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

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
But if you ask the question, what does blood do, it carries nutrients and oxygen, maintains body temperature and pH, and transports away bodily wastes.  So, in animals it may be blood, in insects it may be lymph, in plants it may be sap, all doing the same or similar things.

But if there is spiritual understanding behind this verse, then we need to consider it, and not define everything in such literalistic terms.

The point is, if we take evolution off the table, just this verse can be shown to be true in a simple-minded manner, but also equally true is the idea of life in plants and many insects, despite the fact that they don't have blood.  Biological life as defined (in simple terms) is a function of reproducibility and growth through biochemical processes.  This is not theologically necessary to believe "in", but it is true and believable.
I think your arguments are interesting and have some logical merit. But the problem I have with your reasoning here is that it assumes when Moses spoke of "blood" he also meant "lymph," "sap," etc. Perhaps he did mean these things, but it certainly requires a tremendous amount of reading into the text. If we were to apply such liberties to all of Scripture, then there is no limit to the interpretations we can come up with. I think there is something to be said for an 'Ockham's Razor' approach to bibilical hermeneutics. And it seems the Saints and fathers were careful not to impose the novel beliefs of the day onto the ancient scriptures.


Selam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
But if you ask the question, what does blood do, it carries nutrients and oxygen, maintains body temperature and pH, and transports away bodily wastes.  So, in animals it may be blood, in insects it may be lymph, in plants it may be sap, all doing the same or similar things.

But if there is spiritual understanding behind this verse, then we need to consider it, and not define everything in such literalistic terms.

The point is, if we take evolution off the table, just this verse can be shown to be true in a simple-minded manner, but also equally true is the idea of life in plants and many insects, despite the fact that they don't have blood.  Biological life as defined (in simple terms) is a function of reproducibility and growth through biochemical processes.  This is not theologically necessary to believe "in", but it is true and believable.
I think your arguments are interesting and have some logical merit. But the problem I have with your reasoning here is that it assumes when Moses spoke of "blood" he also meant "lymph," "sap," etc. Perhaps he did mean these things, but it certainly requires a tremendous amount of reading into the text. If we were to apply such liberties to all of Scripture, then there is no limit to the interpretations we can come up with. I think there is something to be said for an 'Ockham's Razor' approach to bibilical hermeneutics. And it seems the Saints and fathers were careful not to impose the novel beliefs of the day onto the ancient scriptures.


Selam
No no, I'm not assuming that Moses meant sap and lymph.  He most probably meant ONLY the blood of higher vertebrate animals, probably not knowing that "the life of other creatures can also be in their sap and lymph," which we now know.  It's not a matter of imposing novel beliefs into the Scriptures, but seeing the wisdom in the predominance of the allegorical understanding of Scripture in areas where literal understanding gives us little or no benefit.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
But if you ask the question, what does blood do, it carries nutrients and oxygen, maintains body temperature and pH, and transports away bodily wastes.  So, in animals it may be blood, in insects it may be lymph, in plants it may be sap, all doing the same or similar things.

But if there is spiritual understanding behind this verse, then we need to consider it, and not define everything in such literalistic terms.

The point is, if we take evolution off the table, just this verse can be shown to be true in a simple-minded manner, but also equally true is the idea of life in plants and many insects, despite the fact that they don't have blood.  Biological life as defined (in simple terms) is a function of reproducibility and growth through biochemical processes.  This is not theologically necessary to believe "in", but it is true and believable.
I think your arguments are interesting and have some logical merit. But the problem I have with your reasoning here is that it assumes when Moses spoke of "blood" he also meant "lymph," "sap," etc. Perhaps he did mean these things, but it certainly requires a tremendous amount of reading into the text. If we were to apply such liberties to all of Scripture, then there is no limit to the interpretations we can come up with. I think there is something to be said for an 'Ockham's Razor' approach to bibilical hermeneutics. And it seems the Saints and fathers were careful not to impose the novel beliefs of the day onto the ancient scriptures.


Selam
No no, I'm not assuming that Moses meant sap and lymph.  He most probably meant ONLY the blood of higher vertebrate animals, probably not knowing that "the life of other creatures can also be in their sap and lymph," which we now know.  It's not a matter of imposing novel beliefs into the Scriptures, but seeing the wisdom in the predominance of the allegorical understanding of Scripture in areas where literal understanding gives us little or no benefit.
I understand. In fact, Moses may very well have understood the principles of science more than we realize. God may have granted him divine prescience in numerous areas. But we shouldn't presume that he didn't intend what he actually wrote. That does not bind us to an illogical and rigid literalism, but it should nevertheless restrain our allegorical appetites.

My concern is that many will use your logic to rationalize evils like abortion. Some argue that the nascent human embryo does not scientifically deserve the same respect and sanctity as those who are born. There are Christians who will use allegorical interpretations of scripture to defend abortion. And logically, within the evolutionary framework, abortion is easy to rationalize.



Selam
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Moses may very well have understood the principles of science more than we realize.
"With our minds, we cannot come to know even how the sun is made; and if we beg God to tell us how He made the sun, the answer rings in our soul, 'Humble thyself, and thou shalt know, not only the sun but the Creator of the sun.' But when the soul through the Holy Spirit knows the Lord, then from joy she forgets the whole world and ceases to fret for earthly knowledge." (St. Silouan)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
psalm110 said:
Was death part of Gods creation plan or did death appear after the fall of mankind when Adam sinned?
I don't claim to know for sure, but one possible complicating factor is that death for humans might be different than death for, say, plants, or even animals. Could plants have died in the garden of eden if Adam stepped on them or ate them or something? Would that have been pre-fall? What if Adam would have killed an animal, perhaps accidentally? All speculation...
But accidental death is the result of imperfection resulting from the fall. There were no accidents in Eden before the willfull sin. Also, the scriptures say that "the life of a creature is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11] So, I think we need to be careful about calling the consumption of plants prior to the fall to "death." Perhaps nothing died when it was eaten, as the conditions prior to the fall were radically different from the conditions subsequent to the fall. All I'm saying is that it is fine to speculate, but when our speculations lead to us to unbiblical or unorthdox ideas, then we need to submit our speculations to biblical and Orthodox truth.


Selam
But if you ask the question, what does blood do, it carries nutrients and oxygen, maintains body temperature and pH, and transports away bodily wastes.  So, in animals it may be blood, in insects it may be lymph, in plants it may be sap, all doing the same or similar things.

But if there is spiritual understanding behind this verse, then we need to consider it, and not define everything in such literalistic terms.

The point is, if we take evolution off the table, just this verse can be shown to be true in a simple-minded manner, but also equally true is the idea of life in plants and many insects, despite the fact that they don't have blood.  Biological life as defined (in simple terms) is a function of reproducibility and growth through biochemical processes.  This is not theologically necessary to believe "in", but it is true and believable.
I think your arguments are interesting and have some logical merit. But the problem I have with your reasoning here is that it assumes when Moses spoke of "blood" he also meant "lymph," "sap," etc. Perhaps he did mean these things, but it certainly requires a tremendous amount of reading into the text. If we were to apply such liberties to all of Scripture, then there is no limit to the interpretations we can come up with. I think there is something to be said for an 'Ockham's Razor' approach to bibilical hermeneutics. And it seems the Saints and fathers were careful not to impose the novel beliefs of the day onto the ancient scriptures.


Selam
No no, I'm not assuming that Moses meant sap and lymph.  He most probably meant ONLY the blood of higher vertebrate animals, probably not knowing that "the life of other creatures can also be in their sap and lymph," which we now know.  It's not a matter of imposing novel beliefs into the Scriptures, but seeing the wisdom in the predominance of the allegorical understanding of Scripture in areas where literal understanding gives us little or no benefit.
I understand. In fact, Moses may very well have understood the principles of science more than we realize. God may have granted him divine prescience in numerous areas. But we shouldn't presume that he didn't intend what he actually wrote. That does not bind us to an illogical and rigid literalism, but it should nevertheless restrain our allegorical appetites.

My concern is that many will use your logic to rationalize evils like abortion. Some argue that the nascent human embryo does not scientifically deserve the same respect and sanctity as those who are born. There are Christians who will use allegorical interpretations of scripture to defend abortion. And logically, within the evolutionary framework, abortion is easy to rationalize.



Selam
To allegorize Scripture to bend the rules of morality or the Orthodox faith of the Church is an abuse of allegory in my opinion, and far from its more Orthodox use, as stipulated in the ancient Alexandrian tradition.  This is where I would draw the line, in agreement with you.

If I may add, many today have used a technique called "Scriptural criticism", which is different from Scriptural allegory.  I would think it's more likely the abuse of the former that's allowing things like homosexuality and abortion to be allowed, not the latter.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And logically, within the evolutionary framework, abortion is easy to rationalize.
Nations have used gravity to drop bombs on innocent civilians.  That doesn't invalidate the explanation of gravity.

Murderers have used the principles of physics to send chunks of lead flying through their victims' bodies.  That doesn't invalidate the science of ballistics.

Chemistry can purify your water, but it can also poison you.

The ends to which a science's precepts are used have almost nothing to do with the validity of the science itself.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
chrevbel said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And logically, within the evolutionary framework, abortion is easy to rationalize.
Nations have used gravity to drop bombs on innocent civilians.  That doesn't invalidate the explanation of gravity.

Murderers have used the principles of physics to send chunks of lead flying through their victims' bodies.  That doesn't invalidate the science of ballistics.

Chemistry can purify your water, but it can also poison you.

The ends to which a science's precepts are used have almost nothing to do with the validity of the science itself.
I agree with you. But the proper analogy in this context would be eugenics and racist oppression that is predicated upon false and unsubstantiated science. That's the issue here. Is evolutionary theory as scientifically valid as the theory of gravity? The debate will rage on.


Selam
 

Android_Rewster

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Spokane, Washington
Just a curious question. I've been a particularly strong theistic evolutionist for many years, and I'm curious what the church, and you orthodox Christians have to say about it.

I was under the impression that there isn't Biblical literalism within Orthodoxy, right?


--- To be real clear, I have no desire to debate about the topic at all. I know it can be controversial, but I'd simply like to know peoples' thoughts on it.

EDIT: Well, no I know that it's quite divided. >_> haha
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Android_Rewster said:
Just a curious question. I've been a particularly strong theistic evolutionist for many years, and I'm curious what the church, and you orthodox Christians have to say about it.

I was under the impression that there isn't Biblical literalism within Orthodoxy, right?


--- To be real clear, I have no desire to debate about the topic at all. I know it can be controversial, but I'd simply like to know peoples' thoughts on it.

EDIT: Well, no I know that it's quite divided. >_> haha
Yaaa...quite divided indeed...which comes to show one of two things:

1.  Either it is irrelevant to the Orthodox faith
2.  The Churches haven't given an official answer about it
 

simplygermain

High Elder
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the Great Northwest, Baby!
Website
hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com
Android_Rewster said:
Just a curious question. I've been a particularly strong theistic evolutionist for many years, and I'm curious what the church, and you orthodox Christians have to say about it.

I was under the impression that there isn't Biblical literalism within Orthodoxy, right?


--- To be real clear, I have no desire to debate about the topic at all. I know it can be controversial, but I'd simply like to know peoples' thoughts on it.

EDIT: Well, no I know that it's quite divided. >_> haha
certain Holy Fathers were quite literal about creation, while others did not say much. St. Athanasius and St. Cyril both spoke on creation. So did St. Jacob and others. Look up the word Hexameron and you'll find some info from many sources.

I would rather be in the latter camp, due to my desire for mystery. Being able to accept that we can not know everything is freeing for me and I would not want to write something that is unorthodox.
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
 

Android_Rewster

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Spokane, Washington
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time. :)
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Android_Rewster said:
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time. :)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but macro-evolution means that the changes are so profound that a new species arises from a different one.  Time has nothing to do with it.  Microevolution just makes the same species adaptable to the changing conditions or a new environment without changing the species itself.  So if you take the Human Journey where people moved from Africa to all corners of the world, you will see that there are differences in feature according to where the humans eventually settled.  But at the end of it all of them are still the same species.
 

sheenj

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
28
choy said:
Android_Rewster said:
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time. :)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but macro-evolution means that the changes are so profound that a new species arises from a different one.  Time has nothing to do with it.  Microevolution just makes the same species adaptable to the changing conditions or a new environment without changing the species itself.  So if you take the Human Journey where people moved from Africa to all corners of the world, you will see that there are differences in feature according to where the humans eventually settled.  But at the end of it all of them are still the same species.
Er, time has everything to do with it. Macro and micro evolution is the same process viewed from different time frames.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
sheenj said:
choy said:
Android_Rewster said:
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time. :)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but macro-evolution means that the changes are so profound that a new species arises from a different one.  Time has nothing to do with it.  Microevolution just makes the same species adaptable to the changing conditions or a new environment without changing the species itself.  So if you take the Human Journey where people moved from Africa to all corners of the world, you will see that there are differences in feature according to where the humans eventually settled.  But at the end of it all of them are still the same species.
Er, time has everything to do with it. Macro and micro evolution is the same process viewed from different time frames.
Change 1,267.
 

sheenj

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
28
Kerdy said:
Change 1,267.
::). It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
sheenj said:
Kerdy said:
Change 1,267.
::). It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.
Come on!!! We all know all languages were born in Babel :p...that's when the Latin, English, French, Spanish, Portoguese, and Italians originated from!!!
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
minasoliman said:
sheenj said:
Kerdy said:
Change 1,267.
::). It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.
Come on!!! We all know all languages were born in Babel :p...that's when the Latin, English, French, Spanish, Portoguese, and Italians originated from!!!
The next language I plan to learn is Latin American.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
sheenj said:
Kerdy said:
Change 1,267.
::). It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.
But if you told me ancient Celts spoke modern Japanese, then later told me (after being shown the error) they actually spoke Spanish, I'm still going to have my doubts.  Excuses are neat and all, just don't expect me to believe them.
 

Android_Rewster

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Spokane, Washington
choy said:
Android_Rewster said:
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time. :)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but macro-evolution means that the changes are so profound that a new species arises from a different one.  Time has nothing to do with it.  Microevolution just makes the same species adaptable to the changing conditions or a new environment without changing the species itself.  So if you take the Human Journey where people moved from Africa to all corners of the world, you will see that there are differences in feature according to where the humans eventually settled.  But at the end of it all of them are still the same species.
If you were to look at Microevolution say a couple thousand years after a species begins, and then look at the original specimen more like 2 or 3 million years later, there likely would have been so many micro changes and adaptations that you probably wouldn't recognize the species the way it was anymore.

But like someone else pointed out, there's no real definite line between when you leave on species and join another.
 

simplygermain

High Elder
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the Great Northwest, Baby!
Website
hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com
Android_Rewster said:
Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.
That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time. :)
prove it. ;)
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
"[U.S.] House Resolution 41: Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Introduced: Jan 22, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Representative Rush Holt [Democrat-New Jersey 12]
Status: Referred to Committee
....
PROGNOSIS
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being agreed to."
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Jetavan said:
"[U.S.] House Resolution 41: Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Introduced: Jan 22, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Representative Rush Holt [Democrat-New Jersey 12]
Status: Referred to Committee
....
PROGNOSIS
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being agreed to."
Terrible idea!

Why single out Darwin as a celebration to science?  Very provocative and uncalled for.

(I find it hilarious...my very own Congressman from my district is the one who put this through...

...actually scratch that...I'm district 4...woops...I used to live in district 12)
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
minasoliman said:
Jetavan said:
"[U.S.] House Resolution 41: Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Introduced: Jan 22, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Representative Rush Holt [Democrat-New Jersey 12]
Status: Referred to Committee
....
PROGNOSIS
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being agreed to."
Terrible idea!

Why single out Darwin as a celebration to science?  Very provocative and uncalled for.

(I find it hilarious...my very own Congressman from my district is the one who put this through)
It's more a congressional recognition/celebration of Darwin's birthday (12 February), which is already celebrated as "Darwin Day" across the U.S. and in many churches on the preceding or succeeding Sunday.
 

psalm110

Elder
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks
 

Android_Rewster

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Spokane, Washington
psalm110 said:
How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks
I don't think the Bible particularly specifies on it, but I like to think that they could hear and feel his spirit. :)
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There is no absolute proof of evolution.

Three main points of conjecture:

1: evolution has never been witnessed.

2: Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with the theory that life self generated is a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance....so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have come to no result. there is some evidence supporting RNA based molecules though. Also if successful this would pose an interesting paradox about creation..being Science created a self replicating molecule...it did not create itself as theory of evolution works.

3: Fossil record is incomplete, yes sure we share similar bone structures to other animals etc.. but there is no defined developmental line of slight mutation per generation to warrant it being evidence for the time being, but it is getting stronger.


Now I am not even saying Evolution is incorrect. I'm being very open minded.

In fact, I think if you were to ask Richard Dawkins (the prince of evolution) he would say similar and he has:

Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

Circumstantial for the moment.

Remember I am answering the question at hand....."Absolute Proof?"

There is no absolute proof.

And evolution does not conflict with the bible. I don;t care if God made the world in 1 day or 6. The point is that if he put trees here, her also included rings in the trees. And if he put people here, he also included a NATURAL reverse path back to the beginning of time. This is so we can make sense of the world, and so people can choose faith.

We are here, and there will always be this debate. It is God's way of ensuring that people choose Him through faith and not by proof or lack there of. The last thing that any Christian should want is proof of God or the destruction of evolution because proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place.
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Achronos said:
Peacemaker said:
There is no absolute proof of evolution.
And there is no absolute proof of God either.

What's your point?
I wrote my point, proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place. There is no need for proof, only faith. Stop trying to analyze everything, "take eat, this is My body."
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
psalm110 said:
How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks
I think they vocally communicated.  As far as visually, I am not certain, but I imagine God presented himself in some way as He did in the OT. 
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peacemaker said:
Achronos said:
Peacemaker said:
There is no absolute proof of evolution.
And there is no absolute proof of God either.

What's your point?
I wrote my point, proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place. There is no need for proof, only faith. Stop trying to analyze everything, "take eat, this is My body."
Agreed, with one tiny exception.  I think God will provide the individual with enough "proof" to provide faith.
 

stavros_388

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Canada
Kerdy said:
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
Ummm, yeah, right... Just the same!
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Kerdy said:
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Kerdy said:
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
Or, more accurately:

"Biological evolution by means of natural selection explains more about the diversity of life than any other scientific explanation we know about."
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.
You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stavros_388 said:
Kerdy said:
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
Ummm, yeah, right... Just the same!
I looked again to ensure I didn’t say this and wouldn’t you know it, I didn’t.  What I did say was they are "a lot alike” in how they present themselves, and they are.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Kerdy said:
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 
You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.
You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.
But isn't it obvious that despite my personal observations of your line of work, that doesn't change the truth of what you do, which you know I misrepresented?

I think you should consider the same courtesy with evolution.  Evolution is proven by scientific testing and observation of many things in nature around us, the micro and macro scopic.  It's like proving the truth of the Bible, by proving the testing of our faith, living the practical examples of the godliness present in the Bible. For by the workd's observance of our actions, they should know the truth of our faith.

Likewise in observing population rates of change, anatomical studies, fossil records, genetics, etc., evolution becomes all the more evidently true.

So the idea that you use evolution to prove evolution is not what I have studied and experienced.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Interview: Michael Ruse on Evolution, Creationism, and Religion
....
DA: It seems that you are in an odd position. You state that you are a non-believer who nevertheless argues that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible. Because of this you have made enemies of atheists and creationists alike. Could you explain why you think that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible, and where the tensions might lie?

Michael Ruse: I see nothing in Darwinism that should upset the Christian, although I fully admit that the Christian is going to have to work hard on some issues. Obviously you cannot be a Darwinian and believe in a totally literal interpretation of Genesis. However, at least since the time of St. Augustine around 400 A.D. it has been the Christian position that one can and indeed must interpret the Bible metaphorically at times. So I don’t think that literal readings are necessarily part of traditional Christianity, even though they are certainly part of American evangelical Christianity.

Of course, there are certain issues which come up from Darwinism which seem to give great worries for the Christian....
 

FlickFlack

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
249
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Evolution is a progressive scientific thesis in the discovery of how biological mechanisms function.

I think the only incompatibility between the current Traditional Christian theory and the Evolutionist one is the argument of death. Traditional Christianity asserts that death has not always existed in nature(at least at humans) but it was brought in through the first Sin. Evolution says that death always existed. Otherwise I believe it can be fully reconciled.
 
Top