Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

[Pravoslavnik]

C.v. writes, "Find an Orthodox defence of theistic evolution, why don't you?"

Dear C.v. , Cyprian, et. al.,

Code: Select all

  I do truly "babble" in vain by endeavoring to explain the findings of modern science--[b]rightly so called-[/b]-to people like yourselves, who are determined to remain ignorant or simply in denial of the findings of modern astrophysics--including the relativistic nature of time--and of the data of paleobiology and anthropology.  I will not reiterate the arguments and multiple quality scientific references that I have listed previously on this thread, but will remind you that blessed St. Augustine of Hippo disagreed with some of St. Basil's, and St. Ambrose's arguments from the [i]Hexameron[/i], as I have previously pointed out. 

    I would also ask you, C.v., to name an "Orthodox defence" of the scientific theory of planetary motion described by Copernicus, or of the concept that the earth is a sphere.  Can you also please name an "Orthodox defence" of Newtonian theories of gravitation, or of the laws of thermodynamics?  Please also name an "Orthodox defence" of quantum theory, and of the theory of relativity while you are busy insisting that there is no "Orthodox defence" of Darwinian evolutionary theory!

   Did St. Basil rightly believe that the earth was a sphere, which revolved around the sun, and that time passes at markedly different rates at different points in the cosmos?  Please include quotations regarding his infalliblility on these scientific issues, since you insist on taking his statements about paleobiology as infallible.

    As for the origins of the "adamah," I can only suggest, again, that you take a little time to reflect upon the rather profound tradition of Hebraic interpretation of this Hebrew text, without simply taking refuge in ignorant, anti-Semitic statements regarding the kinsmen of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Apostles.  And try studying the scientific history of our species, homo sapiens.  A very readable and fascinating reference on the subject is [i]The Third Chimpanzee[/i] by Jared Diamond.  I would also remind Cyprian, albeit in vain, that St. Seraphim of Sarov, himself, referred to "Adam" as the first "man" [b]into whom the Lord breathed His Holy Spirit[/b].  Your model implies, among other things, that all homo sapiens descended from an incestuous union of Seth (or Cain) and their own younger sisters in Mesopotamia a mere 7,500 years ago--apparently several millenia after the migration of Papua-New Guinean natives to Australia, or Siberian natives into North America during the last Ice Age!!

[jckstraw72]

Did St. Basil rightly believe that the earth was a sphere, which revolved around the sun, and that time passes at markedly different rates at different points in the cosmos?

so if i go somewhere else in the universe and count to 60, thats not a minute? what does it even mean for time to pass at a different rate? time just passes, the "rate" depends on how we choose to measure it. God told us that He created in 6 of what we call days. if i measure a minute as 60 seconds here, and 60 seconds there, there ya go == same minute. perhaps in other parts of the universe things seem to age faster or something, but thats not "faster" time, thats just different effects on our body. keith richards looks like he's dead -- did time fly by faster for him or something?

[TomS]

so if i go somewhere else in the universe and count to 60, thats not a minute?

Possibly, that is correct.

Read the boooks that have been recommended.

[jckstraw72]

Possibly, that is correct.

Read the boooks that have been recommended.

well since a minute is defined as 60 seconds, why would counting to 60, saying one number per second, somewhere else not be a minute?
if a minute somehow passes faster, then its not really a minute is it?

lets say times passes twice as fast somewhere else as it does here --- well then just wait 120 "seconds" and call that a minute, and there ya go (although these 120 "seconds" would obviously be half seconds, not seconds).

[stumbler]

I think you are confusing yourself unnecessarily.

According to the theory of relativity, the faster you are moving with relation to a fixed point, the "slower" time passes from your point of view.

This means that while you are counting to 60 in a hurtling spaceship (for example) many years might have passed in terms of earth time.

You are not wrong to say that only a minute has passed, because for you, that is all the "time" that has passed. Neither is it wrong for the keeper of the clock on earth who has been waiting for you to explain to you that many years have passed since you left. From his point of view, many years HAVE passed in your one minute.

While it seems true that a minute does not equal many years, it is all dependent on the point of reference.

You will return to earth having aged only a minute, while the keeper of the earth clock will look (and be) years older.

[jckstraw72]

well if its just how much time is passing in respect to the person, then one person could not age only a minute, and another a few years in the same time span -- bc it only SEEMED differnet from their viewpoints, as you said. in an absolute sense, the same amount of time passed for both of them. either it was a few years or a minute, cant be both.

this person in space may hvae only experienced the effects comparable to a minute on earth, but that doesnt mean time was actually different.

i was born in 1984. if tomorrow i fly into space for what i think is a minute, come back and its 2012, well then im now 28 years old. but if what you're saying is correct, im still only 23, bc from 2007-2012 is really only a minute. imagine filling out a job application in 2012, saying i was born in 1984 but im only 23.

sounds like we've found the fountain of youth! just fly into space and you can live a few millennium probably.

[TomS]

well since a minute is defined as 60 seconds, why would counting to 60, saying one number per second, somewhere else not be a minute?

As I recommended, read the books.

Besides, the whole argument for the earth being billions of years old is the fact that since the fast acceleration caused by the "Big Bang", the earth was travelling at a much greater velocity out from the beginning point. So, billions of years could have passed on the earth in what would be considered "days" at the time of the Genesis revelation.

Get it?