about evolution and materialistic approach to science in general. I will quote:
Quote
Теория, что мир не сотворен Богом, есть не научно доказанная истина, а совершенно вненаучная мысль. Так называемый дарвинизм, признающий, что человек посредством эволюции развился из низшего вида животных, а не является продуктом творческого акта Божества, оказался только предположением, гипотезой, уже устарелой и для науки. Эта гипотеза признана противоречащей не только Библии, но и самой природе, которая ревниво стремится сохранить чистоту каждого вида и не знает перехода даже от воробья к ласточке. Неизвестны факты перехода обезьяны в человека. Бывает скорее обратное в порядке вырождения. Приведем любопытную мысль, высказанную Магометом в Коране: "Некоторых людей за их грехи Бог превратил в обезьян".
      ...Между прочим, не будет излишним заметить, что Дарвин, показавший происхождение человека от обезьяны, отрекся от своего заблуждения и смиренно покаялся перед Богом.

I will translate:
Quote
The theory that universe is not created by God is not scientifically proved truth but totally nonscientific idea. So called darwinism that states man through evolution transformed form lower form of animals and is not a product created through of God's act of creation turned out to be a hypothesis that is considered obsolete even to the science of today. This hypothesis is in contradiction with not only Bible but also nature which tends to save each species in its poor form and knows no transition even from sparrow to swallow...

... By the way, it is timely to mention that Darwin who tried to show man's origin from apes did distance himself from his misconceptions and humbly repented before God.

Let's put away Saints scientific discussions and the accuracy of some facts (both of which I personally believe is good and trustworthy) and concentrate on his theological position about darwinism. Saint clearly says: 1) darwinism is in contradiction to the Bible 2) Darwin had to repent before God about his theory. Again, whether Darwin repented or not has no significance. What is more important is St. Luke's position on this: one has to repent having in mind such misconceptions.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4390 on: September 17, 2012, 02:35:22 AM »

Here's another link in Russian which has quotes of several Saints (including John of Kronstadt, Theophan the Recluse, St Nectarius and others) regarding evolution. Whoever reads Russian can see very negative opinion of these Saints on evolution.

Saint John of Kronstadt calls it (this theory) senseless ravings ("безумный бред") and says:
Quote
Whoever has mind will not believe in this senseless ravings.

Saint Theophan the Recluse also calls it other theories (like cosmological ones) ravings. He points out that in future Russian will fall of the Orthodox Faith and some will fall into protestantism, some into spiritism, some into certain types of misconceptions of some geological theories. He also mentions some humble recluse who has said that evolutionist deserve to be anathematized and then he quotes this recluse who said: 
Quote
"Anathema to Ludwig Büchner, Ludwig Feuerbach,  Darwin and their followers" ... and this anathema is not added to Church anathemas because these theories based on lies have long been anathematized.
Then this recluse states far more about such eveil theories.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4391 on: September 17, 2012, 08:59:25 AM »


Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


I think this quote is a great example to demonstrate where I will disagree with this saint.  Here, St. Luke is saying that "Darwinism" "declares that man...has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead."  Already, this presupposition, this foundation of the rejection of evolution is incorrect.  As I mentioned earlier, there is not one molecule, not one subatomic structure that moves around without the grace of God.  God is involved in every minute detail of an atom, molecule, enzyme, gene, cell, tissue, organ, organism, population, etc.  God's grace is involved in every scientific property of every particle.  God's grace is also involved in the evolving populations.  As environments change, God's hand is also in the change of species if He wills it.  Even amidst man's free will, when I touch a patient, and treat him/her, I think God is also working through me.  "Unless the Lord builds the house, the laborers labor in vain."

The rest of the quote is an appeal against nature, but that is also not true, since nature has shown genetic similarities and corresponding timelines of genetic evolution.  However, there is no theological substance in that argument either.  The only part of theological substance is when St. Luke makes an accusation that evolution makes God useless, which I say is preposterous, and it's just the same rubbish atheists want to hear.  In fact, there were atheists who also disagreed with Darwinism and attacked Darwin at his time.  Atheism is independent of the science of evolution.  Atheism has existed before simply as a philosophy of materialism.  Science studies materials, yes, but materialism is a philosophy, not a science, and to assume science is ALL there is, all that exists, is an assumption, not a verifiable or falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

Earlier in this thread, I believe people with reasonable minds can agree it's not the process of evolution that is the problem.  It's perfectly fine to be a theist and evolutionist.  But it is the fact that death had to exist before the Fall.  And that is the crux.  But to argue whether nature proves it or not, whether it separates God or not is not applicable anymore, since it's found to be untrue after all.

sure, i knew people would disagree with St. Luke's understanding of evolution, but i was simply pointing out that he is not a proponent of evolution among the Saints.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4392 on: September 17, 2012, 09:12:53 AM »

Thus, it is not my opinion that theory of evolution is blasphemous and evil. Orthodox saints of today say it. Do you know any saints who has said otherwise?
St. Luke of the Crimea.

i dont understand where people get this idea. here is what St. Luke says:

Quote
Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow. There are no known facts of a transition of an ape into a man. -- Science and Religion, Trinity Word, 2001, pp. 41-42


Prooftexts are for Protestant Evangelicals and their ideological spawn.

i've found that the charge of "proof-texting" is most often from those who simply don't like the quote that has been provided. feel free to demonstrate that he believed other than what this quote shows.

Read the whole piece you quoted from with an open mind and a little purity of heart.

ive read the entire article. he's arguing that the findings of modern science need not destroy our faith, which, of course, i agree with. however, as St. Luke clearly says, he does not find evolution to be valid science. we can't assume that because he praises science he necessarily praises evolution, especially when his own words clearly say otherwise.
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4393 on: September 17, 2012, 12:58:33 PM »

Quote
I did not accuse you. I think it is quite clear what the question was asking. I will rephrase it: Why don't you accept literal accounts of the Bible (Adam being created from earth and Eve from his rib)?
Because these are not dogmas of the Church.  There is no heresy of anti-side-made-woman or anti-plants-before-sun.  But I take an Alexandrian approach, that some of these stories reveal are allegories that reveal a certain mystery about Christ and the effect of Christ on me.  So I accept the story of Eve made out of Adam's side not as factual, but as revealing to me the mystery of the Church's creation from Christ's side after His deep sleep on the Cross.  I accept the creation story not as factual, but reveals to me that the Lord made all things through His Light and Breath (day 1), preparing and separating out for us the waters of baptism and it's effectivity of its power in the heavens (day 2), so that He may clothe us with glory and life as the earth is clothed with vegetation (day 3).  But because of vegetation, man fell, and thus the True Light needed to be incarnate as the Sun is an incarnate light (day 4), and the Lord even descended to the depths of Hades and brought those of the underworld to life (day 5) so that He may unite the earthly and the heavenly (day 6) and bring us into eternal salvation (day 7).

Quote
So, since life (including man) was created out of existing material then there's nothing mysterious in it.

There's mystery in creation precisely because it was created out of non-existence.  This I believe science won't be able to touch.  The only thing science can investigate is things that existed to explain things that exist now.  Nevertheless, even the non-mysterious aspects of science point to me the mystery of its non-existence in the light of it's ex nihilo origins.  When there are things that are revealed to us, there are also more questions and mysteries asked.  Therefore I believe creation to be a paradox of mystery and non-mystery, and I find that a fitting allegory to Christ's human and divine natures.

Quote
Since everything evolves starting from simple to more complicated then man must also evolve into something. Mutations in man always happen and the environment constantly change. These things will lead to future man. So what is this future man? What is his shape/form? What is his moral? What is his religion? What is his relationship to his kins? and so on.

Man has the intellectual power to slow down evolution, and rightfully so, since this reveals to us the Image of God in man.  In a fallen world we may be evolving into smarter or healthier forms of humans, but human evolution is so slow, I don't think we will be a new species.  Nevertheless, even after the second coming of our Lord, we know we will continue to grow and multiply "from glory to glory".  Therefore, I don't believe we will evolve into a completely new species, but evolve no more than into Christ's perfection, when Christ will appear in His second coming, and will progress us to a more better and perfect way of growing/adapting and multiplying/evolving from glory to infinite glory.
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.
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: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #4394 on: September 17, 2012, 01:02:07 PM »

Quote
First of all I don't agree with many things you've mentioned. But anyways, I don't think your questions have something common with mine. Maybe my question was more of a "guess my mind" thing. But this is where I was getting to: God could've created every single life form directly without them going into any evolution. Does this evolution has any significance to life itself or to man in particular?
You're essentially asking the same thing to which I'll again ask:


4) If you can tell me what is the significance to life or man particular of the separation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic substances, or about the attraction of positive and negative ions, or the life cycle of a drosophila, then I will make one up for you about evolution.  If you can tell me why does God allow gravitational forces to work in the way they do, or why does God allow light to go as fast as it does, or why does God allow sound to travel as fast as it does, then I'll see if I can come up with why God allowed evolution. Wink

« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 01:04:30 PM 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.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4395 on: September 17, 2012, 01:49:02 PM »

Quote
What would the biblical creation story look like if it was written today? Is it possible to view modern scientific explanations as "creation stories"? Using biblical imagery and vivid metaphors, popular author and leading science-and-religion scholar Karl Giberson recasts the Genesis creation story within the framework of the latest ideas from modern science. Seven Glorious Days takes the reader on a grand ride through the history of the universe from the Big Bang, to the origin of stars and planets, to the appearance of living creatures bearing the image of God. The narrative is accessible, lively and faith-affirming. Readers worried about the tension between science and religion will welcome their harmonious convergence in this timely and provocative book.

Karl W. Giberson is a physicist and scholar who has lectured all over the world, including at the Vatican, Oxford, and MIT. His work has appeared in many venues, including the New York Times, USA Today, and the Huffington Post, where he blogs regularly.

I plan to check it out as soon as possible.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 01:52:43 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4396 on: September 17, 2012, 01:57:52 PM »


Saint Theophan the Recluse also calls it other theories (like cosmological ones) ravings.

Including the God-hated theory of elliptical orbit and models which run contrary to the revealed Patristic doctrine of Geocentrism.

The earth is founded upon the waters and anchored upon the pillars and shall not be moved. I can provide dozens of Patristic quotes to support this. No Father supported a non-Geocentric model. Show me one who said that the earth could be moved. The Scriptures and Fathers say that God created the world perfect and complete, and made man sovereign over it and hung the firmament over it. A world tilted on its axis, orbiting in a flawed ellipse, and subservient to a star (see Protomartyr Stephen's speech to the Jews concerning the worship of a star) is contrary to the Christian faith. God made man sovereign over the earth, he did not make a star sovereign over the earth. Christ was not incarnate as a star. Believing that a star is a noetic power was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council's addendum concerning Origenism.

Such a notion is blasphemy because it denies God's promise to establish the world so that it shall not be moved unto ages of ages. It denies the creation account of Genesis. It denies the account of the Earth in the Psalms and Prophets. It denies the unanimous witness of the Fathers. It denies the observations of the logikoi at work in the Hellenic thinkers upon whom the Fathers drew.

It is impossible for a human being to exit the upper atmosphere. The blood would boil, radiation would leak into the body, and homeostasis would collapse no matter how much pressure shielding was used. Fr. Seraphim Rose mentions that space encounters with so-called aliens are really demons; clearly this is also the case regarding so-called "celestial bodies" which secular "scientists" hypothesize exist beyond the ninth sphere.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 02:04:34 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4397 on: September 17, 2012, 04:47:50 PM »

I know for sure that evolution is false. I don't need anybody to tell me that it is false scientifically.
This comment is basically the equivalent of I know what I want to be true, and I don't need anyone showing me scientific evidence to the contrary.  An odd worldview.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4398 on: September 19, 2012, 12:30:39 AM »

Quote
I did not accuse you. I think it is quite clear what the question was asking. I will rephrase it: Why don't you accept literal accounts of the Bible (Adam being created from earth and Eve from his rib)?
Because these are not dogmas of the Church.  There is no heresy of anti-side-made-woman or anti-plants-before-sun.  But I take an Alexandrian approach, that some of these stories reveal are allegories that reveal a certain mystery about Christ and the effect of Christ on me.  So I accept the story of Eve made out of Adam's side not as factual, but as revealing to me the mystery of the Church's creation from Christ's side after His deep sleep on the Cross.  I accept the creation story not as factual, but reveals to me that the Lord made all things through His Light and Breath (day 1), preparing and separating out for us the waters of baptism and it's effectivity of its power in the heavens (day 2), so that He may clothe us with glory and life as the earth is clothed with vegetation (day 3).  But because of vegetation, man fell, and thus the True Light needed to be incarnate as the Sun is an incarnate light (day 4), and the Lord even descended to the depths of Hades and brought those of the underworld to life (day 5) so that He may unite the earthly and the heavenly (day 6) and bring us into eternal salvation (day 7).
Name just one Orthodox Saint who takes creation of Adam and Eve as allegorical and quote him/her please.

Quote
Quote
So, since life (including man) was created out of existing material then there's nothing mysterious in it.

There's mystery in creation precisely because it was created out of non-existence.  This I believe science won't be able to touch.  The only thing science can investigate is things that existed to explain things that exist now.  Nevertheless, even the non-mysterious aspects of science point to me the mystery of its non-existence in the light of it's ex nihilo origins.  When there are things that are revealed to us, there are also more questions and mysteries asked.  Therefore I believe creation to be a paradox of mystery and non-mystery, and I find that a fitting allegory to Christ's human and divine natures.
Again, there's no mystery (per evolutionary theory) in life and all of its manifestation since it "explains" how it came to be. All you need is matter with given properties and voila, all is ready. In fact today's distorted science goes so far that they claim to know even the beginning of the Universe. All you need is some type of singularity and once this thing "explodes" the Universe unfolds. Scientists even can give you (in their mind of course) detailed events and math formulas of the process. So, today you have left as a mystery only this singularity. Tomorrow science will claim to have an answer even to the origin of it. There's no mystery anymore. Where exactly do you see mystery left?

Quote
Quote
Since everything evolves starting from simple to more complicated then man must also evolve into something. Mutations in man always happen and the environment constantly change. These things will lead to future man. So what is this future man? What is his shape/form? What is his moral? What is his religion? What is his relationship to his kins? and so on.

Man has the intellectual power to slow down evolution, and rightfully so, since this reveals to us the Image of God in man.  In a fallen world we may be evolving into smarter or healthier forms of humans, but human evolution is so slow, I don't think we will be a new species.  Nevertheless, even after the second coming of our Lord, we know we will continue to grow and multiply "from glory to glory".  Therefore, I don't believe we will evolve into a completely new species, but evolve no more than into Christ's perfection, when Christ will appear in His second coming, and will progress us to a more better and perfect way of growing/adapting and multiplying/evolving from glory to infinite glory.
What does it mean "we will continue to grow and multiply "from glory to glory" "? I know for certain that around the time of the Savior there were many more Saints and Angels on the earth then now. In fact in one they several hundred people received true Spirit of God. In fact around that time people in thousands would dye for God. Now people will dye to get this and that dress, this and that car ... We all live like animals. I don't see we've evolved. If anything we have devolved. That is why precisely theory of evolution is created. That theory gives support to evolved man, a man who strives towards becoming god. Per that theory we don't need God anymore. Next step is much more evolved "beings" from out of space.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4399 on: September 19, 2012, 12:37:41 AM »

I know for sure that evolution is false. I don't need anybody to tell me that it is false scientifically.
This comment is basically the equivalent of I know what I want to be true, and I don't need anyone showing me scientific evidence to the contrary.  An odd worldview.
Now, my statement comes from the fact that I have investigated that nonsense, I've debated with Darwinist and I have seen how illogical and add hominem they become when proper questions are asked. I beg you do not speak in the name of scientific evidence. And if you speak then at least provide one single evidence that support you theory.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4400 on: September 19, 2012, 12:43:49 AM »

I have looked but I can't find it again.  What was the species supposedly immediatly prior to modern man?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4401 on: September 19, 2012, 12:57:25 AM »

I beg you do not speak in the name of scientific evidence.
Further evidence of my claim.  Please don't speak of scientific evidence.  It contradicts that which I've already concluded.

All scientific evidence supports Darwin's theory of natural selection in explaining evolution.  If you are so certain the theory is false, then why had scientists proffered other theories to explain it prior to Darwin?  What observations were they attempting to reconcile?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4402 on: September 19, 2012, 01:01:20 AM »

And if you speak then at least provide one single evidence that support you theory.
The fact that no mammals appear early in the fossil record.  Animals existed, and were eating each other, for a lot of years before many of today's beasts of the field existed.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4403 on: September 19, 2012, 03:17:35 PM »

I have looked but I can't find it again.  What was the species supposedly immediatly prior to modern man?
How hard did you look?  This is pretty well documented.  Perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#H._sapiens is what you're after?
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4404 on: September 19, 2012, 04:15:35 PM »

I have looked but I can't find it again.  What was the species supposedly immediatly prior to modern man?

Some say: Homo erectus, others: Homo heidelbergensis
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 04:18:47 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4405 on: September 19, 2012, 05:08:38 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4406 on: September 19, 2012, 05:16:32 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 05:17:14 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4407 on: September 19, 2012, 05:18:42 PM »

ativan, I'm not reading your posts to parse this out but can you tell me that if confronted with actual facts that evolution is true (hypothetically of course), would your faith remain the same?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #4408 on: September 19, 2012, 05:28:41 PM »

Three possibilities so far.  Well, one was actually a link to Wikipedia so it doesn't really count.  This shouldn't be all that difficult folks.

I didn't give a link to Wikipedia. Mine are straight from my mouth, college textbooks, professors, documentaries, lectures, etc, etc

When you are in the field of Evolutionary Biology, you tend to learn these issues. i.e. Me
I know.  Someone else gave the Wiki answer.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

Still, I hope my point was made.  Almost silence and then no clear absolute answer.  No one has a straight answer for what should be the easiest of all evolutionary questions to answer, which is why I couldn't find the answer when I look for it.  We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #4409 on: September 19, 2012, 05:33:21 PM »

We have more Dino fossils than whatever the next Joe says was our immediate forerunners.

Consider that statement for a while.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
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 0.208 seconds with 76 queries.