Forgive me my brother. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant (I wasn't too clear). I was talking about the issue of how old the Earth is and not evolution. Macro evolution is not accepted in the Orthodox church and has many theological problems, and implications. However, whether they were figurative or literal days is not a dogma.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9851.msg120937#msg120937 date=1287372884] Dear Ioannes,
Forgive me my brother. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant (I wasn't too clear). I was talking about the issue of how old the Earth is and not evolution. Macro evolution is not accepted in the Orthodox church and has many theological problems, and implications. However, whether they were figurative or literal days is not a dogma.
Pray for me, Anba Bola
No that is my bad, I often times forget to discern between the two when speaking. I debate this issue quite a bit, although not with scientists, its kind of pointless actually because we look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, which is fine I guess. Fr. Seraphim Rose in his epic work "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" tells us that we should not really get hung up too much on this issue, mainly because it does not directly pertain to our salvation.
Meena, I do think I got confused between you and Epchois. For that I apologize, this is why I was so confused as to why you didnt know what I was talking about and I did not understand what you were saying. My bad totally, I am in a very bad mood and seem to be taking it out on everyone. Forgive me.
Thank you Ioannes for analyzing the inflexible Egyptians! I am trying though to be more flexible without bowing to any compromise, by trying to follow in a better way the teaching of the Holy Bible. I hope you read again my previous reply.
The lecture I posted above on the big bang is very important. I hope you all watch it and feedback your opinions please.
In the debate Meena posted I was not very impressed by Ross, he showed a stiff mind on many occasions, yet I did not like much him being publicly called a heretic by Hovind.
The 6 literal days theme is still strongly valid because time is not a constant factor (that's physics properties proven facts). I believe what Hovind said early in the debate that if any ordinary people before or during our era read the Bible without bias they will definitely understand that the days of creation in Genesis are 24 hour days - except for the few elected gurus - I strongly approve this important remark.
I am pretty much sure in the next few decades,The view of Young Earth Creationism will almost die or the Faith of millions of Youth that are exposed to Science will erode, unless the Church and Her proponents should not strictly stick to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.We all know this view doesn’t affect our Salvation, but it will indirectly affect converts and students of science when exposed to Theology and if the Church rejects Old Earth Creationism.
There are undeniable facts that are discovered in the 20-21st century about the Age of the Earth, which can be easily understood by a lay person, Thanks to Dendrochronology and Carbon-dating which diminishes the view of Young Earth Creationism and I know there are intellectuals and good arguments for YEC here, but this one I have never seen it refuted.
Here is the evidence for Old Earth Creationism 1.Dendrochronology- This field of science as I explained earlier is a fascinating field, which tell us back in time just from the evidence of Bristle cone pine trees in the United states only and goes back to 11,500 years compared from living trees and dead trees. The rings are not repetitive due to the weather condition, for example if the ring is thick thin thin, we will say 3 years and they compared it with other thousands of trees and there is almost no error of repetition of the rings and guess what, it goes back to more than 10,000 years with extreme accuracy.
2. Carbon-Dating- I am glad someone posted that Carbon-Dating doesn’t work above 40,000 years and the answer is definetly Yes, but it does work below 40,000 years which proves to the fact again that the earth is not 10,000 years old, The methodology is very simple.we know how many C-12( Stable Isotope) and C-14( Unstable Isotpe) in the atmosphere or in any living organisms, when any organism dies the C-14 unstable isotope will convert to N-14 stable isotope, so it is very easy to count the number of atoms that the organism loses and in the laboratory it is tested that the C-14 will loose half of its atoms around 5730 years, so it is also not fair that we agree with all the historical claims from Dead sea scrolls to city of Jericho to King Tut’s and other thousands of Historical sites were approved to their claimed date by C-14 dating and then deny thousands of other sites that are above 10,000 years and below 50,000 years dated by C-14.
The most interesting part of this phenomenon is that a dead tree from Bristle cone pine tree is dated to 5730 years from Dendrochronology is also dated by the half life of C-14 dating and Guess what with the result? Extra-ordinary Concordance and we get the same result to the 11,000 years of the Bristle cone pine dead tree.
I firmly believe,God is not deceptive and Young Earth Creationism fails,because YEC proponents here should explain to us not only why all the thousands of sites are dated by C-14 with almost extreme accuracy of their claimed historical dates, but also two different methods Dendrochronology and C-14 give us the same exact date for dating the same tree.I challenge all Young earth creationists to debunk this fact.
You have not answered any of the points I have made. :) Here are a few more.
How is it possible to create a mature universe without an inferred history? It is not possible.
What you are doing is telling God how He MUST have acted.
Everything you can possibly put forward is easily included in a logically necessary inferred history of a mature universe.
You are using the word 'deception', but I have not used such a word. All you are doing is trying to load the argument in your favour.
When God created Adam how old did he appear? Was that a deception?
Every miracle recorded in the Bible took place at the Word of God in a moment. Why would God not intervene in the universe for 4 billion years, and then start taking a detailed interest?
When the man born blind was healed what happened to his eyes? Were they created in an instant, or did they take some years to form? When his eyes had been instantaneously healed would an opthalmologist have been able to tell that they were not 40 year old eyes but only a minute old? If not then how is this not a 'deception'?
If the Church abandons the faith simply because of the requirements of the generally atheist scientific community then we will be really in trouble. Our faith is, in any case, not in science, but in our Lord Jesus Christ. The 'facts' and facts of science do not shake the faith of someone who truly knows Christ. They may shake the faith of someone who attends Church but does not know Christ personally.
Should the Church also abandon its teaching on sex simply because the scientific community says something different? And when the scientific community says that there is no evidence for God should we also abandon our faith in God in case the young people abandon their faith in God? Ohhhh!
There are a great many non-Christians I have spoken with who understand that a created mature universe must have an inferred history as a matter of necessity.
Please address this issue.
How would you create a river valley without it having an inferred history of a thousand or ten thousand years? How would you create a moon without it having an inferred history of hundreds of millions of years?
And how do you explain the creation at the Big Bang when scientists tell us this was not the beginning of things at all. Are you yourself not endangering the faith of millions of young people by suggesting that God created the universe at the Big Bang whem science says that the cosmos began long before that, and has perhaps seen an infinite number of Big Bangs?
You want to interrupt science and say that God created at the Big Bang. This is just as 'unscientific' as my belief that God created the universe 10-15,000 years ago. You are ignoring 'undeniable facts' just as I am.
Your examples of dendrochronology and carbon-dating do not help your argument. They are all contained within an inferred history (which is not a deception). And you are not actually saying anything different to me. God created the cosmos at a particular time and it has an inferred history. The ONLY difference is that you are placing your opinion of the creation earlier in time to me. You are also having to contradict scientists in just the same way as me. Scientists do not believe that everything began with the Big Bang so you must either disagree with scientists at some point because you accept an inferred history of the cosmos, or consider the cosmos to be eternal, in which case there is no room or need for God.
More inferences of circular reasoning were given again by the too old earth side... they are binding their views by the uniformitarian hypothesis and the materialistic doctrine of naturalism.
It is well known to many that the current biased scientific deceptions are fueled and protected by various means in order to discredit any further honest scientific investigations against them. I hope the next generations of scientists will be given more freedom and opportunity for honest scientific researches for mankind to witness the breakdown of the fallible big bang and the fragile evolution myths.
For another interesting discussion on the big bang: The Big Bang Never Happened http://www.youtube.com/user/ouroboros3712#g/c/35A32C6E877FEAC3 From part 6 the inserted documentary takes a different 'tournure'. These do not believe in the big bang either! Wonder why is it so?
And for a funny but useful clip: Einstein's Idiots 20: The Big Bang never happened! (again) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmI0Xo3VXKc Links put here by me are not for personal or anti science reasons, just food for thought.
Comments
Forgive me my brother. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant (I wasn't too clear). I was talking about the issue of how old the Earth is and not evolution. Macro evolution is not accepted in the Orthodox church and has many theological problems, and implications. However, whether they were figurative or literal days is not a dogma.
Pray for me,
Anba Bola
Dear Ioannes,
Forgive me my brother. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant (I wasn't too clear). I was talking about the issue of how old the Earth is and not evolution. Macro evolution is not accepted in the Orthodox church and has many theological problems, and implications. However, whether they were figurative or literal days is not a dogma.
Pray for me,
Anba Bola
No that is my bad, I often times forget to discern between the two when speaking. I debate this issue quite a bit, although not with scientists, its kind of pointless actually because we look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, which is fine I guess. Fr. Seraphim Rose in his epic work "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" tells us that we should not really get hung up too much on this issue, mainly because it does not directly pertain to our salvation.
Meena, I do think I got confused between you and Epchois. For that I apologize, this is why I was so confused as to why you didnt know what I was talking about and I did not understand what you were saying. My bad totally, I am in a very bad mood and seem to be taking it out on everyone. Forgive me.
I am trying though to be more flexible without bowing to any compromise, by trying to follow in a better way the teaching of the Holy Bible. I hope you read again my previous reply.
The lecture I posted above on the big bang is very important. I hope you all watch it and feedback your opinions please.
In the debate Meena posted I was not very impressed by Ross, he showed a stiff mind on many occasions, yet I did not like much him being publicly called a heretic by Hovind.
The 6 literal days theme is still strongly valid because time is not a constant factor (that's physics properties proven facts). I believe what Hovind said early in the debate that if any ordinary people before or during our era read the Bible without bias they will definitely understand that the days of creation in Genesis are 24 hour days - except for the few elected gurus - I strongly approve this important remark.
GBU
There are undeniable facts that are discovered in the 20-21st century about the Age of the Earth, which can be easily understood by a lay person, Thanks to Dendrochronology and Carbon-dating which diminishes the view of Young Earth Creationism and I know there are intellectuals and good arguments for YEC here, but this one I have never seen it refuted.
Here is the evidence for Old Earth Creationism
1.Dendrochronology- This field of science as I explained earlier is a fascinating field, which tell us back in time just from the evidence of Bristle cone pine trees in the United states only and goes back to 11,500 years compared from living trees and dead trees. The rings are not repetitive due to the weather condition, for example if the ring is thick thin thin, we will say 3 years and they compared it with other thousands of trees and there is almost no error of repetition of the rings and guess what, it goes back to more than 10,000 years with extreme accuracy.
2. Carbon-Dating- I am glad someone posted that Carbon-Dating doesn’t work above 40,000 years and the answer is definetly Yes, but it does work below 40,000 years which proves to the fact again that the earth is not 10,000 years old, The methodology is very simple.we know how many C-12( Stable Isotope) and C-14( Unstable Isotpe) in the atmosphere or in any living organisms, when any organism dies the C-14 unstable isotope will convert to N-14 stable isotope, so it is very easy to count the number of atoms that the organism loses and in the laboratory it is tested that the C-14 will loose half of its atoms around 5730 years, so it is also not fair that we agree with all the historical claims from Dead sea scrolls to city of Jericho to King Tut’s and other thousands of Historical sites were approved to their claimed date by C-14 dating and then deny thousands of other sites that are above 10,000 years and below 50,000 years dated by C-14.
The most interesting part of this phenomenon is that a dead tree from Bristle cone pine tree is dated to 5730 years from Dendrochronology is also dated by the half life of C-14 dating and Guess what with the result? Extra-ordinary Concordance and we get the same result to the 11,000 years of the Bristle cone pine dead tree.
I firmly believe,God is not deceptive and Young Earth Creationism fails,because YEC proponents here should explain to us not only why all the thousands of sites are dated by C-14 with almost extreme accuracy of their claimed historical dates, but also two different methods Dendrochronology and C-14 give us the same exact date for dating the same tree.I challenge all Young earth creationists to debunk this fact.
How is it possible to create a mature universe without an inferred history? It is not possible.
What you are doing is telling God how He MUST have acted.
Everything you can possibly put forward is easily included in a logically necessary inferred history of a mature universe.
You are using the word 'deception', but I have not used such a word. All you are doing is trying to load the argument in your favour.
When God created Adam how old did he appear? Was that a deception?
Every miracle recorded in the Bible took place at the Word of God in a moment. Why would God not intervene in the universe for 4 billion years, and then start taking a detailed interest?
When the man born blind was healed what happened to his eyes? Were they created in an instant, or did they take some years to form? When his eyes had been instantaneously healed would an opthalmologist have been able to tell that they were not 40 year old eyes but only a minute old? If not then how is this not a 'deception'?
If the Church abandons the faith simply because of the requirements of the generally atheist scientific community then we will be really in trouble. Our faith is, in any case, not in science, but in our Lord Jesus Christ. The 'facts' and facts of science do not shake the faith of someone who truly knows Christ. They may shake the faith of someone who attends Church but does not know Christ personally.
Should the Church also abandon its teaching on sex simply because the scientific community says something different? And when the scientific community says that there is no evidence for God should we also abandon our faith in God in case the young people abandon their faith in God? Ohhhh!
There are a great many non-Christians I have spoken with who understand that a created mature universe must have an inferred history as a matter of necessity.
Please address this issue.
How would you create a river valley without it having an inferred history of a thousand or ten thousand years? How would you create a moon without it having an inferred history of hundreds of millions of years?
And how do you explain the creation at the Big Bang when scientists tell us this was not the beginning of things at all. Are you yourself not endangering the faith of millions of young people by suggesting that God created the universe at the Big Bang whem science says that the cosmos began long before that, and has perhaps seen an infinite number of Big Bangs?
You want to interrupt science and say that God created at the Big Bang. This is just as 'unscientific' as my belief that God created the universe 10-15,000 years ago. You are ignoring 'undeniable facts' just as I am.
Your examples of dendrochronology and carbon-dating do not help your argument. They are all contained within an inferred history (which is not a deception). And you are not actually saying anything different to me. God created the cosmos at a particular time and it has an inferred history. The ONLY difference is that you are placing your opinion of the creation earlier in time to me. You are also having to contradict scientists in just the same way as me. Scientists do not believe that everything began with the Big Bang so you must either disagree with scientists at some point because you accept an inferred history of the cosmos, or consider the cosmos to be eternal, in which case there is no room or need for God.
More inferences of circular reasoning were given again by the too old earth side... they are binding their views by the uniformitarian hypothesis and the materialistic doctrine of naturalism.
It is well known to many that the current biased scientific deceptions are fueled and protected by various means in order to discredit any further honest scientific investigations against them. I hope the next generations of scientists will be given more freedom and opportunity for honest scientific researches for mankind to witness the breakdown of the fallible big bang and the fragile evolution myths.
For another interesting discussion on the big bang:
The Big Bang Never Happened
http://www.youtube.com/user/ouroboros3712#g/c/35A32C6E877FEAC3
From part 6 the inserted documentary takes a different 'tournure'.
These do not believe in the big bang either! Wonder why is it so?
And for a funny but useful clip:
Einstein's Idiots 20: The Big Bang never happened! (again)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmI0Xo3VXKc
Links put here by me are not for personal or anti science reasons, just food for thought.
GBU