Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
Maybe they did exist and we just didn't know it.
But science doesn't delve too deeply into maybes.  
???
Evolution...It's mostly guess work, like a lot of science.
Evolution was guess work. We are way beyond that Kerdy and that is the problem that I see, you only need to read this thread. For me it is protein structure, for others it is DNA sequence (and this is enough in my mind), for others it is archeological evidence, for others it is tree rings, for others it is the clear pedigree of algal chloroplasts derived from cyanobacteria (pond scum in Achronos-speak), for others it is the holistic implication based on protein function, structure, amino acid and DNA sequence conservation that the eukaryotic  genome (us) ultimately derived from a symbiotic relationship between bacteria and archaea.

If you want to rant against Neo-Darwinists, fine, I will be there to support  you. However I would like to point out that all of the evidence cited above points to evolution as a major player in our creation. To deny this results (from the perspective of a molecular biologist/structural biologist/molecular geneticist/microbiologist/biochemist/virologist, in other words me) in a dilemma that I have yet to see an answer for.

 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
Maybe they did exist and we just didn't know it.
But science doesn't delve too deeply into maybes.  
???
Evolution...It's mostly guess work, like a lot of science.
Evolution was guess work. We are way beyond that Kerdy...
If this were true, there would be much less alteration to current thoughts and theories.  As it is, we still know almost nothing definitively. 
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Opus118 said:
Aindriú said:
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
Maybe they did exist and we just didn't know it.
But science doesn't delve too deeply into maybes.  It attempts to cohesively explain all known observations.  If our observation is that mammals didn't exist during the Precambrian, for example, and your hypothesis is that they really did exist but weren't fossilized at the time, then you'd need to explain how that might happen and how this explanation is consistent with everything else we know.

Mammals are very readily fossilized.  It strains credulity to try to imagine conditions in which bacteria would fossilize but in which mammals would not.  But is this what you are proposing?
False, the scientific method (as opposed to the mythical "science" creature that glows and pee's nectar) deals purely in maybes and evidence that supports a variety of maybes. Ideally, the more strongly supported by evidence is deemed more correct.

The maybe he talks about is a possibility that the lack of discovery does not reject the reality of the evidence. Though pure speculation, like many hypotheses, it could be further supported showing previous cases with positive outcomes or of course discovering desired evidence.

Yes, it does happen. Pure rejection shows your bias, rejection with supported evidence is a bit stronger.
Actually I though Kerdy's answer was cute. I wish I said it.
Your answer should have been based on the fact that Chrevbel's observations does not take into account the disparity between the number of bacteria vs the number of mammals.
To direct fire at that first would require ignoring the absurdity of other assumptions. We could have some hot cocoa and get crazy though!
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Opus118 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Sleeper said:
Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.
This, as well as other genetic oddities such as endogenous retrovirus (ERV) remnants that show a history of virus infection which are in the exact same location in the humans as well as other higher primates. Common descent between humans other higher primates can be shown conclusively by DNA evidence alone.
This never crossed my mind. Thanks.  The retention of retroviral remnants (their 5' and 3' long terminal repeats) at the same chromosomal location among primates is a very strong argument for evolution and it deserves some backup citations as well:
http://preview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10773466
http://preview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10468595

It is also kind of neat how you can generate phylogenetic trees from the mutation rate of these remnants
It does depend on how you interpret the evidence. The inclusion of similar ERVs or remnants of EVRs does not necessarily necessitate a common linage nor transmission through host reproduction. It, however, CAN be seen as evidence, assuming you plug it into a certain theory. But the underlying assumption of evolution is then already presupposed.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Aindriú said:
Opus118 said:
Aindriú said:
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
Maybe they did exist and we just didn't know it.
But science doesn't delve too deeply into maybes.  It attempts to cohesively explain all known observations.  If our observation is that mammals didn't exist during the Precambrian, for example, and your hypothesis is that they really did exist but weren't fossilized at the time, then you'd need to explain how that might happen and how this explanation is consistent with everything else we know.

Mammals are very readily fossilized.  It strains credulity to try to imagine conditions in which bacteria would fossilize but in which mammals would not.  But is this what you are proposing?
False, the scientific method (as opposed to the mythical "science" creature that glows and pee's nectar) deals purely in maybes and evidence that supports a variety of maybes. Ideally, the more strongly supported by evidence is deemed more correct.

The maybe he talks about is a possibility that the lack of discovery does not reject the reality of the evidence. Though pure speculation, like many hypotheses, it could be further supported showing previous cases with positive outcomes or of course discovering desired evidence.

Yes, it does happen. Pure rejection shows your bias, rejection with supported evidence is a bit stronger.
Actually I though Kerdy's answer was cute. I wish I said it.
Your answer should have been based on the fact that Chrevbel's observations does not take into account the disparity between the number of bacteria vs the number of mammals.
To direct fire at that first would require ignoring the absurdity of other assumptions. We could have some hot cocoa and get crazy though!
Hot cocoa is always a good idea.

Good night Aindriú
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
Maybe they did exist and we just didn't know it.
But science doesn't delve too deeply into maybes.  It attempts to cohesively explain all known observations.  If our observation is that mammals didn't exist during the Precambrian, for example, and your hypothesis is that they really did exist but weren't fossilized at the time, then you'd need to explain how that might happen and how this explanation is consistent with everything else we know.

Mammals are very readily fossilized.  It strains credulity to try to imagine conditions in which bacteria would fossilize but in which mammals would not.  But is this what you are proposing?
It's amusing when an evolutionists talk about not "delving too deeply into "maybes" " while the whole evolutionary theory is nothing but science fiction "maybes".

chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
How about fallacious argument of yours called "argument from ignorance". I hear a lot from evolutionists blaming creationists to refer to this form of fallacy but when it comes to evolutionists' making same type of fallacy it means nothing? I can give you several different explanations (kinda same type when evolutionists try to explain practical absence of transitional forms or sudden appearance of diverse group of animals in Cambrian explosion) but I will not do it, since it has no importance for me. AFAIK God created every single species and I don't have to know the Mystery of creation. This is my honest answer.


I did not respond to Ativan because he demands that I convert a dog into a cat despite the fact that it would be easier to convert a dog into a whale. I did do a cost analysis of how much money and time it would take to generate legs in a lung fish. It was quite prohibitive (I have to see if it is still there on another computer). My question was not addressed and as long as I continue to see things the way that I do, I will not support you.
Another type of fallacious argument of appeal to ridicule and straw man. I never asked you to convert a dog into a cat. I asked you to convert prokaryotes into eukaryotes, or land dwelling animal (whatever on earth this was) into a flying animal (whatever else it became), or convert a land dwelling mammal into the see animal (whatever was whale's ancestor) and so on and so forth.

Since you complained that I failed to scientifically base my faith I will tell you again: I is not me who claims to be need scientific explanation of Mystery of creation. It is you who claims the validity of fictional theory of evolution. So it is you who must give us at least a little (I don't ask much) support for the theory of evolution. My ignorance of the "mechanism" of Creation does not make you theory true.

So, once again I ask you to give us any particular example which in your opinion is the evidence for evolution. If you can't give us such an example then I will ask you to explain the appearance of eukaryotes from prokaryotes: how did it happen?


minasoliman
Does your silence mean that you failed to show the compatibility of incompatible things of evolution and Orthodox faith?

Questions are still waiting for your (or anybody's who claims Orthodoxy and evolution are not mutually exclusive) answers.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Ativan...is that really the only reason for my silence  ::)
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Ativan...is that really the only reason for my silence  ::)
Maybe not. Anyways, can you give me your answers?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
ativan said:
minasoliman said:
Ativan...is that really the only reason for my silence  ::)
Maybe not. Anyways, can you give me your answers?
when i get the time ativan...there's another thread that I'm involved in that i haven't answered in about 2 weeks now...so that gets priority.

I appreciate it also if you change the tone of how you ask the question, rather than making it sound so haughty.
 

DavidH

High Elder
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
56
Location
Dallas, Tx.
Website
www.LandscapeDallas.com
Kerdy said:
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
Opus118 said:
The problem for me is that there is empirical evidence...
Which empirical evidence? can you name one, please?
How about the observation that numerous organisms exist today which didn't previously exist?  Clearly, new species come from somewhere.  If evolution doesn't explain this satisfactorily, then what is your alternative hypothesis?
Maybe they did exist and we just didn't know it.
Now, now, you are not suggesting the fossil record is incomplete?

For Darwinism to be true there must be an innumerable number of failed species in transitional places to yield the roughly one million species they say are alive today. That's potentially tens of millions of species for there to be fossils of even though only about 250,000 different fossilized species have been identified.

Come to think of it, that does sound incomplete.

Assuming a living species did not exist in the past because we have not found it in a very spotty fossil record seems to be a greater leap of faith than the white-coated priests of naturalist origins mythology should require of us.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
ativan said:
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.
1.) I don't know
2.) I don't know
3.) I don't know, but I think this is the wrong question to ask; it assumes God is not involved in some aspects of creation.  I believe God is involved in all aspects.

I think it's okay to say I don't know for things that which I have no evidence, nor do I think should matter.  What I do know is the evidence presented today is undeniable, but more importantly, my faith is God is much more undeniable.  I will share with you two quotes in another thread that I think is relevant here:

This first post especially lays down the reason why I think your third question is not appropriate to ask:

minasoliman said:
Aindriú said:
Of course not, but then we are at the point where we have to decide just HOW MUCH God played in the world from a scale of minimal poking to full fledged creationism.
Yes, but this doesn't take away from the fact that God still loves to engage in full relationship with His creation and blesses everything creation does that He programmed in it.  Even if I treat a patient, I ask God and say, "Lord, it is not I who treat, but your divine hands which blesses mine, and your divine mind which illuminates mine.  It is You who stimulated me to study and you who kept my arms at skilled with practice. For unless the Lord builds, the laborers labor in vain. Unless you heal Oh Lord, my patients are being cared for in vain." Does not creation pray to God also, seeking for this evolution?  You oh Lord evolved the species and You oh Lord formed me from my mother's womb.  You Oh Lord implanted me in her womb, and You Oh Lord caused the chemicals to have blood vessels grow and nourish me!

I don't believe in God of the gaps, but God who involves Himself in every molecule of my body, in every enzyme, in every cell, and in everything I do if I seek His will.
And this next post gives you a reason why I remain an evolutionist and an Orthodox Christian, because my faith is that strong, and my reasoning of what I see around me I won't deny, and for anything unanswered, I leave to God:

minasoliman said:
As for the Scriptures, I'm not going to pretend that that doesn't present problems.  There's no way I can answer that question to you sufficiently.  But my faith is strong enough to believe  the Fall, and believe in Christ, an I also trust in God's consistency in leaving us with hints on how He chose to have the world made.  By experience in the lab, I've seen His consistency and te affirmation that evolution is true.  By experience in prayer, I trust in the Lord God my Savior, who became man and united us to a life of Godliness.  Therefore for questions I cannot answer, I'll just say I don't know, but I trust in God there is a good reason for all of this.  Until it has been revealed otherwise, I am unable to deny the clear evidence tha surrounds me, but more importantly, I'm unable to deny the evidence of things unseen in my heart, as well as the essence things hoped for.
In conclusion, I see and accept the evidence as it strengthens the science of evolution, while I do not see this as a reason to weaken my faith in God.  If anything, my faith in our Lord Jesus and the traditions of the Church is even stronger, as I pray more, read more, study more.  I also understand I'm not going to convince anyone here of my convictions.  So I'm not going to try.  I can try my best to answer whatever questions you have though.  But as an Orthodox Christian, I also learned how to say "I don't know" without any harm to my faith, because more important than evolution, or technology, or anything in this world that will wither away, is my faith in the unwitherable God.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
 

Ashman618

High Elder
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just so I'm correct in my thinking, since I believe Christ rose from the dead; and I believe He was fully what I am. Whatever it is that I am and wherever it is that I came from, doesn't really matter cuz well, Christ rose from the dead. So if evolution is a non issue for me that's ok right?
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
Ashman618 said:
Just so I'm correct in my thinking, since I believe Christ rose from the dead; and I believe He was fully what I am. Whatever it is that I am and wherever it is that I came from, doesn't really matter cuz well, Christ rose from the dead. So if evolution is a non issue for me that's ok right?
Yes. :)
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Ashman618 said:
Just so I'm correct in my thinking, since I believe Christ rose from the dead; and I believe He was fully what I am. Whatever it is that I am and wherever it is that I came from, doesn't really matter cuz well, Christ rose from the dead. So if evolution is a non issue for me that's ok right?
Pretty much how I see it as well.

I personally believe in a creationism/evolutionism hybrid myself.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
Achronos said:
Ashman618 said:
Just so I'm correct in my thinking, since I believe Christ rose from the dead; and I believe He was fully what I am. Whatever it is that I am and wherever it is that I came from, doesn't really matter cuz well, Christ rose from the dead. So if evolution is a non issue for me that's ok right?
Pretty much how I see it as well.

I personally believe in a creationism/evolutionism hybrid myself.
Elaborate?  :)
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
celticfan1888 said:
Achronos said:
Ashman618 said:
Just so I'm correct in my thinking, since I believe Christ rose from the dead; and I believe He was fully what I am. Whatever it is that I am and wherever it is that I came from, doesn't really matter cuz well, Christ rose from the dead. So if evolution is a non issue for me that's ok right?
Pretty much how I see it as well.

I personally believe in a creationism/evolutionism hybrid myself.
Elaborate?  :)
celticfan1888 said:
Mayhaps full fledged creationism through evolution.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
Achronos said:
celticfan1888 said:
Achronos said:
Ashman618 said:
Just so I'm correct in my thinking, since I believe Christ rose from the dead; and I believe He was fully what I am. Whatever it is that I am and wherever it is that I came from, doesn't really matter cuz well, Christ rose from the dead. So if evolution is a non issue for me that's ok right?
Pretty much how I see it as well.

I personally believe in a creationism/evolutionism hybrid myself.
Elaborate?  :)
celticfan1888 said:
Mayhaps full fledged creationism through evolution.
Ah, Great.  :D
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Tzimis said:
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
I think Ativan was trying to be clear what he meant by soul, so as not to have the conversation caught up in the dogs vs cats go to heaven debate (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38291.msg609335.html#msg609335). Best to pretend soul-bearing animals of the non-human variety do not exist and see where this particular subtopic goes.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Fr. Anastasios said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Actually, Theophan, the Church DOES glorify Clement of Alexandria as a saint and Father.
Clement is not a saint. That was what I was taught at SVS.
They taught you incorrectly. Wait, was this already covered? Anyway...
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Asteriktos said:
orthonorm said:
Asteriktos said:
I find this thread depressing.  :-\
I hope one day a different one will be born.
If only Matthew777 were around to start one...  8)
We could try to get Justin Bieber to start one. I am pretty sure no one would dare to merge it into this thread. We would of course need to ask Orthonorm's opinion first. I am often overly optimistic that  people are rational.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Opus118 said:
Tzimis said:
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
I think Ativan was trying to be clear what he meant by soul, so as not to have the conversation caught up in the dogs vs cats go to heaven debate (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38291.msg609335.html#msg609335). Best to pretend soul-bearing animals of the non-human variety do not exist and see where this particular subtopic goes.
Both Humans and animals have souls. But both do not have spirits. The only correct statement in his quote is the first sentence. lets concentrate on that a bit. ;)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Tzimis said:
Opus118 said:
Tzimis said:
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
I think Ativan was trying to be clear what he meant by soul, so as not to have the conversation caught up in the dogs vs cats go to heaven debate (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38291.msg609335.html#msg609335). Best to pretend soul-bearing animals of the non-human variety do not exist and see where this particular subtopic goes.
Both Humans and animals have souls. But both do not have spirits. The only correct statement in his quote is the first sentence. lets concentrate on that a bit. ;)
Again semantics.  Soul and spirit is interchangeable in English.  Some church fathers called the spirit "rational soul".  So whatever you call it as long as it can be differentiated.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
minasoliman said:
Tzimis said:
Opus118 said:
Tzimis said:
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
I think Ativan was trying to be clear what he meant by soul, so as not to have the conversation caught up in the dogs vs cats go to heaven debate (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38291.msg609335.html#msg609335). Best to pretend soul-bearing animals of the non-human variety do not exist and see where this particular subtopic goes.
Both Humans and animals have souls. But both do not have spirits. The only correct statement in his quote is the first sentence. lets concentrate on that a bit. ;)
Again semantics.  Soul and spirit is interchangeable in English.  Some church fathers called the spirit "rational soul".  So whatever you call it as long as it can be differentiated.
Even a bible believing baptist would call you on that one. Hebrews 4:12
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
orthonorm said:
Asteriktos said:
I find this thread depressing.  :-\
I hope one day a different one will be born.
Isn't this thread already a composite of several Evolution threads? And haven't they all gone the same way?
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
If there can be one specific topic under the Evolution umbrella, then a discussion could be much more fruitful.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jesus told us that even the Angels do not know the time when the end is.

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Acts 1:7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

So it also stands to reason that we are not privy to the exact ways it was at the beginning.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Tzimis said:
minasoliman said:
Tzimis said:
Opus118 said:
Tzimis said:
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
I think Ativan was trying to be clear what he meant by soul, so as not to have the conversation caught up in the dogs vs cats go to heaven debate (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38291.msg609335.html#msg609335). Best to pretend soul-bearing animals of the non-human variety do not exist and see where this particular subtopic goes.
Both Humans and animals have souls. But both do not have spirits. The only correct statement in his quote is the first sentence. lets concentrate on that a bit. ;)
Again semantics.  Soul and spirit is interchangeable in English.  Some church fathers called the spirit "rational soul".  So whatever you call it as long as it can be differentiated.
Even a bible believing baptist would call you on that one. Hebrews 4:12
- That his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (James 5:20)
- "Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death" (1 Cor 5:5)
- "Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul" (1 Pet 2:11)
- "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit" (2 Cor 7:1)

(I just literally copied and pasted this from an article by a Coptic bishop, I'm not in any way "showing off" Bible skills...lol)
http://www.suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?misc=search&subaction=showfull&id=1084918228&archive=&cnshow=news&start_from=&
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Nor do I proclaim to be a theologian. This is from the very site you quoted.
4. The Composition of Man
Man is composed of Body, Soul and Spirit
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians). 5:23
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Tzimis said:
Nor do I proclaim to be a theologian. This is from the very site you quoted.
4. The Composition of Man
Man is composed of Body, Soul and Spirit
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians). 5:23
I'm only arguing semantics, not disagreeing with you.  My point was that soul and spirit was used interchangeably at times in the Scriptures, and that many church fathers talked about that extra special something in man as "rational soul."
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
minasoliman said:
Tzimis said:
Nor do I proclaim to be a theologian. This is from the very site you quoted.
4. The Composition of Man
Man is composed of Body, Soul and Spirit
"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians). 5:23
I'm only arguing semantics, not disagreeing with you.  My point was that soul and spirit was used interchangeably at times in the Scriptures, and that many church fathers talked about that extra special something in man as "rational soul."
I wasn't arguing either. In the context of accuracy one could be taken as confrontational. Please don't take my words that way.
 

Ashman618

High Elder
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I guess we will find out who had the first soul by whoever is first in line at the judgment, by the way anyone who wants frontsies, I'll let them have it ;) Infact I think all members of the oc net should form a union and we'll all go to the very end of the line so we can all post comments while the rest sweat it out.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Quote from: ativan on September 02, 2012, 12:39:30 AM
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.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tzimis said:
ativan said:
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.
Not to come off harshly. As I am notorious for that. :laugh: I will ask you to please redefine what you are stating because you aren't making to much sense. If a soul is immortal than that would conclude that animals will also become immortal. Don't you really mean to say that the spirit of man is immortal? A spirit that animals aren't endowed with?
Yes, you are right. My mistake. Replace "soul" with "spirit" (and leave definitions unchanged) in my questions and everything is in right place :)
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
ativan said:
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.
1.) I don't know
2.) I don't know
3.) I don't know, but I think this is the wrong question to ask; it assumes God is not involved in some aspects of creation.  I believe God is involved in all aspects.

I think it's okay to say I don't know for things that which I have no evidence, nor do I think should matter.  What I do know is the evidence presented today is undeniable, but more importantly, my faith is God is much more undeniable.  I will share with you two quotes in another thread that I think is relevant here:
I did not say one can't believe in evolution and God at the same time. But the God you believe is not the God of Orthodoxy, the God of Orthodox saints.

Back to my questions. We have 2 generations. On one hand, these have almost no difference in their genetic composition. On the other hand God decides to give immortal spirit to one generation and leave another one as animal. Why would these unfortunate parents not receive the immortal soul? Weren't they genetically men? You know that 1) God did not create life on earth and 2) the whole life started with inorganic universe until it evolved into most complex thing and 3) At one point God chose one particular life form to be bestowed with immortal spirit while his/her parents remained and died as animals. Though you have no answer to my second question. Sorry, but I find it hard to believe.

You misuse the word "undeniable" here: You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth :)) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.

I'm sorry if seem to arrogant to you but isn't Orthodox supposed to be humble? Why would you care about my questions being so haughty? I wouldn't if I were you.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
ativan said:
I'm sorry if seem to arrogant to you but isn't Orthodox supposed to be humble? Why would you care about my questions being so haughty? I wouldn't if I were you.
Yes, and I don't detect humility in your questions.  You're not concerned about the questions themselves.  You already judged me and other theistic evolutionists:

But the God you believe is not the God of Orthodoxy, the God of Orthodox saints.
You simply want to ask questions not because you want them answered, but you wanted to prove a petty point:

You (I mean all evolutionists of the planet earth ) can't even solve any single problems arising in your theory.
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.

Don't be surprised next time I ignore your questions.
 
Top