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

#81 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:25 PM

Psalm 139:14

(KJV)

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

( notice made not evolved)

#82 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:31 PM

So what? I didn't say we "evolved". Owen is not saying we "evolved". We were created by God. Who is saying any different?

#83 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:39 PM

[quote name='Herman Blaydoe']

Error in post

Edited by Aaron R., 05 May 2012 - 10:57 PM.


#84 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:53 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



No Herman I do not believe all things are made of a combination of fire, water and air but I would if the Holy Scriptures said they were.

Romans 3:4 ....let God be true, but every man a liar.....


and I am pretty sure the majority of the Church fathers did not teach the fire water air thing either. There is a Church canon though that says

Canon 109 of African Code, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II.

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.
Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.






#85 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:58 PM

Holy Scripture says the Sun revolves around the Earth. We know this is not the case but it does not make Holy Scripture "wrong". I don't know if Adam is literal or figurative, he is still pedagogic regardless. I'm fine with it either way.

#86 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:30 PM

Holy Scripture says the Sun revolves around the Earth. We know this is not the case but it does not make Holy Scripture "wrong". I don't know if Adam is literal or figurative, he is still pedagogic regardless. I'm fine with it either way.


Herman, can you list the verses you are refering to that say clearly and literally that the Sun revolves around the earth before I respond?

One thing worth noting for any position to be given a point of reference is needed. Since all things in space appear to be moving it might be hard to prove who exactly is revolving around who (I am not saying though the earth does not revolve around the sun). I would like to see what verses you are refering to exactly.

Also we still in our modern time refer to it as sunset and sunrise not earth rotation dark and earth rotation light. So maybe that language is what is being used in Holy Scripture.

#87 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 May 2012 - 12:58 AM

Now you are going to turn it into a semantic slug-fest. I really have no interest in such things anymore. I've had my say and have said enow. Go with God.

#88 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:03 AM

Now you are going to turn it into a semantic slug-fest. I really have no interest in such things anymore. I've had my say and have said enow. Go with God.


That's fine.

Take care brother.

#89 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:41 AM

"Regarding questions about the scientific accuracy of Genesis account of creation, and about various viewpoints concerning evolution, the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized any particular view. What is dogmatically proclaimed is that the One Triune God created everything that exist, and that man was created in a unique way and is alone made in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26,27). The Church Fathers also consistently affirm that each species of the animate creation came into existence instantaneously, at the command of God, with its seed within itself."

This is from the Orthodox Study Bible (from the introduction write up on Genesis). I find the last sentence very encouraging.

#90 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:27 AM

The Church Fathers also consistently affirm that each species of the animate creation came into existence instantaneously, at the command of God, with its seed within itself. This is from the Orthodox Study Bible....


I read that from the Genesis Introduction of the Orthodox Study Bible also; but I do not think that the statement can be verified, or that it is true. I note that they give NO proof for such a claim.

I have been reading Basil the Great's Homilies on Creation, and he does not say anything of the sort regarding “instantaneous creation”. The words do not exist. Other authors, such as Origen, deny the literal creative days of “instantaneous” or 24 hour days. Cyprian also states: “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years.” (Exhortation to Martyrdom, 11) This is what I believe also. Cyprian and Origen are two Church fathers that did not agree with instantaneous creation, Basil makes no usage of such terms, and neither do any of the other fathers (See A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David W Bercot).

Why would creation require a 24 hour day if the animals, etc., were created instantaneously? This doesn’t make sense.

#91 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:09 AM

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Ecc. 1:5


Doesn't prove anything since we all talk about sunset and sunrise even though we know the earth goes around the sun.

#92 Jesse Dominick

Jesse Dominick

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:04 PM

[quote name='Steve Roche']I read that from the Genesis Introduction of the Orthodox Study Bible also; but I do not think that the statement can be verified, or that it is true. I note that they give NO proof for such a claim.

I have been reading Basil the Great's Homilies on Creation, and he does not say anything of the sort regarding “instantaneous creation”. The words do not exist. Other authors, such as Origen, deny the literal creative days of “instantaneous” or 24 hour days. Cyprian also states: “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years.” (Exhortation to Martyrdom, 11) This is what I believe also. Cyprian and Origen are two Church fathers that did not agree with instantaneous creation, Basil makes no usage of such terms, and neither do any of the other fathers (See A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David W Bercot).

Why would creation require a 24 hour day if the animals, etc., were created instantaneously? This doesn’t make sense.[/QUOTE]

yes, St. Cyrpian says that, but that is not all he says. An allegorical interpretation of the days is not mutually exclusive from a literal interpretation of the days. He also says:

[QUOTE]Treatise 12.20 1st Book
Also in the first book of Kings: The barren has borne seven and she that had many children has grown weak. But the seven children are the seven churches. Whence also Paul wrote to seven churches; and the Apocalypse sets forth seven churches, that the number seven may be preserved; as the seven days in which God made the world; as the seven angels who stand and go in and out before the face of God, as Raphael the angel says in Tobit; and the sevenfold lamp in the tabernacle of witness; and the seven eyes of God, which keep watch over the world; and the stone with seven eyes, as Zechariah says; and the seven spirits; and the seven candlesticks in the Apocalypse; and the seven pillars upon which Wisdom has built her house in Solomon.[/QUOTE]

Also, if each day of creation were literally 1,000 yrs, then St. Cyprian would have lived c. 1270 years from the creation of the world, and Adam would have been created after 5,000 years had already past. However, St. Cyprian speaks of man, and specifically Adam, and the temptation by Satan, happening from the beginning of the world, which is clearly NOT the case if Adam was indeed created only after 5000 yrs:

[QUOTE]Treatise 9.11
But that it may be more manifestly and fully known how useful and necessary patience is, beloved brethren; let the judgment of God be pondered, which even in the beginning of the world and of the human race, Adam, forgetful of the commandment, and a transgressor of the given law, received.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Treatise 9.24
Let us wait for Him, beloved brethren, our Judge and Avenger, who shall equally avenge with Himself the congregation of His Church, and the number of all the righteous from the beginning of the world.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Treatise 1.1
The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches, whence also he has received the name of the Serpent. That is always his subtlety; that is his dark and stealthy artifice for circumventing man. Thus from the very beginning of the world he deceived; and flattering with lying words, he misled inexperienced souls by an incautious credulity.[/QUOTE]

Furthermore, St. Cyrpian says that time from the attack of Satan to himself is about 6,000 years. This proves that he understood the days literally, because if each day was literally 1,000 yrs long, then from the attack of Satan to St. Cyprian's time would have been more like 8,700 years (1,000 years for the 6th day, 1,000 years for the 7th day, c. 5500 years until Christ, and another 200 until the time of St. Cyprian):

[QUOTE]Treatise 11.2
It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man[/QUOTE]

so a fuller look at St. Cyprian shows that he understood the days to be 24 hour days, which is compatible with seeing spiritual meanings in the text as well.

as for St. Basil, he speaks of several different creations, saying that they came forth immediately:
[QUOTE]
Hexameron 5:5-6
"Let the earth bring forth herbs." And in the briefest moment of time the earth, beginning with germination in order that it might keep the laws of the Creator, passing through every form of increase, immediately brought the shoots to perfection. The meadows were deep with the abundant grass; the fertile plains, rippling with standing crops, presented the picture of a swelling sea with its moving heads of grain. And every herb and every kind of vegetable and whatever shrubs and legumes there were, rose from the earth at that time in all profusion.... "And the fruit tree," He said, "that bears fruit containing seed of its own kind and of its own likeness on the earth. At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up, those which are wont to rise to the greatest height, the firs, cedars, cypresses, and pines; likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants - the rose bushes, myrtles, and laurels-all came into existence in a moment f time, although they were not previously upon the earth, each o with its own peculiar nature.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]7.1
All water was in eager haste to fulfill the command of its Creator, and the great and ineffable power of God immediately produced an efficacious and active life in creatures of which one would not even be able to enumerate the species, as soon as the capacity for propagating living creatures came to the waters through His command.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]8.1
When He said: “Let it bring forth,” (the earth) did not produce what was stored up in it, but He Who gave the command also bestowed upon it the power to bring forth. Neither did the earth, when it heard, “Let it bring forth vegetation and the fruit trees,” produce plants which it had hidden in it; nor did it send up to the surface the palm or the oak or the cypress which had been hidden somewhere down below in its womb. On the contrary, it is the Divine Word that is the origin of all things made. “Let the earth bring forth”; not, let it put forth what it has, but, let it acquire what it does not have, since God is enduing it with the power of active force.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]9.3
The soul of brute beasts did not emerge after having been hidden in the earth, but it was called into existence at the time of the command.
[/QUOTE]

Furthermore, he specifically defines the days of creation as 24 hour days:

[QUOTE]2.8
Why does Scripture say "one day the first day"? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says "one day," it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day-we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself.[/QUOTE]

and in 2.8 he further explicitly contrasts the use of "day" in the creation account with other non-literal uses, such as the eschatological "day" of the Lord.

St. Ambrose teaches the same:

[QUOTE]Hexameron 1:37
In notable fashion has Scripture spoken of a “day,” not the “first day.” Because a second, then a third, day, and finally the remaining days were to follow, a “first day” could have been mentioned, following in this way the natural order. But Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent.[/QUOTE]

St. Ephraim the Syrian teaches the same things:

[QUOTE]Commentary on Genesis 1
Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the First Day continued for twelve hours each.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Commentary on Genesis 1
The earth at God’s command immediately brought forth creeping things, beasts of the field, creatures of prey, and domestic animals, as many as were necessary for the service of him who, on that very day, transgressed the commandment of the Lord.
The herbs, at the time of their creation, were the productions of a single instant, but in appearance they appeared the productions of months. Likewise the trees, at the time of their creation, were the productions of a single day, but in their perfection and fruits, which weighed down the branches, they appeared the productions of years.
[/QUOTE]

St. Gregory Palamas:

[QUOTE]Topics of Natural and Theological Science 21-22, Philokalia 4, pp. 345-55
In Six Days He allotted its own proper and appropriate rank to each of His creatures that together constitute His world. He differentiates each by command alone, as though bringing forth from hidden treasuries the things stored within, given them form, and disposing and composing them harmoniously, with perfection and aptness, one to the other, each to all and all to each. [/QUOTE]

St. John of Damascus:

[QUOTE]Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.7
In the beginning, then, that is to say on the first day, God created light, the ornament and glory of the whole visible creation. For take away light and all things remain in undistinguishable darkness, incapable of displaying their native beauty. And God called the light day, but the darkness He called night. Further, darkness is not any essence, but an accident: for it is simply absence of light. The air, indeed, has not light in its essence. It was, then, this very absence of light from the air that God called darkness: and it is not the essence of air that is darkness, but the absence of light which clearly is rather an accident than an essence. And, indeed, it was not night, but day, that was first named, so that day is first and after that comes night. Night, therefore, follows day. And from the beginning of day till the next day is one complete period of day and night. For the Scripture says, And the evening and the morning were one day[/QUOTE]

as for Origen, I certainly wouldn't look to him for guidance on Genesis, but nevertheless, he does say that the creation is well under 10,000 years by his time. But if the days are 1000 yrs each, then by his time it would have been nearly 13,000 years since the creation of the world:

[QUOTE]Against Celsus 1.19
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated.
[/QUOTE]

#93 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:26 PM

Hi Jesse, I am glad you engaged me; you seem much more knowledgeable on these subjects.

An allegorical interpretation of the days is not mutually exclusive from a literal interpretation of the days.


Yes, I agree. Your quote from Cyprian (Treatise 12.20 1st Book), however, does not contradict what I said on the ‘days of creation’. Of course it is allowable to refer to the days of creation as being 6 days; that is the way the scriptures speak of the event. What is in question is how these “days” are to be understood. Your quote from Cyprian mentions nothing about this.

St. Cyprian speaks of man, and specifically Adam, and the temptation by Satan, happening from the beginning of the world, which is clearly NOT the case if Adam was indeed created only after 5000 yrs.


Cyprian uses the language beginning of the world in the sense of Adams creation, as Paul has done elsewhere. The “righteous” did not exist from the 1stday of creation, unless you are agreeing with Origen concerning man’s pre-existence. Cyprian is again speaking from the beginning of the Church of the Firstborn. “Thus from the very beginning of the world he (Satan) deceived; and flattering with lying words, he misled inexperienced souls by an incautious credulity.” Surely you are not saying that this deception took place on the first day of creation?

Furthermore, St. Cyrpian says that time from the attack of Satan to himselfis about 6,000 years. This proves that he understood the days literally, because if each day was literally 1,000 yrs long, then from the attack of Satan to St. Cyprian's time would have been more like 8,700 years (1,000 years forthe 6th day, 1,000 years for the 7th day, c. 5500 years until Christ, and another 200 until the time of St. Cyprian).


This statement is manipulating the text to suit your premise. Cyprian believed, as did most Christians; that from the time of Adam to Christ were 5500 years. Cyprian lived two hundred years after Christ, which takes the date to approx. 5700 years. There is a gap of 300 hundred years to allow for the events of the deception, which was unknown. What is clear is that the fall did not happen take place within the 24 hour period after Adam’s creation. The gap that Cyprian leaves allows for hundreds of years.

So a fuller look at St. Cyprian shows that he understood the days to be 24 hour days, which is compatible with seeing spiritual meanings in the text as well.


Firstly, nothing of Cyprians shows that he believed in a 24 hour creation. You have demonstrated that you can manipulate the text, nothing else.

Secondly; think about the events… in 24 hours, as you say… God made all of the millions of animals, and then he made Adam. All of these millions of animals were brought to Adam so that Adam could name them all (a new name about every quarter of a second); Adam was educated by God; Adam walked in the breezy part of the day; Adam explored the Earth; Adam rested; Eve was made from Adam’s rib; Eve was instructed about the trees in Paradise; Satan enters Eden; Satan deceives Adam and Eve; Adam and Eve are driven from Paradise – all in 24 hours. You must be joking!

The quotes you use from Basil appear, on the surface, to imply instant creation…but yet in other places, when he speaks of the separation of the land on either side of the Atlantic Ocean; and the separation of waters above the firmament, and the distilling of waters under the earth to purify the waters through desalination, and multiple other things, he does not imply any instantaneous creation. I did not say, furthermore, that NO fathers taught of a 24 hour creation days; I said that not ALL of them taught this, in which you have not shown anything to disprove this.

Thank you for the effort you made in addressing the questions. I really enjoy your quotations of the fathers.

Steve

#94 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:55 PM

Below are some examples of Basil (The Six Days of Creation) using words that are sequential (as opposed to instantaneous). Unless you read Basil “fully”, you can easily manipulate his words to say something he does not say. When Basil uses the reference “all of a sudden”, he does not mean “in an instant”. He allows for a natural “accumulation”, a “flowing in”, and a “gathering” to take place. These events are sequential, not instantaneous.

Homily 4:4.
To say that the waters were gathered in one place indicates that previously they were scattered in many places (gathered is not by implication “instant”). The mountains, intersected by deep ravines, accumulated water in their valleys, when from every direction the waters betook themselves to the one gathering place. What vast plains, in their extent resembling wide seas, what valleys, what cavities hollowed in many different ways, at that time full of water, must have been emptied by the command of God! But we must not therefore say, that if the water covered the face of the earth, all the basins which have since received the sea were originally full. Where can the gathering of the waters have come from if the basins were already full? These basins, we reply, were only prepared at the moment when the water had to unite in a single mass. At that time the sea which is beyond Gadeira and the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators, which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain, did not exist. But, all of a sudden, God created this vast space, and the mass of waters flowed in.”

These events are sequential, not instantaneous.

Homily 4:5 “Not only the water which was covering the earth flowed off from it, but all that which had filtered into its depths withdrew in obedience to the irresistible order of the sovereign Master.”

These events are sequential, not instantaneous.

Homily 8:7 In the firmament of heaven,” that is to say, as we have said before, in that part of the air called οὐρανός heaven, from the word ὁρᾶν which means to see; called firmament, because the air which extends over our heads, compared to the æther, has greater density, and is thickened by the vapours which exhale from the earth.

The air thicken from vapour coming from the earth is a process, not an instantaneous creation. Many similar examples are scattered all throughout Basil’s writings, and they are likely found in the other samples cited above by Jesse. The graduation of the spreading of the ocean floor is clearly observable to have taken place over a period of time, not in 24 hours. The varying levels of sediment testify to this from the Mid-Ocean Ridge to the Continental Shelf. Why would God instantaneously create mountains and the ocean floors yet make them ‘appear’, through varying levels of sediment, to have occurred over time? This would mean that God intentionally deceived man in the creation process, which could never happen. The many layers of sediment found underneath the layers of Limestone in the Grand Canyon, Alps and Himalayas shows that God had ordered creation in layers of events over time. It certainly was not instantaneous or within 24 hours, as there are too many layers to account for. Each layer could have been achieved naturally within 1000 years, however, which is what Cyprian (and many other church fathers) upheld. Cyprian was clearly not the only father to think this way, as his influence on the later church is immeasurable. 1800 years later I also agree with Cyprian.

Steve

#95 Darrin Rasberry

Darrin Rasberry

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 05:41 PM

@Owen... How do you get the idea that Darwinists insist that species must be fixed? According to evolution, everything is in flux. This goes entirely against the Platonic "ideal form", of Essentialism. In the theory of evolution, when one species gradually changes to another, there are countless intermediaries. In "The Greatest Show on Earth", Richard Dawkins writes: "If there is a 'standard rabbit', the accolade denotes no more than the centre of a bell-shaped distribution of real, scurrying, leaping, variable bunnies. And the distribution shifts with time. As generations go by, there may gradually come a point, not clearly defined, when the norm of what we call rabbits will have departed so far as to deserve a different name." (P.22... my italics)


Sorry to drudge up an old post, but I just HAD to respond. This is just the old "shading problem" saw, i.e. that there cannot be essences or forms because the varying degrees supposedly make the formal outlines difficult to enunciate and therefore arbitrary. You see this all the time with colors - where is the boundary between blue and violet, and why not put the boundary elsewhere and name more colors? Similarly where was the boundary between bunny rabbit and proto-bunny rabbit? And so forth.

The answer is that many other forms/essences than what we know may be circumscribed over characteristics shared by other things. That is how we can learn and transfer concepts between different cultures who may have singular terms for concepts we have no words for and vice versa. Also, to state that we cannot use the term "bunny rabbit" because norms constantly change subtly is just like saying we can't use the term "blue" because shades may change so subtly that the human eye can't see it, and just because it's hard to pick out when "one form ends and another begins" doesn't mean such a dividing line fails to exist, only that the difference may be too difficult for us to perfectly outline epistemologically. You can't say a problem has no solution just because it's hard.

#96 George Y

George Y

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 04:44 AM

I once believed in evolution. That is, as a young child, much like other children I was indoctrinated to accept this theory as fact. It wasn't until I became an adult when I realized that when you study Darwin's theory, at it's core it falls apart. There are many holes, especially at the very beginnings. How can amino acids coalesce to form a single celled organism? How can that organism spontaneously develop the abilities of mitosis and the idea of self replication? Why would these single celled organisms of the same species decide to convene to become multicellular organisms and form new species when the original was doing so well to begin with? I could go on and on.

What about humans and chimps? Darwin and evolutionists propose we had a common ancestor. Man sits at the apex of the evolutionary ladder of primates, and evolutionists teach our children that the proof we share ancestry is that we have almost the exact same DNA except for two chromosomes. We marvel in wonder at our cousins in the zoos after hearing this, noticing how much more human they seem to us. Except, the evolutionists fail to mention or explain one small problem -- humans have two fewer chromosomes than chimps. How does this make any sense to an evolutionist? Addition by subtraction?

The truly hilarious thing for me is how creationists (especially Christians) are laughingstocks and derided as delusional bumpkins who are lost in the complex modern world. It's best not to engage creationists in debate, they believe in fairy tales and ghosts. Meanwhile, when prodded for explanations to these questions, aside from blank stares and outright anger from these illuminated believers in evolution, the top theorists will admit that while they don't believe in something as ludicrous as God, they attribute life on earth to aliens. Yes, aliens. It's is acceptable to believe in little green men creating life on earth and programming a design into cells, but to believe it to be divine is ridiculous.

To get a sense of the ongoing effort to destroy humanity's belief in God through education, watch Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

#97 Steve Orr

Steve Orr

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:33 PM

Sorry to drudge up an old post, but I just HAD to respond. This is just the old "shading problem" saw, i.e. that there cannot be essences or forms because the varying degrees supposedly make the formal outlines difficult to enunciate and therefore arbitrary. You see this all the time with colors - where is the boundary between blue and violet, and why not put the boundary elsewhere and name more colors? Similarly where was the boundary between bunny rabbit and proto-bunny rabbit? And so forth.

The answer is that many other forms/essences than what we know may be circumscribed over characteristics shared by other things. That is how we can learn and transfer concepts between different cultures who may have singular terms for concepts we have no words for and vice versa. Also, to state that we cannot use the term "bunny rabbit" because norms constantly change subtly is just like saying we can't use the term "blue" because shades may change so subtly that the human eye can't see it, and just because it's hard to pick out when "one form ends and another begins" doesn't mean such a dividing line fails to exist, only that the difference may be too difficult for us to perfectly outline epistemologically. You can't say a problem has no solution just because it's hard.


What problem?

#98 Steve Orr

Steve Orr

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:15 PM

What about humans and chimps? Darwin and evolutionists propose we had a common ancestor. Man sits at the apex of the evolutionary ladder of primates, and evolutionists teach our children that the proof we share ancestry is that we have almost the exact same DNA except for two chromosomes. We marvel in wonder at our cousins in the zoos after hearing this, noticing how much more human they seem to us. Except, the evolutionists fail to mention or explain one small problem -- humans have two fewer chromosomes than chimps. How does this make any sense to an evolutionist? Addition by subtraction?


Your understanding of man being at the apex of all primates is an anthropocentric view that has little in common with modern evolution "theory". It's like the old argument that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Evolution doesn't work in a straight line. There are evolutionary branches, such as indicated in an evolutionary tree. According to the current model, we share a distant (roughly 4+ million years) ancestor with chimps. As far as the fewer chromosomes that humans have, apparently the Human Genome Project research has discovered fused chromosomes to account for them. This very brief presentation (by a theist, I'll add) addresses this:

...the top theorists will admit that while they don't believe in something as ludicrous as God, they attribute life on earth to aliens. Yes, aliens. It's is acceptable to believe in little green men creating life on earth and programming a design into cells, but to believe it to be divine is ridiculous.


This is indeed quite ludicrous. I, for one, have only heard this from one top theorist (Dawkins), and it made me laugh! However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, evolution hasn't explained how life came to be. Seeing as how it merely demonstrates how life diversifies through adaptation over time, it cannot answer the question of where life came (or comes) from to begin with. That is one of the reasons why I believe that a Christian can accept the mechanism of evolution without losing sight of the Divine, "in Whom we live and move and have our being".

#99 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:34 PM

Evolution is not science it is wishful thinking. its a giant hoax and fairytale at best. where are any of the missing links in the fossil records for any species? When has science ever observed one creature changing into another. Stop putting so much faith in secular man and secular science. they have their limits. Modern science still can not even cure the common cold.

#100 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

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

Posted 24 August 2012 - 12:19 PM

Darwin's theory, Mr. Orr, is explicitly a theory of origins and the vast majority of people who advocate for it see it as such. But it cannot possibly be a theory of origins because of the problem of infinite regression. While Dawkins may be the only prominent "scientist" to be caught in the trap of believing that ancient aliens seeded the earth, it is a logical consequence of the inherent problem with Darwinism. And, of course, by resorting to ancient aliens, the problem of infinite regression does not go away. It just gets shoved out into interstellar space!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users