Does the sun revolve around the earth?

[SpyridonOCA]

If one were to understand the Bible literally, it would be hard to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. The church fathers believed that the Bible teaches a geocentric universe. Modern astronomy has shown such an interpretation of
the Bible to be incorrect. Most Christians, therefore, have accepted that the earth revolves around the sun, in order to
avoid the idea that God is deceptive in His Creation. It would be good if we approached all scientific discovery the same way.


Joshua 10:13
And the Sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people
had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is this not written
in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of
heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm,
immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm
...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable
...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so
that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and
himself fixed it fast...”


Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun
goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Psalm 104:19 “Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons;
the sun knows its time for setting.”

1 Esdras 4:34 – “The earth is vast, and heaven is high,
and the sun is swift in its course, for it makes the circuit
of the heavens and returns to its place in one day.”

[MichaelArchangelos]

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

[Kolya]

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

That link does not work for me. Anyhow, I've read that theory before and apparently can not be scientifically proven either way.

As far as I'm concerned, does it REALLY matter. Either way, everything still works as it should!;)

[Matrona]

If one were to understand the Bible literally, it would be hard to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. The church fathers believed that the Bible teaches a geocentric universe.

This is what I always think of when I see Christians argue that the earth was created six thousand years ago.

[Machachachi]

I'm hesitant to actually discuss this, I really don't like these kind of discussions, but I feel a serious error has been made.

I'd argue that those comments are just a matter of perspective, people still refer to the sun as "setting" even though we know its really the earth that's spinning. Its a description, its not some scientific statement. It would be a true statement that the earth is immovable, from the context of a normal regular person, the earth is mighty indeed from our small frame of reference. Additionally the comment in Joshua 10:13 this is a description of a miracle as seen from its observers. If the earth were in fact to stop spinning, the sun would appear to sit motionless in the sky, I doubt at the time the Israelites hardly cared about the science behind the miracle.

I don't think any of these are scientific statements about the nature of the world, and shouldn't be taken as such. And about the earth being fixed fastly in place, it really in fact is. If the earth were to deviate even slightly in its orbit around the sun things would not work quite right, in fact things would be relatively disastrous (I apologize for no source on this).

The creation account is told differently than the rest of the Bible, from a broad sense it details pretty specifically what God did and in what order, that is pretty significant and a much different perspective than a personal account taken from the eyes of man, since literally no one was around to see God making the earth. I question the reasoning behind God working the Genesis account into scripture if he didn't intend a purpose for it, or for us to take it seriously. If he simply meant to talk about the nature of man, he could have skipped all that creation mumbo jumbo and just talked about Adam and Eve. I honestly believe that together the accounts are quite sensible and the science behind those who support it is also decent and no more or less prone to holes than evolutionary theory or big bang cosmology, which have quite a number.

I am not trying to spark an argument, just add my perspective where I think it might be useful.

[jckstraw72]

God bless you Machachachi!

[Kolya]

God bless you Machachachi!

I second that!:thumbsup:

[Xpycoctomos]

If one were to understand the Bible literally, it would be hard to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. Yes, if we were to read it like a science book, that would be a problem... we'd have a lot of problems though... spiritual as well.

The church fathers believed that the Bible teaches a geocentric universe. I'll take your word for it.


Modern astronomy has shown such an interpretation of
the Bible to be incorrect.

yes.


Most Christians, therefore, have accepted that the earth revolves around the sun, in order to
avoid the idea that God is deceptive in His Creation.

Maybe most American Christians (??) but surely not most Christians around the world.


It would be good if we approached all scientific discovery the same way.



I wasn't sure if I understood this part. Do you mean that it would be good to ignore scientific discovery if it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Scriptures? What do you mean by "the same way" (as what?). Sorry for my slowness. Thanks,

Xpy

[Thekla]

the passages give a visual and "faith/spiritual" description

ie, it is more poetic (conveying a greater truth) than scientific

[narnia59]

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.htmlI'm familiar with that site (must be down currently). It leaves the impression that Catholic doctrine holds to geocentrism, a young earth creation, and rejects evolution. None of that is true, for none of those things have ever been defined doctrinally. In addition, geocentrism is well rejected. It's up to the individual what they wish to believe in terms of young earth creation and evolution, as long as one understands that God alone creates each individual soul at the moment of conception, and that God created the universe 'out of nothing'. Both JPII and Benedict have spoken favorably regarding the Big Bang and evolution as being the likely means God has used to get us here. They reject anything that suggests it all happened by 'chance'.

[Orthosdoxa]

I second that!:thumbsup:

Third!

[Chesterton]

My local newspaper and local TV news weather forecast both use the words "sunrise" and "sunset" everyday. We all do. It's just a manner of describing things from human perspective. It's the same with the earth being "fixed" under us. From our perspective, it certainly is.

[icxn]

Recent "scientific" threads point to a Spyridocentric Universe... imo...


jk ;)

[SpyridonOCA]

I wasn't sure if I understood this part. Do you mean that it would be good to ignore scientific discovery if it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Scriptures? What do you mean by "the same way" (as what?). Sorry for my slowness. Thanks,


We should be willing to question an interpretation of Scripture which contradicts directly observed scientific fact. The truth cannot contradict Truth.

[Chesterton]

Is there a "...Scripture which contradicts directly observed scientific fact"? The examples given above do not. I think what you're talking about is more like something which I've read is in the Koran. It states that human males produce semen in the spinal cord in the region below their shoulders. That is a contradiction of a scientific observation.

Go to some astronomy websites right now and you can read well-educated contemporary astrophysicists using language which refers to the sun, as well as other stars and constellations, "moving across the sky".

[SpyridonOCA]

A literal interpretation of the Bible suggests not only that the sun revolves around the earth but that the earth itself is stationary, that it doesn't rotate on its own axis.

[Thekla]

if you think the Bible is "scientifically problematic", you should check out poetry !

LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.

TS Eliot

("how unpleasant to meet Mr. Eliot, whether his mouth be open or shut")

[Shubunkin]

Our entire solar system is traveling. :eek:

[Chesterton]

A literal interpretation of the Bible suggests not only that the sun revolves around the earth but that the earth itself is stationary, that it doesn't rotate on its own axis.

Yes, but a literal interpretation of our own everyday language, including that of scientists, tends to suggest the same thing.

[SpyridonOCA]

Yes, but a literal interpretation of our own everyday language, including that of scientists, tends to suggest the same thing.

The church fathers understood these passages literally, and some were bothered by the very suggestion that the earth revolves around the sun. St. Augustine's warning, on the other hand, that we not deny scientific observation in the name of Scripture is important, especially for us today.


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

[Chesterton]

Whoops, my post sort of misquoted you. You spoke of an "interpretation of Scripture" being a contradiction, and I replied as if you'd said the scripture itself was a contradiction. Sorry.

[Shubunkin]

Isaiah 40:22 seems to suggest that the earth is not flat.

[Chesterton]

Isaiah 40:22 seems to suggest that the earth is not flat.

Then there's Job 26:7, which speaks of God hanging the earth upon nothing, at a time when most thought the earth beneath them actually was resting on something.

[buzuxi02]

All truths are God's truths, theres nothing to fear.

[Xpycoctomos]

We should be willing to question an interpretation of Scripture which contradicts directly observed scientific fact. The truth cannot contradict Truth.

Ah, so, if I may paraphrase to clarify for myself, you are saying that in your opinion you see it as a good thing to let science help inform how the scriptures are interpreted. So, if we see that the earth obviously revolves around the Sun, it is perhaps the most sane and healthy approach as a Christian to say "Okay, I know the bible doesn't err, but obviously if I take these qutes from the Bible as literal scientific fact, there seems to be a discrepancy with anything my god-given senses can tell me. So, perhaps my approach to these verses in erroneous."

Is that fair to say?

If so, I would tend to agree with you. Without parameters, of course, such an approach can become dangerous and Jesus Seminar-ish, but that's why the Church is there to guide us (and not the Jesus Seminar lol).

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Whoops, my post sort of misquoted you. You spoke of an "interpretation of Scripture" being a contradiction, and I replied as if you'd said the scripture itself was a contradiction. Sorry.
Exactly. I was just going to point that out, but read this. That's a very important distiction you make.

[SpyridonOCA]

Isaiah 40:22 seems to suggest that the earth is not flat.

A spherical earth can exist in a geocentric universe.

[SpyridonOCA]

Is that fair to say?


Yes, that is fair to say. That same principle should also apply to biological evolution, especially since the Church has no official position on this matter.



If so, I would tend to agree with you. Without parameters, of course, such an approach can become dangerous and Jesus Seminar-ish, but that's why the Church is there to guide us (and not the Jesus Seminar lol).


Science provides natural explanations for what we observe in the natural world. Events like the incarnation and resurrection of Christ are above and beyond the realm of science. A problem with those folks in the Jesus Seminar is that they don't understand that science too has its limits.

[Vasileios]

I will not be dogmatically, fundamentally, hardcore against evolution, as long as it completely separated from abiogenesis (life beginning from matter sppontaneosly through natural processes), explain the problem of death and comes up with mehanisms that actually work, instead of the terribly inadequate mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

The Church truly has not taken an official position on the matter, and if in error I'll gladly be on the same erroring side with the elders Paisios, St. Nectarios and all the Church Fathers. I know that my belief about evolution definitely does not hinder my Christian walk. So, I think it would be about time if evolutionists accepted the fact and live and let live.

I know that in the US it is the opposite, the creationists stirring things but my experience in CF has been the exact opposite. We have reached a stage where we have to apologise for sharing the same opinion with St. Nectarios! Enough.

[SpyridonOCA]

I will not be dogmatically, fundamentally, hardcore against evolution, as long as it completely separated from abiogenesis (life beginning from matter sppontaneosly through natural processes), explain the problem of death and comes up with mehanisms that actually work, instead of the terribly inadequate mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.


Natural selection acting on mutation is a remarkably sound explanation of the evolutionary process. T. G. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox Christian, was greatly responsible for the neo-Darwinian synthesis. If God were to create through a natural process understandable to the human mind, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous. Children are conceived and develop according to natural, designed laws, and that doesn't make them any less miraculous. We aren't Gnostics, we don't believe that God acts entirely apart from nature.

Speciation has been observed on several occasions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations

As Orthodox Christians, we have no more reason to doubt this than we would doubt heliocentrism.

[Vasileios]

I give up.

[SpyridonOCA]

It's a beautiful world we live in!!! The more I learn about how God works in the world, the more I am amazed by Him.

[jckstraw72]

something i was thinking about with evolution ... if evolution is indeed true and thus God is the author of death, at least for plants and animals, and all that God created is good ... then we should rejoice over the death of pets, the destruction of the environment, etc ... bc God declares these things GOOD! next time your dog dies be thankful that something good and beautiful has happened, and stop trying to clean up the environment and save endangered plants and shizzle. their destruction is all part of God's good plan ... right?

[Shubunkin]

A spherical earth can exist in a geocentric universe.

Yes, but it agrees with what we know.

[SpyridonOCA]

something i was thinking about with evolution ... if evolution is indeed true and thus God is the author of death, at least for plants and animals, and all that God created is good ... then we should rejoice over the death of pets, the destruction of the environment, etc ... bc God declares these things GOOD! next time your dog dies be thankful that something good and beautiful has happened, and stop trying to clean up the environment and save endangered plants and shizzle. their destruction is all part of God's good plan ... right?

When St. Paul writes that the wages of sin is death, is he referring to animal death? If Adam and Even ate only plants before the fall, wouldn't there be the death of plant life? Or do plants not count?

[Vasileios]

I believe they ate fruits, not trees.

[Chesterton]

On the subject of evolution, I just heard a news story about a French or Austrian court declaring an ape to be legally a "person". In recent years I've heard of groups in California and Switzerland seeking to give apes the right to sue in court. At least these folks are being logically consistent with their world view. And so why stop there? Bring indictments against all lions and sharks as murderers, provide public education for trees, and give bacteria the right to vote.

[jckstraw72]

when they ate fruits the trees did not die. the wages of sin is death everywhere ... all of creation was our kingdom and bc we left God so too did our kingdom fall.

[SpyridonOCA]

when they ate fruits the trees did not die. the wages of sin is death everywhere ... all of creation was our kingdom and bc we left God so too did our kingdom fall.


I strongly recommend reading this book, at least to have a more balanced perspective of the viewpoints which exist in Eastern Orthodoxy:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367


My priest read it, enjoyed it, and wants it in our church bookstore.

When St. Paul refers to death as the result of sin, it should be apparent that he's referring to human death.

[jckstraw72]

then why does creation also die? how does a world of death reflect the glory of the God Who is Life itself? Why did God give a decaying world to an immortal man?

[All4Christ]

Hm. I believe the Bible is true. God created the universe. And personally - I'd lean towards the creationist view. But you know what? If it so happened to be correct that the earth was created through evolution - then that's okay with me...because I know that God created the earth one way or another. God is our author and creator - and it is because of Him that we are here today. All those scientific details - we can figure out exactly what happens later - perhaps in eternity. But for now - the important thing is that God is God. And God is our Creator.

Just my personal opinion.

[SpyridonOCA]

then why does creation also die? how does a world of death reflect the glory of the God Who is Life itself? Why did God give a decaying world to an immortal man?

Why would plants and animals be punished for the sins of humanity?

[SpyridonOCA]

Hm. I believe the Bible is true. God created the universe. And personally - I'd lean towards the creationist view. But you know what? If it so happened to be correct that the earth was created through evolution - then that's okay with me...because I know that God created the earth one way or another. God is our author and creator - and it is because of Him that we are here today. All those scientific details - we can figure out exactly what happens later - perhaps in eternity. But for now - the important thing is that God is God. And God is our Creator.

Just my personal opinion.

I agree with you. What really matters is that we believe that we are created in the image of God, have fallen, and are in need of Christ for redemption. My point is that, because of this, we shouldn't be afraid of whatever scientific discovery can tell us about God's Creation.

[jckstraw72]

plants and animals exist for us. the Fathers explain that God built our kingdom and then ushered in the king. for the immortal king an immortal kingdom and for a mortal king a mortal kingdom. the idea that the effects of sin are confined solely to the spiritual well-being of man and thus the redemptive work of Christ is confined solely to the spiritual life of man seems pretty contrary to our faith to me. what about the new heaven and new earth and the lion laying down with the lamb and all that good stuff? supposedly God created a world full of death and then declared good and I'm supposed to believe that that is going to be fixed in the end? why does something good need to be fixed/redeemed?

and no one is afraid of science. im sorry, but that's just a lame tactic that evolutionists use time and again. evolution is not the entirety of science. just bc i see glaring contradictions btwn our infallible faith and the current fad of evolution doesnt mean im afraid of anything, except perhaps the possible perversion of our faith in the minds of some.

[SpyridonOCA]

double post

[SpyridonOCA]

double post

[SpyridonOCA]

No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem
by Rich Deem (http://www.godandscience.org/contact.html)


Most Young earth creationists claim that there was no death before the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden. The doctrine is primarily tied to two passages - Genesis 1:29-30 in the Old Testament and Romans 5:12 in the New Testament. Out of context, without the consideration of the remainder of the Bible, the verses seem to support the doctrine. Genesis 1:29-301 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html#n01) says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. Romans 5:122 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html#n02) says that sin entered the world through Adam and death through sin...

No plant death prior to the Fall?

The idea that no creatures, including plants, died prior to the Fall is the extreme position of a minority of young earth creationists. They claim that only parts of plants are eaten, and, therefore, no plants actually died. Although a number of grazing animals eat only the tops of grass or leaves, leaving the plant alive, there are a number of exceptions. Even grass grazers pull up whole plants (including the roots) on occasion, which results in the death of entire plants. Some animals eat only roots, such as gophers. Once the roots are eaten, the plant quickly dies. Many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms. So, unless God changed the way these herbivores eat, plants surely died during the fifth and sixth days of creation.
Some young earth creationists claim that the Bible indicates that plants do not die. Therefore, eating them does not constitute death. However, the Bible specifically compares the deaths of humans to those of plants, making this idea ridiculous. Both the Old Testament3 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html#n03) and New Testament4 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html#n04) compare the deaths of humans to the deaths of grass, flowers, and herbs. Therefore, the idea that the Bible claims plants don't die is not at all supported...

God created the carnivores on day 6, before mankind

Genesis one specifically describes the creation of wild animals,8 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html#n08) which are the carnivores. The Hebrew words used to describe the creation of these animals refers to animals that eat other animals (for more information, see Did God Create Carnivores on Day 6? (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html))...

God threatened Adam with death, implying he knew what it was

Further support that Adam had seen death before the creation of Eve comes from God's threat to Adam. When Adam was first put into the garden, God said that he could eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God threatened that Adam would "surely die" if he broke this command.17 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html#n17) This threat makes no sense unless Adam had already seen the death of animals. There is no recorded reply of Adam asking what death was. If he had never seen death this would have been an obvious question. This, along with Adam's names for the carnivores, is strong biblical evidence that Adam had already seen the death of animals before the Fall and before Eve was created...

Young earth creationists say that God judged the animals on the basis of man's sin. However, the Bible says that God is completely righteous in His judgment and does not judge the innocent with the wicked. This young earth doctrine maligns the character of God. In addition, if one says that animals first died due to sin, then one would have to say that animals have the capacity to sin. Nowhere in the Bible is this doctrine taught. Likewise, if Romans 5:12 is referring to animal death, then the rest of the chapter would have to refer to Christ's death to redeem the animals. This is outrageous! Finally, applying animal death to 1 Corinthians 15:21 would imply that Jesus' death would allow the resurrection of the animals, in addition to His followers. Such cavalier uses of scripture to support one's own interpretation borders on cultic methods, and needs to be corrected by the Church.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html


This article asks some important questions. Why would plants and animals be judged for the sins of humans? How would Adam know what death was if he had never witnessed it? How could animals eat grass without uprooting it, killing the plant?

As Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Most scientists would agree, including those who are Orthodox. Do you have a better explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions, other than common descent?

[Xpycoctomos]

I can understand why you believe the theory of evolution... but you act as if it is imperative that everyone else believe it.

Spyridon, I've said it before but I will repeat myself at the risk that you might get it this time.

It's not that you hold opinions that bothers most people. It's that you use language that seems to oblige everyone else to agree with you or else they or their opinions are racist/non-thinkers/illogical/uncaring/unchristian/unOrthodox... and the list could go on and on if I looked back your posts/threads and listed out the adjectives you have attributed to those who disagree with you.

You come as the kid in school who pushes someone and then says "Oh, you wanna fight?!" while the other person is blindsided.

No one is asking you to change your political stance or opinions. The only thing most of us expect is that you thoughtfully consider what we say and not make judgments on our ability reason based on if we agree with you or not.

Xpy

[SpyridonOCA]

I don't believe it is imperative that everyone accepts the scientific fact of common descent, since it is not a matter of salvation. I do believe that, as Orthodox Christians, we should recognize that there is no official position on evolution, and that we agree on that which really matters.

[NewToLife]

I can understand why you believe the theory of evolution... but you act as if it is imperative that everyone else believe it.

Spyridon, I've said it before but I will repeat myself at the risk that you might get it this time.

It's not that you hold opinions that bothers most people. It's that you use language that seems to oblige everyone else to agree with you or else they or their opinions are racist/non-thinkers/illogical/uncaring/unchristian/unOrthodox... and the list could go on and on if I looked back your posts/threads and listed out the adjectives you have attributed to those who disagree with you.

You come as the kid in school who pushes someone and then says "Oh, you wanna fight?!" while the other person is blindsided.

No one is asking you to change your political stance or opinions. The only thing most of us expect is that you thoughtfully consider what we say and not make judgments on our ability reason based on if we agree with you or not.

Xpy

I recall a thread not too long ago in which I was badgered by YEC devotees to the point of deciding to quit TAW ( the moderation here made it pretty easy anyway ). I am not returning but wanted to make this one post to observe that it isnt generally evolutionists who are intolerant and try to force others to accept their views or face various absurd accusations of impiety.

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't believe it is imperative that everyone accepts the scientific fact of common descent, since it is not a matter of salvation. I do believe that, as Orthodox Christians, we should recognize that there is no official position on evolution, and that we agree on that which really matters.

I agree with that personally. Your last post seems to preach evolution rather than focus on the question of "if this even really matters in the first place".

Xpy

[SpyridonOCA]

I agree with that personally. Your last post seems to preach evolution rather than focus on the question of "if this even really matters in the first place".

Xpy

That all species share a common ancestor is not a belief to be preached. It is an observation, just like how things fall down and the earth revolves around the sun.

[jckstraw72]

That all species share a common ancestor is not a belief to be preached. It is an observation, just like how things fall down and the earth revolves around the sun.

it is an observation that contradicts Tradition. thats a problem.

[SpyridonOCA]

it is an observation that contradicts Tradition. thats a problem.

If that were really true, the Church would have an official position on evolution. Orthodox scientists would be instructed not to support it. The inconvenient thing about scientific facts is that they don't change based on what your definition of Tradition is.

Do you have an explanation for endogenous retroviruses other than "Tradition"? Do you know what they are?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

The whole point of this thread is, at one point in time, it was "Tradition" to believe that the sun revolves around the earth. This is what the church fathers unanimously believed. Then again, the Bible is not a science textbook and the church fathers were not scientists.

[jckstraw72]

to say that bc there is no ecumenically pronounced statement on creation then there is no official position is pretty dishonest i think. with that sort of thinking the Church didnt officially believe Christ to be God until 325.

with or without an official pronouncement its abundantly evident what the Church has always taught. the Church even adopted a calendar based on a literal reading of Genesis ... we are now in the year 7515 from the creation of the world ... not nearly enough time for evolution of course.

[SpyridonOCA]

Again, the church fathers have always taught that the sun revolves around the earth. Is that what you believe?

[jckstraw72]

Again, the church fathers have always taught that the sun revolves around the earth. Is that what you believe?

if you can demonstrate to me how that is part of the Apostolic Tradition and has any bearing on the faith then perhaps I'll look into the matter. Also, if you could provide evidence of it ...

[SpyridonOCA]

if you can demonstrate to me how that is part of the Apostolic Tradition and has any bearing on the faith then perhaps I'll look into the matter. Also, if you could provide evidence of it ...

The Fathers on the Geocentric Cosmos
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

You should be consistent. If we must reject the scientific fact of evolution because of the church fathers, we must also reject heliocentrism. On the other hand, you can heed the warning of St. Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

It is disgraceful to the non-Christian world that we would deny observable fact in the name of Scripture. Do you have an explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions? Do you know what they are?

[jckstraw72]

interpretation of Genesis has salvific value ... heliocentrism vs. geocentrism doesnt ... some early Fathers also mentioned the Phoenix, but I'm not bound to believe in it. but when there is a concensus on the meaning of Scripture, which the the Church even adopts into its calendar, then I listen.

and St. Augustine at the same time ridiculed anyone who suggested a timeline other than that provided in Scripture, as you can see in my signature. also, assuming that his quote applies to evolution is, well, an assumption based on the assumption that evolution is true.

[SpyridonOCA]

What is the salvific value you speak of? And do you have any idea what endogenous retroviral insertions are? It takes your own personal judgment to believe the church fathers when they write that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and not when they write that the sun revolves around the earth. It's not a matter of salvation. It's a matter of inconsistency.

[jckstraw72]

Genesis obviously has salvific value. it tells us who we are, how we fell, why we need Christ and all that good stuff. the question of when death entered the world is important in this whole debate as ive said before. if God created death and then declared it good, then why does He later defeat it and remake the whole world? evolution makes God nonsensical and it makes the Fathers into fools who knew nothing of Scripture.

In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the order in which the creation is described:
The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.


apparently im not the only one who finds it important.

the whole shpeal about geocentrism is just a diversion from the real topic anyways.

[jckstraw72]

and if you want to be consistent then you have to choose science over the Fathers every time. so you cant believe in any miracles, and certainly our bodily resurrection.

[SpyridonOCA]

The resurrection is a one time supernatural event, above and beyond the realm of science. Whether we share a common ancestor with apes, however, is an observable fact. Again, do you know what endogenous retroviral insertions are? Do you even care?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif


Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Confirmation:

In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Sverdlov2000)). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Bonner_etal1982); Dangel et al. 1995 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Dangel_etal1995); Svensson et al. 1995 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Svensson_etal1995); Kjellman et al. 1999 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Kjellman_etal1999); Lebedev et al. 2000 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Lebedev_etal2000); Sverdlov 2000 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Sverdlov2000)). Figure 4.4.1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#fig4.4.1) shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Lebedev_etal2000)). The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.
The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Futuyma1998), pp. 293-294; Todaro et al. 1975 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Todaro_etal1975)).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. If God created the species, including mankind, through an observable, gradual process, it wouldn't be any less of a miracle.

[jckstraw72]

The resurrection is a one time supernatural event, above and beyond the realm of science.

so you ignore science when your faith requires it? interesting ...

Whether we share a common ancestor with apes, however, is an observable fact.

who, praytell, observed it?

Again, do you know what endogenous retroviral insertions are? Do you even care?

thats a big no to both.

[Vasileios]

Spyridon, can you please stop repeating the endogenous retroviral insertions?

WE.GOT.IT.

I read that passage the first time you posted and as always it is filled with assumptions. It only tells us that similar animals have similar genomes and this apparently extends to virus remnants. I haven't seen how rare this process is, the articles begins by occasionally (without citation), goes onto "again, this a rare process" (no citation) and does not touch the what is needed for the process to happen and why it cannot be done in different species.

It provides ample citations on the conclusions, all obviously supporting common descent.

Now, I am reasonable enough to see that it is an observation that it is understandable that evolutionists see as supporting their case but only some dogmatic would believe that the conclusion is observable FACT. And evolutionists are just as dogmatic as any one of us.

Now, can you PLEASE stop insinuating that those who reject evolution (which includes unanimously the FATHERS) are not much more than superstirious ignoramuses?

Orthodox scientists! Where do you get that? Do you think the Church has a gathering of those with a PhD and issues them a warning "thou shalt not teach common descent!". One more time I hear about Dobzhansky my head is going to implode. Orthodox, Dobzansky!

[Xpycoctomos]

That all species share a common ancestor is not a belief to be preached. It is an observation, just like how things fall down and the earth revolves around the sun.

the problem is that you act as if it is the only possible observation.

By the way, I can tell you of a scientist at my Church who does not believe in evolution and bases it on scientific reasoning. That's not to prove it wrong, only to say that there are very smart men out htere whom science has lead away from evolution.

It's fine with me that you believe it to be true, but don't purport that all good scientists agree and that it is the only logical explanation. You are not a scientist to be so bold about how you preach your observation as if it were fact.

Xpy

[SpyridonOCA]

thats a big no to both.

This shows your willful ignorance. Shared endogenous retroviral insertions are an indication of common descent. There is no other serious explanation.

Speciation events have been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations

In the fossil record, transitional forms are abundant:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

The molecular evidence for common descent is overwhelming:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html


Again, Orthodox Christian faith does not mean denying directly observable reality. That was exactly the point of St. Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

And the point of Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian and a founder of modern evolutionary theory:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)


All Orthodox Christians agree that we are created in the image of God, have fallen, and are in need of Christ for redemption. Where we disagree is a matter of time and method.


It's fine with me that you believe it to be true, but don't purport that all good scientists agree and that it is the only logical explanation. You are not a scientist to be so bold about how you preach your observation as if it were fact.


Common descent isn't any more a matter of belief than that things fall down and that the earth revolves around the sun. There is a small minority of scientists who, for personal reasons, disagree with common descent. They do so, however, without providing a better alternative explanation for the facts of biology. Until such an explanation is provided, common descent will continue to be the overwhelming consensus. Just saying "God did it" isn't good enough, unless you are to believe in a deceptive God.

If you have a better explanation for shared retroviral insertions, please share it. You might just win a Nobel Prize.

[jckstraw72]

Again, Orthodox Christian faith does not mean denying directly observable reality.

again, who observed common descent?

[Xpycoctomos]

This shows your willful ignorance. Shared endogenous retroviral insertions are an indication of common descent. There is no other serious explanation.

Speciation events have been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations

In the fossil record, transitional forms are abundant:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

The molecular evidence for common descent is overwhelming:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html


Again, Orthodox Christian faith does not mean denying directly observable reality. That was exactly the point of St. Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

And the point of Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian and a founder of modern evolutionary theory:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)


All Orthodox Christians agree that we are created in the image of God, have fallen, and are in need of Christ for redemption. Where we disagree is a matter of time and method.



Common descent isn't any more a matter of belief than that things fall down and that the earth revolves around the sun. There is a small minority of scientists who, for personal reasons, disagree with common descent. They do so, however, without providing a better alternative explanation for the facts of biology. Until such an explanation is provided, common descent will continue to be the overwhelming consensus. Just saying "God did it" isn't good enough, unless you are to believe in a deceptive God.

If you have a better explanation for shared retroviral insertions, please share it. You might just win a Nobel Prize.

You're losing site of your original intent with this thread. I thought it was simply to say that we shouldn't be afraid of science, not that we have to move in lock step with common decent.

*by the way, I might agree with you on evolution, but I'm not talkinga bout that because it is wholly beside the point what I think about evolution or a literal 6 day creation.

[SpyridonOCA]

You're losing site of your original intent with this thread. I thought it was simply to say that we shouldn't be afraid of science, not that we have to move in lock step with common decent.


It is a common misconception that evolution is "just a theory." Natural selection, the most commonly accepted mechanism of evolution, is a theory. That all species share a common ancestor is a fact.


Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Common descent isn't something to be accepted dogmatically. It just happens to be the only logical explanation for many facts in the natural world, including endogenous retroviral insertions. If someone doesn't even know what retroviral insertions are, I cannot accept their assertions regarding evolution, and neither would most Orthodox Christians who practice science. If scientific discovery isn't something we fear, but something we embrace to illuminate the Creation of God, that should include the overwhelmingly evidenced fact of common descent.

[jckstraw72]

not believing in evolution does not equate to being afraid of science. thats abundantly ridiculous.

[SpyridonOCA]

not believing in evolution does not equate to being afraid of science. thats abundantly ridiculous.

You've shown yourself to have not even the most basic understanding of what evolution is nor the evidence involved. Are we children or are we grown adults? Isn't it time to move past Sunday school?

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Faith does not mean willfully ignoring the truth.

[Xpycoctomos]

You've shown yourself to have not even the most basic understanding of what evolution is nor the evidence involved. Are we children or are we grown adults? Isn't it time to move past Sunday school?

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Faith does not mean willfully ignoring the truth.

You show yourself to awesome and absolutely amazing. We are humbled to have thee in our presence. lol

[jckstraw72]

i let the Church and its holy Saints interpret Scriptures, not scientists. maybe we should go back to Sunday school and relearn the basics.

[Vasileios]

Dobzansky was not Orthodox. FACT. Dropping his name over and over again is not impressive, it's just annoying.

Secondly, for a man who prides to be able to comprehend science like an adult you miss a glaring contradiction in your post:

You say common descent is a fact as opposed to natural selection which is a theory, then you say that common descent is not to be believed dogmatically but it is the best explanation. Well, newsflash Spyridon, if it was a fact it would be dogmatically believed. In fact, both mutation and natural selection are observable facts, they are just incapable of explaining evolution. Nobody denies they happen, lots of people (including evolutionists btw) question their results as evolutionary mechanisms.

Now, you can be on the side of scientists all you want, since the explanations the Fathers gave don't suit your intellect, and you need a "good logical explanation", however heed these words:

The SAINTS of the Church we are not worthy to be members of, DID believe in Genesis simply. They did NOT BELIEVE IN A DECEPTIVE GOD and next time you even dare to make that blasphemous assertion again I will ask the mods to delete it.

Believe in evolution all you want. STOP making statements about those who don't. Is that clear?

[SpyridonOCA]

i let the Church and its holy Saints interpret Scriptures, not scientists.

By this very logic, you should believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

[SpyridonOCA]

You show yourself to awesome and absolutely amazing. We are humbled to have thee in our presence. lol

I am not awesome. I am an incredibly foolish individual. But I am telling you, we should take heed to the warning of St. Augustine. It is not good for Christians to make Christianity look stupid by denying the facts that all people, Christian or not, can readily observe. There is nothing Christian about putting our heads in the sand.

Glenn Morton was a creation scientist who worked for and had been trained by the Institution of Creation Research, a young earth creationist organization. When he came to do actual science, he found that everything he had been taught about evolution was wrong.

Why I left Young-earth Creationism
by Glenn R. Morton (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm)

The church fathers were divided in their understanding of Genesis. Some understood the Hexaemeron to mean that God created in six literal days, less than ten thousand years ago. Others, however, understood it as an allegory, and warned against those who deny observable reality in the name of Scripture. To this day, the Church has no official position on evolution. To claim that there is some traditional and only acceptable understanding of Genesis is a willful ignorance of history.

Evolution & Orthodoxy (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=72&SID=3)

[SpyridonOCA]

Dobzansky was not Orthodox.

What evidence do you have for this assertion? By whose authority do you question his faith?


Well, newsflash Spyridon, if it was a fact it would be dogmatically believed.

Science doesn't deal with dogma. If there were a better explanation for the facts of biology, the observation of common descent would be overturned. No one has ever provided a better explanation for retroviral insertions.


The SAINTS of the Church we are not worthy to be members of, DID believe in Genesis simply.

That is patently false. The church fathers were divided in their understanding of Genesis.

Justin Martyr
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

Again, one should not ignore the clear warning of St. Augustine:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).



They did NOT BELIEVE IN A DECEPTIVE GOD and next time you even dare to make that blasphemous assertion again I will ask the mods to delete it.


The physical evidence for common descent is overwhelming. If God were to create with the mere appearance of common descent, He would be a deceptive God.

Are we to believe that the sun revolves around the earth? How do you pick and choose when to trust the fathers on scientific matters and when to not?

[jckstraw72]

the only thing you're able to show any divergence on is the length of days of creation and yet the Church adopted a literal understanding in its calendar, and that is really the least of the problems that evolution brings with it.

and the whole sun revolving thing is nothing more than a cheap diversion -- ive already addressed that, and you have yet to show me a concensus of the Fathers teaching that.

[jckstraw72]

Are we to believe that the sun revolves around the earth? How do you pick and choose when to trust the fathers on scientific matters and when to not?

we trust the Fathers on Scripture, and we dont pick and choose that. its pretty crazy to imagine that the true Church, led by the Spirit, cant figure out Genesis.

[Vasileios]

You are trying my patience Spyridon. Please read carefully what I write because you miss the point entirely and I am lead to believe you either do not really read what I write or you cannot understand it.

I have no "authority" to judge his faith, I go by his own words. He was an admirer of Teilhard de Chardin, that deceitful individual who doctored his findings to present a "missing link", who also wrote on spiritual evolution, and that we are lead towards the Omega point where all humans will become Christ-like. Dobzansky was a deist at best. I am sorry that I bust your bubble about your "Orthodox scientist" but next time read about your heroes. It's not like he kept it a secret.

Secondly, again, if common descent was an observed fact (and not a conclusion based on assumption) it WOULD NEVER BE OVERTURNED by another explanation. Learn to speak properly. Fact means undisputed, reality. If you even consider that another explanation might do in the future, then by default you cannot use that word. I know there is no other scientific explanation yet. I DON'T CARE. Science has held to a lot of theoretical models for lack of a better explanation that were simply WRONG. I believe this is one of them.

About the saints, stop giving me quotes. I have read them again and again and I have my own opinion about them. The point is that there are literally dozens of Saints who believe in good-old fashioned creationism, including MODERN saints, who did hear about evolution (St. Nectarios and the elder Paisios come to mind). When you arrogantly proclaim God deceptive if common descent is false, you say these saints believed in a deceptive God. I don't if it was only ONE saint (while in fact it was most), you should retract that blasphemous statement and show some humility.

Finally, nobody is fighting over the literal 6 days. As far as I know we are free to believe as we like. So stop taking on that strawman.

[SpyridonOCA]

I have no "authority" to judge his faith, I go by his own words. He was an admirer of Teilhard de Chardin, that deceitful individual who doctored his findings to present a "missing link", who also wrote on spiritual evolution, and that we are lead towards the Omega point where all humans will become Christ-like. Dobzansky was a deist at best. I am sorry that I bust your bubble about your "Orthodox scientist" but next time read about your heroes. It's not like he kept it a secret.

Dobzhansky disagreed with several of Teilhard's views. What he admired was the man's willingness to accept evolution along with his Christian faith. Peking man, a fossil which Teilhard helped to discover, is universally accepted as a Homo erectus specimen.


Secondly, again, if common descent was an observed fact (and not a conclusion based on assumption) it WOULD NEVER BE OVERTURNED by another explanation. Learn to speak properly.

You misunderstand the nature of science.


Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The point is that there are literally dozens of Saints who believe in good-old fashioned creationism, including MODERN saints, who did hear about evolution (St. Nectarios and the elder Paisios come to mind).

The church fathers universally believed in geocentrism. Does that mean the sun revolves around the earth? While there are contemporary saints who've rejected evolution, none of them claimed to be scientists, and neither did they have the evidence available today.


Endogenous retroviruses are retroviruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus) derived from ancient infections of germ cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_cell) in humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human), mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal) and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provirus) are passed on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance) to the next generation and now remain in the genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome). Retroviruses are viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus) that reverse-transcribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription) their RNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA) into DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV)-1) infect somatic cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cells), but some can also infect germline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germline) cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation) during host DNA replication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication). They can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recombinational_deletion&action=edit&redlink=1). Many believe that they play a key role in evolution as well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Since retroviruses are randomly inserted into the genome and passed down generationally, they are a clear indication of common descent. If God were to arbitrarily insert them into the same parts of the genetic code in chimps and humans, what would the point be other than to deceive? You haven't shown yourself to understand what endogenous retroviral insertions are nor why they are important.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

As this chart shows, the further species are from each other on the evolutionary time line, the further their retroviral insertions are from each other. This is a clear evidence for the nested hierarchy of life. Did God just arbitrarily manipulate the genetic code to have the appearance of common descent?

[SpyridonOCA]

we trust the Fathers on Scripture, and we dont pick and choose that. its pretty crazy to imagine that the true Church, led by the Spirit, cant figure out Genesis.

It's pretty crazy to imagine that the true Church, led by the Spirit, can't figure out that the earth revolves around the sun.

Again, the Church has no official position on evolution. That's what you can find here:
Evolution & Orthodoxy (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=72&SID=3)

And that's what you can find from reading the Orthodox Study Bible.

[jckstraw72]

The church fathers universally believed in geocentrism. Does that mean the sun revolves around the earth? While there are contemporary saints who've rejected evolution, none of them claimed to be scientists, and neither did they have the evidence available today.

it blows my mind that you would think the Saints need to know science in order to understand the ways of God.

Did God just arbitrarily manipulate the genetic code to have the appearance of common descent?

perhaps the same God created all things in a similar fashion. or perhaps it only looks that way to you bc you accept the "science" of evolution. it doesnt look that way to me.

[jckstraw72]

It's pretty crazy to imagine that the true Church, led by the Spirit, can't figure out that the earth revolves around the sun.

that has what to do with salvation?

your petty tactics are, well, petty. tom petty. except he's not lame, like your tactics. he actually rocks socks.

[SpyridonOCA]

it blows my mind that you would think the Saints need to know science in order to understand the ways of God.


There is no unanimous understanding of Genesis among the church fathers, just as there is no unanimous position of the Church on evolution. We do know that there were church fathers, like St. Basil and St. Augustine, who were willing to understand Scripture in light of scientific discovery.



perhaps the same God created all things in a similar fashion. or perhaps it only looks that way to you bc you accept the "science" of evolution. it doesnt look that way to me.

Until you show a basic knowledge of what endogenous retroviral insertions even are, I cannot take your position seriously.

[Xpycoctomos]

The word for Apes in spanish is simios. I think that speaks volumes for my case.

[Xpycoctomos]

It's pretty crazy to imagine that the true Church, led by the Spirit, can't figure out that the earth revolves around the sun.
Why would it need to figure that out? Why does it matter? What does this have to do with your thread?

Again, the Church has no official position on evolution. That's why you can find here:
Evolution & Orthodoxy (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=72&SID=3)

Finally, THIS is what the original point is that I thought you were trying to make. You realize to make this point you do not have to defend Evolution or literal 6-day creation. The point is that it doesn't matter. Please... stick with this. Stop acting like a scientific scholar. Unless we missed something, you are not one.

[SpyridonOCA]

Why would it need to figure that out? Why does it matter? What does this have to do with your thread?


My point is that if the church fathers could be wrong on geocentrism, they can be wrong on evolution. They were not scientists, and neither was the Bible written as a scientific treatise.


Stop acting like a scientific scholar. Unless we missed something, you are not one.

While I'm not an expert when it comes to anything, I do know of certain facts of biology, anthropology and paleontology that have no explanation other than common descent. Does anyone have an alternative explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions other than a deceptive God?

While it doesn't matter in terms of your salvation whether you recognize the scientific fact of common descent, it does matter in terms of intellectual honesty. When the non-Christian world sees us arguing over directly observed scientific facts in the name of religion, they will turn away from Christ, seeing His followers as complete fools.

[Xpycoctomos]

Until you show a basic knowledge of what endogenous retroviral insertions even are, I cannot take your position seriously.
Until you can explain to me the use of the future subjunctive mood often elicited in South American journalism, I cannot take your opinion on your view of the freedom of press in Colombia seriously. And if you can get that... well, then I will look for some other impressive fact I read on Wikipedia the other night and debated with my linguistics buddy about until 3 in the morning.

[Xpycoctomos]

My point is that if the church fathers could be wrong on geocentrism, they can be wrong on evolution. They were not scientists, and neither was the Bible written as a scientific treatise.



While I'm not an expert when it comes to anything, I do know of certain facts of biology, anthropology and paleontology that have no explanation other than common descent. Does anyone have an alternative explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions other than a deceptive God?

While it doesn't matter in terms of your salvation whether you recognize the scientific fact of common descent, it does matter in terms of intellectual honesty. When the non-Christian world sees us arguing over directly observed scientific facts in the name of religion, they will turn away from Christ, seeing His followers as complete fools.

But you set up these puzzles and quizzes that people must pass before you say you will take them seriously. People have to play compltetly by your pre-mapped out debate in order to discuss anything. There is no give your discussions. And if people don't, you continue on as if they did. You seem to lack flexibility in your discussions skills and its frustrating becuse it is a lot like talking to Chrisbot. I say that in part becuase it sounds funny, but I am serious about the analogy.

[SpyridonOCA]

But you set up these puzzles and quizzes that people must pass before you say you will take them seriously. People have to play compltetly by your pre-mapped out debate in order to discuss anything. There is no give your discussions. And if people don't, you continue on as if they did. You seem to lack flexibility in your discussions skills and its frustrating becuse it is a lot like talking to Chrisbot. I say that in part becuase it sounds funny, but I am serious about the analogy.

What I am saying is that one cannot honestly deny common descent without even knowing the most basic, irrefutable evidence in support of it.

[Xpycoctomos]

http://www.google.com/products?q=chinese+tea&btnG=Search+Products&show=dd

[Vasileios]

Are we seriously going to allow Spyridon to say that St. Nectarios believed in a deceptive God? No matter what else he claims, this is unacceptable.

Spyridon, I understand endogenous retroviral insertions better than you. Seriously. Both my parents are doctors and I have discussed matters of biology and anthropology extensively with them. Stop pasting talkorigins at me, I've had this debate with people with a biology degree and I've seen it all.

Fact is something that has happened. Something we KNOW to be true. In your case, the fact is that species with similar phenotype have similar genotypes, including retroviral insertions. Don't presume to tell me if I understand the difference between facts and theories. I have a university degree in computing science and part of my training was mathematics and logic. I am familiar with the terminology.

Now, like I said, I have no problem if you see the fact as satisfactory evidence that common descent is true. What I do have a problem with is your obsession of making everyone admit that common descent is a FACT and that if we don't accept it then we are nothing more than geocentrist ignoramuses. This statement of yours affects the fathers as well. There could be a perfectly logical explanation why certain genotypes display those similarities. There could be a wholly different reason as to why there is the nested effect, there could be something other than a virus that causes this, the timeline could be distorted, the whole genome when mapped could reveal more information, the provess of retroviral insertions itself is not shown at any of the papers you offered and so on. Just beause the scientific world is satisfied, that means zero to me. I do not look to satisfy any naturalistic philosophy in my head. If they want me to accept it, I need *verifiable* (repeat) *verifiable* proof. They have done a gazillion experiments on the damn fruitfly, seen literally millions of generations, and the damn thing remains a fruitfly. They have observed tens of micromutations (optimistically) and they are ALL minute deviances in the exact same species, without change even to the phenotype.

I know that someone who does not know much science and especially how papers are written (this is VERY important), how the academic world works, then a couple of citations, an authoritative tone will make them feel truly overwhelmed. But it will take real scientific proof to convince me to abandon the Church Fathers over the naturalists.

Finally, if you are so keen on intellectual honesty, jckstrw asked you a gazillion times to prove your assertion that geoentricity was the universal belief of the fathers. This should include St. Nectarios, the elders of the past centuries and so on. There is a reason the saints haven't budged ONE BIT from their rejection of evolution. The Orthodox Church, as I hope you know, did not oppose heliocentrism at all. Do you understand that difference? If you keep repeating the same thing after this post, then you are just going to be ignored, I've no time for intellectual dishonesty. Especially with disrespect to the saints.

[SpyridonOCA]

Spyridon, I understand endogenous retroviral insertions better than you.


If that is true, why haven't you engaged me on the science involved? Why don't you provide a better scientific explanation other than common descent?


Fact is something that has happened. Something we KNOW to be true.

From all the available evidence in anthropology, biology, and paleontology, we know with reasonable certainty that universal common descent is a fact. That doesn't mean such certainty is absolute. Please read the article by Stephen Jay Gould that I've provided you.


I do not look to satisfy any naturalistic philosophy in my head.

The fact of common descent is independent of its mechanism. There is nothing inherently naturalistic about all species sharing a common ancestor.

If they want me to accept it, I need *verifiable* (repeat) *verifiable* proof. They have done a gazillion experiments on the damn fruitfly, seen literally millions of generations, and the damn thing remains a fruitfly. They have observed tens of micromutations (optimistically) and they are ALL minute deviances in the exact same species, without change even to the phenotype.


By looking at the fossil record and the human genome, we are able to observe what has occurred in the past, just as we've observed speciation events in the present.

Citing the church fathers doesn't make the numerous transitional forms in the fossil record disappear:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

Neither does it make the molecular evidence disappear:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

I too have attended college and have studied science at a college level. The reason why I'm showing you these articles from Talk Origins is because one must ignore basic observed facts in order to hold the creationist position.


I know that someone who does not know much science and especially how papers are written (this is VERY important), how the academic world works, then a couple of citations, an authoritative tone will make them feel truly overwhelmed. But it will take real scientific proof to convince me to abandon the Church Fathers over the naturalists.


Why have you abandoned the church fathers in their opinion that the sun revolves around the earth? Such a view of our solar system was based upon a particular interpretation of Scripture and an ignorance of the facts made available by modern science. If you are willing to admit that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and that the church fathers were not biologists, would you not at least be open to the idea that all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification? If not, why not? Would your understanding of Orthodoxy, of Christ Himself, at all change? If so, why? Isn't He the same Christ either way?

Would it at all affect your thinking if the majority of Orthodox Christians who practice science in fields directly related to evolution agree that it is the only explanation for the facts of biology? Or would you assert that they've all been compromised by naturalism and secular philosophy?

If you prefer a creationist view, you certainly have a right to it. Yet one should recognize that the Church itself has no official position on evolution. For that reason, I strongly recommend reading this book:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367

[jckstraw72]

By looking at the fossil record and the human genome, we are able to observe what has occurred in the past, just as we've observed speciation events in the present.

no, you can make assumptions about the past based on the present.

from Joshua's point of view it was the sun that stood still. that makes perfect sense for a human from that time to write that. the creation accounts are from GOD'S point of view though. His POV is absolute, Joshua's is not.

[jckstraw72]

just for fun:

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? City of God, Book XVIII.XL

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII.XXI
On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ!" No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's experience of it is not good.
. . .These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.


http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v227/407/116/t9316336_3487.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9316336)

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII.XII
When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which is called second death,—we must answer, It is all. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death, which consists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the Church universal of many churches, so death universal consists of all deaths. For the body would not return to the earth from which it was made, save only by the death proper to itself, which occurs when it is forsaken of the soul, its life. And therefore it is agreed among all Christians who truthfully hold the catholic faith, that we are subject to the death of the body, not by the law of nature, by which God ordained no death for man, but by His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, taking vengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were, "Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return." Book XIII.XV

[Chesterton]

It is not good for Christians to make Christianity look stupid by denying the facts that all people, Christian or not, can readily observe. There is nothing Christian about putting our heads in the sand.

Spyridon, I couldn't understand your reason for this thread until I saw the above. I disagree with that concern, but it's arguable I suppose.

"Putting our heads in the sand" is exactly what modern science and the world does as it attempts to deny its Creator (through the philosophy/religion of evolution, materialism, some modern psychology, etc.). It's only the stupid of the world that would see Christianity as stupid due to questionable theories based on assumptions, or even due to scientifically establised facts.

Here's something from the Chesterton book Orthodoxy, Chapter IV, "The Ethics of Elfland":

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. ...this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic."

The world hears so often words like "the law of gravity", and "the course of evolution", that it forgets these things are entirely arbitrary. When you understand the truth that the entire cosmos is MAGIC, then I have to ask: apart from applied science, how are the accomplishing mechanisms important in any way?

Don't forget that being child-like is both intellectully honest, and a virtue for which we are to strive.

[SpyridonOCA]

"Putting our heads in the sand" is exactly what modern science and the world does as it attempts to deny its Creator (through the philosophy/religion of evolution, materialism, some modern psychology, etc.).

About half of scientists believe in some form of theistic evolution, while the majority of Orthodox Christians who practice science accept common descent. The observation that all species share a common ancestor is not the denial of a Creator God. That is the point of this paper written by Theodosius Dobzhansky:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Even if you disagree with evolution, I recommend reading it. It isn't right to say that he was just a fake Orthodox, since that is a judgment one hasn't the right to make. You would also have to claim that almost all Orthodox Christians who practice science are not truly Orthodox, an absurd assertion.



Don't forget that being child-like is both intellectully honest, and a virtue for which we are to strive.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

When I look at the complexity and diversity of life, I am in awe by the wonders that God is able to create. That God created through a gradual process does not make it any less miraculous.

I believe that we have exhausted this conversation. It is important we recognize that there is no official position on evolution, and therefore it's expected that we will have certain disagreements. What matters is that we all agree that we are created in the image of God, have fallen, and are in need of Christ for redemption.

Please read this book, written by an Orthodox Christian scientist who understands both Orthodox theology and the facts of biology:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367

[jckstraw72]

The observation that all species share a common ancestor is not the denial of a Creator God.

who, other than God, observed this common descent? cause God gave us a record that gives a completely different picture.

[Chesterton]

I might read your book suggestion sometime, but honestly, it won't be high on my reading list. However...since you seem to wish that others share your belief in evolution, I'm willing to promise you I'll give the theory more consideration if you could point me to any reading material which answers questions such as these (for starters):

According to evolution, man is directly descended from the ape. We have living apes, we have living humans, we have bones of apes, we have bones of humans - where did the in-between creature(s) go? Where did its, or his, bones go? There should be thousands, hundreds of thousands of fossil finds, yet there has not been one (which wasn't proven to be a hoax).

According to evolution, mammals appeared after reptiles, who appeared after amphibians. How is it that whales (mammals) live in the sea?

[SpyridonOCA]

who, other than God, observed this common descent? cause God gave us a record that gives a completely different picture.

In science, what matters is which position receives the most support from the actual physical evidence, not your particular interpretation of the Bible. The church fathers weren't unanimous in holding a literal understanding of Genesis, something which you should know by now. While you have a right to your position, and I don't want to disparage it, you should recognize that it is not the official position of the Church.

[SpyridonOCA]

However...since you seem to wish that others share your belief in evolution, I'm willing to promise you I'll give the theory more consideration if you could point me to any reading material which answers questions such as these (for starters):


That all species share a common ancestor isn't a matter of belief. It's as much an observation as whether things fall down. I have no intention of forcing anyone to recognize this fact. What should be recognized is that the Church has no official position on evolution.


According to evolution, man is directly descended from the ape.

There are numerous transitional forms in the human fossil record:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

Just as there is substantial molecular evidence for man-monkey kindred:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html


According to evolution, mammals appeared after reptiles, who appeared after amphibians. How is it that whales (mammals) live in the sea?

Legged fossil whales have been found:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex4

[jckstraw72]

In science, what matters is which position receives the most support from the actual physical evidence, not your particular interpretation of the Bible. The church fathers weren't unanimous in holding a literal understanding of Genesis, something which you should know by now. While you have a right to your position, and I don't want to disparage it, you should recognize that it is not the official position of the Church.

so the point is that common descent is not actually observable. that requires an observer. that observer was God. He gave us Genesis and He gave us His Church to interpret Genesis, and yes, the Church has unanimously come down on the side of a literal understanding of Genesis. St. John of Damascus said it was one of the earliest heresies of the Church to view Genesis allegorically. and you always quote St. Augustine, but St. Augustine also said its wrong to ignore the historical sense of Genesis and that anyone who believes in a timeline other than that revealed in Scripture is to be ridiculed. He also explicitly states that physical death came only after sin. so if you want to quote St. Augustine then that is what he believed about Genesis. And the fact that the Church adopted a calendar that uses a literal understanding of Genesis for its dating shows the mind of the Church. and as Vasilieos and I have said countless times, any modern Saint or Holy Elder who spoke on evolution spoke against it .... St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Justin Popovich, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Cleopa, Elder Paisios, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Porphyrios, etc etc etc and Fr. Alexander Schmemann's teachings that the entirety of creation reflected the glory of God and was to be a eucharistic offering to God of course implies that the world was not fallen.

[SpyridonOCA]

Mr. Straw, you have a right to your belief, but you should at least try to read what Orthodox Christians have written who don't happen to agree with you, especially those who are actual scientists.

[jckstraw72]

God's miraculous act of creation is entirely outside the realm of science because its completely unobservable, thus God gave us His divine revelation and has preserved it in the Church.

[Chesterton]

You didn't provide answers to my questions. From your links:

"Although there may exist in some other world species intermediate between Man and the Apes, Nature has thought it best to remove them from us, in order to establish our superiority beyond question."

and

"Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees."

I'd like actual evidence of the missing link(s), not a statement from someone that they "expect" that they once existed.

The types of skulls shown in your link have been being found and offered up as ape-men for over a hundred years. In every case, they are either ape, human, deformed ape, deformed human, especially small humans, especially large apes, etc. If they ever do find a legitimate fossil, we'll all know it because it will be front page news (or maybe not; after all the media's been burned by so many hoaxes by atheistic scientists over the years). Regardless, I'd still like to know why these things or people aren't with us today, swinging from trees or building cities, or whatever they would be doing. "Nature has thought it best to remove them from us" is not a good answer. It's funny, but not good.

"the consensus phylogeny indicates that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals with legs."

So how does that work? After sea creatures put in all that work for millions of years to evolve to the point where they could live on land, and after millions of years of living on land, these land mammals just got tired of living and walking on land and decided they would alter their anatomy and become sea creatures again?

Overall, the evidence there is is scant, the evidence which should be there is missing, and there's lots of evidence which contradicts it. It takes a strong faith to believe evolution.

[SpyridonOCA]

God's miraculous act of creation is entirely outside the realm of science because its completely unobservable, thus God gave us His divine revelation and has preserved it in the Church.

What you've failed to recognize is that if God created through a gradual process, understandable to the human mind, that wouldn't be any less miraculous. A child is conceived and develops according to a natural, God-designed mechanism, and that doesn't make a child, a human person, any less miraculous. This is exactly the point of this book, written by an Orthodox scientist who understands both Orthodox theology and the facts of biology:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367

[SpyridonOCA]

In every case, they are either ape, human, deformed ape, deformed human, especially small humans, especially large apes, etc.

Claim CC050:

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape. Response:



There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).


And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).
There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html





So how does that work? After sea creatures put in all that work for millions of years to evolve to the point where they could live on land, and after millions of years of living on land, these land mammals just got tired of living and walking on land and decided they would alter their anatomy and become sea creatures again?


You fail to understand how evolution works. It's nothing more than species adapting to their environments. It follows no progressive goal. Species don't decide to evolve, it doesn't work that way. Some mammals found a better habitat in aquatic environments and, over time, adapted to these environments. The fossil evidence for this is undeniable. Why else would there be whales with legs? How is that not an evolutionary intermediate?


Overall, the evidence there is is scant, the evidence which should be there is missing, and there's lots of evidence which contradicts it. It takes a strong faith to believe evolution.

You obviously are repeating the talking points of creationist propagandists. You don't know what the actual evidence is, nor do you seem to care.

I recommend actually looking at the evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And actually reading this book:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367

If universal common descent were a matter of mere faith, the majority of scientists, including those who are Christians, wouldn't have accepted it. If anyone could refute it with a better scientific explanation for the facts of biology, paleontology, and anthropology, they certainly would win a Nobel Prize.

[jckstraw72]

What you've failed to recognize is that if God created through a gradual process, understandable to the human mind, that wouldn't be any less miraculous. A child is conceived and develops according to a natural, God-designed mechanism, and that doesn't make a child, a human person, any less miraculous. This is exactly the point of this book, written by an Orthodox scientist who understands both Orthodox theology and the facts of biology:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping...uctNum=BEAU367 (http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367)

and how much is his own work and how much is the handed-down Tradition of the Church? Dcn. Kuraev is Orthodox and believes in evolution, but yet his work is entirely his own, which belongs more to the Protestant way of approaching the faith.

[SpyridonOCA]

and how much is his own work and how much is the handed-down Tradition of the Church?


Again, you've failed to recognize that the church fathers were not unanimous in their understanding of Genesis, that several church fathers warned against denying scientific fact in the name of Scripture, and that the Church has no official position on evolution. You essentially have no argument, and you show no knowledge of the scientific evidence, which is why I recommend you read the book.

[jckstraw72]

Again, you've failed to recognize that the church fathers were not unanimous in their understanding of Genesis, that several church fathers warned against denying scientific fact in the name of Scripture, and that the Church has no official position on evolution. You essentially have no argument, which is why I recommend you read the book.you have failed to bring forth any evidence to the contrary. do you honestly know better than St. John of Damascus who describes your interpretive methods as heretical? everything ive said has come from Church Fathers and modern Saints and holy Elders. you just keep posting a link to a book from one scientist.

and who is denying scientific fact? you assume that evolution is fact so that you can slander creationists with your continually repeated Augustine quote. evolution is not fact, thus i am not denying fact. you, however, are denying what Augustine actually believed about Genesis, preferring to take one quote and assume it applies to your beliefs that Augustine says should be ridiculed.

For we know that a theologian is not one who has studied in the modern Theological Schools but one in whom speaks God the Logos. Theology is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The blessed elder [Joseph the Hesychast] wrote concerning this, "When in obedience and stillness one purifies the senses and calms the mind and cleanses the heart, then he receives grace and enlightenment of knowledge. He becomes all nous, all clarity, and filled with theology such that if three were writing they could not keep up with the flow. He spreads peace and complete inactivity of the passions throughout the body."---Elder Ephraim

"Elder Joseph was unlettered as far as his secular schooling was concerned. He had only completed his second year in elementary school. But he was wise in things divine, for he was tutored by God. The university of the wilderness taught him what we basically need: the divine." -- Monastic Wisdom, Elder Ephraim's preface, pg 27

thats what we are all called to -- and all such people oppose evolution. who cares what some scientist thinks?

[SpyridonOCA]

you have failed to bring forth any evidence to the contrary. do you honestly know better than St. John of Damascus who describes your interpretive methods as heretical? everything ive said has come from Church Fathers and modern Saints and holy Elders. you just keep posting a link to a book from one scientist.


While you have a right to your position, you need to recognize that it isn't the official position of the Church. Do you own the Orthodox Study Bible? Have you read its commentary on Genesis?

you, however, are denying what Augustine actually believed about Genesis, preferring to take one quote and assume it applies to your beliefs that Augustine says should be ridiculed.

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear o