Dear duck, You nevertheless evade answering many of my questions.
Let me tell you what I believe, very concisely in few points: * God Almighty is the Highest Wisdom and Ultimate Power: you say we do not know how God creates I tell you we do. God wills anything and it's there already, instantaneously and perfected. Jesus commanded the wind and the sea to shut and they did in the instant. Jesus commanded the paralytic to stand up and leprosy to leave and they did in the instant. He created a full new eye (how? from earth and water - dust and His saliva) and the born blind could see. Imagine all the inner unseen aspects of these miraculous events: the control of atmosphere, wind direction, its pressure and temperature, the water currents, hydraulic energy and temperature etc. Also consider the instantaneous regeneration of nerves, atrophied muscles and central nervous system centers and their instantaneous restoration and regeneration to their fully fledged harmonized physiologically fit functions as if these were always well formed and working since before birth throughout growth and development etc. It's an incredible miracle to science. God incredibly made everything this way.
Let us for ex. re-examine, scrutinize and understand how God explained to us in detail (in Genesis) the process He undertook in the creation of Eve, from Adam's loin. Isn't that an extremely important fact to consider?
* If we believe God made all creation He cannot be just an orchestrator but He is truly the Maker of all things. God's statute would not be considered as lesser (God forbid) had He told us He created everything in millions or even billions of years: He has the Will, He can create anyway He wishes, so He created according to His Wisdom and He said it was good. So He would have told us in full honesty for how long He created, since He said He made everything in six days, there's no obvious reason I can think of why He would not tell us about this theoretically introduced huge difference in time. But as you think about it, in the limited heads of men (who cannot see or cannot stand God's Almighty Power) they can hardly conceive this: they force themselves to follow their own reasoning, even if numerous problems arise and accumulate against wrong reasoning (that should logically direct towards freedom from erroneous theories) yet we find struggling against reason - and unfortunately against God.
* God has no beginning and has no end. He is the Alpha an the Omega. He created time and space. He created things in a way that might appear to us done in billions of years but He created them in few minutes or instantaneously.
Man should reason this way (this defies the unbelievers): what The Lord Almighty had created, and which is currently thought and considered to require billions or millions of years (as interpreted in some human minds) the fact is He did create all the universe (including all uncountable galaxies, stars and their distances of billions of light years) and what's in it seen and unseen, well God Almighty made it fully ready for use in just six days. Isn't that incredibly wonderful?
The effects that would appear to have taken billions of years were accelerated by God's Power (who is beyond the limits of time and space) occurred fully in just few hours, few minutes or even instantly - and definitely perfectly according to His Will.
Science cannot defy God. He created all laws of science (that is the good science, the known, the not yet known and the never to be known). He is therefore in full control of all the scientific laws and governs the whole universe. He is the Pantocrator (The Ruler of All or The Sustainer of the World). Real science proves the Wisdom and Power of God.
Being Love, God leaves things a bit, He grants second chances, so unbelief would be rectified by men who may believe in Him, because He is the Savior of all humans and His Will is that everybody should profit from His Salvation. Lord Almighty have mercy and do not pour Your Wrath on us.
* If you consider Genesis as a fantastic or all symbolic Scripture inspired by God then you have two problems or issues: first, Genesis is not a poem or a song, it is not revealed in a dream or in a vision. Thus it is known as a realistic spiritual Scripture, with realistic details comprising the history of origins.
Second, it tells us about the fall of Eve and Adam and the curse of death. It clearly paves the way for the coming of Christ to save mankind (is this a symbol). It also clearly tells us about good and evil (and who's who).
In a court of law if a witness lies about a detail, the lawyers immediately jump to the conclusion that all his testimony may be wrong or irrelevant, and exploit this fully towards their advantage.
Genesis tells us about steps of creation that, as I expect, must defy any known science to us (otherwise men would have this foolish trend to try to be like God). Remember that to The Lord Almighty the wisdom of this world is foolishness.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873] Dear duck, You nevertheless evade answering many of my questions.
I answered enough of the surface level questions with surface level answers, to make the point that your claims are weak and answerable.
In the rest of your post you reiterate your position on things, but add nothing knew. I'll respond to a few lines...
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873] * God has no beginning and has no end. He is the Alpha an the Omega. He created time and space. He created things in a way that might appear to us done in billions of years but He created them in few minutes or instantaneously.
This sentence pretty much summarizes everything you said above it, and all it shows is that he could have worked this way...not that it happened. And I agree he could have done this because God is Almighty; however, it leaves us with a problem. Did God deceive us? Making things appear as if they took billions of years to create when he did it instantaneously seems like a big practical joke to me...
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873] So He would have told us in full honesty for how long He created, since He said He made everything in six days, there's no obvious reason I can think of why He would not tell us about this theoretically introduced huge difference in time
Why, is the Bible a science book? If it were then I would be scratching my head wondering why God would leave this important piece of scientific information out. Peter talks about one day being a thousand years (2Pet3:8)...And also, reread Genesis and it makes no indication that the 7th day ended. So in essence we are still in the 7th day...how you reconcile this with your claim of 24 hour periods I don't know, you tell me.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873] In a court of law if a witness lies about a detail, the lawyers immediately jump to the conclusion that all his testimony may be wrong or irrelevant, and exploit this fully towards their advantage
What lies?
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873] * If you consider Genesis as a fantastic or all symbolic Scripture inspired by God then you have two problems or issues: first, Genesis is not a poem or a song, it is not revealed in a dream or in a vision. Thus it is known as a realistic spiritual Scripture, with realistic details comprising the history of origins.
Circular argument? We are debating on whether Genesis is to be taken literally or not. You give a strong and emphatic yes, and I say most likely no. You aren't proving anything by saying Genesis isn't symbolic, because that is the crux of our debate...Oh and circular arguments don't work well in court rooms either fyi.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873] Genesis tells us about steps of creation that, as I expect, must defy any known science to us (otherwise men would have this foolish trend to try to be like God). Remember that to The Lord Almighty the wisdom of this world is foolishness.
Your right! Have you seen the probability of evolution occuring by natural means alone?? The number is 1 in 10^2E9.....This is a number with 2 BILLION ZEROES AFTER IT. Can you fathom that number?? And when athiests are approached with this number they start coming up with fairy tale theories of parallel universes. The probability of something like this occuring is astronomically low and if true, it would definitely be considered without a shadow of a doubt...a miracle.
duck, I'm afraid your pseudo scientific arguments are still to me in a very weak position.
I haven't yet met an evolutionist who does not attack the persons who disagree with evolution! One known technique is to push ignorance of (unproven) facts or the inability to assimilate them. But you could be right I may be drowned in scientific shallowness!
If things seem to us to have taken much more time in the millions/billions range it's because we are ourselves so limited in time and whatever scientific advances we still won't be able to determine the time of "In the beginning..." accurately. I am almost certain they will have to add more millions/billions now and then to their version of "origins".
God allows the unwise to deceive themselves. God wants us to believe - not to follow our own reasoning. I guess it's possible to have some scientific doubts, we know that even St Thomas doubted. At the end he said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28.
I just need to ask some q one by one so please first answer this: - didn't God state that He created our sun AFTER He created the Earth?
I do not dare to think for even the blink of an eye to question the reality or the authenticity of Genesis on any of its inspired details.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85302#msg85302 date=1207651971] I just need to ask some q one by one so please first answer this: - didn't God state that He created our sun AFTER He created the Earth?
You should know my response by now. I agree that if Genesis is interpreted literally, that is what you are led to believe. But I don't think Genesis should be interpreted in a literal fashion. Heres why:
a) Simply a repost...you never even addressed this issue [quote author=duck link=topic=6421.msg85125#msg85125 date=1207332673] Interpreting Genesis literally is what we are debating! But to show you that you can't take the chronology literal, read chapter 1 where it says that animals were made before Adam AND Eve (1:20-28) and then in chapter 2 it says that Adam existed before the animals were created and then eve coming later (2:15-25). Now your most likely going to pull the answersingenesis argument and say that it was translated wrong! Well thats debatable. A majority of translations leave it the way it was and don't render it the way in which the NIV translates it. So who knows whose right.
and
b) Genesis makes no claim that the seventh day ended; hence we are still in the 7th day. Please reconcile that with the literal 24 hour Genesis day theory.
[quote author=duck link=topic=6421.msg85307#msg85307 date=1207663104] Genesis makes no claim that the seventh day ended; hence we are still in the 7th day. Please reconcile that with the literal 24 hour Genesis day theory.
i havn't really been fellowing this, but let me just add that the 24 hour day that we have one started when the sun and the moon and their rotation was set up.
Also yes we are basicly still living in the 7th day and at its end, life would be completed and the 8th day will start, which is eternity.
As a scientist, I can tell you, that it is unscientific to try to mould everything according to the same law.
In science, we try to create laws and we expect these laws to apply to all physical and chemical experiments. These laws give us confidence in helping us predict outcomes that may have never existed or taken place, or that we are unsure of.
For every law created that describes a certain pattern, or process, there are exceptions to these laws.
Roult's Law is a book. "The Exceptions to Roult's Law" is another book that is double in size, and is printed in hardcopy and softcopy.
The Kinetic Theory of Matter states that all elements can exist in gaseous, liquid and solid states (given the amount of energy to render them in these states). Its true. A solid, when heated will go to the liquid, when further heated, will go the gaseaous.
This applies to all elements - All, except for Carbon. Carbon CANNOT exist in the liquid form. In theory, it can. In practice, it cannot. In fact, people are still trying to study & understand the properties of liquid carbon, but they can't. They only have milliseconds before it solidifies, even under controlled conditions. Furthermore, under normal conditions carbon sublimes. It doesn't go to the liquid phase at all!!
In theory, all of Roult's laws should work in Theory, in practice, these laws cannot be generalised, and so we have exceptions.
Diamond is meant to be a perfect structure, hence making it a perfect solid structure. Why then did I study 2 years reading books about the imperfections of diamonds and loose electrons?? Because there are exceptions to such structures.
We want to take the ocean, its mystery and put it under a microscope and say to ourselves: "Look, its not mysterious anymore". We cannot do that. Its so complex, and so different that a mathematical formula will not suffice to model nor summarise the complexities of the ocean or the sea.
Scientists will try and summarise events with theories, in the same way a traveller will write a commentary on Egypt and say "Egyptians are very religious people".
Yes, they are religious people, but there are exceptions.
If they said "Egypt is full of sand"
Yes, it is full of sand, but its also full of water.
If they said "Egyptians are friendly people" - how do they know? Did they interview EVERY Egyptian??
Such comments that I often read in brochures are generalisations that are made to give us assurances about the unknown before we decide to travel to such destinations. But they are generalisations. Meeting 100 nice people doesn't make a population of 77 million "nice".
THis is the same for theories. Yes, we can see patterns, but it doesnt mean that such patterns apply to EVERYTHING!!!
Species may evolve at a micro level, but what proof is there that they evolved at a macro level??
If that's the case, why doesn't all species evolve into humans ??? Why do cows exist, or continue to exist? Why don't they evolve into Lions. Centuries have taught cows that they are going to be eaten the 1st. They don't serve "Lion Meat" at McDonald's. Why don't cows evolve into lions then?? Surely the theory of evolution should apply therefore to cows and sheep as it is a question for their survivability!!?
Laws try to generalise processes and reactions, Theories try to explain, logically something. Theories can be disproven.
Every scientific law or equation created will have some limitations and will have exceptions. If this is the case, what validity or credibility can such laws have that we base the existence of mankind on a theory or a law that we know has assumptions and limitations?
The theory of evolution tries to explain the existance of mankind. Can scientists nullify or disprove the existence of God, that God is the Creator??
THey cannot disprove that He is the creator in as much as they cannot prove that He is NOT the Creator. Its just a theory.
The more you study science, the more you see that you cannot generalise, nor can you assume the same laws that apply for one process will apply for EVERY single process that exists.
What right then do scientists have the right to tell us that mankind came from apes??
If apes evolved into humans, then why don't humans evolve into lions?
I truly believe that if a scientist is aetheist, he will try and prove scientifically that God doesn't exist. If the scientist is neither aetheist NOR religious, he/she CANNOT stand by theories based on generalisations and preach them as the gospel truth.
What should be done is this:
Disprove, scientifically that God does NOT exist.
If the theory of Evolution is the truth, it means that God does not exist. If that's the case, can they prove it?? This is where the research should be. In disproving it.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6421.msg85489#msg85489 date=1207828146] Interesting. However, how do we nullify a theory that is not able to be repeated or observed?
Have we seen any other species change into a human being? There are a lot of Egyptian people that definately look like monkeys, but when I see them at an angle, they do look human, especially when they wear glasses.
THe best way is for them to prove that God does not exist. ITs that simple.
If the theory of evolution, to the point that we came from apes is correct, then this renders our ENTIRE faith as incorrect. It means that Genesis did not happen. God did NOT create Adam & Eve. It means there was no Garden, there was no tree, and there was no punishment.
The Theory of Evolution, to the extent that we came from another species, cannot co-exist with the Christian Faith.
Its impossible. THere needs to be a debate on this issue once and for all, and scientific proof of MACRO evolution needs to be presented and observed (i.e. ONE species becoming or changing into another specie). If we came from Apes, why do apes still exist??
If we came from cavemen, then like the example I gave, what is stopping us from coming to the conclusion that the indigenous human population where such bodies were discovered were of a particular culture where their physical characteristics were in fact "dwarfed" or "ape-like".
Like I said, a few patterns does not mean we can generalise!
At a microlevel, yes, I agree that even humans can adapt physically to their environment. THe more i live in cold climates, the more my body gets used to it, and the less i feel cold. This is at a micro-level. I doubt that I will one day evolve into a fish if I keep on swimming everyday!!! (This is macro-evolution).
Even if one macroevolution occurred, it would not render that all organisms evolved from one single primitive organism. Atheists would need it to have a singularity, because the first singularity is implausible enough to happen, and for numerous uprisings- that would be unbelievable. However, correct me if I am wrong, the fossil record shows an explosion in the first epoch of bio-existence?
[quote author=clay link=topic=6421.msg85492#msg85492 date=1207832842] Even if one macroevolution occurred, it would not render that all organisms evolved from one single primitive organism. Atheists would need it to have a singularity, because the first singularity is implausible enough to happen, and for numerous uprisings- that would be unbelievable. However, correct me if I am wrong, the fossil record shows an explosion in the first epoch of bio-existence?
You know, when presenting scientific information, you can manipulate it so it shows what you "want" it to show.
We had to study advanced statistical methods of analysis for a topic, and one professor was saying that if you make ANYTHING in red it would stick out more than in blue.
Even in statistics, I can present any data in a way that would show my theory, not necessarily the truth. That's why we have a large sampling pool. The larger the pool, the more accurate the data.
50% of the population are women. That's a half. But if I said to you: 1 out of two persons is a woman, although that's a reflection of above statistical quote, its not really accurate. You see?
If I said I interviewed many people, and found that 90% were aetheists. What does that mean UNLESS i actually said to you that I happened to have only interviewed 10 persons. You see: I can manipulate the image presented to you (and do it scientifically) JUST to show the image I want to show.
I proved in the argument below (message prior to this one) that you cannot generalise in any theory, and that laws have exceptions to them, and that apparently there are more cases of events falling under the "exceptions" than actually obeying the law. Given this, its clear that as a scientist, the evidence FOR macro-evolution is not only biased, but extremly unprofessional.
The theory is interesting. Yes. The concept of speciation is extremely interesting and compelling. Does micro-speciation occur? The large statistical pool showing speciation occuring at the micro-level is immense. For the macro-level, not enough has been done yet to make ANY conclusions.
Here is an example to help you all answer scientists forcing evolution down your throat, and dissmissing any faith as just nonsense:
No one really knows the effects of micro-cellular radiation yet. THere are theories that it causes cancer. THere are other theories that it can harm memory. There are some theories (SPONSORED BY NOKIA AND SAMSUNG AND ERICSSON) that disspell such cases. Nothing has yet been substantiated. AND WHY!??
The sample pool is too small. There has not yet been enough time, and sufficient amount of similar evidence to make conclusions about the harmful effects of Micro-cellular radiation. THe only advice given to people is not to use your mobile phone UNLESS you really have to.
Now, we are in 2008. We've advanced since the time of Darwin - YOU AGREE?? Yet, in this day and age, we have scientific theories COUNTERACTING one another!!! One telling us that it causes harmful effects, and another telling us that it doesnt.
There's only one way to substantiate theories, and that's to use statistical analysis (as in epidemiology).
There is now AT LEAST 10 years of statistical data to compile results for analysing radiation from antennas.
If a specie becomes extinct, its NOT because it has evolved into another specie, its because somehow, we've terminated its existence. So, I still wait to see what statistical evidence they can provide to show a specie evolving into another specie??
Why do Apes still exist, and why havent all monkeys evolved into humans??
Your argument is predicated on the fact that Genesis cannot be reconciled with evolution, where as in almost all of my posts I have argued that assumption to be false. Please re-read them.
You are correct in saying evolution is a theory and it can be disproven I have never stated that evolution is fact. However, credence must be given to it because but the evidence is convincing for almost ALL scientists. A majority accept it as fact, and most accept it as plausible. They believe because as Theodosius Dobzhansky once famously said, "Nothin in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
Reply no.30 has an interesting notion to me about Adam being created from the dust - how can evolution possibly be in conjunction with our church belief then. Most likely this question has already been answered, but I would appreciate it if someonehas the answer.
josephgabriel, the videos below have some answers to your q, also please read this whole thread we've posted above. This presentation/lecture is very orthodox because it sticks to both Scripture and the scientific method.
duck, some of "these guys" at answersingenesis are scientists, but the one you should give yourself the chance to watch his videos is Kent Hovind: he has gathered so many details, it's worth viewing at least once even if you won't agree with him (links found in earlier posts).
Interpreting Genesis literally is what we are debating! But to show you that you can't take the chronology literal, read chapter 1 where it says that animals were made before Adam AND Eve (1:20-28) and then in chapter 2 it says that Adam existed before the animals were created and then eve coming later (2:15-25). Now your most likely going to pull the answersingenesis argument and say that it was translated wrong! Well thats debatable. A majority of translations leave it the way it was and don't render it the way in which the NIV translates it. So who knows whose right.
The complete detailed literal step by step account on God's creation is written in Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:6. After that it's not about this detailed sequence of creation anymore but it's about building the following account on already established / finished earlier events - so there is no contradiction. And I won't pull any mistranslation issue here I am confident there is none (in the NKJ version, still in use by the COC).
I doubt that I will one day evolve into a fish if I keep on swimming everyday!!! (This is macro-evolution).
loved also this very real cool remark by QT_PA_2T :D
I would like to add this: take a fish everyday out of the water for five minutes and train it to breath air and watch, it might turn into a frog in 100 years (a million years isn't too practical) - and if intermediate evolutionary steps do not occur it's doesn't matter.
Guys- it is not like Christianity is a made up religion. The evidence of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection- the miracles our ancestors were blessed with- the real substantial impact that faith has on our lives, should make this "Evolution" issue rather trivial. If many parts of Evolution is true- so be it; if you experience God do you think it would matter whether the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 was correct or not? We are saved by spirit, not knowledge.
DO you think it makes much difference if you believe Evolution or not; if so, then be assured many believe it compatible with the Story of Man as explained in the Scriptures. If you do not, let it go, unless you're a scientist and outraged that a philosophy is masquerading as Science.
Kent Hovind holds three degrees in Christian Education from unaccredited institutions. This man has no knowledge of science. More over Hovind has been criticized even from his fellow Young Earth Buddies. He's also serving a 10 year prison sentence for fraud...Check out his wiki link, its pretty interesting.
Dear clay, I do not follow, let go what? icocbechristos started this topic and said he was suffering because of this matter and he was looking for an answer from members.
Acts 4 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
or did you mean Proverbs 23:9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.
Dear duck, Repeating that evolution is scientifically correct or plausible will never make it true or valid.
About Hovind, it is clear that he was that successful to the extent that (sadly) ALL evolutionists unanimously said "pfff we got rid of him at last". Check the net more not just wikis.
He used to be a science teacher. His work was not in making scientific research himself instead he gathered, understood, mastered and compiled, then presented a wealth of scientific information prepared earlier by many scientists, researchers and serious thinkers and exposed evolution in a brilliant updated approach, to warn people of its many traps and to evangelize the way he felt useful. I say it's admirable what he left for others to help them understand better the so called "evolution facts", from a free or much wider angle. He succeeded to make such an interesting broad spectrum well-structured effort. He is also a thinker and he even proposed alternative ideas, theories/solutions. He won many debates with professors all by himself because he was defending the Bible, no doubt to me.
Have you watched the trailer of the movie Expelled? It says something about peer pressure.
Why he is sentenced is a very complicated issue, out of scope here I am sure, and could even be a choice of his - but this does not at all discredit his creationist work. Anyway you know we do pray for all those who are in prison, whatever their charges.
Dear duck, it is no more a requirement to be a scientist in order to discover how fragile evolution is.
Dear duck I have noticed that you are influenced a lot by what scientist say and you consider them to be correct. This isn't always the case especially in evolution. Don't let they word 'Scientist says' fool you. This is the main danger in evolution. I have also noticed that they have got a very very small amount of true fact in it but the rest is made of lies. That can fool you. Anyway pray for me
Things are evolving and changing ,that is an undeniable fact, but the fact that there is a Greater Creator behind all is an even greater undeniable fact...there are 2 million known species on the planet and an estimated 5-100 million species..such a wonderful diversity of life couldn't of have been made possible by an accident or couldn't have possibly all evolved from one species even in the given time frame.
Friend you have to realise that things do evolve and change and it is God Who allows those changes to take place for example I spray 2000 or so flies with pesticide, will all the 2000 die of course not.....some will be genetically resitant passing on the resistant genes to their offspring preventing that all the flies die out ....even take influenza it comes in thousands of forms and each time we get influenza and our immune system fights it off we become immune to that specific type of influenza.....
As a christian I don't deny that God created a dynamic planet ever changing, but when someone says that all life originated in the ocean and evolved on its own to become what it is, is wrong and shouldn't be accepted....
Science doesn't always have to be evil and doesn't always have to contradict the Bible...when Galileo suggested that the sun was at the centre of the solar system nd that the earth is movable, the church announced galileos views as heretical nd he was forced to renounce his views and was sent to a life of imprisonment and penance.......
Maye the dinosaurs did exist just because it doesn't say it in the bible it doesn't mean it is wrong, the bible does not account for every tiny detail in history........who knows? but there are bigger issues than debating whether the dinosaurs existed or not......i mean the bible doesn't say you and i existed about 2000 years after Christ does that mean for any reader in the future that it's a lie we existed....
Personally if i were to get into a debate about evolution with a science teacher i wouldn't use protestant bible bashing techniques state the obvious:
- Diversity of Life -Complex interelationships between life
Take for example barrier islands these are natural islands consisting of mangrove systems and plants which are able to quikly uptake huge amounts of water in the case of a hurricane and these also slow down hurricanes before hitting the main shore .....they serve to protect the coastline from severe storms and harbor several habitats that are refuges for wildlife ...these islands didn't just get there did they they are perfectly positioned as if someone just placed them there....hence more evidence of God the Creator..we don't even exactly know yet how they are formed and why infront of coast lines....
Tell your teacher that similarities between organisms point to a common Creator rather than a common ancestor, tell your teacher that politicians and scientists spend billions of dollars searching for extra terrestrial life with the belief that it could of all just 'evolved' given the right condidtions, when half the amount isn't even spent on feeding starving children or protecting the supposedly 'evolved' life here on earth.......
I'll be honest and say I have barely kept up with the discussion going on here. All I will say is please don't ever say our Church is "against" evolution or that it's heretical, because such is not so, and since that's not the case, you make the Church look bad and create your own dogma. The church neither supports nor opposes evolution. Why? We simply don't care. Maybe we were monkeys at one point, maybe not. Maybe God wanted to create us through evolution, maybe not. Maybe we'll never know. MOST Orthodox theologians and scholars believe that the story of the fall is entirely metaphorical, however, we'll never know. Was there really a guy named Adam and a woman named Eve? Probably, but not necessarily. These stories are more SPIRITUAL than factual. The fall demonstrates our separation from God and the cause of eternal death, but is not necessarily a fact-to-fact document. Don't let fanatic protestant media make you think that the Church is so narrow-minded as to neglect anything not set in stone...
Hi guys, First of all, please keep an open mind throughout this discussion, this is the most important thing. Secondly, one way is right and the other is wrong. There is no middle ground, either a statement is true or false, this is the first building block in making logical arguments, so we can't say that evolution AND the story of the world being created in 6 days are both correct just because we can't prove one way or another, all we can each do as an individual of the church is say that we are more partial to one side, and then try to defend our position, NOT PROVE IT, because even large scale evolution cannot be proven yet, even with all the technology we have today. In adhering with the church, evolution is very possible, even to the extent of the scientific definition. I will agree with Anastasi in saying that we shouldn't care as Christians about these facts as they will not profit us in any of our dealings; however, they make a huge difference when having a discussion with a friend or colleague about their faith, as well as ours, because they might disregard our beliefs if we tell them that we believe evolution is a hoax and that the world was created in 144 hours. The reason we shouldn't tell them this is because we don't know if that's true, and there is no proof of this outside the bible (even inside the bible, some can argue that the time is symbolic, and it probably is), which they don't believe in =O. However, if we tell them that evolution could be true, and that the past isn't set in stone by the church, which is the real truth, we might be able to convince them to consider our faith in a more open-minded matter, and with more interest. AS for this quote: [quote author=Anastasi link=topic=6421.msg86172#msg86172 date=1209012809] MOST Orthodox theologians and scholars believe that the story of the fall is entirely metaphorical, however, we'll never know. Was there really a guy named Adam and a woman named Eve? Probably, but not necessarily. These stories are more SPIRITUAL than factual. The fall demonstrates our separation from God and the cause of eternal death, but is not necessarily a fact-to-fact document. Anastasi, not to sound harsh, but please put some sources on this matter, because I think the word you should have used here instead of "MOST", would be "one", if not none. I never heard about this, but then again, I probably haven't heard about a lot of other things, so can you please give me a link or the name of a book that backs that statement up?
Again, please keep an open mind in this discussion, and by and open mind, I mean be ready to change your opinions. This is an orthodox forum, and unless the word of a clergy member is the one in question, then any of us could be wrong about our impression of the church or the dogma. Please remember that we wouldn't try to mislead each other or change each other's beliefs, we are all brothers and sisters here. Pray for me,
The theory of Evolution is amenable, as all other theories, to modification and alteration during the ages. Since, when we talk about evolution we are talking about hypothesis, and principles, a blanket "false" would not suffice, and is not intelligent.
I recommend people to read, if this topic interests you (and if does not, please don't bother; read St. Augustine's confessions or City of God, or St. Athanasius's Biography of St. Anthony), books like
Darwanian fairytales. This is from someone not really sympathetic to Christianity, but he makes observations about the rise of Darwanism and its link to a New Atheism.
Bishoy, most sermons I've attended regarding this issue seemed to hint at the metaphorical side of Genesis.. I'm not comfortable giving out clergy names so as to not misquote.. but many of our own metropolitans, bishops, and priests believe such... you can look it up on any sermon website if it's available and I'm sure you'll find someone say it. When I used the word "most" it was not exaggeration, it was an observation. I personally have not come across a single clergyman or book that stated that Genesis was 100% literal.. except for Protestant preachers.
There's also a book called The Six Dawns about evolution and Orthodoxy if you're interested.. in addition to what Clay recommended (all excellent books) :)
[quote author=Marina88 link=topic=6421.msg86144#msg86144 date=1208954037] Things are evolving and changing ,that is an undeniable fact, but the fact that there is a Greater Creator behind all is an even greater undeniable fact...there are 2 million known species on the planet and an estimated 5-100 million species..such a wonderful diversity of life couldn't of have been made possible by an accident or couldn't have possibly all evolved from one species even in the given time frame.
Can i humbly ask one thing: How do u know that things are evolving and changing? It is very unaccurate if you measure it in a short period of time like a 100 years.
+ You have stated a fact about spicies. That is correct. As I have stated more than 5 times on this thread The church doesn't object to micro evolution. This means adaptations to the environment and selective breeding... This is where scientists got the idea of evolution from. A dog can adapt to an environment over a couple of generations. However he will still stay as a dog. He won't become somthing else.
Anastasi [quote author=Anastasi link=topic=6421.msg86416#msg86416 date=1209527138] I personally have not come across a single clergyman or book that stated that Genesis was 100% literal.. except for Protestant preachers.
Actually most of our church takes it literall. Look, all of the thing that are in it happened and is reality but what the sermons HINT OUT is that moses wrote genesis 1000's years after these events happened. Because of the time gap, the stories were given a tiny tiny bit of symbolism in them. This is absolutely tiny and doesn't affect or interfere with anything. Such add ons include the fruit that adam ate from was an apple (it is not directly mentioned in genesis.) If it was an apple or any other fruit it doesn't matter. That's the kind of add ons. + I know exactly what you mean by genesis not being literall. It is always important to specify how much you think it is symbolic. + The thing is some christians have been led to just leaving the story of adam and eve out, considering it as a myth. Pray for me
Is there no way to console evolution with Genesis. I am not asking for a literal vs. non-literal approach at interpreting the Bible, but rather that we look for the pieces of the puzzle is missing. For example we know that God guided Moses when he recorded Genesis but we don't really know what 6 days meant? Did time exist before the creation or not? If it did, did it take as long to travel between two point at a constant speed. In my view the theory of evolution and others like it (relativity) shouldn't be quickly discarded but rationalized and made to endorse rather than refute Christianity. Secondly if you read genesis and then refer to a science textbook many of the events happen in the same order. I think the more likely scenario is that science has to actually catch up with the bible not the other way around.
The point is forget about evolution. There are more important things in life than a stupid theory.
Recycling, Recycling and more Recycling. + Please guys on this thread we have discussed many things and got them sorted. All that we are doing now is recycling our previous posts again and again and again. This is not beneficial and is a waste of time + effort. If you have any more points you would like to make please read previous posts to see if they are covered or not. This way we can gain the most from this valuable thread whithout recycling our posts. Pray for me
Hey Lost Normally I would agree with you about the time issue and the fact that this discussion can sometimes distract us from more important things. However I think that it is also very important because of the repercussions that it has on our faith. The young youth in the church are going to school and being told one side of the story and when they go to church more often than not their questions are left unanswered. The fact is that this discussion and the education of copts, especially those in the diaspora, are very important to the continuation and spread of our faith and church.
Comments
You nevertheless evade answering many of my questions.
Let me tell you what I believe, very concisely in few points:
* God Almighty is the Highest Wisdom and Ultimate Power: you say we do not know how God creates I tell you we do. God wills anything and it's there already, instantaneously and perfected. Jesus commanded the wind and the sea to shut and they did in the instant. Jesus commanded the paralytic to stand up and leprosy to leave and they did in the instant. He created a full new eye (how? from earth and water - dust and His saliva) and the born blind could see. Imagine all the inner unseen aspects of these miraculous events: the control of atmosphere, wind direction, its pressure and temperature, the water currents, hydraulic energy and temperature etc. Also consider the instantaneous regeneration of nerves, atrophied muscles and central nervous system centers and their instantaneous restoration and regeneration to their fully fledged harmonized physiologically fit functions as if these were always well formed and working since before birth throughout growth and development etc. It's an incredible miracle to science. God incredibly made everything this way.
Let us for ex. re-examine, scrutinize and understand how God explained to us in detail (in Genesis) the process He undertook in the creation of Eve, from Adam's loin. Isn't that an extremely important fact to consider?
* If we believe God made all creation He cannot be just an orchestrator but He is truly the Maker of all things. God's statute would not be considered as lesser (God forbid) had He told us He created everything in millions or even billions of years: He has the Will, He can create anyway He wishes, so He created according to His Wisdom and He said it was good. So He would have told us in full honesty for how long He created, since He said He made everything in six days, there's no obvious reason I can think of why He would not tell us about this theoretically introduced huge difference in time. But as you think about it, in the limited heads of men (who cannot see or cannot stand God's Almighty Power) they can hardly conceive this: they force themselves to follow their own reasoning, even if numerous problems arise and accumulate against wrong reasoning (that should logically direct towards freedom from erroneous theories) yet we find struggling against reason - and unfortunately against God.
* God has no beginning and has no end. He is the Alpha an the Omega. He created time and space. He created things in a way that might appear to us done in billions of years but He created them in few minutes or instantaneously.
Man should reason this way (this defies the unbelievers): what The Lord Almighty had created, and which is currently thought and considered to require billions or millions of years (as interpreted in some human minds) the fact is He did create all the universe (including all uncountable galaxies, stars and their distances of billions of light years) and what's in it seen and unseen, well God Almighty made it fully ready for use in just six days. Isn't that incredibly wonderful?
The effects that would appear to have taken billions of years were accelerated by God's Power (who is beyond the limits of time and space) occurred fully in just few hours, few minutes or even instantly - and definitely perfectly according to His Will.
Science cannot defy God. He created all laws of science (that is the good science, the known, the not yet known and the never to be known). He is therefore in full control of all the scientific laws and governs the whole universe. He is the Pantocrator (The Ruler of All or The Sustainer of the World). Real science proves the Wisdom and Power of God.
Being Love, God leaves things a bit, He grants second chances, so unbelief would be rectified by men who may believe in Him, because He is the Savior of all humans and His Will is that everybody should profit from His Salvation. Lord Almighty have mercy and do not pour Your Wrath on us.
* If you consider Genesis as a fantastic or all symbolic Scripture inspired by God then you have two problems or issues: first, Genesis is not a poem or a song, it is not revealed in a dream or in a vision. Thus it is known as a realistic spiritual Scripture, with realistic details comprising the history of origins.
Second, it tells us about the fall of Eve and Adam and the curse of death. It clearly paves the way for the coming of Christ to save mankind (is this a symbol). It also clearly tells us about good and evil (and who's who).
In a court of law if a witness lies about a detail, the lawyers immediately jump to the conclusion that all his testimony may be wrong or irrelevant, and exploit this fully towards their advantage.
Genesis tells us about steps of creation that, as I expect, must defy any known science to us (otherwise men would have this foolish trend to try to be like God). Remember that to The Lord Almighty the wisdom of this world is foolishness.
GBU
Dear duck,
You nevertheless evade answering many of my questions.
I answered enough of the surface level questions with surface level answers, to make the point that your claims are weak and answerable.
In the rest of your post you reiterate your position on things, but add nothing knew. I'll respond to a few lines...
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873]
* God has no beginning and has no end. He is the Alpha an the Omega. He created time and space. He created things in a way that might appear to us done in billions of years but He created them in few minutes or instantaneously.
This sentence pretty much summarizes everything you said above it, and all it shows is that he could have worked this way...not that it happened. And I agree he could have done this because God is Almighty; however, it leaves us with a problem. Did God deceive us? Making things appear as if they took billions of years to create when he did it instantaneously seems like a big practical joke to me...
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873]
So He would have told us in full honesty for how long He created, since He said He made everything in six days, there's no obvious reason I can think of why He would not tell us about this theoretically introduced huge difference in time
Why, is the Bible a science book? If it were then I would be scratching my head wondering why God would leave this important piece of scientific information out. Peter talks about one day being a thousand years (2Pet3:8)...And also, reread Genesis and it makes no indication that the 7th day ended. So in essence we are still in the 7th day...how you reconcile this with your claim of 24 hour periods I don't know, you tell me.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873]
In a court of law if a witness lies about a detail, the lawyers immediately jump to the conclusion that all his testimony may be wrong or irrelevant, and exploit this fully towards their advantage
What lies?
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873]
* If you consider Genesis as a fantastic or all symbolic Scripture inspired by God then you have two problems or issues: first, Genesis is not a poem or a song, it is not revealed in a dream or in a vision. Thus it is known as a realistic spiritual Scripture, with realistic details comprising the history of origins.
Circular argument? We are debating on whether Genesis is to be taken literally or not. You give a strong and emphatic yes, and I say most likely no. You aren't proving anything by saying Genesis isn't symbolic, because that is the crux of our debate...Oh and circular arguments don't work well in court rooms either fyi.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=6421.msg85141#msg85141 date=1207393873]
Genesis tells us about steps of creation that, as I expect, must defy any known science to us (otherwise men would have this foolish trend to try to be like God). Remember that to The Lord Almighty the wisdom of this world is foolishness.
Your right! Have you seen the probability of evolution occuring by natural means alone?? The number is 1 in 10^2E9.....This is a number with 2 BILLION ZEROES AFTER IT. Can you fathom that number?? And when athiests are approached with this number they start coming up with fairy tale theories of parallel universes. The probability of something like this occuring is astronomically low and if true, it would definitely be considered without a shadow of a doubt...a miracle.
I haven't yet met an evolutionist who does not attack the persons who disagree with evolution! One known technique is to push ignorance of (unproven) facts or the inability to assimilate them. But you could be right I may be drowned in scientific shallowness!
If things seem to us to have taken much more time in the millions/billions range it's because we are ourselves so limited in time and whatever scientific advances we still won't be able to determine the time of "In the beginning..." accurately. I am almost certain they will have to add more millions/billions now and then to their version of "origins".
God allows the unwise to deceive themselves. God wants us to believe - not to follow our own reasoning. I guess it's possible to have some scientific doubts, we know that even St Thomas doubted. At the end he said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28.
I just need to ask some q one by one so please first answer this:
- didn't God state that He created our sun AFTER He created the Earth?
I do not dare to think for even the blink of an eye to question the reality or the authenticity of Genesis on any of its inspired details.
GBU
I just need to ask some q one by one so please first answer this:
- didn't God state that He created our sun AFTER He created the Earth?
You should know my response by now. I agree that if Genesis is interpreted literally, that is what you are led to believe. But I don't think Genesis should be interpreted in a literal fashion. Heres why:
a) Simply a repost...you never even addressed this issue
[quote author=duck link=topic=6421.msg85125#msg85125 date=1207332673]
Interpreting Genesis literally is what we are debating! But to show you that you can't take the chronology literal, read chapter 1 where it says that animals were made before Adam AND Eve (1:20-28) and then in chapter 2 it says that Adam existed before the animals were created and then eve coming later (2:15-25). Now your most likely going to pull the answersingenesis argument and say that it was translated wrong! Well thats debatable. A majority of translations leave it the way it was and don't render it the way in which the NIV translates it. So who knows whose right.
and
b) Genesis makes no claim that the seventh day ended; hence we are still in the 7th day. Please reconcile that with the literal 24 hour Genesis day theory.
Genesis makes no claim that the seventh day ended; hence we are still in the 7th day. Please reconcile that with the literal 24 hour Genesis day theory.
i havn't really been fellowing this, but let me just add that the 24 hour day that we have one started when the sun and the moon and their rotation was set up.
Also yes we are basicly still living in the 7th day and at its end, life would be completed and the 8th day will start, which is eternity.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
In science, we try to create laws and we expect these laws to apply to all physical and chemical experiments. These laws give us confidence in helping us predict outcomes that may have never existed or taken place, or that we are unsure of.
For every law created that describes a certain pattern, or process, there are exceptions to these laws.
Roult's Law is a book. "The Exceptions to Roult's Law" is another book that is double in size, and is printed in hardcopy and softcopy.
The Kinetic Theory of Matter states that all elements can exist in gaseous, liquid and solid states (given the amount of energy to render them in these states). Its true. A solid, when heated will go to the liquid, when further heated, will go the gaseaous.
This applies to all elements - All, except for Carbon. Carbon CANNOT exist in the liquid form. In theory, it can. In practice, it cannot. In fact, people are still trying to study & understand the properties of liquid carbon, but they can't. They only have milliseconds before it solidifies, even under controlled conditions. Furthermore, under normal conditions carbon sublimes. It doesn't go to the liquid phase at all!!
In theory, all of Roult's laws should work in Theory, in practice, these laws cannot be generalised, and so we have exceptions.
Diamond is meant to be a perfect structure, hence making it a perfect solid structure. Why then did I study 2 years reading books about the imperfections of diamonds and loose electrons?? Because there are exceptions to such structures.
We want to take the ocean, its mystery and put it under a microscope and say to ourselves: "Look, its not mysterious anymore". We cannot do that. Its so complex, and so different that a mathematical formula will not suffice to model nor summarise the complexities of the ocean or the sea.
Scientists will try and summarise events with theories, in the same way a traveller will write a commentary on Egypt and say "Egyptians are very religious people".
Yes, they are religious people, but there are exceptions.
If they said "Egypt is full of sand"
Yes, it is full of sand, but its also full of water.
If they said "Egyptians are friendly people" - how do they know? Did they interview EVERY Egyptian??
Such comments that I often read in brochures are generalisations that are made to give us assurances about the unknown before we decide to travel to such destinations. But they are generalisations. Meeting 100 nice people doesn't make a population of 77 million "nice".
THis is the same for theories. Yes, we can see patterns, but it doesnt mean that such patterns apply to EVERYTHING!!!
Species may evolve at a micro level, but what proof is there that they evolved at a macro level??
If that's the case, why doesn't all species evolve into humans ??? Why do cows exist, or continue to exist? Why don't they evolve into Lions. Centuries have taught cows that they are going to be eaten the 1st. They don't serve "Lion Meat" at McDonald's. Why don't cows evolve into lions then?? Surely the theory of evolution should apply therefore to cows and sheep as it is a question for their survivability!!?
Laws try to generalise processes and reactions,
Theories try to explain, logically something. Theories can be disproven.
Every scientific law or equation created will have some limitations and will have exceptions. If this is the case, what validity or credibility can such laws have that we base the existence of mankind on a theory or a law that we know has assumptions and limitations?
The theory of evolution tries to explain the existance of mankind. Can scientists nullify or disprove the existence of God, that God is the Creator??
THey cannot disprove that He is the creator in as much as they cannot prove that He is NOT the Creator. Its just a theory.
The more you study science, the more you see that you cannot generalise, nor can you assume the same laws that apply for one process will apply for EVERY single process that exists.
What right then do scientists have the right to tell us that mankind came from apes??
If apes evolved into humans, then why don't humans evolve into lions?
I truly believe that if a scientist is aetheist, he will try and prove scientifically that God doesn't exist. If the scientist is neither aetheist NOR religious, he/she CANNOT stand by theories based on generalisations and preach them as the gospel truth.
What should be done is this:
Disprove, scientifically that God does NOT exist.
If the theory of Evolution is the truth, it means that God does not exist. If that's the case, can they prove it?? This is where the research should be. In disproving it.
Interesting. However, how do we nullify a theory that is not able to be repeated or observed?
Have we seen any other species change into a human being? There are a lot of Egyptian people that definately look like monkeys, but when I see them at an angle, they do look human, especially when they wear glasses.
THe best way is for them to prove that God does not exist. ITs that simple.
If the theory of evolution, to the point that we came from apes is correct, then this renders our ENTIRE faith as incorrect. It means that Genesis did not happen. God did NOT create Adam & Eve. It means there was no Garden, there was no tree, and there was no punishment.
The Theory of Evolution, to the extent that we came from another species, cannot co-exist with the Christian Faith.
Its impossible. THere needs to be a debate on this issue once and for all, and scientific proof of MACRO evolution needs to be presented and observed (i.e. ONE species becoming or changing into another specie). If we came from Apes, why do apes still exist??
If we came from cavemen, then like the example I gave, what is stopping us from coming to the conclusion that the indigenous human population where such bodies were discovered were of a particular culture where their physical characteristics were in fact "dwarfed" or "ape-like".
Like I said, a few patterns does not mean we can generalise!
At a microlevel, yes, I agree that even humans can adapt physically to their environment. THe more i live in cold climates, the more my body gets used to it, and the less i feel cold. This is at a micro-level. I doubt that I will one day evolve into a fish if I keep on swimming everyday!!! (This is macro-evolution).
Even if one macroevolution occurred, it would not render that all organisms evolved from one single primitive organism. Atheists would need it to have a singularity, because the first singularity is implausible enough to happen, and for numerous uprisings- that would be unbelievable. However, correct me if I am wrong, the fossil record shows an explosion in the first epoch of bio-existence?
You know, when presenting scientific information, you can manipulate it so it shows what you "want" it to show.
We had to study advanced statistical methods of analysis for a topic, and one professor was saying that if you make ANYTHING in red it would stick out more than in blue.
Even in statistics, I can present any data in a way that would show my theory, not necessarily the truth. That's why we have a large sampling pool. The larger the pool, the more accurate the data.
50% of the population are women. That's a half. But if I said to you: 1 out of two persons is a woman, although that's a reflection of above statistical quote, its not really accurate. You see?
If I said I interviewed many people, and found that 90% were aetheists. What does that mean UNLESS i actually said to you that I happened to have only interviewed 10 persons. You see: I can manipulate the image presented to you (and do it scientifically) JUST to show the image I want to show.
I proved in the argument below (message prior to this one) that you cannot generalise in any theory, and that laws have exceptions to them, and that apparently there are more cases of events falling under the "exceptions" than actually obeying the law. Given this, its clear that as a scientist, the evidence FOR macro-evolution is not only biased, but extremly unprofessional.
The theory is interesting. Yes. The concept of speciation is extremely interesting and compelling. Does micro-speciation occur? The large statistical pool showing speciation occuring at the micro-level is immense. For the macro-level, not enough has been done yet to make ANY conclusions.
Here is an example to help you all answer scientists forcing evolution down your throat, and dissmissing any faith as just nonsense:
No one really knows the effects of micro-cellular radiation yet. THere are theories that it causes cancer. THere are other theories that it can harm memory. There are some theories (SPONSORED BY NOKIA AND SAMSUNG AND ERICSSON) that disspell such cases. Nothing has yet been substantiated. AND WHY!??
The sample pool is too small. There has not yet been enough time, and sufficient amount of similar evidence to make conclusions about the harmful effects of Micro-cellular radiation. THe only advice given to people is not to use your mobile phone UNLESS you really have to.
Now, we are in 2008. We've advanced since the time of Darwin - YOU AGREE?? Yet, in this day and age, we have scientific theories COUNTERACTING one another!!!
One telling us that it causes harmful effects, and another telling us that it doesnt.
There's only one way to substantiate theories, and that's to use statistical analysis (as in epidemiology).
There is now AT LEAST 10 years of statistical data to compile results for analysing radiation from antennas.
If a specie becomes extinct, its NOT because it has evolved into another specie, its because somehow, we've terminated its existence. So, I still wait to see what statistical evidence they can provide to show a specie evolving into another specie??
Why do Apes still exist, and why havent all monkeys evolved into humans??
Your argument is predicated on the fact that Genesis cannot be reconciled with evolution, where as in almost all of my posts I have argued that assumption to be false. Please re-read them.
You are correct in saying evolution is a theory and it can be disproven I have never stated that evolution is fact. However, credence must be given to it because but the evidence is convincing for almost ALL scientists. A majority accept it as fact, and most accept it as plausible. They believe because as Theodosius Dobzhansky once famously said, "Nothin in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=246.30
Reply no.30 has an interesting notion to me about Adam being created from the dust - how can evolution possibly be in conjunction with our church belief then. Most likely this question has already been answered, but I would appreciate it if someonehas the answer.
pray for me
joe
Go to this page and find the last title in the most bottom table:
The Fossil Record > Mike Riddle > part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4
duck, some of "these guys" at answersingenesis are scientists, but the one you should give yourself the chance to watch his videos is Kent Hovind: he has gathered so many details, it's worth viewing at least once even if you won't agree with him (links found in earlier posts). The complete detailed literal step by step account on God's creation is written in Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:6. After that it's not about this detailed sequence of creation anymore but it's about building the following account on already established / finished earlier events - so there is no contradiction. And I won't pull any mistranslation issue here I am confident there is none (in the NKJ version, still in use by the COC). loved also this very real cool remark by QT_PA_2T :D
I would like to add this: take a fish everyday out of the water for five minutes and train it to breath air and watch, it might turn into a frog in 100 years (a million years isn't too practical) - and if intermediate evolutionary steps do not occur it's doesn't matter.
GBU
It's amazing how many are there on the net on this topic (some very good but not all are).
GBU
DO you think it makes much difference if you believe Evolution or not; if so, then be assured many believe it compatible with the Story of Man as explained in the Scriptures. If you do not, let it go, unless you're a scientist and outraged that a philosophy is masquerading as Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind#Controversial_remarks
I do not follow, let go what? icocbechristos started this topic and said he was suffering because of this matter and he was looking for an answer from members.
Acts 4
20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
or did you mean Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.
Dear duck,
Repeating that evolution is scientifically correct or plausible will never make it true or valid.
About Hovind, it is clear that he was that successful to the extent that (sadly) ALL evolutionists unanimously said "pfff we got rid of him at last". Check the net more not just wikis.
He used to be a science teacher. His work was not in making scientific research himself instead he gathered, understood, mastered and compiled, then presented a wealth of scientific information prepared earlier by many scientists, researchers and serious thinkers and exposed evolution in a brilliant updated approach, to warn people of its many traps and to evangelize the way he felt useful. I say it's admirable what he left for others to help them understand better the so called "evolution facts", from a free or much wider angle.
He succeeded to make such an interesting broad spectrum well-structured effort. He is also a thinker and he even proposed alternative ideas, theories/solutions. He won many debates with professors all by himself because he was defending the Bible, no doubt to me.
Have you watched the trailer of the movie Expelled? It says something about peer pressure.
Why he is sentenced is a very complicated issue, out of scope here I am sure, and could even be a choice of his - but this does not at all discredit his creationist work. Anyway you know we do pray for all those who are in prison, whatever their charges.
Dear duck, it is no more a requirement to be a scientist in order to discover how fragile evolution is.
GBU
I have noticed that you are influenced a lot by what scientist say and you consider them to be correct. This isn't always the case especially in evolution. Don't let they word 'Scientist says' fool you.
This is the main danger in evolution. I have also noticed that they have got a very very small amount of true fact in it but the rest is made of lies. That can fool you.
Anyway pray for me
Friend you have to realise that things do evolve and change and it is God Who allows those changes to take place for example I spray 2000 or so flies with pesticide, will all the 2000 die of course not.....some will be genetically resitant passing on the resistant genes to their offspring preventing that all the flies die out ....even take influenza it comes in thousands of forms and each time we get influenza and our immune system fights it off we become immune to that specific type of influenza.....
As a christian I don't deny that God created a dynamic planet ever changing, but when someone says that all life originated in the ocean and evolved on its own to become what it is, is wrong and shouldn't be accepted....
Science doesn't always have to be evil and doesn't always have to contradict the Bible...when Galileo suggested that the sun was at the centre of the solar system nd that the earth is movable, the church announced galileos views as heretical nd he was forced to renounce his views and was sent to a life of imprisonment and penance.......
Maye the dinosaurs did exist just because it doesn't say it in the bible it doesn't mean it is wrong, the bible does not account for every tiny detail in history........who knows? but there are bigger issues than debating whether the dinosaurs existed or not......i mean the bible doesn't say you and i existed about 2000 years after Christ does that mean for any reader in the future that it's a lie we existed....
Personally if i were to get into a debate about evolution with a science teacher i wouldn't use protestant bible bashing techniques state the obvious:
- Diversity of Life
-Complex interelationships between life
Take for example barrier islands these are natural islands consisting of mangrove systems and plants which are able to quikly uptake huge amounts of water in the case of a hurricane and these also slow down hurricanes before hitting the main shore .....they serve to protect the coastline from severe storms and harbor several habitats that are refuges for wildlife ...these islands didn't just get there did they they are perfectly positioned as if someone just placed them there....hence more evidence of God the Creator..we don't even exactly know yet how they are formed and why infront of coast lines....
Tell your teacher that similarities between organisms point to a common Creator rather than a common ancestor, tell your teacher that politicians and scientists spend billions of dollars searching for extra terrestrial life with the belief that it could of all just 'evolved' given the right condidtions, when half the amount isn't even spent on feeding starving children or protecting the supposedly 'evolved' life here on earth.......
We're much smarter than that ;)
Peace.
First of all, please keep an open mind throughout this discussion, this is the most important thing.
Secondly, one way is right and the other is wrong. There is no middle ground, either a statement is true or false, this is the first building block in making logical arguments, so we can't say that evolution AND the story of the world being created in 6 days are both correct just because we can't prove one way or another, all we can each do as an individual of the church is say that we are more partial to one side, and then try to defend our position, NOT PROVE IT, because even large scale evolution cannot be proven yet, even with all the technology we have today. In adhering with the church, evolution is very possible, even to the extent of the scientific definition. I will agree with Anastasi in saying that we shouldn't care as Christians about these facts as they will not profit us in any of our dealings; however, they make a huge difference when having a discussion with a friend or colleague about their faith, as well as ours, because they might disregard our beliefs if we tell them that we believe evolution is a hoax and that the world was created in 144 hours. The reason we shouldn't tell them this is because we don't know if that's true, and there is no proof of this outside the bible (even inside the bible, some can argue that the time is symbolic, and it probably is), which they don't believe in =O. However, if we tell them that evolution could be true, and that the past isn't set in stone by the church, which is the real truth, we might be able to convince them to consider our faith in a more open-minded matter, and with more interest.
AS for this quote:
[quote author=Anastasi link=topic=6421.msg86172#msg86172 date=1209012809]
MOST Orthodox theologians and scholars believe that the story of the fall is entirely metaphorical, however, we'll never know. Was there really a guy named Adam and a woman named Eve? Probably, but not necessarily. These stories are more SPIRITUAL than factual. The fall demonstrates our separation from God and the cause of eternal death, but is not necessarily a fact-to-fact document.
Anastasi, not to sound harsh, but please put some sources on this matter, because I think the word you should have used here instead of "MOST", would be "one", if not none. I never heard about this, but then again, I probably haven't heard about a lot of other things, so can you please give me a link or the name of a book that backs that statement up?
Again, please keep an open mind in this discussion, and by and open mind, I mean be ready to change your opinions. This is an orthodox forum, and unless the word of a clergy member is the one in question, then any of us could be wrong about our impression of the church or the dogma. Please remember that we wouldn't try to mislead each other or change each other's beliefs, we are all brothers and sisters here.
Pray for me,
Bishoy
The theory of Evolution is amenable, as all other theories, to modification and alteration during the ages. Since, when we talk about evolution we are talking about hypothesis, and principles, a blanket "false" would not suffice, and is not intelligent.
I recommend people to read, if this topic interests you (and if does not, please don't bother; read St. Augustine's confessions or City of God, or St. Athanasius's Biography of St. Anthony), books like
Darwanian fairytales. This is from someone not really sympathetic to Christianity, but he makes observations about the rise of Darwanism and its link to a New Atheism.
There's also a book called The Six Dawns about evolution and Orthodoxy if you're interested.. in addition to what Clay recommended (all excellent books) :)
Peace.
Things are evolving and changing ,that is an undeniable fact, but the fact that there is a Greater Creator behind all is an even greater undeniable fact...there are 2 million known species on the planet and an estimated 5-100 million species..such a wonderful diversity of life couldn't of have been made possible by an accident or couldn't have possibly all evolved from one species even in the given time frame.
Can i humbly ask one thing: How do u know that things are evolving and changing? It is very unaccurate if you measure it in a short period of time like a 100 years.
+ You have stated a fact about spicies. That is correct. As I have stated more than 5 times on this thread The church doesn't object to micro evolution. This means adaptations to the environment and selective breeding...
This is where scientists got the idea of evolution from. A dog can adapt to an environment over a couple of generations. However he will still stay as a dog. He won't become somthing else.
Anastasi
[quote author=Anastasi link=topic=6421.msg86416#msg86416 date=1209527138]
I personally have not come across a single clergyman or book that stated that Genesis was 100% literal.. except for Protestant preachers.
Actually most of our church takes it literall. Look, all of the thing that are in it happened and is reality but what the sermons HINT OUT is that moses wrote genesis 1000's years after these events happened. Because of the time gap, the stories were given a tiny tiny bit of symbolism in them. This is absolutely tiny and doesn't affect or interfere with anything. Such add ons include the fruit that adam ate from was an apple (it is not directly mentioned in genesis.) If it was an apple or any other fruit it doesn't matter. That's the kind of add ons.
+ I know exactly what you mean by genesis not being literall. It is always important to specify how much you think it is symbolic.
+ The thing is some christians have been led to just leaving the story of adam and eve out, considering it as a myth.
Pray for me
Secondly if you read genesis and then refer to a science textbook many of the events happen in the same order. I think the more likely scenario is that science has to actually catch up with the bible not the other way around.
Recycling, Recycling and more Recycling.
+ Please guys on this thread we have discussed many things and got them sorted. All that we are doing now is recycling our previous posts again and again and again. This is not beneficial and is a waste of time + effort. If you have any more points you would like to make please read previous posts to see if they are covered or not. This way we can gain the most from this valuable thread whithout recycling our posts.
Pray for me
Normally I would agree with you about the time issue and the fact that this discussion can sometimes distract us from more important things. However I think that it is also very important because of the repercussions that it has on our faith. The young youth in the church are going to school and being told one side of the story and when they go to church more often than not their questions are left unanswered. The fact is that this discussion and the education of copts, especially those in the diaspora, are very important to the continuation and spread of our faith and church.