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

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
GabrieltheCelt said:
Don't let this trouble you dear brother.  There are billions of Orthodox Christians worldwide.  There are maybe 200 people who belong to this forum that actively participate.  Of them, I would imagine only 70 to 100 or so have taken the poll.  Now, you can begin to get a clearer picture of the results.  Remember also, you can (and will) find every opinion on the internet.  Even amongst our brothers and sisters.  But they are not our adversaries, Satan is.  Our responsibility is, rather than become disheartened or upset with them, to pray for all Orthodox Christians.  :) 
Billions?

Keep in mind that the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized a stance on this issue in an Ecumenical Council....an opinion either way (or none at all) is not neccessary for salvation...
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Torrey said:
Billions?

Keep in mind that the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized a stance on this issue in an Ecumenical Council....an opinion either way (or none at all) is not neccessary for salvation...
I agree with you, dear brother.  I was merely speaking of us in terms of numbers of membership in the Orthodox Church (for lack of a better word) and not numbers of people who hold a particular view. 
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Torrey said:
Billions?

Keep in mind that the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized a stance on this issue in an Ecumenical Council....an opinion either way (or none at all) is not neccessary for salvation...
Thanks for the point but how the world begun and creation in general is a fascinating topic.

My curious mind wanders and needs answers unfortunately.

To add there are so many varying opinions in our own Faith where I have to use my own mind to pick and choose the best answer.

Need Help with this one.

God Bless

God Bless
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Byzantine2008 said:
Thanks for the point but how the world begun and creation in general is a fascinating topic.

My curious mind wanders and needs answers unfortunately.

To add there are so many varying opinions in our own Faith where I have to use my own mind to pick and choose the best answer.

Need Help with this one.

God Bless

God Bless
I have the same curiosities. It is nothing more than pride that fuels our ego to know everything. Chances are that we will never know. The evolution theory along with the big bang are not a proven fact. There is a big problem call the horizon problem with the big bang. In fact It destroys it and the evolution theory is even worse.

  The current theory in fashion is that somehow, in the primordial soup, a bolt of lightning struck a bunch of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and a few sulfur atoms... and they magically combined randomly to form amino acids.

This has actually been attempted in the laboratory numerous times. Despite setting up conditions as favorably as possible, the best modern science has been able to do is to make a carbonaceous sludge containing perhaps a half dozen different amino acids in small numbers - with an equal mixture of levo and dextro molecules. It was hailed in the scientific literature and the popular press as a great triumph!

However, even if we accept on faith that somehow 20 correctly oriented (100% levo isomers) amino acids could have been spontaneously generated by the legendary bolt of lightning, with no intelligent direction at all - they would have had to be made at the exact same time and in the exact same place.

Amino acids denature and degrade fairly rapidly. The mean half life for amino acids in topsoil is 1.7 hours, and in subsoil is 12.2 hours:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a45634a8145785

So, even if you magically create all 20 amino acids at once, in the same puddle of pond scum struck by that fortuitous bolt of lightning, and they all just happen to be 100% levo isomers, you've got less than 24 hours for that group of amino acids to somehow find a way to randomly link themselves up into no fewer than 239 protein chains (the smallest theoretical number of proteins required to form an autonomous living thing), with an average size of 410 amino acids per protein, and all the amino acids must be linked in just the perfect sequence, then find a way to synthesize DNA and mRNA in order to replicate themselves.

And all this furious activity has to happen before the amino acids begin to degrade in 12 hours tops.

3. Even if we grant the evolutionists trillions of lightning events involving trillions of primoridial soup ponds over billions of years of the earth's existence... fine - knock of 20, 30, 1,000, heck even 10,000 powers of 10 from the odds I presented earlier. And the probability is still 1 in 10^19,345 that 239 proteins in the smallest theoretical primitive single-celled living thing were all randomly created as 100% levo isomers!

And we still haven't even mentioned the fact that they not only have to be 100% levo isomers - each and every one of those 239 proteins has to have hundreds, if not thousands of amino acids correctly sequenced!

And, remember, all this must happen in 12 hours before our amino acids begin to degrade and are useless.

So, I admire the evolutionists. Their faith is every bit as powerful as the believers!  ;)
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
GabrieltheCelt said:
I agree with you, dear brother.  I was merely speaking of us in terms of numbers of membership in the Orthodox Church (for lack of a better word) and not numbers of people who hold a particular view. 
Billions?  Meaning no disrespect, but when giving numbers, what would be your souce for "billiions" please in the number of persons who are EO today?

The count at Adherents.com is 240,000,000 "Orthodox/Eastern Christian".  The RC is larger with 1,050,000,000. 
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html  about a quarter of the way down the page. 

Accuracy and truth are important when giving statistics.

Ebor
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Ebor said:
Billions?  Meaning no disrespect, but when giving numbers, what would be your souce for "billiions" please in the number of persons who are EO today?
The Church Millitant (those on earth) and The Church Triumphant (the Cloud of Witnesses in Heaven).  An Anglican, being outside the pale of Holy Orthodoxy,  can be forgiven for being ignorant of this important aspect. :)
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
GabrieltheCelt said:
The Church Millitant (those on earth) and The Church Triumphant (the Cloud of Witnesses in Heaven).  An Anglican, being outside the pale of Holy Orthodoxy,  can be forgiven for being ignorant of this important aspect. :)
Before the Industrial Revolution (say AD 1700 for argument's sake), the population of the Earth never exceeded 600 million. In fact, in 1950 the population of the Earth was only 2.4 billion.

Let us assume that there were four generations per century and that average lifespan was 50 years. If the whole world were Orthodox from the time of Christ until now, there would be about 15 billion Orthodox Christians. Now, if the average ratio of Orthodox Christians to those of other faiths in the last two millennia is any more than 2:13, we can say the possibility exists that there are "billions" in the Church. If not, such a claim would be proven false.

But there are definitely millions in the Church.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Let us assume that...
Still, I hope most understood the point I was trying to make; that being, despite the posturing of the academic elitist's of the world, Orthodoxy does not now, nor will it ever, place any hopes that one day the Scriptures will be scientifically proven correct.  Those who try try in vain, for they have completely missed the point.  The academic elitists and skeptics who say "This or that couldn't have happened because..." illustrate that they don't understand the meaning of Holy Orthodoxy.  "A man lacking understanding has no need of wisdom, for he is rather led by lack of discernment." Proverbs 18:2
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
GabrieltheCelt said:
The Church Millitant (those on earth) and The Church Triumphant (the Cloud of Witnesses in Heaven).  An Anglican, being outside the pale of Holy Orthodoxy,  can be forgiven for being ignorant of this important aspect. :)
I can assure you that I am not "ignorant" of the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant.  Also these concepts are not solely known in EO, but are used in the RC and others including the Anglicans.  Your reply comes across as rather condescending as well as assuming that you know what I know.  :-\

If I may be a pedant, though you wrote:

"There are billions of Orthodox Christians worldwide."  One might reasonably understand this to refer to those human beings alive at the moment on the planet Earth which is not the case.   

Accurate data is not academic posturing but is important in supporting truth.

May I ask if, in your last post, you think that anyone who thinks that God used evolution to bring about Creation is an "academic elitist"? 


With respect,

Ebor 



 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Demetrios G. said:
I have the same curiosities. It is nothing more than pride that fuels our ego to know everything. Chances are that we will never know. The evolution theory along with the big bang are not a proven fact. There is a big problem call the horizon problem with the big bang. In fact It destroys it
Horizon problem?  Could you please explain what this is?  I've never heard of it before.

and the evolution theory is even worse.

  The current theory in fashion is that somehow, in the primordial soup, a bolt of lightning struck a bunch of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and a few sulfur atoms... and they magically combined randomly to form amino acids.
Actually, this isn't evolutionary theory, nor can it even be called a theory at all.  To my knowledge, evolutionary theory attempts to explain how already existing life forms change over long periods of time; it does not and cannot address how life itself began.

So, I admire the evolutionists. Their faith is every bit as powerful as the believers!  ;)
As also do I admire your stubborn insistence, in the face of such explanations to the contrary, that science is about proving facts, which it is not. ;)  Again, science is about attempting to formulate the most viable explanations of what we observe in nature--it is not about proving these explanations to be factual.  How can it be, since falsifiability is one of the key aspects of the scientific method?  Can something be factual and falsifiable at the same time?
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
GabrieltheCelt said:
Still, I hope most understood the point I was trying to make; that being, despite the posturing of the academic elitist's of the world, Orthodoxy does not now, nor will it ever, place any hopes that one day the Scriptures will be scientifically proven correct.  Those who try try in vain, for they have completely missed the point.  The academic elitists and skeptics who say "This or that couldn't have happened because..." illustrate that they don't understand the meaning of Holy Orthodoxy.  "A man lacking understanding has no need of wisdom, for he is rather led by lack of discernment." Proverbs 18:2
At the same time, there are religious people just as skeptical of science when they say, "This or that couldn't have happened because of this Scripture or this Father's writings." I maintain that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but can both be applied in their own realms to get a clearer picture of our world and our existence therein.

And I believe that millions of Orthodox Christians worldwide would concur. ;)
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Ebor said:
  Your reply comes across as rather condescending...
Then I sincerely apologize for that.  I certainly didn't mean 'ignorant' in a malicious sense.
 
Ebor said:
May I ask if, in your last post, you think that anyone who thinks that God used evolution to bring about Creation is an "academic elitist"?
Certainly not everyone, but many, yes.  And the reason I say this is because if one offers this theory as one out of many, I don't see anything wrong with that.  But it's when we begin asserting our personal belief as definate probability that we begin to pretend we know something we really don't.  This is the hallmark of an elitist; to assume they know or understand something you and I can't possibly begin to understand.  There are many in the world, and even some on this forum, who would have us believe that evolution is the only explanation and that those who take the scriptures literally are simply uneducated simpletons.  I would be foolish, and even add to the confusion, if I were to say either one is wholly correct or incorrect.  Either way, though, for a Christian one of the only 'hows' that really matters is theosis.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
It is nothing more than pride that fuels our ego to know everything.
"nothing more"??  What of curiousity?  What of a sense of wonder when something new is learnt or discovered?  Since God created the Universe with so many amazing and wonderful things why would He not also have created humans to want to learn about it? 

I'm afraid that I must disagree with your generalization.

With respect,

Ebor
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,740
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
^ Curiosity led to Eve eating the forbidden fruit.  :)  I guess we're all the consequences of what she learned.  ;)

The followers of Nietschze exclaimed "God Is Dead" out of sheer pride and sheer audacity.

I have to admit that I liked Demetrios G.'s amino acids explanation - a job well done <applause icon> !!
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,740
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
PeterTheAleut said:
Horizon problem?  Could you please explain what this is?  I've never heard of it before.
A phenomenon related to the speed of light and how far light traveled at the moment of the Big Bang.  Assume 1 second after the Big Bang where light would travel 300,000 km and no observer beyond 300,000 km could "look into the past" since the light has yet to reach the observer.

The horizon problem has been addressed by inflation where the Universe expanded rapidly during the first 10-34 seconds of the Universe.  The following website provides for a better explanation.

Horizon Problem Explanation
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
The Horizon Problem

  • Cosmic background radiation indicates extremely homogeneous temperature throughout the universe
  • Two points at equal distance of 10 billion light years from earth yet in opposite directions are 20 billion light years away from each other.
  • If the universe is only 12-14 billion years old, then any signal emitted from one of the two points would have to have traveled at faster than the speed of light to reach the other point, a violation of the basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
  • As the universe expands, quantum theory's uncertainty principle leads us to believe that some regions of the universe will cool at rates faster than other regions; yet the incredible homogeneity of the universe's overall temperature indicates that the universe as a whole cooled at the same rate.
  • How can this happen if heat cannot transfer from one side of the universe to the other without exceeding the speed of light?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/cosmo.html#c5
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Information on Cosmic Inflation theory and how this solves the Horizon Problem, as well as the problem of the universe's flatness:

http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm
 
Top