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

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Dan-Romania said:
:laugh: what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.
Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.
Is evolution your religion too?
Is ignorance one of your traits too?
Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Do you have anything of any real substance you would like to contribute to this discussion, Mr. Statler?
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Dan-Romania said:
:laugh: what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.
Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.
Is evolution your religion too?
Is ignorance one of your traits too?
Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Do you have anything of any real substance you would like to contribute to this discussion, Mr. Statler?
I just did, for more preview check out my profile signature and avatar.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Dan-Romania said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Dan-Romania said:
:laugh: what else is new?

oh, please , The Evolution theory is a joke.
Don't laugh at what you don't know.  In the end, people might think you're the joke.
Is evolution your religion too?
Is ignorance one of your traits too?
Oh no!Not you too!They`ve got you?
Do you have anything of any real substance you would like to contribute to this discussion, Mr. Statler?
I just did, for more preview check out my profile signature and avatar.
That's not substance.  That's heckling.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Second Chance said:
The problem may the dumbing down of "theory" by scientists themselves. From the Wiki (and I would appreciate if any scientists among us would correct this entry):....
Premise 5: Lucy is the oldest datapoint that we have and confirms that men and apes have a common ancestor.

Conclusion: Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes.

This is  fascinating but does not rise to the confidence level that the Academy of Sciences posits, that is, a reliable account  of the real world. Evolution theory is a valid scientific theory but it does not empirically prove the conclusion of the argument I made above. Also, I believe that this has risen to the level of scientific dogma (a contradiction in terms but there you have it), fiercely defended by some scientists as if it is more than a matter of science.
The currently most widely held theory (supported by much evidence) would disagree with the phrase "Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes", because that phrase implies this:

               Apes
              /
             /
Non-Ape Ancestor
             \
               \
                Humans

Such a model flies in the face of the evidence, which supports something like this model instead:


                                 Gibbon                                  Chimpanzee
                                 /     Orangutan                      /
                                /       /         Gorilla               /   Early "humans"-------------H. sapiens
                               /       /          /                      /    /
                              /       /          /      Human-Chimp Ancestor---------------?
                             /       /          /        /
                    The 1st True Ape--------------------?
                          /
                         /
Non-Ape Ancestor

As you  can see, it's not that "apes" and "humans" share one "common" ancestor. Humans evolved from an earlier species of ape. H. sapiens is indeed classified in the Hominidae family, which includes the apes. H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Jetavan said:
H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
Jetavan said:
Second Chance said:
The problem may the dumbing down of "theory" by scientists themselves. From the Wiki (and I would appreciate if any scientists among us would correct this entry):....
Premise 5: Lucy is the oldest datapoint that we have and confirms that men and apes have a common ancestor.

Conclusion: Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes.

This is  fascinating but does not rise to the confidence level that the Academy of Sciences posits, that is, a reliable account  of the real world. Evolution theory is a valid scientific theory but it does not empirically prove the conclusion of the argument I made above. Also, I believe that this has risen to the level of scientific dogma (a contradiction in terms but there you have it), fiercely defended by some scientists as if it is more than a matter of science.
The currently most widely held theory (supported by much evidence) would disagree with the phrase "Man did evolve from an ancestor of both men and apes", because that phrase implies this:

               Apes
              /
             /
Non-Ape Ancestor
             \
               \
                Humans

Such a model flies in the face of the evidence, which supports something like this model instead:


                                 Gibbon                                  Chimpanzee
                                 /     Orangutan                      /
                                /       /         Gorilla               /   Early "humans"-------------H. sapiens
                               /       /          /                      /    /
                              /       /          /      Human-Chimp Ancestor---------------?
                             /       /          /        /
                    The 1st True Ape--------------------?
                          /
                         /
Non-Ape Ancestor

As you  can see, it's not that "apes" and "humans" share one "common" ancestor. Humans evolved from an earlier species of ape. H. sapiens is indeed classified in the Hominidae family, which includes the apes. H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
Either way, evolution enthusiasts are less than scientific in insisting that the theory of the evolution of man is a "reliable account of the real world."
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
Heorhij said:
Jetavan said:
H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.
I thought that the Orthodox perspective was that God created us in His image and likeness and apart from the rest of creation. Being intimately related to the animal kingdom and being subject to the natural laws does not negate our uniqueness. I happen to believe that, while we did not evolve from another species, we are similar to other animals and we do evolve as biologists observe.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Second Chance said:
Heorhij said:
Jetavan said:
H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.
I thought that the Orthodox perspective was that God created us in His image and likeness and apart from the rest of creation.
Genesis states that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. The dust of the ground was itself something that God created. I don't see how Adam was created "apart from the rest of creation".
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
Jetavan said:
Second Chance said:
Heorhij said:
Jetavan said:
H. sapiens is, from a scientific perspective, a special type of ape.
And from the Orthodox perspective a human is a "zoon nootikon" (St. Basil the Great), an animal endowed with reason. We are not entirely biological beings, but we are intimately related to the animal kingdom. So I just do not see, why in the world would anyone think that the laws that govern the natural world do not apply to us.
I thought that the Orthodox perspective was that God created us in His image and likeness and apart from the rest of creation.
Genesis states that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. The dust of the ground was itself something that God created. I don't see how Adam was created "apart from the rest of creation".
Apart in the following sense (New King James Version):

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Ortho_cat said:
My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process, and the evolutionary model can't make sure previsions, why not call it "statistics" and not "science"? Statistics are equally useful, they apply a mathematical concept (probability) but they still don't have to be accurate. In fact, I can enter a casino and play the roulette 900 times, yet it COULD happen that number 3, despite the statistics, doesn't result of those 900 attempts. I refute to accept "models" as science if they can't make sure assertions. The prototype of science is this: "Given an X system, X always turns into Y". For example, it is science to say: "Given an isolated neutron, this will decay within 15 minutes into a proton, an electron and a neutrino electron, with an exchange of a W boson". The Standard Model foretells this as a consequence of the weak interaction. In other words, the weak interaction, when correctly understood, allows to make certain previsions: if they are verified experimentally, the theory is a very good description of reality, and certainly MORE then just a simple "theory".
On the contrary, evolution proves to be ruled by "vague" laws with even more "vague" conclusions. The fact that evolutionists expected a common ancestor for chimps and humans to be "more chimp-like" and "less human-like" but this theory seems to have been disproved by the recent discoveries, puts some doubts on its ability to make sure previsions.
I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

In Christ,  Alex
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process, and the evolutionary model can't make sure previsions, why not call it "statistics" and not "science"? Statistics are equally useful, they apply a mathematical concept (probability) but they still don't have to be accurate. In fact, I can enter a casino and play the roulette 900 times, yet it COULD happen that number 3, despite the statistics, doesn't result of those 900 attempts. I refute to accept "models" as science if they can't make sure assertions. The prototype of science is this: "Given an X system, X always turns into Y". For example, it is science to say: "Given an isolated neutron, this will decay within 15 minutes into a proton, an electron and a neutrino electron, with an exchange of a W boson". The Standard Model foretells this as a consequence of the weak interaction. In other words, the weak interaction, when correctly understood, allows to make certain previsions: if they are verified experimentally, the theory is a very good description of reality, and certainly MORE then just a simple "theory".
On the contrary, evolution proves to be ruled by "vague" laws with even more "vague" conclusions. The fact that evolutionists expected a common ancestor for chimps and humans to be "more chimp-like" and "less human-like" but this theory seems to have been disproved by the recent discoveries, puts some doubts on its ability to make sure previsions.
I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

In Christ,   Alex
The facts bear out the evolutionary prediction exactly.

The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [5][6]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second. [7]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. [8]
Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[8]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
minasoliman said:
This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.
So how do you determine what is to be taken allegorically and what is to be taken literally?
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Ortho_cat said:
My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.
the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally; [green]ad hominem removed[/green]
 Two unnecessary ad hominem.  Therefore, you are now on post moderation for another 40 days.  If you think this unfair, please appeal my decision to Global Mod, or Fr. Chris.

-- Nebelpfade
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Ortho_cat said:
My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
While I don't believe that God literally descended from heaven and formed man out of the dust (but I still don't exclude this - everything's possible to God), I know this for sure: man's creation was specific. God created Adam and Eve directly, out of pre-existing matter, in a full human nature endowed with both human body and soul, being granted immortality by grace since the beginning of their creation - and that this occured in a very precise moment - be it in 5508 BC as the Bible says, or in 12000 BC as I believe, or sometime around 200000 BC at the appearance of homo sapian according to science, it doesn't really matter. The human body may have taken thousands of years to evolve, but human nature is not an animal body: it's a spirit+body union which could have been created only by God directly, and not by an evolutionary process. Evolution doesn't create souls, and a soul must have been injected first into an individual by God himself to have our human nature formed. And I do believe those things on account of this: that nobody was there to see that man was formed over time, but the only eye-witness is God, who says He created man out of the dust (the Church Fathers already said this meant matter, as breath meant soul), and I trust Him with all of my heart. Nothing else matters to understand our existence. So, I would say: I'm with you, Ortho_cat.

In Christ,   Alex

the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally;but what can we expect from an monophysite...
Sincerely, I don't associate the denial of this biblical event to minasoliman's myaphysitism (and NOT monophysitism). In fact, there are many among Chalcedonians who still reject the historicity of these events. As for me, I doubt of NONE of the events written in the Bible, unless their nature of parable is clear from the text. Isaac's sacrifice is for me a truly historical event, no doubt of this in my heart. Afterall the ancient ones, before the introduction of the Law, were almost surely used to human sacrifices. God did not only show a figure of Christ's sacrifice: he also showed that he is different then the other blood-thirsty gods of paganism. As God himself said: "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13).
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Ortho_cat said:
My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.
the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally;but what can we expect from an monophysite...
The admins aren't going to take kindly to this...
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Ortho_cat said:
Dan-Romania said:
minasoliman said:
Ortho_cat said:
My belief is simply this; that man was specially created, apart from the rest of the creation. He has no previous ancestors other than dust. For me to assume otherwise direly undermines my reliance upon the authority of Holy Scriptures and the biblical account. Anyone else with me?
Nope...i see the way you interpret scripture as a stumbling block to me.  The allegory behind understanding the creation story, and many other stories in the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament helps me to rely on the infallibility of the the Holy Scriptures, and what an amazing allegory these stories have, almost as if God actually planted it in the mind of Moses (and any other author) to write them as a shadow of things to come, not as an account of things that happened.

Take the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac.  Who of a right mind would listen to a voice telling him to kill the most beloved son of his own on a mountain top?  Quite a harsh thing to think about really.  But when you are now in the New Testament, and understand that our Father in heaven who sent His Only Begotten Son, carrying the wood of the Cross with Him, just as Abraham sending his own beloved son Isaac, carrying the wood to be tied to with him, the third day in going up, the faith in Abraham (and prophecy) to provide for the Lamb of God, all of which only make sense in the light of the New Testament.

For who of a right mind would even think that God did not know before that Abraham had strong faith and fear in the Lord?  The scriptures says "Now I know," as if God didn't know before?  We know Abraham was a faithful man, and we know because of his faith, God chose him and his son Isaac through Him the Lamb of God would be born, and we know that even though this story may not be true in the strictest sense, it is prophetically true, a way to show Isaac, the ancestor of Christ, showing what his distant Progeny from heaven will do.

This is just one example of why I can't take the Bible literally.
the example of Abraham and Isaac is exactly why it should be taken literally;but what can we expect from an monophysite...
The admins aren't going to take kindly to this...
They aren't the only ones.  :mad:
 
Top