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

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
i had a geology professor who told the whole class that we were fools if we did not believe in evolution. 10 mins later he told us there were millions of years of gaps in the rock layers that can't be explained ....
Anecdotal evidence from your experience with only one professor.  Hardly convincing of any widespread, sweeping agenda.

jckstraw72 said:
anyhoo, ive talked to plenty of evolutionists who will say they don't see it as absolute fact, but they function exactly as if they do. same thing with atheism --- they say they're open to the idea of God, but they function as pure, hardcore atheists.
And how, in your eyes, does someone function as if they believe evolution to be a fact?  Define this "they function exactly as...", and tell me how this interpretation is not subjective.
they come out to debate the campus preachers literally every day for hours about creation vs. evolution, bc, as they admit, their entire worldview hinges upon evolution. so they'll say they don't know 100% thats its fact but their lives are centered around the theory and they will ridicule anyone who doesnt believe in evolution. one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
 

Thegra

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Dan-Romania said:
scientific fact ... not really , as AlexanderOfBergamo said.
Thanks for your understanding!
ytterbiumanalyst said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Not at all: geocentrism is also a theory, but as you can see it was not true. A theory is a model of explaining nature, which might match more or less well with reality. For its purposes, geocentrism was a good description of the universe up to Copernicus, when it was doubted by another theory. Strict 6-days creation seems to be disproved by geology which furnishes a good point in favour of evolution, but we might still not get the full picture. Evolution supports a random process. I think this is what strikes jckstraw72 when he says scientists behave as atheists: they support chaos and don't see that the processes must be governed by a superior project. A good scientist might say 'Evolution occurs in a way we can't still understand, providing adaptation of the species in a given ecosystem. We don't know if the process is entirely dictated by random modifications or by some unknown law leading from simpler to more complex forms of life". But this is not what the official definition of evolution says. In this sense, science (or at least the official one) sounds entirely atheistic.
PeterTheAleut said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Dan-Romania said:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Careful examinations of the evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's just good science.
Yeah, CAREFUL examinations... but when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Are they REALLY posting evolution as a truth, or are creationists merely interpreting scientific statements as if they are positing evolution as a truth?  I used to agree with your take on the scientific community, but I'm not sure anymore that that's a fair assessment.
It is not important how the scientific community presents the theory of evolution (or the evolutionary model, if you prefer). The truth is that in magazines, on TV and in schools (at least in Italy I see this everyday) the alternatives are never discussed. When studying science or history, darwinian evolution is given as a fact, more or less as it is a fact that the earth orbits around the sun or that World War II ended in 1945. It's this attitude which destroys a true freedom of thought and brings many children of today to grow atheists of tomorrow. Even in a country like Italy, where the lesson of religion is present in schools via the Concordate between RCC and Republic, the matter is never touched, thus leaving children without a guide who might see how Genesis and Science can easily match with each other just recognizing God's hand behind the origin of universe and life. It is this lack which is dangerous in our times of relativism, scientism and religious denial. I'm not telling this but by personal experience: most of those of my friends who received Confirmation with me are now atheists, agnostics, or deists (the latter is rare, of course). A few of them don't attend any church but confess themselves as Catholics, and even fewer live fully the Catholic faith but heavily discuss the ecclesiastical authority or see the Bible as a good but mythological fairy tale at the same time!!!

Now the point is that Christian scientists should let their voices be heard louder... they should be public witnesses of God's creative work and power, of his plan that gave origin to such a complex and fascinating world.

That's all I had to say, I think.
In Christ,    Alex
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
^ Just one question.  Did you even BOTHER to read ONE of Heorhij's post on this thread?  ONE?  Or one of DOZENS of others on this thread that show that believing in evolution and believing in Jesus Christ are not contradictory?  ONE?  ??? ??? ???  ::)

 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
ytterbiumanalyst said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Only to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

Thegra said:
jckstraw72 said:
one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.
Well said.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I read almost all of them. Still the expression "I believe that evolution is not contradictory with belief in Jesus Christ" is an oxymoron. As I mantioned before, it's the word "evolution" that means a RANDOM change of species from one generation to another which brings to the development of new species. I am not contrary to the "evolution of species". I am contrary to the "RANDOM" change... which is the official definition of this scientific theory. So, i don't believe in evolution, and I think that believing in darwinian evolution contradicts the Christian faith. Since in our culture "evolution" stands for "random/darwinian evolution", the use of evolution without any explicit clarification sounds to me incompatible with the message of Christianity.

Hope I've been clear enough.

In Christ,   Alex
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Pravoslavbob said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Only to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I have at hand thus defines "theory" and "truth".

Theory: 1) a formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why sth happens or exists: "According to the theory or relativity, nothing can travel faster then light". 2) the principles on which a particular subject is based: "The theory and practice of language teaching". 3) an opinion or idea that sb believes is true but that is not proved: "I have this theory that people prefer being at work to being at home"

Truth: the true facts about sth, rather then the things that have been invented or guessed: "do you think she's telling the truth?" "We are determined to get at the truth" "The truth of the matter is we can't afford to keep all the staff on" "I don't think you are telling me the whole truth about what happened" 2) the quality or state of being based on fact. "There is no truth in the rumors" "There is not a grain of truth in what she says"

In other words: truth is real independently of the theories. A theory, such as geocentrism was (it is in fact known as "the geocentric theory") was disproved by direct observation. A truth cannot be disproved, on the contrary. You can question it, and even find alternative temporary explanations, but truth never changes. This the same for faith, for example: the Trinity is a truth or a theory? Since we can't verify it directly, it is scientifically speaking a theory. Only by faith we can affirm it as a doctrine... there is no maths in the Trinity, no experiment to do... That doesn't mean it is false: it is just unknown if that's true or not. Personally, I'm happy we have no certainties, so that we might truly exercise our faith without a sort of "proof".

I hope I was clear enough.
In Christ,   Alex
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Since in our culture "evolution" stands for "random/darwinian evolution", the use of evolution without any explicit clarification sounds to me incompatible with the message of Christianity.
"Our" culture?  Whose culture are you talking about?  This is a pan-Orthodox board whose members are found around the globe, not just "Bible Belt, USA", or Bergamo, Italy, for that matter.  

Here's an old post of mine that I think is relevant to the discussion at hand.:


Pravoslavbob said:
88Devin12 said:
I'm only against those theories that exclude God as creator. I think you can have forms of evolution, which was started/caused by God. However, you cannot have absolute darwinism/evolution, because it takes God out of the picture.
In order to avoid duplication of arguments, could you please seek out the  many discussions we've had? You see, we've been over this topic....ummm, well, quite a few times here at OC.net.  I am expecting Heorhij to enter the picture any second with a reasoned refutation of your remarks, so I will try and save him the trouble....

Scientific theories cannot, by their very nature, either include or exclude God.  It is not within the realm of how science works to incorporate or not incorporate an element of the divine.  Unfortunately, people who are otherwise very competent scientists seem to be incompetent enough in other areas of life that they arrogantly assume, (along with some theologians who should know better) that science has all the answers for any metaphysical  questions that might trouble humanity.  Other theologians who should know better (and many who are simply incompetent and incapable of knowing better) oppose these scientists and apostate(?) theologians, replaying the scene that has been played on the Western stage of civilisation since at least the time of Galileo and probably earlier.  The Western Church, by agreeing to counter "science" on its own playing field (ie, on terms defined by "science"), has condemned itself to losing the war, since only "scientific" criteria of "proof" can be accepted as evidence.  And we all know that if anything isn't rational, it must by definition be irrational, don't we? ;)  After all, we live in the post-Enlightenment West.  Of course, I shouldn't just cite the West and leave out the East, because the whole world is now so under the thraal of Western categories of "normalcy", that it doesn't know what has hit it.  It seems to me that a lot of Orthodox have this kind of knee-jerk reaction to the whole debate and side with "creationists".  It's like they're saying to themselves:  "hmmm.  Orthodoxy is "conservative", right?  Guess I'd better show my conseravative colours and stand up for "creationism"!"  (Of course, Orthodoxy is neither conservative nor liberal, but the living faith of the apostles...but this is a discussion for another thread.)  

BTW, I'd like to pre-empt a bashing from GIC or lubeltri or whoever else who would like to accuse me of being anti-Enlightenment or anti-Western.  I actually think that a lot of good things came out of the Enlightenment.  I really value science, in fact I am a scientist of sorts, though of a much humbler variety than Heorhij.  I don't mean to say that science cannot enter the realm of the metaphysical at times; in fact, fascinating work being done in physics right is going in this direction, and it's mind boggling.  But in the field of evolution?  For now, at any rate, there is no mixture at all.

I am a convinced Orthodox Christian.  I am also a convinced believer in evolution.  Are there things that we don't understand fully?  Absolutely, on both the theological and scientific end of things.  Just because evolution appears to be random is no reason at all to deny God's hand in things.  (How spiritually childish and oafishly cataphatic can one be?  This points to  one reason of several why I personally find this debate so tiresome.)  What appears as being "random" to us limited human creatures indeed hides greater mysteries beyond our understanding.


 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I have at hand thus defines "theory" and "truth".
So what is your point?  First of all, ytterbiumanalyst was speaking of scientific truth.  A scientific theory is as close as science comes to "truth."  If I may be so bold as to say so, ytterbiumanalyst appears to me to be indirectly pointing out that there is really no such thing as "scientific truth", since this is not how science works.  Science deliberately disciplines itself to discovering things about how the physical universe works by using empirical means to try and disprove theories.  In scientific parlance, to say that something is a theory is not the same thing as saying that "it's only a theory" or "my grandmother has a theory about how to make the best brownies".  In the realm of science, theories go through rigourous testing through empirical means of trying to disprove them.  The longer a theory stands up to scrutiny, the more likely its tenets appear to be.  In the case of evolution, this has been shown to be very, very likely.  This is what Mr. Y means when he asks the question "aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?"  A theory that has stood up to an empirical barrage of questioning for a long period  of time is as close as you are ever going to get to "scientific truth", a new oxymoron that has been created on this thread to go with its venerable friend, "scientific proof". 

As I mentioned in the previous post, competent scientists, who are arrogant enough to believe that science answers all questions that anyone might have about anything, become incompetent theologians and philosophers when they cross the line into expressing this publicly.  I might also add, that, ironically, IMHO, they discredit themselves in the scientific community, since they do not seem to understand that science by its very nature has clearly defined limits that do not allow it to venture forth into the worlds of theology and philosophy, new discoveries concerning string theories notwithstanding.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Evidently I tend to use the two terms in different ways... a use truth for Truth, always and unchangeably. I am a linguist, so I love to use precise and adequate words when they exist. Of course, I tend to err since I'm not an English speaker myself (I was recently reproached - and for a fully correct reason - due to an inappropriate use of the word "worship" as a synonim for "veneration"). The last reasoning you made is the point of my insistance on the denial of evolution. I don't like compromises. I repeat that I'm no creationist... I believe in those billion years from the Big Bang to the appearance of Man, which official science affirms. But as a thinking being... am I BOUND to subscribe the position of those atheists, who form a large and prevalent section of the scientific community, who ALSO affirm that evolution is a random process? Will my children been taught in schools such a deistic or even atheistic position because it is largely prevalent among scientists? It is not universal, of course. A great (and also criticized for that) scientist of our time, Italian physicist Antonio Zichichi, one of the maximum authorities in the CERN, has publicly shown his concerns with evolutionism, saying that science must be described in the Galilean method of repeatable observation (thus, experimental science) and mathematics. Biology ordinarily is experimental, which makes it science. Paleontology is based both on mathematics and experiments, since to date a dead animal we need to know how fast C14 decays to identify in which strata belong specific creatures. But is the Evolution Theory a science? We can't experiment "live" that dinosaurs finally evolved into birds, and there's no mathematical process in the changes since its a question of "chance" that one mutation would occur, no mathematic rule at all! For that reason, Prof. Zichichi gives Evolutionism no universal value, and qualifies it as one among many possible theories on the subject, and even the most controversial.
I would add that some creaturese are still difficult to catalogue. For example: whence did the "eye" come from during the Cambrian Explosion? We would expect to have prototype eyes appearing over time, but suddenly in the Cambrian Era appeared thousands and thousands of creatures with fully developped and functional eyes. Isn't this a proof against darwinism? Isn't this a demonstration that evolution "jumps forward" (to use a concept present in the intro of X-Men 1) at certain times of history? This is something which contradicts the theory of evolution as it is actually defined, but there's still time to correct it in the future to include those "strange cases" as anormalities imposed by Someone who created everythin'...

In Christ,    Alex

PS: I'll get back to this discussion tomorrow.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Isn't this a demonstration that evolution "jumps forward" (to use a concept present in the intro of X-Men 1) at certain times of history?
And why should we prefer over the time-proved theories of science a man who gets his facts from Hollywood?
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I used the X-Men image as a "concept". I'm not saying X-Men is science, otherwise I would testimony the existence of mutants and metahumans in our days (which is an absurdity).  You continue to misinterpret every single word I write, which shows how poor your arguments are. Now answer to my direct question: where are the pre-cambrian creatures with eyes "in development"? Where are the dinosaurs with partial wings who could not yet fly? Where are those mammals who, according to modern evolutionary theories, began to develop an adaptation to the sea so that they became dolphins? I just think it is easier to admit that there isn't yet any trace of this creatures and that we can't confess an uncertain theory when there's no match with historical data. We know there were blind creatures, and suddenly we find eyed creatures all around the world, but no trace of intermediate states. We can only guess there could be intermediate state, but we can also propose that a sudden mutation in DNA occured so that fully functional eyes appeared in 2-3 generations and we have no true trace of this change as in the official timeline is too short, then affirming a long process of development for the ocular organs. The same can be said of wings (Archeopterix's wings were already functional, so he can't be used alone as a missing ring in the evolutionary chain from dinos to birds) and for the evolution of dolphins and whales. My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"? do you think God created the initial Big Bang singularity, programmed it to have conditions for life, and then let it work by its own? How can you explain when the Bible says things such as "And God made the firmament", or
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived. neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out: The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth: He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths: When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters: When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men." (Ecclesiastes, 8:22-31)? Is God attributing to himself a prerogative he didn't have? Is God saying a falsity? Of course not! God is saying that what he made was is project, that he made things out of nothing and that they were modelled after his design. There is no chaos, for God is a God of order... from chaos the cosmos was formed... because God is the cosmos=order that models and sustains the Earth. Evolution denies this: evolution says that what happens to this world regarding the biological devolpment of life is the product of case, that there's no predictibility, that is a fortunate case that we exist, and not a law of the world has it was projected by God himself. How many people dare to accuse God of being a liar and prefere the earthly and limited wisdom of atheist and deist scientists... Is science a sort of new religion, so that I and many others are accused of a sort of scientific heresy when we express some DOUBTS on the mechanics of darwinism? Is science so superior to religion, that I must obey to scientists and take religion as a fairy tale? I repeat that I'm a concordist. What has been observed by scientists is correct, including the billion years of formation of the universe. But is that enough to believe the entire theory? No, because I think there's no wisdom but from God. Scientists are just looking to objective truths, but try to explain them in a model which is a fruit of pure human speculation which says there is no initial cause in the universe. Those scientists who believe in a projectuality of the universe, on the contrary, can see the hand of God, and see every step in evolution as a providential progress, and I'm on their side, entirely.
If you want you can call me an heretic for not believing in scientific official statements on conjectures. I'm glad of being heretic in human wisdom, and orthodox in divine religion. Everytime I look in the universe I see how marvelous is the God who made all this for us, and how miserable we are in front of God's power.
Please answer to my question on the role you ascribe to God in creation, and maybe we'll understand each other far better, for I can't even think you might believe in pure deism.

In Christ,  trying to keep as humble as I can,
and to listen to your positions opening my mind to them,
        your brother Alex
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Now answer to my direct question: where are the pre-cambrian creatures with eyes "in development"? Where are the dinosaurs with partial wings who could not yet fly? Where are those mammals who, according to modern evolutionary theories, began to develop an adaptation to the sea so that they became dolphins?
Those aren't the right questions. The question is "Where are the ancestors to the modern animals we know and observe?" I don't know the answer to that, as my expertise is in the English and Spanish languages, but if you ask a biologist, they should be able to tell you.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
do you think God created the initial Big Bang singularity, programmed it to have conditions for life, and then let it work by its own?
This is an anachronism. God is not subject to time; what He does, He does from eternity. From our perspective, God has done things, is doing things, and will do things. From His perspective, He does things. We must not ascribe to God the human concept of time, and constrain Him to a linear existence. He does not exist as we do.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
There is no chaos, for God is a God of order... from chaos the cosmos was formed... because God is the cosmos=order that models and sustains the Earth. Evolution denies this: evolution says that what happens to this world regarding the biological devolpment of life is the product of case, that there's no predictibility, that is a fortunate case that we exist, and not a law of the world has it was projected by God himself.
You make the same mistake many do: They assume that scientists are out to disprove God's role in creation. This is not so: Real science does not even consider God, but only seeks to understand the natural processes of the universe. In fact, to put God into a scientific equation by necessity makes such an equation unscientific. So you see, scientists do not deny God's existence, but they do not consider His existence. There is a big difference.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
How many people dare to accuse God of being a liar and prefere the earthly and limited wisdom of atheist and deist scientists... Is science a sort of new religion, so that I and many others are accused of a sort of scientific heresy when we express some DOUBTS on the mechanics of darwinism? Is science so superior to religion, that I must obey to scientists and take religion as a fairy tale?
Yawn. Wake me up when you come up with something original to say. But first, you might want to read the dozens of posts on this very thread which ask you and others of your persuasion to do some research and come up with a theory of speciation that is superior to Darwin's. When you do, we'll accept it instead of Darwin's. Until you do, you are merely bloviating.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Scientists are just looking to objective truths, but try to explain them in a model which is a fruit of pure human speculation which says there is no initial cause in the universe.
No, they say we cannot know scientifically what the initial cause of the universe is. Big difference. Again, I point you to the analogy of trying to take someone's temperature with a shovel. Both the thermometer and the shovel are useful tools, but can only be used for a single purpose. Similarly, religion and science are both useful, but one cannot use science to prove theology, and one cannot use religion to prove science.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Those scientists who believe in a projectuality of the universe, on the contrary, can see the hand of God, and see every step in evolution as a providential progress, and I'm on their side, entirely.
What of those who can see in the randomness in the universe the beauty of God's creation? I look at the orbits of the Earth, for instance, and I see a rock which has just so happened to land in the gravity well of a small dwarf star in such a way as to create for most of us four distinct and yet complementary seasons. It would be one thing for God to have placed the Earth in just the right position--but it is a far greater power which allows the Earth to place itself, and then uses that placement to create life; which uses that life's propensity to replicate itself to bring about the creation of humanity; and which uses humanity's free will to venerate Him.

In short, I see in the randomness of the universe God's complete desire for the freedom of every person, of every creature, of every object in the universe. God does not control by force; but He uses our choices to bring about His will. This, I think, is not only a more accurate view of God's role in creation than yours, but reveals with greater clarity His infinite goodness.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.
Science tells you what they want to be as a possibility to prove there is no God, what do you think all this BS and agitation is about , on science rats?the evolution theory is incompatible with the world God has made and with the scripture;it is incompatible with His power to do anything , it`s incompatible with God`s caring , presence and love towards creation , it is incompatible with God`s perfection , making from God and from normality and natural , and from beauty , chaos , mutation denaturing God`s beauty , Almightyness , Perfection , The Caring of God and His presence in the Creation.Let`s not discuss with all the other incompatibilities from Genesis , as the first man , the denaturation of the image of God , the incompatibility with the fall and Eden.This is what Evolution theory does it denaturates the image of God , trough people , by making the image of God like beast without wisedom, by saying that we are from apes , making God`s likeness as an beast or an apes, presenting us an imperfect and mutational God ,uncaring , diminuating God`s presence in the Creation and his Love , diminuating his AllMightyness.

Get your senses back in your head ytterbiumanalyst. If you really wanna see how God made everything read in Genesis and what the apostle says, that He made everything from nothing , trough faith , trough His Word , He said and they came to beeing in an instant , that is how the Church Fathers also say He made all things.You have the Scriptures and the Fathers.Another thing if you people are so smart and any of you who believes the universe/earth is billions of years old , make some math and see that the population of the world in this case would have been overfloated , and now we would walking on thousands and thousands of billion of corpses , just look at a grafic about the groweth of population.Let`s be serious , this mumbo jumbo `science` are just fairy tales.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Dan-Romania said:
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.
Science tells you what they want to be as a possibility to prove there is no God, what do you think all this BS and agitation is about , on science rats?
Have you not been reading this thread?  Whereas some scientists may indeed want to prove that there is no God, science itself can desire no such thing, for argument on the existence of the Divine is not properly even within the realm of science.

Dan-Romania said:
the evolution theory is incompatible with the world God has made and with the scripture;it is incompatible with His power to do anything , it`s incompatible with God`s caring , presence and love towards creation , it is incompatible with God`s perfection , making from God and from normality and natural , and from beauty , chaos , mutation denaturing God`s beauty , Almightyness , Perfection , The Caring of God and His presence in the Creation.Let`s not discuss with all the other incompatibilities from Genesis , as the first man , the denaturation of the image of God , the incompatibility with the fall and Eden.This is what Evolution theory does it denaturates the image of God , trough people , by making the image of God like beast without wisedom, by saying that we are from apes , making God`s likeness as an beast or an apes, presenting us an imperfect and mutational God ,uncaring , diminuating God`s presence in the Creation and his Love , diminuating his AllMightyness.
Isn't this all just your subjective opinion, especially when ytterbiumanalyst voiced his countering opinion that the scientific observation of creation has only strengthened his awe of the Almighty Creator?

Dan-Romania said:
Get your senses back in your head ytterbiumanalyst. If you really wanna see how God made everything read in Genesis and what the apostle says, that He made everything from nothing , trough faith , trough His Word , He said and they came to beeing in an instant , that is how the Church Fathers also say He made all things.You have the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Why should we believe the Fathers on this when they knew nothing of modern science?  Did the Holy Spirit reveal things scientific to the Holy Fathers?  Are we to take the Holy Spirit's revelation to the Fathers as a source for scientific axioms?  Isn't this the mistake Christians made several centuries ago when they argued that we MUST believe the earth to be the center of the universe because the Scriptures and all the Fathers said so?

Dan-Romania said:
Another thing if you people are so smart and any of you who believes the universe/earth is billions of years old , make some math and see that the population of the world in this case would have been overfloated , and now we would walking on thousands and thousands of billion of corpses , just look at a grafic about the groweth of population.
1.  What are the numbers we need to plug into this math to get the results you want us to see?
2.  You ask us to look at a population growth graph.  Surely, if one exists, you should be able to submit it to this discussion so we can see it.  Can you do this for us?
3.  Have you failed to take into account the decay of corpses?  What of the production of fossil fuels?

Dan-Romania said:
Let`s be serious , this mumbo jumbo `science` are just fairy tales.
Where's your evidence?
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
you are just a deceived fool:

here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

so we see in here the estimated population in the world at certain years;

6,7 billions in 2008 , 2,5 billions in 1950 , 1,2 billions in 1850 ,750 millions in 1750 , 310 mil in 1000 , 200 mill in 1, 100 mil in 500 BC , around 10 000 BC is said to be only 1 mill people on earth and on 70 000BC under one mill.Look how much the population has grown in 2000 years .In 2000 years it groweth 33,5 times regarding also the black middle-ages where a big part of the planet died from diseases.In groweth in 2000 years (from year 1 Christ to 2008) as much as it groewth from 70 000BC to 2000BC that is 68 000 years!!! 68 000 years = 2000 x 34 years.Think about that.If the earth is really millions , or billions as they claim , than how come from millions/billions of years untill 70 000BC the population of the world hasn`t even reached 1 million? If we raported to our days in manners of less than ten years the population has grown with at least a million.Sure other times , medicine etc.But Still billions of years!! an tens of thousands of years!!!Even if the population would have grown normally now the earth would have been overfloated , and full of corpses.billions and billions of billions, uncountable.If we consider also the evolution theory , man evolved from apes so at the begining there were not just 2 apes , or 2 humans if you please , but many , so in billions/millions of years they would over populate the entire Universe and planets.Again think think think.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dan-Romania said:
you are just a deceived fool:

here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

so we see in here the estimated population in the world at certain years;

6,7 billions in 2008 , 2,5 billions in 1950 , 1,2 billions in 1850 ,750 millions in 1750 , 310 mil in 1000 , 200 mill in 1, 100 mil in 500 BC , around 10 000 BC is said to be only 1 mill people on earth and on 70 000BC under one mill.Look how much the population has grown in 2000 years .In 2000 years it groweth 33,5 times regarding also the black middle-ages where a big part of the planet died from diseases.In groweth in 2000 years (from year 1 Christ to 2008) as much as it groewth from 70 000BC to 2000BC that is 68 000 years!!! 68 000 years = 2000 x 34 years.Think about that.If the earth is really millions , or billions as they claim , than how come from millions/billions of years untill 70 000BC the population of the world hasn`t even reached 1 million? If we raported to our days in manners of less than ten years the population has grown with at least a million.Sure other times , medicine etc.But Still billions of years!! an tens of thousands of years!!!Even if the population would have grown normally now the earth would have been overfloated , and full of corpses.billions and billions of billions, uncountable.If we consider also the evolution theory , man evolved from apes so at the begining there were not just 2 apes , or 2 humans if you please , but many , so in billions/millions of years they would over populate the entire Universe and planets.Again think think think.
forgive my insult, i tried to edit the insult but i couldn`t ... so here it is
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I don't wanna have to discuss with an extremist darwinian evolutionist on one side, and with an ultra-creationist on the other side. I believe that both positions miss the mark and they show remnants of hatred. I hate science when it has no mathematics or experimental test in it. Science is physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry and zoology... but neither darwinian evolution nor Young Earth creationism are science. I am bound by conscience and faith to leave both of you in your incomplete, extremist and fundamentalist visions, on both sides. I thought my position could easily be understood as a "middle way" between to useless extremes, living more space for God. So take your "randomly evolved apes" on one side and your "clay figurines with a spirit" on the other side. I don't want to discuss with you anymore, especially because you don't tolerate my position, which I express as a result of free speculation. You, ytterbiumanalyst, consider me a fool because I want to underline God's active role in creation; and you, Dan-Romania, want me to renounce to the faith of the Apostle who wrote "Don't you know that the worlds are of old?" and consider me a fool for that. You both contradict the message of Scripture and Tradition:
"Who shall see him, and declare him? and who shall magnify him as he is from the beginning? There are many things hidden from us that are greater than these: for we have seen but a few of his works. But the Lord hath made all things, and to the godly he hath given wisdom." (Wisdom of Sirach, 43:35-37)
   "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colosseans 2:8)
  "The mountains also, and the hills, end the foundations of the earth: when God shall look upon them, they shall be shaken with trembling. And in all these things the heart is senseless: and every heart is understood by him: And his ways who shall understand, and the storm, which no eye of man see? For many of his works are hidden: hut the works of his justice who shall declare? or who shall endure? for the testament is far from some, and the examination of all is in the end. He that wanteth understanding thinketh vain things: and the foolish, and erring man, thinketh foolish things" (Wisdom of Sirach, 16:20-23)
  "Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof, When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of the womb: when I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands? I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors: 11 And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves" (Job 38:2-11)
May God have mercy of us all for are vain and useless attempts to discuss what is known to God alone: let's ask for a better wisdom, the wisdom of faith, and for the vain philosophies of humankind.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: I'm glad that you corrected your message, at least I'm no more a fool, as you also aren't, and yttebiumanalyst too. We should just have respect for each other and say that we can freely believe whatever we want. Those who support official science shouldn't accuse creationists to be anachronistic or fool, and creationists shouldn't attack everything which is labelled as science just because most or many scientists are atheists. Let's stay close to what the Bible theologically says:
1)God created all things, visible and invisible, including space, time, matter, energy, and the spiritual beings.
2)Man was made different then other animals, so that he received a sentient spirit and was asked to govern the world as a responsible guardian and not as a master.
3)We are asked to see God's hand in creation, and be thankful for what he did for us, including creating this world
4)We should ask for God's pardon for having been bad guardians to the world, since we are progressively destroying it with our irresponsibility
5)We should ask God to restore in us the image of God, so that the entire universe might benefit from our spiritual change.

In Christ,  Alex
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
I don't wanna have to discuss with an extremist darwinian evolutionist on one side,
Neither do I. Let me know when you find one on this board.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
You, ytterbiumanalyst, consider me a fool because I want to underline God's active role in creation;
No, I think you want to limit God's active role in creation to what you can understand. This, I think, is a mistake.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My insult Alex was not for you , but for Peter, anyway i took it back, i have nothing against you Alex , even the contrary i appreciate your posts.

I`ve just seen a show on National Geographic about , galaxies , universe , etc.The Universe is an amazing place , and can make one feel really small looking at the enormity of it.

Where does it speak in the Scripture that the world(s) are of old?

I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.I don`t reject totally the possibility for the world to be billions of years, the Universe.Anyway , the Scripture tells us that everything was made by God , He said and they all came in being , the same as the fathers say and teach , and the same I believed even before reading the fathers about this.God is Almighty , sure He could create all into an instances all being and life , but He chose to create it in cycle of days , to make a home and a house for all , the resourses for all , all with patience and organised , with love and caring.He made first the kingdom , and prepared a kingdom for this ruler who is man , to rule upon the fishes of the sea , the beasts on earth , the birds from the sky , He made a place for everything.The Scripture says it was evening and than morning, about every cycle of time of the creation, in totall 6 days of creation.So is a normal day , morning and night.Giving us the understanding and raport as to a human day.I believe God could have done what He said and everything He did in 6 days.And I`m not alone among the fathers many are of this opinion.Anyway God uses time in alegory in many cases , and the six days could have been 6 periods of time , undeterminable.There are also fathers who believe this.But by saying it was night and than morning , i understand that He made all this from non-being to being, trough His Word , as we see in Genesis : "And God said" and as in John says , everything was maybe by the Word and trough the Word, and without Him nothing was made.Also the Apostle Paul says that God made everything from nothing , trough His Word.Also by saying that and if everything was created in an instant, than i think that God made everything in six literal days, as it is possible everything with God.I think in that is shown and revealed God`s Mightyness, that He could create everything in 6 days.Sure He could do it all at once , in one day.But by this we see the order God has instituated , making a place for everything , and finding something suitable for everything, for everything , a room , a place by order and discipline.Not only because of this , but because of His love and caring, for everything and everyone to have a place of it`s own.By the things that God is a Creator and He made even the smallest things , we can see by reading the wisedom books and the psalms of David , Job , etc.Sure Genesis starts with : at the beggining God made the heavens and the earth, and that darkness was over the deep.We also see that the Universe has a lot of black materia , i`m not sure if i used the corect words.It can also be interpret it , the Universe to be this darkness from the beggining as I said in the beggining of my post , the Universe is an imensity.So I don`t exclude the possibility of the Universe being of old and of billions of years, but not people on earth or life on earth.Anyway see my other post regarding the population and overpopulation.Again I am of the opinion that the 6 days from the Creation are 6 days, but i don`t totally exclude the possibility for them to be thousands or even millions/billions.What i`m against of is Evolution and Darwinism.
 
Top