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

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
the other thing we could do is admit that science just cant really know the past as well as it thinks bc their hypotheses are based on assumptions.
Do you have any training in a science?  Your sentence makes it sound as though scientists make wild guesses and put forth ideas or hypotheses that aren't based on real data.   That's not how it works.
i know they dont just make wild guesses. if you accept their foundational assumptions then the rest of their work makes perfect sense. its the beginning assumptions that are guesses with which i disagree, and thus i do not accept the interpretations of the evidence that stem from those assumptions.
"Beginning assumptions"?  Sometimes in scientific work, something new is discovered, where the reaction might be "Wow, what is *that*?" or "That was weird. Why did that happen?"  or to use a vernacular "Cool!  Look at that!  What else can we find out?"    Some of the basics of genetics came from the work of the Christian priest Gregor Mendel working with plants.  He noticed things and then carefully experimented. What "assumptions" do you think he had? 

Other times scientists get new results that they don't expect or that don't fit their hypothesis. Good science doesn't ignore it or throw it out if it doesn't "fit their assumptions".

On what information do you base your idea that science has an "assumption of uniformatarianism" please?


Ebor
i know wikipedia isnt always the most reliable source, but here's the page on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

and youre the only person ive ever encountered that questioned if science has that assumption -- the other people (plenty of science majors and what not) have admitted the use of uniformitarianism but have sought to prove its not an assumption or sought to justify the assumption.
What does uniformitarianism assume?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
philalethe00 said:
A lot of misunderstandings...

Basically, the Genesis, as we know even from the Psalms of David(he says a day for God is like -for example- a thousand years to us), should not be taken and interpreted literally.
i dont see any reason from within the Church to agree with you here ....

Second, Clement was a remarkable -former Platonic philosopher- Christian author and apologist, but he is not a saint by any means, as is, for example, St. Justin.
yeah im aware of his sorta-Saint status. ive seen him called Saint and ive seen it written that he's not officially a Saint, but the point remains that he interpreted Genesis literally (same story with Tertullian -- in his excellent pre-heretical writings he interprets Genesis literally).

Creationism, as well as "Intelligent design", are typical Protestant, and, to be more specific, north american Protestant theories, that do not comply with what Fathers such as saint Maxim the Confessor, St. Basil of Caesarea the Great, saint Gregory of Nyssa and others taught.
hmmm i really cant agree. these Fathers taught that the creation act of each day was instantaneous, Adam and Eve were literal people who would not have physically died before sin, that the body and soul were created simultaneously, that there was life before the sun, that there is no change from one "kind" to another, etc etc.

 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
GammaRay said:
jckstraw72 said:
what reason do you have to believe that the Fathers interpreted Genesis according to their science of their day rather than according to divine illumination? im honestly curious about this. are there other instances where such a uniform teaching is questioned on this basis or a similar basis?
I can easily spot mistakes in the Bible. The first thing that comes to my mind is Joshua's story, where 'the Sun stood above the Earth'. Some may say that this is just an artistic view, I say it's an anti-heliocentric one. Of course, I didn't expect people in Ancient Israel to be aware of Heliocentrism.
i think your last sentence makes a crucial point -- the story in Joshua is from Joshua's POV and for all he knew the sun was standing still. But God was the only observer of creation, and Genesis is what he told Moses to write, thus its not from a human POV but rather from God's absolute POV.
I understand that Genesis was borne out of a tradition that had been passed on orally within the Hebrew peoples as they inherited it from Abraham's ancestors.  To say that it's based on what God told Moses to write may be quite misleading--much like the intrinsic belief among many Protestants that the Scriptures were uttered orally by God to the biblical authors (both Old and New Testament) and that these authors therefore made no real participation in what they wrote.  In fact, this argument is often made against the truth of any concept of "Tradition".
im thinking along these lines:

St. Ambrose writes:

Moses "spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision nor in dreams, but mouth to mouth" (Numbers 12:6-8). Plainly and clearly, not by figures nor by riddles, there was bestowed on him the gift of the Divine presence. And so Moses opened his mouth and uttered what the Lord spoke within him, according to the promise He made to him when He directed him to go to King Pharaoh: "Go therefore and I will open thy mouth and instruct thee what thou shouldest speak" (Ex. 4:12). For, if he had already accepted from God what he should say concerning the liberation of the people, how much more should you accept what He should say concerning heaven? Therefore, "not in the persuasive words of wisdom," not in philosophical fallacies, "but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4), he has ventured to say as if he were a witness of the Divine work: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
In a similar vein, St. Basil writes at the very beginning of his Hexaemeron:

This man, who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God.
St. John Chrysostom says that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu-ture, Moses was a prophet of things of the past. He says the following:

All the other prophets spoke either of what was to occur after a long time or of what was about to happen then; but he, the blessed (Moses), who lived many generations after (the creation of the world), was vouchsafed by the guidance of the right hand of the Most High to utter what had been done by the Lord before his own birth. It is for this reason that he begins to speak thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," as if calling out to us all with a loud voice: it is not by the instruction of men that I say this; He Who called them (heaven and earth) out of non-being into being - it is He Who has roused my tongue to relate of them. And therefore I entreat you, let us pay heed to these words as if we heard not Moses but the very Lord of the universe Who speaks through the tongue of Moses, and let us take leave for good of our own opinions.
In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the order in which the creation is described.

The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
GammaRay said:
jckstraw72 said:
what reason do you have to believe that the Fathers interpreted Genesis according to their science of their day rather than according to divine illumination? im honestly curious about this. are there other instances where such a uniform teaching is questioned on this basis or a similar basis?
I can easily spot mistakes in the Bible. The first thing that comes to my mind is Joshua's story, where 'the Sun stood above the Earth'. Some may say that this is just an artistic view, I say it's an anti-heliocentric one. Of course, I didn't expect people in Ancient Israel to be aware of Heliocentrism.
i think your last sentence makes a crucial point -- the story in Joshua is from Joshua's POV and for all he knew the sun was standing still. But God was the only observer of creation, and Genesis is what he told Moses to write, thus its not from a human POV but rather from God's absolute POV.
I understand that Genesis was borne out of a tradition that had been passed on orally within the Hebrew peoples as they inherited it from Abraham's ancestors.  To say that it's based on what God told Moses to write may be quite misleading--much like the intrinsic belief among many Protestants that the Scriptures were uttered orally by God to the biblical authors (both Old and New Testament) and that these authors therefore made no real participation in what they wrote.  In fact, this argument is often made against the truth of any concept of "Tradition".
im thinking along these lines:

St. Ambrose writes:

Moses "spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision nor in dreams, but mouth to mouth" (Numbers 12:6-8). Plainly and clearly, not by figures nor by riddles, there was bestowed on him the gift of the Divine presence. And so Moses opened his mouth and uttered what the Lord spoke within him, according to the promise He made to him when He directed him to go to King Pharaoh: "Go therefore and I will open thy mouth and instruct thee what thou shouldest speak" (Ex. 4:12). For, if he had already accepted from God what he should say concerning the liberation of the people, how much more should you accept what He should say concerning heaven? Therefore, "not in the persuasive words of wisdom," not in philosophical fallacies, "but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4), he has ventured to say as if he were a witness of the Divine work: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
In a similar vein, St. Basil writes at the very beginning of his Hexaemeron:

This man, who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God.
St. John Chrysostom says that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu-ture, Moses was a prophet of things of the past. He says the following:

All the other prophets spoke either of what was to occur after a long time or of what was about to happen then; but he, the blessed (Moses), who lived many generations after (the creation of the world), was vouchsafed by the guidance of the right hand of the Most High to utter what had been done by the Lord before his own birth. It is for this reason that he begins to speak thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," as if calling out to us all with a loud voice: it is not by the instruction of men that I say this; He Who called them (heaven and earth) out of non-being into being - it is He Who has roused my tongue to relate of them. And therefore I entreat you, let us pay heed to these words as if we heard not Moses but the very Lord of the universe Who speaks through the tongue of Moses, and let us take leave for good of our own opinions.
In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the order in which the creation is described.

The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.
And all this is related to the reality of biological evolution, or of the quarks, or of the electromagnetic field... how?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
the other thing we could do is admit that science just cant really know the past as well as it thinks bc their hypotheses are based on assumptions.
Do you have any training in a science?  Your sentence makes it sound as though scientists make wild guesses and put forth ideas or hypotheses that aren't based on real data.   That's not how it works.
i know they dont just make wild guesses. if you accept their foundational assumptions then the rest of their work makes perfect sense. its the beginning assumptions that are guesses with which i disagree, and thus i do not accept the interpretations of the evidence that stem from those assumptions.
"Beginning assumptions"?  Sometimes in scientific work, something new is discovered, where the reaction might be "Wow, what is *that*?" or "That was weird. Why did that happen?"  or to use a vernacular "Cool!  Look at that!  What else can we find out?"    Some of the basics of genetics came from the work of the Christian priest Gregor Mendel working with plants.  He noticed things and then carefully experimented. What "assumptions" do you think he had? 

Other times scientists get new results that they don't expect or that don't fit their hypothesis. Good science doesn't ignore it or throw it out if it doesn't "fit their assumptions".

On what information do you base your idea that science has an "assumption of uniformatarianism" please?


Ebor
i know wikipedia isnt always the most reliable source, but here's the page on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

and youre the only person ive ever encountered that questioned if science has that assumption -- the other people (plenty of science majors and what not) have admitted the use of uniformitarianism but have sought to prove its not an assumption or sought to justify the assumption.
What does uniformitarianism assume?
1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material

there's also the assumption that given enough time microevolutionary changes will compound into macroevolution (a fruitfly will not only be a variant fruitfly but something other than a fruitfly).
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
GammaRay said:
jckstraw72 said:
what reason do you have to believe that the Fathers interpreted Genesis according to their science of their day rather than according to divine illumination? im honestly curious about this. are there other instances where such a uniform teaching is questioned on this basis or a similar basis?
I can easily spot mistakes in the Bible. The first thing that comes to my mind is Joshua's story, where 'the Sun stood above the Earth'. Some may say that this is just an artistic view, I say it's an anti-heliocentric one. Of course, I didn't expect people in Ancient Israel to be aware of Heliocentrism.
i think your last sentence makes a crucial point -- the story in Joshua is from Joshua's POV and for all he knew the sun was standing still. But God was the only observer of creation, and Genesis is what he told Moses to write, thus its not from a human POV but rather from God's absolute POV.
I understand that Genesis was borne out of a tradition that had been passed on orally within the Hebrew peoples as they inherited it from Abraham's ancestors.  To say that it's based on what God told Moses to write may be quite misleading--much like the intrinsic belief among many Protestants that the Scriptures were uttered orally by God to the biblical authors (both Old and New Testament) and that these authors therefore made no real participation in what they wrote.  In fact, this argument is often made against the truth of any concept of "Tradition".
im thinking along these lines:

St. Ambrose writes:

Moses "spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision nor in dreams, but mouth to mouth" (Numbers 12:6-8). Plainly and clearly, not by figures nor by riddles, there was bestowed on him the gift of the Divine presence. And so Moses opened his mouth and uttered what the Lord spoke within him, according to the promise He made to him when He directed him to go to King Pharaoh: "Go therefore and I will open thy mouth and instruct thee what thou shouldest speak" (Ex. 4:12). For, if he had already accepted from God what he should say concerning the liberation of the people, how much more should you accept what He should say concerning heaven? Therefore, "not in the persuasive words of wisdom," not in philosophical fallacies, "but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4), he has ventured to say as if he were a witness of the Divine work: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
In a similar vein, St. Basil writes at the very beginning of his Hexaemeron:

This man, who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God.
St. John Chrysostom says that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu-ture, Moses was a prophet of things of the past. He says the following:

All the other prophets spoke either of what was to occur after a long time or of what was about to happen then; but he, the blessed (Moses), who lived many generations after (the creation of the world), was vouchsafed by the guidance of the right hand of the Most High to utter what had been done by the Lord before his own birth. It is for this reason that he begins to speak thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," as if calling out to us all with a loud voice: it is not by the instruction of men that I say this; He Who called them (heaven and earth) out of non-being into being - it is He Who has roused my tongue to relate of them. And therefore I entreat you, let us pay heed to these words as if we heard not Moses but the very Lord of the universe Who speaks through the tongue of Moses, and let us take leave for good of our own opinions.
In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the order in which the creation is described.

The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.
And all this is related to the reality of biological evolution, or of the quarks, or of the electromagnetic field... how?
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
GammaRay said:
jckstraw72 said:
what reason do you have to believe that the Fathers interpreted Genesis according to their science of their day rather than according to divine illumination? im honestly curious about this. are there other instances where such a uniform teaching is questioned on this basis or a similar basis?
I can easily spot mistakes in the Bible. The first thing that comes to my mind is Joshua's story, where 'the Sun stood above the Earth'. Some may say that this is just an artistic view, I say it's an anti-heliocentric one. Of course, I didn't expect people in Ancient Israel to be aware of Heliocentrism.
i think your last sentence makes a crucial point -- the story in Joshua is from Joshua's POV and for all he knew the sun was standing still. But God was the only observer of creation, and Genesis is what he told Moses to write, thus its not from a human POV but rather from God's absolute POV.
I understand that Genesis was borne out of a tradition that had been passed on orally within the Hebrew peoples as they inherited it from Abraham's ancestors.  To say that it's based on what God told Moses to write may be quite misleading--much like the intrinsic belief among many Protestants that the Scriptures were uttered orally by God to the biblical authors (both Old and New Testament) and that these authors therefore made no real participation in what they wrote.  In fact, this argument is often made against the truth of any concept of "Tradition".
im thinking along these lines:

St. Ambrose writes:

Moses "spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision nor in dreams, but mouth to mouth" (Numbers 12:6-8). Plainly and clearly, not by figures nor by riddles, there was bestowed on him the gift of the Divine presence. And so Moses opened his mouth and uttered what the Lord spoke within him, according to the promise He made to him when He directed him to go to King Pharaoh: "Go therefore and I will open thy mouth and instruct thee what thou shouldest speak" (Ex. 4:12). For, if he had already accepted from God what he should say concerning the liberation of the people, how much more should you accept what He should say concerning heaven? Therefore, "not in the persuasive words of wisdom," not in philosophical fallacies, "but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4), he has ventured to say as if he were a witness of the Divine work: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
In a similar vein, St. Basil writes at the very beginning of his Hexaemeron:

This man, who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God.
St. John Chrysostom says that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu-ture, Moses was a prophet of things of the past. He says the following:

All the other prophets spoke either of what was to occur after a long time or of what was about to happen then; but he, the blessed (Moses), who lived many generations after (the creation of the world), was vouchsafed by the guidance of the right hand of the Most High to utter what had been done by the Lord before his own birth. It is for this reason that he begins to speak thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," as if calling out to us all with a loud voice: it is not by the instruction of men that I say this; He Who called them (heaven and earth) out of non-being into being - it is He Who has roused my tongue to relate of them. And therefore I entreat you, let us pay heed to these words as if we heard not Moses but the very Lord of the universe Who speaks through the tongue of Moses, and let us take leave for good of our own opinions.
In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the order in which the creation is described.

The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.
And all this is related to the reality of biological evolution, or of the quarks, or of the electromagnetic field... how?
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
Sorry that I intruded. But then, IMHO, both his post and your reply have nothing to do with the reality of biological evolution. :)
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
GammaRay said:
jckstraw72 said:
what reason do you have to believe that the Fathers interpreted Genesis according to their science of their day rather than according to divine illumination? im honestly curious about this. are there other instances where such a uniform teaching is questioned on this basis or a similar basis?
I can easily spot mistakes in the Bible. The first thing that comes to my mind is Joshua's story, where 'the Sun stood above the Earth'. Some may say that this is just an artistic view, I say it's an anti-heliocentric one. Of course, I didn't expect people in Ancient Israel to be aware of Heliocentrism.
i think your last sentence makes a crucial point -- the story in Joshua is from Joshua's POV and for all he knew the sun was standing still. But God was the only observer of creation, and Genesis is what he told Moses to write, thus its not from a human POV but rather from God's absolute POV.
I understand that Genesis was borne out of a tradition that had been passed on orally within the Hebrew peoples as they inherited it from Abraham's ancestors.  To say that it's based on what God told Moses to write may be quite misleading--much like the intrinsic belief among many Protestants that the Scriptures were uttered orally by God to the biblical authors (both Old and New Testament) and that these authors therefore made no real participation in what they wrote.  In fact, this argument is often made against the truth of any concept of "Tradition".
im thinking along these lines:

St. Ambrose writes:

Moses "spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision nor in dreams, but mouth to mouth" (Numbers 12:6-8). Plainly and clearly, not by figures nor by riddles, there was bestowed on him the gift of the Divine presence. And so Moses opened his mouth and uttered what the Lord spoke within him, according to the promise He made to him when He directed him to go to King Pharaoh: "Go therefore and I will open thy mouth and instruct thee what thou shouldest speak" (Ex. 4:12). For, if he had already accepted from God what he should say concerning the liberation of the people, how much more should you accept what He should say concerning heaven? Therefore, "not in the persuasive words of wisdom," not in philosophical fallacies, "but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4), he has ventured to say as if he were a witness of the Divine work: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
In a similar vein, St. Basil writes at the very beginning of his Hexaemeron:

This man, who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God.
St. John Chrysostom says that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu-ture, Moses was a prophet of things of the past. He says the following:

All the other prophets spoke either of what was to occur after a long time or of what was about to happen then; but he, the blessed (Moses), who lived many generations after (the creation of the world), was vouchsafed by the guidance of the right hand of the Most High to utter what had been done by the Lord before his own birth. It is for this reason that he begins to speak thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," as if calling out to us all with a loud voice: it is not by the instruction of men that I say this; He Who called them (heaven and earth) out of non-being into being - it is He Who has roused my tongue to relate of them. And therefore I entreat you, let us pay heed to these words as if we heard not Moses but the very Lord of the universe Who speaks through the tongue of Moses, and let us take leave for good of our own opinions.
In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the order in which the creation is described.

The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.
And all this is related to the reality of biological evolution, or of the quarks, or of the electromagnetic field... how?
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
Sorry that I intruded. But then, IMHO, both his post and your reply have nothing to do with the reality of biological evolution. :)
they weren't supposed to ... (at least mine wasn't ...)
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
Sorry that I intruded. But then, IMHO, both his post and your reply have nothing to do with the reality of biological evolution. :)
they weren't supposed to ... (at least mine wasn't ...)
Then maybe you guys open another thread and not use "evolution" in the title? Just a thought...
read the OP ... the question is whether or not Genesis should be interpreted literally. relevant to this is whether Moses was simply recording oral tradition or recording what he saw and heard from God.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
GammaRay said:
jckstraw72 said:
And all this is related to the reality of biological evolution, or of the quarks, or of the electromagnetic field... how?
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
Sorry that I intruded. But then, IMHO, both his post and your reply have nothing to do with the reality of biological evolution. :)
they weren't supposed to ... (at least mine wasn't ...)
Then maybe you guys open another thread and not use the term "evolution" in its title? Just a thought...
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
Sorry that I intruded. But then, IMHO, both his post and your reply have nothing to do with the reality of biological evolution. :)
they weren't supposed to ... (at least mine wasn't ...)
Then maybe you guys open another thread and not use "evolution" in the title? Just a thought...
read the OP ... the question is whether or not Genesis should be interpreted literally. relevant to this is whether Moses was simply recording oral tradition or recording what he saw and heard from God.
Alright, fine. :) But then the term "evolution" should not even feature in the title in the first place. :)
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
from the funeral service: "Of old thou hast created me from nothing, And honored me with thy divine image; But when I disobeyed thy commandment, Thou hast returned me to the earth whence I was taken. Lead me back again to thy likeness, Refashioning my ancient beauty."

.... so we see that physical death only enters with sin. interestingly, this is quoted by Met. KALLISTOS in the Orthodox Way.



another related topic is the Fathers' teaching that virginity is a higher path than marriage as that was the state that Adam and Eve were created in and intended to continue in.  They teach that sexual reproduction only began with the Fall -- a more passionate and animalistic method was introduced after our falling away from God. but if man is simply the product of evolution then sexual reproduction would be an inherent part of our existence. this is another way in which evolution contradicts the teachings of the Church.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
im talking about Scripture .... and i was replying to Gamma Ray saying that its misleading to say that God spoke Genesis to Moses.
Sorry that I intruded. But then, IMHO, both his post and your reply have nothing to do with the reality of biological evolution. :)
they weren't supposed to ... (at least mine wasn't ...)
Then maybe you guys open another thread and not use "evolution" in the title? Just a thought...
read the OP ... the question is whether or not Genesis should be interpreted literally. relevant to this is whether Moses was simply recording oral tradition or recording what he saw and heard from God.
Alright, fine. :) But then the term "evolution" should not even feature in the title in the first place. :)
perhaps, but it obviously ties in --- most people that read Genesis strictly allegorically do so because they accept evolution.
 

GammaRay

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Greece
jckstraw72 said:
i think your last sentence makes a crucial point -- the story in Joshua is from Joshua's POV and for all he knew the sun was standing still. But God was the only observer of creation, and Genesis is what he told Moses to write, thus its not from a human POV but rather from God's absolute POV.
Then I suppose that god's intentions was not to hand out a scientific work to newly freed people, but rather provide them with a moral code, so that they can create and build a new society. Filling Genesis with stuff about evolution would only make it harder for them to follow God.

P.S.: Stop quoting quoted quotes quoting others, please. :(
P.S. 2: Why is Chuck Norris in the thread's tags?!?! :S
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Nebelpfade said:
GammaRay said:
P.S. 2: Why is Chuck Norris in the thread's tags?!?! :S
This thread is 26 pages and has gone no where.  Nothing but the all holy beard of Chuck Norris could prevent this thread from being locked a long time ago.
Do I hear the plea to overrule Chuck Norris and to lock the thread? --H., mod.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
haha where does Chuck  Norris come from? havent heard any CN jokes in quite a while.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Heorhij said:
Nebelpfade said:
Heorhij said:
Do I hear the plea to overrule Chuck Norris and to lock the thread? --H., mod.
Yes!  His reign of terror must end!
But it's a sticky... Maybe let's just take a break from posing for a few days or weeks, and then something new might appear.
Unfortunately, as we know from science, something new will not appear in this current generation of the species, but through several generations, we might see a significant change.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/incredible.html

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

This high-quality series enters the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory. An evolutionary scientist comes face-to-face with exciting and clear evidence of Divine design in nature, and becomes an ardent Creationist. Beautiful and fascinating photography. Wonderful for the whole family, these films are easy to understand and uses non-technical language.

Post modified to include excerpt from the link.


Dan,

From now on, please copy and paste an excerpt from any site you link.  Thank you.

Salpy
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Dan-Romania said:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/incredible.html
What's the matter with that, Dan-Romania? Are you supporting the views of this scientist on biological evolution? Why don't you try and discuss your position first?
As for me, I don't believe in biological evolution "tout court", but I support the Day-Age theory and believe in gaps in the Genesis genealogies (whose characters are historical from my point of view). I used the chonology to identify the Deluge of Noah with the 5600 BC local flood in the Black Sea, and have come to the idea that Adam (as a "special" human) was created somewhere in 12500 BC, and this allowed me to feel comfortable with official science and archeology. I don't think that the Orthodox should be striken by the concepts supported in the link you gave us, since biological evolution and the billions of years proposed by secular science don't necessarily come together... Progressive Creationists are a clear example of this!
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Dan-Romania said:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/incredible.html
What's the matter with that, Dan-Romania? Are you supporting the views of this scientist on biological evolution? Why don't you try and discuss your position first?
As for me, I don't believe in biological evolution "tout court",
There is nothing to "believe" there. Scientific theories are not a subject of belief.

 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
If you are going to read works by Dr. Jobe Martin, you should at least read works by Dr. Thomas Eisner as well then.  He proposes many thorough opposing arguments to Dr. Martin's new-found creationist views, especially when Dr. Martin's ID-Bugs (i.e.: bombardier beetles) are used as 'proof'.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
you know what is the most common result i found upon evolution ? missing fossiles :-} ; everybody who says evolution is a fact is a liar;The theory of Evolution is bogus ; Sure it is an interesting and captivating story and opinion , but nothing more.I`m tottaly in for biology , but evolution crosses the line of reality , and bounderies , if a forced theory a deceivement lie.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Dan-Romania said:
you know what is the most common result i found upon evolution ? missing fossiles :-} ; everybody who says evolution is a fact is a liar;The theory of Evolution is bogus ; Sure it is an interesting and captivating story and opinion , but nothing more.I`m tottaly in for biology , but evolution crosses the line of reality , and bounderies , if a forced theory a deceivement lie.
It's a miracle that we have ANY fossils at all...

As for lies, please understand: scientific theories are true UNTIL or UNLESS they are disproved. So far, nothing really disproves the theory of biological evolution. What some people think as a "disproof" is, actually, not even addressing the theory of biological evolution; rather, it is a "disproof" of what THEY erroneously think the theory of biological evolution is.

In logic, it's called "strawman argument." Create something that in your mind is a certain theory (while in fact it is not), and attack it. People do it all the time.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Dan-Romania said:
everybody who says evolution is a fact is a liar
Yes. Evolution is the theory that explains the facts. I would submit also that everybody who says evolution is a fact does not understand science.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Dan-Romania said:
you know what is the most common result i found upon evolution ? missing fossiles :-}
What "missing fossils" are you thinking of, please?  What study have you made of Paleontology?  How do you know that there are fossils "missing" rather then not found as yet?

Sure it is an interesting and captivating story and opinion , but nothing more.
Why do you think that it is "captivating"? 

Along with the link you gave, will you tell us what authors or sites you base your opinion on, please? 

Ebor
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Dan-Romania said:
everybody who says evolution is a fact is a liar
Yes. Evolution is the theory that explains the facts. I would submit also that everybody who says evolution is a fact does not understand science.
Well, that life evolves (i.e. that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time) is a fact. A statement that because of this change in the genetic makeup of populations, driven by mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, non-random sexual reproduction and other factors, new taxonomic forms descend from older taxonomic forms - that, of course, is a theory.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Heorhij said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Dan-Romania said:
everybody who says evolution is a fact is a liar
Yes. Evolution is the theory that explains the facts. I would submit also that everybody who says evolution is a fact does not understand science.
Well, that life evolves (i.e. that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time) is a fact. A statement that because of this change in the genetic makeup of populations, driven by mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, non-random sexual reproduction and other factors, new taxonomic forms descend from older taxonomic forms - that, of course, is a theory.
Exactly. Thank you for the clarification; I certainly do not want to add to the enormous (in the truest sense of the word) amount of misleading information on this topic.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
^^You are most welcome. It should be said, also, that people tend to misunderstand and misuse the term "theory." From Dan's posts, it seems like to him, a theory is just a "nice story," something that people make up. But theories are not merely "stories." Newton's mechanics was, essentially, a theory (even though it consists of three "laws" - which are, in fact, three hypotheses) - but it was based on a huge number of factual observations, Newton's own, and Galileo's, and other people's. Same thing Darwin's theory.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
you evolutionist i don`t give a .... on your evolution , this thread should be closed btw , it is going to astrayed because when people fallow something wich is not true they tend to get mischiavious , lie about their beliefs , attack those who don`t agree with them . Yes it is beautifull to understand things in the light of true science , but stupid things such as evolutionist theories makes from christians an ass.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Dan-Romania said:
you evolutionist i don`t give a .... on your evolution , this thread should be closed btw , it is going to astrayed because when people fallow something wich is not true they tend to get mischiavious , lie about their beliefs , attack those who don`t agree with them . Yes it is beautifull to understand things in the light of true science , but stupid things such as evolutionist theories makes from christians an ass.
You're arguing from nothing more than raw emotion.  Can you give any good rational arguments for why Christians should reject evolution?  You haven't done so yet.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
PeterTheAleut said:
Dan-Romania said:
you evolutionist i don`t give a .... on your evolution , this thread should be closed btw , it is going to astrayed because when people fallow something wich is not true they tend to get mischiavious , lie about their beliefs , attack those who don`t agree with them . Yes it is beautifull to understand things in the light of true science , but stupid things such as evolutionist theories makes from christians an ass.
You're arguing from nothing more than raw emotion.  Can you give any good rational arguments for why Christians should reject evolution?  You haven't done so yet.
And also why Christians should reject (or accept) the general and special relativity theory, quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic and molecular structure of matter, quarks, etc.? :)
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
God was first , the Maker ... as I said true science is appreciable ... the revealing of things in the light of true science is beautifull , wich is not the case here.I don`t give a .... on you being a biology teacher Heorji , I don`t like you and this time i`m not going to apologise , as long as your not coming with anything real about this , not just fairytales I don`t see why this topic must exist.I propose to put and end to this nonsense and to this stupidity and close this topic temporarily untill of a request from someone who really has something new to come with not just picking up fights .I don`t like you evolutionists.You are a bunch of apes , who think "pigs can fly".None of your arguments make any sense.And as a biology teacher Heorji you should of know things better.


To eliminate confusion, the text of my warning has been moved to another post where the personal attack is even more clearly visible.  -PtA
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Or to build a seppareted tread just for Evolution.I think the term creationist is used incorectly.Make their own thread better , and close this one.Moderate get on it.Cease the stupidity , let them have their own thread and discuss it there what they please and think about their Evolution , without having the need of arguing with people who are "creationists".
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Dan-Romania said:
God was first , the Maker ... as I said true science is appreciable ... the revealing of things in the light of true science is beautifull ,
OK, but just HOW were things "revealed" in schience? Before 1543, pretty much everyone thought that the Sun is orbiting the Earth. But in 1543, Copernicus published his book, in which he showed, very "theoretically," using mathematical equasions, that it is more consistent with the existing evidence to think that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. Do you realize how many people in those days said, "he is crazy, he is saying that the pigs can fly! It's just so obvious that the earth is immobile and that the sun moves around it!"?
 

GammaRay

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Greece
I hope that Dan-Romania is kidding! :-[
Probably (s)he doesn't know that Genesis accepts evolution (I'll be back with some verse).

(Boy, I wish I could find some non-Orthodox young-Earth-creationists in Greece. ;D)
 
Top