Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Evolution? fact or fiction?
Ok my biology teacher is insisting that evolution is why were here.
this is his thought:
big bang
primordial soup
evolution into every organism on this earth
To what degree does the orthodox church agree on evolution if it even does?
How can I counter this scientific theory?
this is his thought:
big bang
primordial soup
evolution into every organism on this earth
To what degree does the orthodox church agree on evolution if it even does?
How can I counter this scientific theory?
Comments
Listen to this sermon and you will know exactly what we believe in.
http://orthodoxsermons.org/sermons/back-basics-part-2-1
I know that it says that the sermons is still processing. All you have to do is to click on original. There is an mp3 version and a video version
God bless
EEbnyasoo3
I don't think the Orthodox church has any official position on the issue of evolution, unlike the Catholic Church which officially accepts it. We are free to make up our minds based on the evidence rather than restricted to a single position.
[quote author=coptic boy777 link=topic=9851.msg120604#msg120604 date=1286846870]
Ok my biology teacher is insisting that evolution is why were here.
this is his thought:
big bang
primordial soup
evolution into every organism on this earth
To what degree does the orthodox church agree on evolution if it even does?
How can I counter this scientific theory?
You won't get far trying to discount evolution, because the fact is, it is a fairly rational explanation for how life got from single cells to complex organisms. Its unfalsifiable, but that just makes it even harder to have a serious discussion about.
Evolution makes perfect sense, but it requires a minimum of a single cell which contains the equivalent several thousand A4 pages of information in genetic code. Evolution explains how life went from simple to complex, the same way engineering can explain how a factory turns raw materials into complex products. It can't explain presence of the factory itself. That requires intelligence.
In our experience, intelligence is the ONLY thing which can cause things to go from simple to complex, rather than the other way round. If you create house of cards, the wind can easily blow it down (complexity to chaos), but only a mind can cause it to rearrange itself: i.e. the wind will never cause the cards to reform into a house - only a force which understands the significance of a card house would be capable of doing that. So the thing your teacher won't be able to explain is how, in the primordial slime, did the mess of enzymes and chemicals move from disorganisation to a form which contained several thousand pages of organised information? The only thing we know of that can cause this is intelligence. Of course, once the intelligence has caused the single cell, there are rational reasons to see how the cell could become more and more complex. The point is, even with evolution, the minimum requirement is far too complex to have occurred without the intervention of intelligence.
To sum it up, your teacher believes that there is some force in the universe other than intelligence which can drive things from simple to complex. He has no evidence for this, he relies completely on blind faith. He is relying on far more faith than you are.
You might find the talks of Ravi Zacharias helpful, he puts this argument much better than I do. He discusses this issue here (starting at 1:33)
Although you could probaby find something more substantial from him on there.
God bless, hope that helps :)
Macro-evolution is against Christianity. The Bible clearly states that the fall was made after Adam and Eve committed sin. As such, there was no such thing as death prior to this incident. Since evolution requires that there be death, we can rule that it is false.
I would humbly disagree. The largest apostolic church on Earth, the Catholic Church, accepts evolution as fact (which is, admittedly, probably a little bit premature). Our Pope himself very rationally acknowledges that the days spoken of in the Bible were not 24 hour days, and God created several groups of animals in stages over several long periods of time - this is basically the same description as given by evolution, even though Genesis gets the order of animals wrong.
In regards to death, we are really left with no choice but to accept that death existed on this earth LONG (several million years) before anything resembling man came to inhabit it. In fact, there is no convincing evidence that there was ever a time when death was not rampant on the earth. Things like the law of entropy were built into the universe from its inception - if the Garden of Eden was a physical place, it most certainly did not exist here. The physical evidence should give us strong cause to question the interpretation of Genesis which says there was a time when the Earth was free of death and corruption. I am more inclined to think that man came here AFTER the fall.
Ok my biology teacher is insisting that evolution is why were here.
this is his thought:
big bang
primordial soup
evolution into every organism on this earth
To what degree does the orthodox church agree on evolution if it even does?
How can I counter this scientific theory?
All I can tell you is that God created Adam and Eve. He must have, as He came to die to correct the fallen nature that resulted from their disobedience.
Christ was crucified and rose from the dead. If this is true, it would mean that Adam and Eve is true.
However, the logistics, the co-ordinates, the time-frames, the sequence of exact events, we don't know.
Did God create the dinosaurs 1st and then Adam and Eve? Not sure...
But if Jesus Christ IS God, it would mean that we did not come from monkeys.
I must be the missing link.
We have discussed evolution in many ways in this forum. Please read some sample threads talking about the big bang and evolution. There are many more threads if you do a search.
Thanks to mabsoota for collecting these threads:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=7618.0
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=9557.0
and
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=9818.0
An external link, as primer for ID:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_Design
It is a fact that contrary to any one who stated that there is no credible scientist who would object with evolution there is a whole solid body of scientists who do object or disagree with it, this is so whether these are Christian believers or not.
Scientists who agree with ID like to state that it does not speak of the supernatural but mainly that there is definitely an intelligent agent behind all the observed and tested things in nature, while historical science (i.e. evolution) cannot be tested - even though the supernatural is provable by analyzing DNA or RNA.
Primordial soup: it has been proven that in order for the so called 1st primitive cell to exist it had to have ready at least 180 to 260 optimized and correctly placed proteins actively interacting with each other AND to have the capacity to reproduce themselves along with their cell 'envelope' (via RNA or DNA for example, this adds a huge problem to the immediate requirements of available factors) plus a non hostile primitive earth environment otherwise it would be useless or doomed, for just one life cycle.
It has been statistically calculated that there was not enough time since the so called big bang and the present time to produce all the living things we find in nature with all the mentioned necessary factors and all the varieties - it is impossible, even if they'd add 100 billion years.
ilovesaintmark I love your reply! There is not one intermediate species specimen found despite the countless fossil discoveries all over the world. There is not one missing link to prove evolution happened and the invented hypothesis of punctual evolutionary step is a fantasy to hide its flaws.
Do you think that the COC has nothing to say about evolution? Here is what they should be teaching in Sunday schools (& revised by bishops):
http://books.google.com/books?id=91eUuXbnvDoC&lpg=PA166&pg=PA166&output=embed
Not really many priests accept the millions of years, a few thousands are much more accepted and many say the creation week days can be each one a 24 hr day or any day can mean a thousand years. Many priests do accept the 24 hr/day theme. Some are not sure because they do not have all the scientific details. Generally CO priests rarely accept evolution because it is the product of human minds denying the uniqueness of Adam and Eve and the Love of God for mankind. Hope it helped.
GBU
Macro-evolution is against Christianity. The Bible clearly states that the fall was made after Adam and Eve committed sin. As such, there was no such thing as death prior to this incident. Since evolution requires that there be death, we can rule that it is false.
Macro evolution isn't against Christianity. It seems to me you're interpreting Genesis at face value.
Have you even read Genesis? It explicitly mentions that God created man (Adam) and woman (Eve) and that there was a fall (death and spiritual). Where did you get the idea that there was a fall prior to man? It seems that you are treading on heretical territory my friend. Care to shed some light on any of the church fathers that might agree with you?
It seems to me that neither of you understood my post. There was NO fall (i.e. death) until Adam (man) and Eve (woman) committed sin. If you do not believe me, then go read your Bible, if you do not believe it then I don't care!
And since when do we consider the Catholic church as a source of teaching? Do you not realize that they are a mess? I suppose that we should also believe in the immaculate conception...and the fact that people of other faiths can be saved....and infallibility of the pope...and....and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
Indeed it can be traced beyond Gosse to the very early 19th century. I am also interested in discovering that Gosse wrote an entire book about the idea because Gosse of course was an early Plymouth Brother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)
I do need to read the book, which I have just discovered. But the general idea is that which I consider to be true. The world was of necessity created with an apparent age. Indeed it is impossible to create anything ex nihilo without it having an apparent age.
Father Peter
Epchoice:
Have you even read Genesis? It explicitly mentions that God created man (Adam) and woman (Eve) and that there was a fall (death and spiritual). Where did you get the idea that there was a fall prior to man? It seems that you are treading on heretical territory my friend.
Hold up, I should clarify - I never said that there was a fall PRIOR to man, the Fall was most certainly caused by man, but I would contend, not PHYSICAL man. At least not in this universe. Obviously I can only speak hypothetically, but what I would imagine happened was that Adam and Eve were placed here after the fall, in a body created quite literally, from the dust of the Earth (possibly through the death-driven process of evolution) and that constituted the punishment of which God spoke (i.e. working to survive, giving birth in pain etc.). I'm stepping way out of my depth here, and I'm not sure if any church fathers believed the Garden of Eden was not physical - it would be surprising since they had no reason to think it wasn't. They hadn't seen the fossils of animals which died millions of years before human civilisation - if they had, I would imagine they would have had a lot more to say on the subject, because it means either God has lied in the evidence or we're reading Genesis wrong.
In regards to the Catholics, my only point was that they are essentially a Christian Church - we still consider them apostolic and Catholic converts don't need to be re-baptised if they come to our church. Regardless of all their other theological problems, they are still Christian and believe in the BIble just like us, and they have found that evolution is compatible with Genesis. (I know you were asking about the Fall coming prior to man (which I don't believe), but I'm going to twist the question and apply it to evolution :D)
"It is one thing to form and direct the creature from the most profound and ultimate pole of causation, and He who does this is alone the Creator, God. But it is quite another thing to apply some operation from without in proportion to the power and faculties assigned by Him, so that at this time or that, and in this or that way, the thing created may emerge" (De Trinitate, 3, 9, 16)." (St. Augustine)
The theory of evolution (although driven by something less random than natural selection) essentially fits with what St. Augustine refers to. Furthermore, when God gives the command for life on the Earth, He says, "Let the Earth bring forth ..." which also suggests an independent process. This is only problematic if we believe that the human body has innate value, which it obviously does not. To quote C.S. Lewis:
"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
Apparently due to cell death we have an entirely new body every four years! And both evolutionist and young earth creationists agree that speaking purely physically, the human body is essentially animalic with very minor differences to monkeys. What scientists simply cannot explain is how things like free will, consciousness, morality and concept of meaning and purpose arose in such an unimpressive physical shell! No-one is arguing that evolution could give man a spirit, or that evolution could ever produce beings that can question the meaning of life or look for purpose or value good and evil. That is where our true humanity lies - in our consciousness, free will and morality, which science still struggles to explain, but which Genesis has always had an answer to:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7
Few people deny that the human body is nothing more than dust. Who is to say that God did not allow the dust to form itself into a body by pre-written laws, the same way the planets and the stars formed without any supernatural guidance except an initial 'push'?
[quote author=GODlovesme link=topic=9851.msg120643#msg120643 date=1286911486]
If I were you, I would not go so far as to say that Genesis, the book in the Bible, INSPIRED BY GOD, got the order of the animals wrong.
But Godlovesme, that's what the evidence is - there are bodies of many animals existing in the same time period when the Bible says they shouldn't have been created until several years later. Genesis is not intended to be interpreted scientifically, but theologically. To say otherwise is to contend that God actively lied, giving us one account in Genesis and then 'fudging' the evidence intentionally to deceive us. I take your point, far be it from me to speak for God, but I just can't see why God would lie to us like that. I just read this on the wiki page from the above post. It's by a Talmudic scholar:
"One has to be able to rely on God's truthfulness if religion is to function. Or, to put it another way— if God went to enormous lengths to convince us that the world is billions of years old, who are we to disagree?"
If God has chosen to lie to us, then He is God and can do what He wishes. But I am more inclined to believe that God is truthful, and that our interpretation of Genesis is wrong. We can be sure that for the physical evidence to have come about any way other than naturally, it demands that God literally obscured the truth (putting an animal skeleton in the ground where no animal really died is not being truthful). Whereas Genesis is written as a theological, not a scientific text, written in imperfect and interpretable human language and interpreted by fallible human beings - given this, isn't it far more rational and respectful to God to question our own interpretation of Genesis rather than accuse Him of a grand cover up?
(Btw, I don't think the pope believes in macro evolution (he might but I'd be very surprised :)) - I was referring to young earth theory, i.e. He doesn't believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created in six days.)
It is impossible to conceive of a river valley being created that did not have an apparent history of thousands of years.
This is not a deception. This is part of the necessary process of creation ex nihilo.
When Adam was created he appeared to be 20 years old (or so). This was not a deception. It was a necessary aspect of creation ex nihilo. When God created the galaxies he also created the light that was already reaching the earth. This is not deception. It is necessary.
Father Peter
Unless what creation ex nihilo suggests is that God in effect 'computed' exactly what would happen in a deterministic universe and then simply translated that simulation into reality, complete with evidence of each and every specific event? If that's the case then there is no practical difference between creation ex nihilo and the actuality of the universe's history. But I still don't see how you can avoid the fact that there is deception involved. If the meteor above never really struck the moon, then God has placed evidence which to our minds, strongly suggests that something happened when God knows that it did not. Is there a way to square this circle?
Why is it a deception and not the built in history of the universe?
A created river valley could never be 'generic'. It would have to be created specific in every tiny detail. This is no different at all to the example of the crater. To create a mature object necessitates the creation of a history. It is impossible to create a mature object without such a history. God did not create a generic moon - and of course there is no such thing - but the moon of earth which necessitated that it be entirely a particular moon with a particular created history.
God did not create a generic moon - and of course there is no such thing - but the moon of earth which necessitated that it be entirely a particular moon with a particular created history.
I think I see what you're saying - so is my computer analogy somewhat accurate? As in God essentially 'calculated' the specifics of a moon that had been formed around the Earth, including all the meteors which would have struck it and the specific rifts in its crust etc. and then brought it into being?
If that is the case, then there seems to be no practical difference between God having let these things actually happen and creating them ex nihilo. I'm still not entirely convinced that that isn't deception, but I suppose the more crucial issue is, why would God not simply have let these things happen naturally anyway? Time is immaterial to God, who is the originator of time itself, so it's not as though He needed to create the universe ex nihilo to 'speed up' the process. What is it that supports the idea that He did create the universe with apparent when it really had no history, rather than simply let the universe 'play itself out' and make its own history if both outcomes are identical?
We should not think that God would deceive us. He is not like man to lie. As an analogy we can consider this like a turnkey industrial project that is delivered containing all the buildings, all the required well trained staff and all its machines and all the necessary material up and running to be fully organized and productive from day one. The only big difference is that God commands all this to be made instantly, "and it was so."
I like to remember here the miracle of raising Lazarus by Our Lord Jesus Christ, who by only issuing His command to the rotten decomposed dead man to rise and he rose immediately, trying to walk out of his grave while his body cells, systems and the vital complex life functions were all up and running together normally, with the imperative fact that he had the same age and recovered all his life time memory as before his death.
The outcome is not the same neither are the implications. For instance how can we reconcile God's description that He created Eve from Adam's rib? How can we explain what God told us about how and why He made the Garden of Eden for Adam? That all creatures were named by Adam, that he had dominion over them and that all the creatures were herbivorous? That death entered the world (not just the souls of mankind)? These are just a few of the numerous questions that will arise.
GBU
The outcome is not the same neither are the implications. For instance how can we reconcile God's description that He created Eve from Adam's rib? How can we explain what God told us about how and why He made the Garden of Eden for Adam? That all creatures were named by Adam, that he had dominion over them and that all the creatures were herbivorous? That death entered the world (not just the souls of mankind)? These are just a few of the numerous questions that will arise.
That's true - I suppose that's where the true issue lies. The only reason one would assume that God had created the universe as a 'turnkey facility' rather than letting it make its own history is to defend the literal interpretation of Genesis involving six 24 hour days and an earth that is only as old as mankind. But I remain convinced that such an interpretation is not accurate - and many of the ancient fathers along with Pope Shenouda agree. For ancient fathers see here against the 24 hour interpretation, see here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm
I suppose my overall objection is, why go to such lengths to defend the idea of a young earth? Genesis doesn't even specify what is meant by 'day' - the Hebrew word is 'yom' (like in Arabic) which is just as frequently used to refer to periods of time longer than 24 hours. Pope Shenouda pointed out that the sun was not created until the fourth day, so how could the days have consisted 24 hours? Given this, I think a much more natural interpretation is that Genesis describes the universe taking shape gradually, over long periods of time, each involving increasing complexity. Given what science has told us, we are able to quantify those periods in the millions of years, rather than thousands, which no doubt the fathers above would have done had they had access to the information we do.
In regards to your other questions about Adam's rib and the naming of the animals; explaining those requires stepping into much more dangerous territory :) It would require a very in depth discussion about tradition vs. scripture and divine inspiration, all of which probably belong on another thread. I'd love to go into it because I do have a lot of questions about that, but I have my final exams starting on Friday so I really shouldn't start anymore discussions until they're over :D
I do have respect to most of the people here, but when it comes to science, I am seeing a kind of gap of understanding the basic data and evidence available. Father Peter and others who were against epchios_nai_nan view should see the available data more in depth and I am not to trying to undermine your view Father Peter, but your view that the world is less than 10,000 years is almost similar to the “Flat earth theory” in the 21st century. We can’t escape the evidence of Dendrochronology of counting Tree- rings annually or 1 ring= 1 year and the annual tree rings when compared from both living and dead trees from bristle cone pine trees and river oak trees goes far back to 8500 years and 11500 years respectively with almost absolute accuracy, which refutes the claim that the earth is less than 10000 years or almost equal to 6000 years old by Young earth creationism, so clearly the claim from science that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old should be considered to be more than a Theory.
Here is what Father Tadros Malaty says on the matter: pray for me,
anba bola
When we are claiming about origins of the Universe, we have to be very careful, especially for our future generations after Science have piled up it’s evidence that the earth is not less than 10,000 years old and Evolution is a Theory, we have to open doors of metaphorical interpretation of Genesis like some of the early church fathers like Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexanderia, Augustine and also Pope shenouda’s belief of Old Earth Creationism. He beautifully interpreted the Bible metaphorically in which Our 24 hour period is completely determined by our Sun, when the earth revolves around the sun, but we know for a fact that the Sun is created in the Bible in the fourth day and the 3 days which were symbolically representing the Holy Trinity in the mind of Theophilus of Antioch( 2nd Century AD) could be longer than 24 hour periods each, because one day is like a 1000 year to Christ and Oddly enough again both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church doesn’t have a literal view of interpreting 1000 years( Chiliasm) to be literal, but longer period of time( Like From the Crucifixion to the Second coming).
I do have respect to most of the people here, but when it comes to science, I am seeing a kind of gap of understanding the basic data and evidence available. Father Peter and others who were against epchios_nai_nan view should see the available data more in depth and I am not to trying to undermine your view Father Peter, but your view that the world is less than 10,000 years is almost similar to the “Flat earth theory” in the 21st century. We can’t escape the evidence of Dendrochronology of counting Tree- rings annually or 1 ring= 1 year and the annual tree rings when compared from both living and dead trees from bristle cone pine trees and river oak trees goes far back to 8500 years and 11500 years respectively with almost absolute accuracy, which refutes the claim that the earth is less than 10000 years or almost equal to 6000 years old by Young earth creationism, so clearly the claim from science that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old should be considered to be more than a Theory.
I would also have to disagree, the sun could NOT have been created 3 days after the earth, you get way too many scientific errors with that view. Once again you should check out Dr Hugh Ross, an astronomer who is also a Christian. He said that the original hebrew text in genesis does not say God "created" the sun on the third day, rather the hebrew word used was a word that implied God created the sun in an unspecified time in the past, but made the sun more distinct and clear to an observer on the surface of the earth. That is, the clouds and gas in the early atmosphere cleared up and now the shape and distinction of the sun was clear from earth. By the way, the "theory" of the universe being more than 10,000 years old is not even a theory anymore, theres gotten to be so much evidence that we can honestly say it is a fact. To quote Dr Hugh Ross, "the VERY EXISTENCE of stars and planets means that the universe must have been expanding for billions of years, to support thousands of years all you get is hydrogen gas". We can find hundreds and thousands of Ph.D biologists who would disagree with the idea of macro evolution. But to find ONE physicist or astronomer who doesnt believe the universe is approximately 14.9 billions of years old is unheard of. We must remember, God is not a deceiver, if scientific evidence is pointing towards the age of the universe being billions of years old, than thats what it is, what we need to do is study Genesis harder to understand the REAL creation story, not try to fight off science. Once again check out Dr. Hugh Ross, someone who has definitely put in work to find the truth.
When we are claiming about origins of the Universe, we have to be very careful, especially for our future generations after Science have piled up it’s evidence that the earth is not less than 10,000 years old and Evolution is a Theory, we have to open doors of metaphorical interpretation of Genesis like some of the early church fathers like Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexanderia, Augustine and also Pope shenouda’s belief of Old Earth Creationism.
That's a very good point sordoeht - as a youth, I must say that this is one of the areas where the church needs to progress in order to keep its younger generation. If we can clearly see that the Church is not in touch with reality, then it becomes very disillusioning - the idea of a young earth can be very faith-shattering for youth who go into the wider world and listen to powerful arguments against it. We must begin to acknowledge that our faith in God is not at all dependent on a young earth.
God bless
Please don't take these comments as being critical of you, or being offered aggressively. I am not dogmatic about these things, although I do tend to be sceptical of the modern priesthood of science. (Does anyone here like Rush, and the album 2112?).
I think we need to hesitate a little before rushing to conclude that the Church is out of touch. It may well be that the Church is more in touch with the true reality than those who are not members of the Church, and do not confess faith in the Creator. We know that the fool says in his heart 'there is no God'. And a great many of those who try to damage the teachings of the Church indeed say loudly, 'there is no God'.
I would like to make a few points about my own position.
i. Clearly Christians have held different view and these views have not been dogmatised, and there is no need to dogmatise them now. I do think it is possible to be Orthodox and hold a variety of opinions within certain bounds.
ii. It does seem to be a necessary matter of dogmatics to insist that the father and mother of all mankind are Adam and Eve, and any reduction of Adam and Eve to myth is not permitted by the Orthodox Faith. There are those Christians who wish to eliminate Adam and Eve. I think this is a mistake.
iii. It is impossible for any scientist to show that the universe was not created as a mature organisation as described in the Bible in the last 10,000 years. The very fact that we are participants in this mature creation means that we can only see things from within, and from within the creation looks mature. But from God's perspective He is aware of exactly when He created the universe
by His word of power.
If I was God and created a mature chicken any scientist would insist that there must have been an egg somewhere. And from within the creation the scientist would be right that the origin of the chicken in an egg, and from a chicken, and from an egg, back into distant time was necessary and could be described. But that is not what happened. I created this mature chicken 5 minutes ago.
The scientist could neither insist that it must have come from 4 billion years of evolution, nor that it could not have been created by the creative word of God 5 minutes ago. Both circumstances (leaving aside the grave defects of evolutionary theory) could be the case from the same evidence.
As I have said several times. It is impossible to create a mature world or a mature universe without an inferred history. This is not a deception and such a word should not be used. It is a logical necessity. Otherwise an objector is telling God what He can and cannot do. If God chooses to create a river valley it absolutely MUST have an inferred history. The idea of a river valley with no inferred history is INCOMPREHENSIBLE. It could not be a river valley.
I was on the train this morning and passed a stand of mature trees. Those who object to God creating the world by His word would suggest that it was a deception for God to create such a wood, since it would infer that there had been a process of growth which could not have taken place. To deny God the authority to create the world is not a form of progress. Each of those trees, if freshly created by God, would have tree rings, would have DNA that had an inferred history from ancestor trees. Would have leaves that had an inferred history, would have branches and a trunk that inferred a stage as a sapling, and even as a shoot and a seed. This is all a necessary aspect of the creation of a tree. It is not possible to comprehend a tree which did not have an inferred history. God cannot create a tree which cannot exist, and a tree witout an inferred history cannot exist in this universe.
When God (or you and I if we were God) created the stars and most distant galaxies we would also create the light which had been travelling (by inference) between the distant galaxy and earth for millions of years. The very fact of creating a star at all would require an inferred history. What type of star, what stage in its lifecycle etc. The very fact of being a particular type of star at a particular stage in the cycle infers that those previous stages took place. And of course in the mind of God they did.
iv. All time and reality exists within God and not apart from God. The inferred history of the universe is comprehended by the thought of God. It exists in the mind of God and is known to God. It is not a deception. The inferred history of the universe is PART of what God has called into being from His own thought.
v. The so-called 'Old Earth Creationism' answers none of the issues which some here seem to pose. If it is suggested that God created the universe at the big bang then this solves nothing. Scientists insist that there was a state before the big bang. And when asked what was the cause of that state will insist that there was a prior state, yet to be determined, and so-on and so-on. So if God created the universe at the big-bang, then He created it with the inferred history of the state BB-1, and if we say that God created all things at that state then we have not been able to eliminate the previous state of BB-2. So any and all creation requires that God also creates an inferred history. It is a NECESSITY of Creation.
vi. The aim of the noisiest of Godless scientists is to eliminate God. And so their aim is to make the created order eternal. If the created order is eternal then there is no time or state which requires God. Therefore those who insist that we must be modern and follow the knowledge of scientists must be careful where they are being led. Even if we accept what scientists say, and I do not accept everything that every scientist says, if we believe that God created then we must accept that He caused by His word and nothing else, some state to come into existence and begin, and this requires that there is an inferred history because science will always say that any state requires a prior state.
vii. Scientists are humans too. They are motivated by greed, desire for power and influence, fear of others, and money. I note that a very longstanding member of the American Physical Society has just publically resigned because he believes the scientific community in the US has become corrupt. We also know that scientists in the UK have colluded to falsify data. We know that those who disagree on certain matters are unable to progress in their careers, or are penalised. Science is not a neutral pursuit.
Indeed, though it may seem harsh, it seems to me that only Christians can properly do science, and those who seek to investigate the Creation of God while denying God are almost blasphemous when they describe the created order without reference to God, and some scientists are intentionally blasphemous of course.
So I will say again, how will you prove that God did not create a mature universe about 10,000 years ago? I don't see that it is possible for you or any scientist to do so.
viii. It seems to me that the Church often hitches its wagon to a secular point of view just as it is falling out of favour. The evidence for macro-evolution seems so defective that it would be a mistake for the Church to take a firm view in its favour. Likewise the climate scam, which many Protestant Churches are loudly supporting as it becomes clear that it is a fraud. Likewise the support for homosexual practice. I know of Churches who support such a lifestyle and say that it is very common when in fact the latest research shows that there are only 1% of populations who consider themselves homosexual and not the 10% that previous flawed studies had suggested.
ix. As Christians we believe that the universe exists for man, and for the glory of God. We are also conscious that we are in a time of transition and eschatological crisis - even if we do not want to say that the end will come this year or the next. It does not make any sense that God would slowly wait for some process to take place over 4 billion years, (or maybe hundreds of billions of years if the scientists are correct that the universe repeatedly expands and contracts, and then create Adam and Eve, and then play out human history for a few thousand, and then bring the universe to an end. It makes no sense. Science without God insists that man is an insignificant speck on a ball of dirt on the edge of a minor galaxy. Our Faith teaches us that the universe exists only for the salvation of man, and that man and the earth are the centre of the universe, and that the incarnation of Christ is the very centre of all creation.
x. We know that when this world ends there will be a new universe. How will this be created? Is it reasonable to propose that all those souls must wait 4 billion more years for a new universe to come into being and be ordered? It doesn't make any sense to me. And how do we imagine that this universe will end? Must we abandon our theology and wait for scientists to tell us what will happen countless billions of years in the future? Or do we believe that with a word from His mouth all things will come to an end and with a word from His mouth all things will be created anew? If the end of things is by the divine will then it makes no sense to say that the beginning of things must have taken countless ages and repeated cycles of the universe expanding and contracting.
xi. If there are powerful arguments against the creation of a mature universe by God, and I have not heard any, then the Church must create counter-arguments. There is no need to submit to the opinions of those who have no faith. And if our young people are not strong enough in their faith to be able to withstand the arguments of evolutionists then we must do something about that, but the answer is not to simply abandon what the Bible says. There are those in 'the wider world' who believe homosexuality is normal, should we accept this as well as a matter of 'progress'?
I can see no reason to doubt that God created the world 10,000 years ago or so, and that the record of human civilization is the true record of the children of Adam. It seems to me to be impossible to say that this is definitely not so. It seems to me to be impossible to create anything without it having an inferred history. This is not a deception. This is a logical necessity. A young earth creation best fits, it seems to me, the revelation of God's purposes in making man, and best fits in with our faith that there will be an end to the world in an instant by God's word, and that a new creation will take place in an instant by the same word of power. To seek to place God only at the beginning where science might leave a gap is a mistake because there is no gap in the thinking of atheistic scientists, and if there is no gap that requires God, then there must always be an inferred history, even according to present scientific thinking. All folk are doing by placing God at the big-bang is creating a different inferred history, it is impossible to eliminate the presence of an inferred history altogether. And if an inferred history is a logical necessity then it seems to me to fit best about 10,000 years ago than anywhere else.
God bless your studies. I would appreciate your (positive and friendly) comments.
Father Peter
I would also have to disagree, the sun could NOT have been created 3 days after the earth, you get way too many scientific errors with that view. Once again you should check out Dr Hugh Ross, an astronomer who is also a Christian. He said that the original hebrew text in genesis does not say God "created" the sun on the third day, rather the hebrew word used was a word that implied God created the sun in an unspecified time in the past, but made the sun more distinct and clear to an observer on the surface of the earth.
I am not saying the sun is literally created on the fourth day, by taking literally the Genesis account, but rather to make the argument of our 24 hour period is determined explicitly by the sun’s existence and the three days mentioned in the Bible could not necessarily mean three literal 24 hours of time.
Meena-Ameen, Regarding Macro-evolution, I have never heard of the 700 scientists that disagree with Darwinian explanation of origins of life and I don’t know, you might be right, but would you post this article and it should not be from Lee strobel’s book though.
There are at least 3 Transitional fossils that I know of which points to macro-evolution.
1. Archaeopteryx is a good candidate for how reptiles evolved into birds, because it has reptilian characterstics of legs and body and characterstics of birds having feathers and it should not be a coincidence that we found archaeopteryx between Jurassic period( app. 200 -145 Million Years ago or MYA) in which we won’t find any bird’s fossils and Cretaceous period( app. 145 – 65 MYA) in which here also, we won’t find dinosaur fossils, which points to the logical theory of macro-evolution.
2. The second one was a recent discovery in 2004, which is a transitional fossil between Fish and Amphibians named Tiktaalik, which resembles a head of a crocodile and a body of fish pointing to the claim that a water dwelling creature is trying to become a land dwelling creature and again the fossil was found in a Devonian period( App. 416- 360 MYA) which is between a Silurian( App. 444- 416 MYA) where we will never find amphibian bones and the Premian Period( App. 299- 251 MYA) in which the first amphibians appeared.
3. The Third one is Lucy and I think most of us know that her bone structure is more like a human and her cranial structure is more like an ape and again we found her fossil in between two Geological strata, where we cannot see an upright walking ape like creature and a walking homind(Homo erectus).There is no way we could explain this phenomenon, unless we invoke macro-evolutionary process , because another scope of science which is Geology attest to their age with almost absolute accuracy, and we can’t explain them with coincidences, because we never found an evolved fossil on an earlier strata.
It should not surprise us Meena-Ameen that God could made our body to arise from a previous matter, after all the Bible states Genesis 2:7, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground”, but the pinnacle creation is our soul, because we are created in Jesus Christ’s Image and the Holy Spirit breathed into our nostrils the breath of life and we became unique living being from the rest of the creatures.
[quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9851.msg120723#msg120723 date=1287004913]
That's a very good point sordoeht - as a youth, I must say that this is one of the areas where the church needs to progress in order to keep its younger generation. If we can clearly see that the Church is not in touch with reality, then it becomes very disillusioning - the idea of a young earth can be very faith-shattering for youth who go into the wider world and listen to powerful arguments against it. We must begin to acknowledge that our faith in God is not at all dependent on a young earth.
God bless
I agree with you in a lot of point epchios_nai_nan, because the youth are scattered in different field of science including cosmology,Geology,Chemistry,Biology,Archaeology,Paleontology,Dendrochronology etc and all this ogies concludes that the earth is more than 10,000 years old and if Our Church rejects this idea, it has high probability of eroding the Faith of our children and they will start questioning the fundamental tenets of Christianity and the Church should create ways of reconciling the two.
epchois_nai_nan,
Please don't take these comments as being critical of you, or being offered aggressively. I am not dogmatic about these things, although I do tend to be sceptical of the modern priesthood of science. (Does anyone here like Rush, and the album 2112?).
I think we need to hesitate a little before rushing to conclude that the Church is out of touch. It may well be that the Church is more in touch with the true reality than those who are not members of the Church, and do not confess faith in the Creator. We know that the fool says in his heart 'there is no God'. And a great many of those who try to damage the teachings of the Church indeed say loudly, 'there is no God'.
Not at all, I'm completely open to criticism since I find that it is often well founded. We are lucky that on this site we are able to have discussions of differing points of view in a respectful and amicable manner, especially with issues as important as this. As you said, we are not challenging dogma, and discussion can be very healthy for both sides.
'Out of touch with reality' is a very harsh way to word it and perhaps a bit unfair, since as you pointed out the church is in touch with a far more profound and important reality than the rest of the world. I simply mean that belief in a young earth is widely ridiculed in society, and is not founded in science as much as faith and philosophy, and thus it can be very disillusioning for those who hold the young earth as a tenet of Christianity (even though it is not). I still maintain that the young earth is a very difficult position to hold scientifically.
I will try and respond to the rest of your post as soon as I get the time. Your prayers are greatly appreciated :)
God bless
Assuming that every era of time could be several millions of years long, these
fossilized bones could be related to mammals that carried some human features and capabilities,
but lack the “Breath of Life” that God gave specially to Adam and Eve. These creatures therefore
are not to be counted as human, even if they carry certain similarities.
He also said somewhere else that these may have been seperate species.
Father Tadros Malaty seems to agree with Dr. Hugh Ross in regards to the sun issue:
Some may wonder "How did God create the sun in the fourth period when the
earth was already created and science assures us that the sun preceded the
earth by millions of years?" The sun was created in the fourth period but was in
a state of haziness during prior periods, because light had appeared the first
day of Creation as rays emanating from a haze prior to complete formation of
the sun.
[hr] Forgive me Father Peter,
but I thought that there will no longer be a concept of time after the end of this world. I don't know if this makes much sense because then we will be above time and space. Unless I'm not understanding something?