Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist" essay by S.V Bufeev


  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#61 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:31 AM

Please don't assume that it is some hidden sin that has directed me (or other Christians, for that matter) to a belief in evolution. It is rather a reasonable and objective examination of the theory and the evidence supporting that theory.


I do not accept this summary as truthful. If you were looking for a “reasonable and objective examination of the theory and the evidence supporting that theory”; you would have looked into the evidence that argues against evolution, such as flaws in radiometric dating; polonium halos; accelerated decay rates; hydrogen (alpha decay), salt and sediment accumulation; the decreasing strength of the earth’s magnetic field; soft tissue in dinosaur bones; evidence for catastrophism found all over the world; the extremely young date of the ocean floor; the mid-ocean ridge being the single event that caused ocean floor spreading, continental drift; tectonic plates; mountain ranges (such as the Himalayas) – all of which occurred in one momentous earth changing event when a single earthquake had torn the earth asunder and circled the earth with a giant mountain range which is over 70,000 kilometers long, and which brought about mass extinctions and the end of the giants (mega fauna), as the bible has told us.

If you had searched for a “reasonable and objective examination of the theory” you would know that evolution is neither reasonable nor objective. Your doubt is a sin; but you’re right, it is not hidden. Evolutionists try polluting Christian ears with nonsense that they pretend to be academic and objective. You need to swallow your pride and eat humble pie like the rest of us in order to allow God to enlighten the eyes of your heart and mind. This requires true repentance and true humility. I want this for you; but you must want this for yourself even more. You cannot deny the bible and claim to hold superior knowledge more than Jesus himself and expect an applause from Christians.

Steve

#62 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:14 PM

Steve,

Please point out to me where I have utilized a literal interpretation of Genesis to support my arguments. It seems as if you have made up your mind that everyone who critiques evolution must do so, ipso facto, based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, regardless of what they say, which, I assume, means that you are assuming that I am lying about the basis of my faith. What I see, sadly, is two fundamentalisms. On the one hand, Darwinism, which must be true, because it is "scientific" and therefore cannot be challenged, and on the other hand, the position that says, look, it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God, every word. Where does that leave someone like me who believes neither? Or any other reasonably decent common sense person who is not a fundamentalist?

#63 Steve Orr

Steve Orr

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:05 PM

Your doubt is a sin; but you’re right, it is not hidden.


My doubt in WHAT is a sin?

Steve Roche: Now you can gauge not only my sins, but my true intentions and lack of honesty? Sagely of you. Trust me... applause is not what I seek, Steve. I am interested in truth. I am a Christian, but being a school teacher also, I have a vested interest in knowing as much as I can about several subjects, including science. And as I said above, plenty of Orthodox Christians subscribe to, or at least are not in opposition to, evolution. Is Bishop Kallistos Ware an apostate who is in need of repentance, too? Or how about Dobzhansky, Orthodox Christian and biologist who said that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"? Who are you to say? Almost every Christian I know trusts the sciences for just about everything else: medicine, travel, technology, etc. It is usually only when their literal biblical interpretations are challenged that suddenly science becomes some secular enemy or tool of the devil. My investigation has not yet led me to many of these claims that you make. Given time, though, I have no resistance to investigating them, and am in fact quite open to evolution not being true (even if I currently feel quite certain that it is true). Perhaps I could use a refresher or an updated look at opposing arguments. Can you recommend a scientific book (not the Bible, please) or other source for this information? So far my examination of nearly anything anti-evolution has demonstrated an uncanny ability on the part of the creationists to cherry-pick and even skew data to support a young earth (while dismissing or ignoring contrary evidence). And thanks for posting passages from Genesis. Another reading of it, however, does not convince me that the Bible is a science text.

Also, as anti-evolutionists, what do you infer about all of the transitional fossils, the fossil record in general, genetic commonalities (such as human beings being 96% genetically the same as chimps), all of the hominid fossils that progress in time from species more ape-like to more human-like? How do you explain the poor design in human beings, from wisdom teeth, backs that still haven't adjusted to walking upright full-time, terribly designed prostate glands (that almost seem built for cancer), or the fact that baby embryos are completely covered in hair for a short time in the womb (and many other instances of partially evolved-away anatomy in other animals)?

My problem with this kind of thinking is that, if we are to repent of our curiosity to know the truth in the sciences and submit to a literal interpretation of a given religious text, then we lose all ability to be objective and are forced to receive everything through a specific biased lens. If this happens, science is dead. I believe you are creating a false ultimatum: Choose Orthodoxy, creationism, and the path of salvation OR choose science, evolution, and apostasy. I don't believe that it needs to be this way.

Edited by Steve Orr, 01 May 2012 - 09:30 PM.
grammar


#64 Steve Orr

Steve Orr

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:11 PM

Steve,

Please point out to me where I have utilized a literal interpretation of Genesis to support my arguments. It seems as if you have made up your mind that everyone who critiques evolution must do so, ipso facto, based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, regardless of what they say, which, I assume, means that you are assuming that I am lying about the basis of my faith. What I see, sadly, is two fundamentalisms. On the one hand, Darwinism, which must be true, because it is "scientific" and therefore cannot be challenged, and on the other hand, the position that says, look, it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God, every word. Where does that leave someone like me who believes neither? Or any other reasonably decent common sense person who is not a fundamentalist?


If you neither believe in evolution nor a literal reading of Genesis, then I suppose I see you as being somewhat anomalous. I have made no assumption that you are a liar. I am not a fundamentalist either. I have just found the arguments for evolution to be much stronger than those against it.

#65 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:35 PM

Steve, What I see, sadly, is two fundamentalisms. On the one hand, Darwinism, which must be true, because it is "scientific" and therefore cannot be challenged, and on the other hand, the position that says, look, it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God, every word. Where does that leave someone like me who believes neither? Or any other reasonably decent common sense person who is not a fundamentalist?


Hi Owen,

If you were addressing me, you may have misinterpreted my statements. I was not challenging your statements at all. I also do not hold to a literal 24 hour day creative days; I do not believe the bible teaches this view. I hold to a thousand year duration for each creative day; during which the earth went through multiple upheavals and transformations. The Siberian traps (and Deccan traps), for instance, I would think developed during the 3rd and 5th day of creation – after plants, but before animals. Evolutionists claim that these land masses in Russia and India were formed hundreds of millions of years ago, and that the volcano that formed the Siberian and Deccan traps had continually erupted for over 1 million years. If this was the case, then we do not require a meteorite to be responsible for the mass extinction events, as these two eruptions would have killed everything on earth.

Yet these two eruptions fall into insignificance compared to the rip in the earth which formed the mid-ocean ridge. The mid-ocean ridge circles the earth 3 times, and splits the earth like an apple, as if it was divided into 3 parts. I believe this event happened at the time of the flood; because the continents had shifted at this time; and prior to this event there were the same animals living in Africa and South America when these two continents were joined. This is known by the fossil records of these animals. In other words, the mid-ocean ridge was formed after animals were created, so after the 6th day. The event that caused this movement of the continents was likely the flood of Noah’s time.

My point is…, I do not hold to a literal view of Genesis either… Peter said that a “day” was to be considered as a thousand years. A thousand years for each creative day would have been ample time to form the coal beds and oil deposits, the diamond and mineral resources, the formation of limestone and marine fossils on top of the Himalayas, the Alps, and other mountain ranges (which were uplifted at the time of the flood), the sediment layers found within the grand canyon (and other canyons). The reason why evolutionists say that these events took place over millions of years is because of the theory of uniformity. There are only two options, uniformity or catastrophism. Catastrophes are required because of the amount of evidence demanding this… the mass extinctions and the mass burial grounds, the unique fossils of excrement, the frozen mammoths, the sudden uplifts that occurred throughout the world, such as at Tiahuanacu in the Andes which demonstrates uplift of over 12,000 feet of a megalithic city (post-flood), fossilised forests found all throughout the world, and so on.

Catastrophes are undeniable, but if you are listening to the evolutionists you will only get their version of the events, which teaches evolution. We live in the time of the great deception. We have all been groomed in the schools of the ungodly, we have all had evolution forced into our minds, and we have all been influenced by secularism and liberalism. This is part of the great deception, and if possible, it will deceive even the elect. This is not a sectarian deception; this is a global worldview deception. The Philistines have over-run the land of promise, and we are surrounded by philistine culture and thinking everywhere we go.

As I said: I do not believe in 24 hour creation… But I DO believe in a Creator. If this is fundamentalism, I gladly become labelled such. If the creator has been pushed out of our theology; then I say that we no longer have a theology, we have a philosophy. I don’t know where this leaves you. I would imagine that if you have marginalised the power of God as Darwin had done, then you have a problem. I do not think you have done this though. I thought you and I were basically on the same page. I get a little confused by what you are saying sometimes though.

God Bless
Steve

#66 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:31 PM

Steve Roche: Can you recommend a scientific book (not the Bible, please) or other source for this information?


“You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

Hi Steve Orr,
Doubt is indeed a spiritual problem. Doubt shipwrecks faith. Doubt dismembers faith. Doubt sabotages faith. Doubt replaces faith. Evolution is intended to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the bible. It calls God a liar. Evolution states that God was not required as the creator; for the Big Bang would have made everything this way without Him. Stating that God “chose evolution is order to create” is a substitute of God as Creator. This is why evolutionists deny that there is a God.

That you are a school teacher and that you are continually surrounded by the agendas of the evolutionist governments, which are in opposition to the Kingdom of God, is ample reason for you to be floundering in your faith. The toxic doctrines of secularism and humanism break down your natural defences over time. I do not condemn you for this, but you have placed yourself in that environment, so you have your own desires and ambitions to contend. This is a most difficult enviroment to work because of the peer-group pressure and the expectation on you to conform to the group policy and view.

A few good books that might help are:

  • The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton
  • Earth in Upheaval, by Immanuel Velikovsky
  • Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, by Thomas Barnes

The following books are presented by scientists who believe in a literal 24 hour creation. Although I do not hold to this view, the information is excellent to demonstrate creation and a young earth.

  • In the beginning, by Walt Brown
  • Thousand not Billions, by Dr Don DeYoung
  • Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphries

The Origin TV series is also available on Youtube and Blip:
http://blip.tv/origins#EpisodeArchive

This TV series is an excellent primer for students and teachers on the evidence for a young earth. These scientists all appear to support a literal 24-day creation, which I do not agree with. But apart from the 24-hour day interpretation of genesis, I DO agree with a young earth and special creation. This TV series gives most of the supportive evidence for this view.

I hope this helps.
Steve

Edited by Steve Roche, 01 May 2012 - 10:49 PM.


#67 Steve Orr

Steve Orr

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:16 AM

Hi Steve Roche,

Thanks for making the effort to share these resources with me. I will look into them and will perhaps try to read at least one of the books that you've suggested.

All the best,
Steve

Edited by Steve Orr, 02 May 2012 - 12:58 AM.


#68 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:40 AM

Responding to Mr. Orr (not Mr. Roche, sorry), the fact is that I am not anomalous at all. That's the whole point I've been trying to make all along, that there is a substantial body of critical literature that addresses only the science. It's out there for anyone to investigate. Some of it takes quite a bit of effort however. BTW, theology is the Queen of the sciences.

#69 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:47 PM

Dear Steve Orr

Review of scientist's books dealing with creation:

The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwin
Richard Hawkins is a journalist who covered the evolution debate. He is/was not a Christian; he is agnostic. He simply does not believe there is evidence for evolution, so he brings all of his years of investigations into a great book. Some topics include sediment and salt accumulation, helium and hydrogen dating, and flaws in radiometric dating.

Earth in Upheaval

Albert Einstein collaborated with Immanuel Velikovsky on Earth in Upheaval up until Einstein’s death. This is a tremendous book examining the evidence of Catastrophism. All of Velikovsky’s books are extremely interesting and provocative. His Worlds in Collision is another masterpiece.

Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field

Thomas Barnes is possibly the scientific world’s foremost expert on the magnetic field. The strength of the field has been continually examined since 1830, and every year the field has been declining. The magnetic field is believed to have a half-life of approx. 1400 years, and the strength of the field dramatically influences the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and also influences other radiometric patterns used for dating. Thomas also examines the so called polar shifts on the ocean floor, and he explains these to be of localised chemical origin, and not caused by actual magnetic polar shifts.

In the beginning

This is a scientific text book which examines all of the events in science from a creation point of view, particularly examining the deluge and the Hydroplate Theory. This is an excellent book. However, the authors favour a literal interpretation of Genesis based on the Hebrew Old Testament. I follow the Septuagint and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Thousands not Billions

This is the research by the R.A.T.E. team, who examine Radio Isotopes and the Age of the Earth. R.A.T.E. is associated with the Creation Research Foundation. This is an excellent book. However, the authors favour a literal interpretation of Genesis based on the Hebrew Old Testament. I follow the Septuagint and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Starlight and Time

This book examines the stars and time, and why light appears to take millions of light years to reach earth. This book, again, is excellent. However, the authors favour a literal interpretation of Genesis based on the Hebrew Old Testament. I follow the Septuagint and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

If you only read one book, then this guide might help you decide which one.

Regards
Steve

#70 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:23 PM

To sum up, an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist, because an Orthodox Christian trusts science and Darwinism is bad science. It's a comprehensive system that claims to explain existence based on a theory of social/economic progress propounded by Herbert Spencer. It should more aptly be described as biological Spencerism.

The dependency on Spencer is documented here, not by a critic of Darwin but by a supporter: http://www.history.o...eek_3/allen.pdf

#71 Steve Orr

Steve Orr

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:24 PM

Delete post

Edited by Steve Orr, 03 May 2012 - 09:00 PM.
I'm staying out of this for now.


#72 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM

Herbert Spencer became the father of the term, “survival of the fittest”. There was collaboration between Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Alfred Wallace and Charles Lyell. All of these scientists were influenced and affected by the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus observed the population discrepancies over time, and he suggested that famine and disease were a natural check on population growth. This phenomenon gave birth to the explanations of Spencer and Darwin who tried to determine the factors involved with diminished populations.

The world reached a population of 1 billion people in 1801. This number seamed ridiculously small if humans had evolved, as Darwin and Spencer had believed. The research of Malthus became the stepping stone to the catchphrase, “survival of the fittest”. It was the only “rational” explanation of why there were such small populations in the world.

The diminished populations of the world will always be a fly in the ointment for evolutionist. The world populations can only be explained by the idea of humans existing concurrent with biblical dates, not millions of years. If we had been evolving for millions of years… why so few people? The amount of people on earth confirms a biblical creation of man, and it contradicts an evolution explanation. It is amazing that the “evidence” stares us in the face every day.

Steve

#73 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:29 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Darwin and Spencer collaborated, but Spencer sent his works to Darwin, and, of course, all of these ideas were in the air at the time.

My understanding is that what we call "homo sapiens" have been around for about 50,000 years or so, and arrived on the scene suddenly.

#74 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:14 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Darwin and Spencer collaborated, but Spencer sent his works to Darwin, and, of course, all of these ideas were in the air at the time.


Herbert Spencer was the Secretary of the Derby Philosophical Society, a scientific society founded in the 1790s by Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. Erasmus Darwin was a major evolutionist, and many of the ideas of both Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer had originated from Erasmus Darwin, or through the scientific think-tank known as the Lunar Society, which was also established by Erasmus Darwin.

As said, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Alfred Wallace and Charles Lyell were all collaborators on the subject of evolution, and they were all friends. They were all part of the same society founded by Erasmus Darwin and the secretary was Herbert Spencer. This was how many of these scientists seemed to confirm each other’s findings; they were all members of the same club, similar to the Fabian society, established by Bertrand Russell and George Orwell.

Truth is stranger than fiction. The insider mechanics of our modern world is spine chilling. Often, the most famous personalities in a field of science were collaborators and joint members of some other movement operating behind the scenes. This gave any given philosophy or idea the appearance of agreement to the broader public. A great saying of these types is: Perception is 9/10’s of truth. Evolution is perceived to be true; therefore it is believed to be true. This is a trick performed by governments, media moguls and social engineers throughout the world. All is fair in love and war!

My understanding is that what we call "homo sapiens" have been around for about 50,000 years or so, and arrived on the scene suddenly.


50,000 years? This sounds like soft evolution. If homo sapiens were around 50,000 years ago, then we can throw genesis out the window. All of the exact chronologies from Adam down to Abraham are useless to us, and so to is the genealogy leading to Christ useless. We can either trust the bible or we cannot. Some things are clearly literal, other things are intended to be symbollic. Creation is literal. Adam and Eve are literal. The dates are literal. The word "days" is intended to be symbolic... Genesis 2:1 says the "day" (singular) that God made the heavens and the earth... Symbolism, were it exists, must be interpretated by the bible itself, not by mathematics or science. Peter tells us that a 'day' equals a thousand years. Peter wrote prophetically to address this day.

Steve

#75 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:29 PM

We don't have to throw Genesis anywhere. Whether or not God actually did things exactly as Moses tried to explain it or something entirely different makes no difference, it doesn't have to be literally true to be literal Truth.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the not a literal Pooh

#76 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:47 PM

All of the exact chronologies from Adam down to Abraham are useless to us, and so to is the genealogy leading to Christ useless. Steve


Sorry, I meant... 'All these chronologies would be useless to us if homo sapiens were here 50,000 years ago.' I do not throw genesis out, but some of our interpretations of genesis actually make Moses words redundant. This lack of thinking gives evolutionist and atheists much pleasure when we so blatantly contradict ourselves, or when we argue over nonsense...

#77 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:46 AM

Again, I try to deal with Darwinism on its own terms. I don't try to disprove it by proof texting from Scripture. However, I did not know about the much closer relationship between Spencer and Darwin, I had only been aware of the fact that Spencer made sure that Darwin had his essays. Can you cite some references, Steve? Thanks.

#78 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 08:03 AM

Can you cite some references, Steve? Thanks.


Hi Owen

I did research on the subject in my Earth Science course at university. It was one of the subjects in a test. Much of the material was provided in abstracts from the uni; but I found it all verified on Google searches from various websites, including Wikipedia. The interest Thomas Malthus developed after his research on populations was what got Darwin and Spencer motivated. Wikipedia mentions everything I have spoken of under each of the scientists own articles.

Erasmus Darwin
http://en.wikipedia..../Erasmus_Darwin

Lunar Society
http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Birmingham

Derby Philosophical Society
http://en.wikipedia....ophical_Society

Charles Darwin

http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_Darwin

Herbert Spencer
http://en.wikipedia....Herbert_Spencer

Alfred Wallace
http://en.wikipedia..../Alfred_Wallace

Charles Lyell
http://en.wikipedia....i/Charles_Lyell

Thomas Malthus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

Kind Regards
Steve

#79 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:10 PM

People seem to insist that you either believe in a literal seven 24 hour days creation or evolution. I am not fond of Intelligent Design either. How about "none of the above"? I am happy to admit that I don't know and I am not convinced that any of you do either. I suspect the REAL Truth about how God brought it all about will amaze us all when it all is revealed. Or so it seems to this bear of admittedly little brain.

Science doesn't know as much as it thinks it does.

Herman the Pooh


Hi Herman

I am just wondering on what Holy Scriptures or Church Fathers you are basing your " none of the above " answer on. Or is this just your own view without any other support?


For all those who laugh at literalist I wonder what they base their own view on. Would it not be wiser to trust the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers over scientific theories, the word "theory" means:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Which simply means theories are not proven facts.

The Bible says in Roman 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

For all those Orthodox who believe in evolution I ask is not evolution based on a life death cycle? Does this verse not say death did not enter the world until the first man sinned?
Do you not even believe in Adam and Eve? If the first 2 Chapters of Genesis in your view are symbolic what about the flood in Chapter 6 where do you tune into Gensis as being literal?

Edited by Aaron R., 05 May 2012 - 07:48 PM.


#80 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:09 PM

There is nothing in the Creed that demands a literalist belief in Genesis. The hymnody seems to stress the MEANING of Scripture which I can benefit from regardless of if it is literal or not.

Do you believe that all things are made up of combinations of fire, earth, water and air? Do you believe that the Sun and Moon revolve around the Earth and a heliotropic universe? There are many Fathers of the Church who did. Am I not allowed to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that Ptolemy was wrong? Do you believe that the Fathers of the Church represent the end-all and be-all of mathematics, biology, geology, medicine, metallurgy, or quantum physics?

I don't believe that Ptolemy was right. I don't believe in a heliotropic universe, I don't think most people really understand quantum physics or chaos theory. If they did, they would be closer to God than they might prefer to be. I don't think it is either/or, evolution or a literal Genesis. And my priest allows me to be a member of the Church and partake of the Holy Eucharist. I don't think ANY of us know one way or the other and I am fine with that. Your mileage may vary.

Herman the high-mileage Pooh




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users