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

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
pensateomnia said:
Asteriktos said:
I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
I suppose one could believe in Intelligent Design and believe a flying spaghetti monster created life on earth.  Not that ID necessarily leads to belief in FSM; rather, one can believe the Designer to be any conscious, intelligent entity.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
PeterTheAleut said:
pensateomnia said:
Asteriktos said:
I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
I suppose one could believe in Intelligent Design and believe a flying spaghetti monster created life on earth.  Not that ID necessarily leads to belief in FSM; rather, one can believe the Designer to be any conscious, intelligent entity.
Even if one were to assume that the Intelligent Designer were the Judaic-Christian God, he is relugated to the "God of the Gaps" by Intelligent Design  suppositions. He is an unreliable and limited God because his existence is based almost entirely on humans remaining ignorant and ascribing to him all that we don't know. As we push forward in discovering more and understanding more of our universe the domain of this "God" inevitably shrinks.
I think that's what makes "Intelligent Design" bad theology.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
jnorm888 said:
Asteriktos said:
I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
I'm no longer a Young Earth Creationist. At least not in the strict sense, to be honest I don't know what kind of creationist I am now, but I have been thinking about this for years. And my speculation would be ....and I know that a number of YEC reject the big bang, while others accept the idea.

But I would say:

1.) If it is true that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light(A YEC came up with this idea first, but was laughed at, now that a noncreationist advocated the idea it's acceptable to believe in....well at least for a few nano seconds or seconds or whatever)

Then it really shouldn't matter if you have a different cosmological modal. Instead of Stars, Black Holes......etc. forming slowly over billions of years, they can form quickly from the speed and power of the initial expansion. Don't forget that Energy equals mater times light squared, and so..........why couldn't that light turn into energy and matter? Why can't all the elements we have on our chemistry chart be formed by the light from the initial expansion of the universe?

And if light was there "initially", then why should it matter if the light of some star is now 13 or 14 billion light years away when both came from the same source? At one time that star wasn't 13 or 14 billion light years away. At one time......the stuff that eventually formed that star was an "inch" or less away of what would eventually form our planet.
This is an approach I really never considered.
As for your "I don't know what kind of creationist I am now" dilemma, just a suggestion: don't classify yourself. As for me, I look into history and nature and try to 'see' the Bible events in them, and I know that some events (the Genesis 1 narration) are "philosophy of nature in poetry", some others (the Adam and Eve story) are allegories for now lost historical events of the past, and that others (such as the Battle of the Vale of Siddim) are so well set in an historical context (the Bible gives the 'corrupted' names of Hammurabi, Kudur-Mabuk, Rim-Sin I and Tidhaliya in the text, from a 1770s BCE period) that it would be useless to deny their reality. Every word of the Bible has been chosen by its human authors to convey spiritual teachings that a literal historical narration wouldn't have been able to do by itself, and they did so under divine inspiration. For this reason I deny none of the events of the Bible, but I try to see if there's a possible allegorization or poetry behind before saying "it must be literal".

In Christ,   Alex
Thanks for the advice, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue.





ICXC NIKA
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Riddikulus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
pensateomnia said:
Asteriktos said:
I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
I suppose one could believe in Intelligent Design and believe a flying spaghetti monster created life on earth.  Not that ID necessarily leads to belief in FSM; rather, one can believe the Designer to be any conscious, intelligent entity.
Even if one were to assume that the Intelligent Designer were the Judaic-Christian God, he is relugated to the "God of the Gaps" by Intelligent Design  suppositions. He is an unreliable and limited God because his existence is based almost entirely on humans remaining ignorant and ascribing to him all that we don't know. As we push forward in discovering more and understanding more of our universe the domain of this "God" inevitably shrinks.
I think that's what makes "Intelligent Design" bad theology.
Not necessarily, just as atheistic evolutionists and scientists evolve and change ideas, theistic scientists also evolve and change ideas.

Dr. Alister Mcgrath solved the God of the Gaps issue. It's in his book called "the Dawkin's Delusion". I'll quote him once I figure out where I put the book. He is a Theistic Evolutionist, now I don't agree with him on every issue.....because I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist, but I do grab other ideas from him. Everyone tries to put Creationism in a static/stale box when that's far from the truth.







ICXC NIKA
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
jnorm888 said:
Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"?
Quite likely.  Hydrogen, the most prevalent element in the universe, fuses into helium in the core of a star until there's little hydrogen left, then the star will contract enough to reach the density and temperature necessary to fuse the helium into even heavier elements like beryllium.  A small star like our sun may not be able to keep going past its consumption of all its helium, but the thousands-of-times-more-massive giants and supergiants will continue this cycle of fusion, fuel consumption, contraction, and fusion of heavier elements until their cores become iron, which just doesn't seem to fuse into heavier elements at the temperatures sustainable by these behemoths.  Eventually, such an iron-cored star will then explode in a supernova, which may actually be hot enough to fuse some of the iron into the even heavier elements, but I'm just guessing at this.  Of course, what's left of the star's core will likely continue collapsing to form a neutron star or even further to rip a hole in the very fabric of space and time itself.  I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jnorm888 said:
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
Yes, C=the speed of light, which is the speed of anything with zero mass. All objects with zero mass travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light. So relativity is not restricted to light, but really applies to any object in the universe which is in motion--and, since everything in the universe is in motion, this equation can be used to calculate the energy of any object in the universe.

Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?
Peter did an exceptional job explaining the fusion of elements in a star, but I want to add that light is usually a byproduct of this fusion, and that the colour of the light (that is, its wavelength and frequency) is determined at least in part by the elements that comprise the star. So perhaps light is not the cause of the fusion, but it could be an indicator of what is being fused.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
jnorm888 said:
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA
Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,  Alex
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
jnorm888 said:
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA
Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex
Photons and gluons can only be considered equivalent if you assume commutative symmetry. Is there a reason you prefer this model over non-abelian models despite its experimental difficulties in the past?
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,870
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
PeterTheAleut said:
I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.
Or, at least, this is the only conclusion we can draw at the moment based on our observational (can't travel into a black hole and report about it), computational (I don't think we have the ability to process the information even if it could be gathered), and theoretical (we need new physics to describe things we don't understand) limitations.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Fr. George said:
PeterTheAleut said:
I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.
Or, at least, this is the only conclusion we can draw at the moment based on our observational (can't travel into a black hole and report about it), computational (I don't think we have the ability to process the information even if it could be gathered), and theoretical (we need new physics to describe things we don't understand) limitations.
This is not technically true, black holes do emit X-ray radiation (photons) and possibly some other elementary particles, which may especially be the case if an elementary particles (e.g. one or more of the gluons) is definitively associated with the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of mass (gravity). In fact, there is a critical mass for a black hole, one that is large enough to create a temperature in equilibrium with background microwave radiation (roughly the size of Mercury), a smaller blackhole will eventually evaporate, while a larger one will only continue to grow.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Asteriktos said:
I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
Francis Collins calls it bad theology because ID is essentially a "God-of-the-Gaps" theology, as well as portraying God as a "clumsy Creator" who has to intervene here and there.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
GiC said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
jnorm888 said:
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA
Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex
Photons and gluons can only be considered equivalent if you assume commutative symmetry. Is there a reason you prefer this model over non-abelian models despite its experimental difficulties in the past?
I know there are many experimental complications in affirming an abelian model and that the standard model is technically a gauge model, and thus non-abelian. Anyway, I'm an old school thinker, and I believe that the gauge model alone hasn't solved all problems, especially regarding the past. Modern accelerators, despite all possible amounts of energy at our disposal, are very far from simulating an energy level required to bring us exactly to the Big Bang conditions when the universe decayed from pure energy into a miscellanea of high-energy particles. The breaking of the simmetry from photons down to the other low-energy particle, afaik, is clearly the best solution. As for the opposite path (here's the true problem) the difficulties are greater and I perfectly know that not all symmetries work backwards as they do forwards (I say this specifically in reference of QED, of course). After all, this principle has allowed scientists to explain out the theoretical "balance" between quarks and antiquarks after the Big Bang, a thing which, as we can see, has determined the constitution of a matter-based universe.
Anyway, I'm fairly convinced that when Big-Bang like energies are implied, photons would/might/could become the only constituent of the world. Of course this is a pure speculation from my mind, and though I'm interested in science since I was 9, I can't consider myself a scientist. There's still much room for studies, hypothesis, speculations etc to get to know which laws govern our universe. What we know for certain is that many of the great mysteries have been solved at this time. The standard model as we know it is far from complete though, there are many rival theories trying to complete it and include gravity once for all in the model, and none of them has prevailed up to now in a definitive way. In fact, we aren't sure that photons are massless (the doubt is getting stronger and stronger among scientists!) and we can't observe free gluons since they're undetectable when they are confined within hadrons, so observations and studies at the moment haven't untied this Gordian Knot. I still hope 'our' European LHC in Geneve might study these problems as never before and give us an answer while I'm still alive (I'm 25, so there might be enough time, God willing!).

A question: do you think that a non-abelian model could somehow affect a theory such as that proposed by jnorm888? Personally, I don't see any, but I'd be interested to know your opinion!

In Christ,   Alex
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
GiC said:
Fr. George said:
PeterTheAleut said:
I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.
Or, at least, this is the only conclusion we can draw at the moment based on our observational (can't travel into a black hole and report about it), computational (I don't think we have the ability to process the information even if it could be gathered), and theoretical (we need new physics to describe things we don't understand) limitations.
This is not technically true, black holes do emit X-ray radiation (photons) and possibly some other elementary particles, which may especially be the case if an elementary particles (e.g. one or more of the gluons) is definitively associated with the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of mass (gravity). In fact, there is a critical mass for a black hole, one that is large enough to create a temperature in equilibrium with background microwave radiation (roughly the size of Mercury), a smaller blackhole will eventually evaporate, while a larger one will only continue to grow.
Very true. The little black-holes are cosmic recyclers which, thanks to Hawking radiation, recycle matter into photons until they completely evaporate. Larger black-holes behave more like rubbish dumps or a sewage system where our cosmic rubbish is stocked once for all.

In Christ,    Alex
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
GiC said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
jnorm888 said:
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA
Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex
Photons and gluons can only be considered equivalent if you assume commutative symmetry. Is there a reason you prefer this model over non-abelian models despite its experimental difficulties in the past?
I know there are many experimental complications in affirming an abelian model and that the standard model is technically a gauge model, and thus non-abelian. Anyway, I'm an old school thinker, and I believe that the gauge model alone hasn't solved all problems, especially regarding the past. Modern accelerators, despite all possible amounts of energy at our disposal, are very far from simulating an energy level required to bring us exactly to the Big Bang conditions when the universe decayed from pure energy into a miscellanea of high-energy particles. The breaking of the simmetry from photons down to the other low-energy particle, afaik, is clearly the best solution. As for the opposite path (here's the true problem) the difficulties are greater and I perfectly know that not all symmetries work backwards as they do forwards (I say this specifically in reference of QED, of course). After all, this principle has allowed scientists to explain out the theoretical "balance" between quarks and antiquarks after the Big Bang, a thing which, as we can see, has determined the constitution of a matter-based universe.
Hence, my main problem with assuming commutative symmetry, it may make things work nicely at times, but as a mathematician you have to have a good reason to convince me of a property like that. ;)

Anyway, I'm fairly convinced that when Big-Bang like energies are implied, photons would/might/could become the only constituent of the world. Of course this is a pure speculation from my mind, and though I'm interested in science since I was 9, I can't consider myself a scientist. There's still much room for studies, hypothesis, speculations etc to get to know which laws govern our universe. What we know for certain is that many of the great mysteries have been solved at this time. The standard model as we know it is far from complete though, there are many rival theories trying to complete it and include gravity once for all in the model, and none of them has prevailed up to now in a definitive way. In fact, we aren't sure that photons are massless (the doubt is getting stronger and stronger among scientists!) and we can't observe free gluons since they're undetectable when they are confined within hadrons, so observations and studies at the moment haven't untied this Gordian Knot. I still hope 'our' European LHC in Geneve might study these problems as never before and give us an answer while I'm still alive (I'm 25, so there might be enough time, God willing!).
I'm not convinced photons have (non-relativistic) mass; however, I'm not at all opposed to the hypothesis that all mass is actually relativistic mass, it actually fits well with what experimental evidence we have; though I'd be much more comfortable with any theory of fundamental particles if it could better describe the interaction between them and spacetime, i.e. quantum gravity. And I also think that the Standard Model is far from perfect, it's good but I believe that many of the particles aren't elementary particles and whether or not there are elementary particles not yet know or considered, I'm not sure.

Unfortunately too much of modern theoretical particle physics is speculation without enough experimental evidence to truly form an informed model, I'll think I'll await further experimental evidence before forming too strong of an opinion...they need to get that damned LHC up and running and give us some real data.


A question: do you think that a non-abelian model could somehow affect a theory such as that proposed by jnorm888? Personally, I don't see any, but I'd be interested to know your opinion!

In Christ,   Alex
No, I don't. I don't find enough evidence to suggest that particles, even massless ones, could move faster than c, RELATIVE TO LOCAL SPACETIME, and certainly not after the Planck epoch. That they were moving at much higher speeds relative to each other while the universe was flattening out and assuming its current geometry is likely, but under these conditions, since gravity can only move at the velocity c (c being the speed of gravity is really much more significant than it being the speed of light), it would have been impossible for more complex particles to form. More complex particles, to say nothing of gravitational bodies, could not have formed until physical conditions much closer to our universe today than during the big bang existed.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,222
Reaction score
91
Points
48
Age
41
Thank you for the answers regarding ID being bad theology :)
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Thanks for your sincere answer, dear GiC. It is a pleasure to discuss these things in freedom.
On the LHC I would add one little anecdote: I personally met with the director of INFN (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare - National Institute for Nuclear Physics) which is the Italian institute affiliated to CERN, after a conference he took on Dan Brown's Angels and Demons and specifically on how much "good science" there is in it (half and half was the answer!).
When he was asked why the LHC didn't work, he admitted that they projected the freezing mechanisms of the accelerator with low-cost materials and the unexpected result was that it just didn't work and damaged the accelerator. In a certain sense, the financial crisis affects science too! BTW he also said it will take one or two years to repair the damage and substitute the accelerator's freezing system, which is necessary to reboot LHC. Let's hope for a good outcome and for some new answers!

In Christ,  Alex
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Asteriktos said:
Thank you for the answers regarding ID being bad theology :)
Kenneth Miller also mentioned ID tends to lead to a deceptive God, that what may seem to be too old using radioactive dating or what may seem to show genetic similarities among species does not really mean that the former is too old or that the latter proves an evolutionary process.  Just that God made it seem that way.

Also, I personally thing it's bad theology because if one is to claim ID is a science, and then say that the Designer is the Trinity under Christian teachings, essentially under the scientific method, you're saying God is testable, and therefore He is really not beyond creation or uncreated, but created.  IMO, God under ID isn't God anymore.

God bless.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
It seems as if I didn't know everything there was to know about creationism. Or maybe, he just used a different term that I wasn't use to.

Dr. Douglas Jacoby calls himself an "Evolutionary Creationist". Now I don't know if that is his own personal term for himself, but it seemed more like "Theistic Evolution" to me. Maybe he just didn't know about the term "Theistic evolution", and just wanted to try out a new term. I don't know, but here is a video of him:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/user/douglasjacoby#p/c/CE81926D5AA54286 ("Science, Man, God: A Creationism vs. Evolution Debate" Dr. Michael Shermer vs Dr. Douglas Jacoby)

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/user/douglasjacoby#p/c/CE81926D5AA54286

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/user/douglasjacoby#p/c/CE81926D5AA54286


A review of the debate:
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4803 (Round Two: Douglas Jacoby and Michael Shermer Debate) 












ICXC NIKA
 

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
jnorm888 said:
Dr. Douglas Jacoby calls himself an "Evolutionary Creationist". Now I don't know if that is his own personal term for himself, but it seemed more like "Theistic Evolution" to me. Maybe he just didn't know about the term "Theistic evolution", and just wanted to try out a new term. I don't know
I've heard both terms used fairly often, but they usually speak more about the individuals background rather than their view on evolution.  I find Evolutionary Creationist is mentioned within certain protestant circles (one of the reasons I believe they emphasise creationism in the term), while Theistic Evolution is much more common in Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic circles.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Nebelpfade said:
jnorm888 said:
Dr. Douglas Jacoby calls himself an "Evolutionary Creationist". Now I don't know if that is his own personal term for himself, but it seemed more like "Theistic Evolution" to me. Maybe he just didn't know about the term "Theistic evolution", and just wanted to try out a new term. I don't know
I've heard both terms used fairly often, but they usually speak more about the individuals background rather than their view on evolution.  I find Evolutionary Creationist is mentioned within certain protestant circles (one of the reasons I believe they emphasise creationism in the term), while Theistic Evolution is much more common in Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic circles.
Interesting.  That's the first time I heard that term.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
FormerReformer said:
My main problems with scientific explanations about the origins of the universe is that modern science assumes too many constants in an entropic universe.
Would you care to explain what you mean by this?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Has anyone else here read Philip Sherrard's books, "Human Image: World Image" or "Rape of Man and Nature"? If not, I would highly recommend them. They reveal some fundamental philosophical problems between modern science and Christianity, going way beyond the creationism vs. evolution debate. In fact, both sides of the debate tend to rely on the dualist mindset that he critiques. There is a genuine Christian critique of modern science, Darwinism, etc., which has nothing to do with "fundamentalism".
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The following started HERE in Faith Issues  -PtA


Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
 

Rosehip

Archon
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Then again, the account also calls "the evening and the morning" a day. So far I've never met anyone, Jews included, who call an evening and a morning a day. Traditionally, a day is calculated from sunset to sunset, not from sunset to sunrise.All throughout history there have been those who read the Genesis story as elevated prose and those who interpreted it literally. The allegorical approach is nothing new. What is new is making a lucrative business out of a literal reading of Genesis Chapter One.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Christianus said:
Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
Your loss.

As Rosehip says, this allegorical interpretation is neither atheist, nor modern. It is quite old. For one thing, how was there literal evening and morning before the creation of the sun?
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,264
Reaction score
56
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
...besides...if this is what you base your "Christianity" on...then you are completely missing what truly is Christianity.

Take a deep breath...and begin, again.

 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Christianus said:
Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
Your loss.

As Rosehip says, this allegorical interpretation is neither atheist, nor modern. It is quite old. For one thing, how was there literal evening and morning before the creation of the sun?
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
you can be in a dark cave, and there' will still be time even though there's no sun there.
Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Christianus said:
ialmisry said:
Christianus said:
Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
Your loss.

As Rosehip says, this allegorical interpretation is neither atheist, nor modern. It is quite old. For one thing, how was there literal evening and morning before the creation of the sun?
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
you can be in a dark cave, and there' will still be time even though there's no sun there.
Evening and morning does not come with me going in and coming out of a cave.  If you think otherwise, you are in a very dark cave.


Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
You just proved the allegorical point.
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rosehip said:
Then again, the account also calls "the evening and the morning" a day. So far I've never met anyone, Jews included, who call an evening and a morning a day. Traditionally, a day is calculated from sunset to sunset, not from sunset to sunrise.All throughout history there have been those who read the Genesis story as elevated prose and those who interpreted it literally. The allegorical approach is nothing new. What is new is making a lucrative business out of a literal reading of Genesis Chapter One.
actually it can be translated or actually says day one, not a day.
Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:5  appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem factumque est vespere et mane dies unus
Gen 1:5  καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα μία.
The Greek says Day one ἠμέρα μία, so does Latin day one, then it says the second day.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Are you honestly inquiring or trying to convince us that we are wrong? I'm confused...  ???
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
Are you honestly inquiring or trying to convince us that we are wrong? I'm confused...  ???
I want a return to the in six days God created heaven and earth and all that in them is.
Evolution which is a new influence in the church and doesn't believe in God the Creator, is not even as old as creationism.
I just want a return to pre-evolution creationism.

and that's why I'm asking if the orthodox church believe in it. I"ve heard that they don't force you to believe either side.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,264
Reaction score
56
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Orthodoxy will never "force" you to do anything.  The Church will try to educate you and to help you along in your understanding, however, nothing is ever forced upon you.  Christ never forced anyone to do or believe anything....He simply explained it to them...where they could see and accept His logic (or not).

If you are asking if the Orthodox Church supports evolution in the sense that mankind evolved from chimps, then NO, the Church does NOT hold to this thinking.

God created mankind.

 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LizaSymonenko said:
Orthodoxy will never "force" you to do anything.  The Church will try to educate you and to help you along in your understanding, however, nothing is ever forced upon you.  Christ never forced anyone to do or believe anything....He simply explained it to them...where they could see and accept His logic (or not).

If you are asking if the Orthodox Church supports evolution in the sense that mankind evolved from chimps, then NO, the Church does NOT hold to this thinking.

God created mankind.
thanks, doesn't the roman church believe in chimp to man evolution, and also in the possibility of alien life (not really based on science, but science fiction books, and conspiracy theories in my opinion?
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I just want a return to pre-evolution creationism.
You want this, but is this issue something necessary for salvation, or is it simply an issue that you believe is important and you believe everyone else should adopt because you believe it's correct?

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but you are being very critical, look at the Nicene Creed, that is what we MUST believe. Almost anything else is pretty much up to debate since it won't affect our salvation...

As Liza said, the church doesn't force you to do anything, it's your choice... The only thing you have to believe is that God created all things...

Again, the Church doesn't force you to do anything... However to be Orthodox, you must accept the Creed. If you choose not to believe what the Church says you need to, then that means you are separating yourself from the Church.
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
yeah Evolution says that there was death before man (you know like the dinosaurs).
1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
but the Bible says that man brought death, but survival of the fittest (avoiding death) says death or evolution brought everyone here.
these two world views are very different, and I find it impossible to reconcile the two without giving up alot of what we believe.
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
I just want a return to pre-evolution creationism.
You want this, but is this issue something necessary for salvation, or is it simply an issue that you believe is important and you believe everyone else should adopt because you believe it's correct?

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but you are being very critical, look at the Nicene Creed, that is what we MUST believe. Almost anything else is pretty much up to debate since it won't affect our salvation...

As Liza said, the church doesn't force you to do anything, it's your choice... The only thing you have to believe is that God created all things...

Again, the Church doesn't force you to do anything... However to be Orthodox, you must accept the Creed. If you choose not to believe what the Church says you need to, then that means you are separating yourself from the Church.
The Nicene creed mentions creationism:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
Christianus said:
and that's why I'm asking if the orthodox church believe in it. I"ve heard that they don't force you to believe either side.
Well, you're quite likely to get a full range of ideas. (I see someone has already posted the beginning of this thought, but here it is anyway) The Nicene Creed teaches "...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ...by Whom all things were made; in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life...." Beyond that, I'm not aware of any "Thou shalt believe..."

As for myself, it constantly amazes me that it took a whole six days for God to create the earth. He could just as easily have simply snapped His fingers, so to speak, and caused the entire universe to come into existence. But He didn't. He took the time and trouble and care to prepare this physical home for us, albeit temporary. It's clear enough that God cares for me as part of His creation. It really doesn't matter to me whether He took six milliseconds or six gazillion centuries to create the universe. You might want to ask yourself why it matters to you.
 
Top