Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So what did animals eat, and how did they do so without killing any plants?
As for St Theophan, he is full of theological insights that are far beyond me. He is wrong about how something that definitely happened in the past - the earth is billions of years old and trilobytes have been dead for hundreds of millions, for instance - is somehow incompatible with Orthodox Christian theology. Perhaps if he were alive on the planet today he would have some theological insight correcting his previous opinion which has either proved to be wrong or at least need some mild revision and reapplication - perhaps the underlying idea motivating it is correct, but, simply put, things died millions of years ago.
Like I said, I'm here for jokes, not discourse. I pointed at some books if you really want to engage, but this is a message board, I'm not doing your homework. I just can't leave it so that hapless inquirers are deluded into thinking that they have to think the world is 7000 years old.
Chesterton is wrong because he doesn't believe the world is billions of years old and that life evolved from single celled organisms.
Gurney, if he admittedly is not taking this seriously, then i think it's best not to engage him - it will probably only lead to frustration.
Gurney, if he admittedly is not taking this seriously, then i think it's best not to engage him - it will probably only lead to frustration.
Like I said, I'm here for jokes, not discourse. I pointed at some books if you really want to engage, but this is a message board, I'm not doing your homework. I just can't leave it so that hapless inquirers are deluded into thinking that they have to think the world is 7000 years old.
Chesterton is wrong because he doesn't believe the world is billions of years old and that life evolved from single celled organisms.
I do take it quite seriously in that being a Christian is about being right about everything, and this entails believing in evolution. I don't take it seriously enough to wade into the fever swamps to think about some 19th century crap from a guy who thought the way to fight atheism was to insist vehemently that the world wasn't a few billion years old.
The server ate my latest lovely reply, so this will, unfortunately, be briefer.
I have precious little time to engage in constructive dialogue, and, as I am no expert in theology, philosophy, evolutionary biology, or paleology, my responses would require extensive reference to othe materials, mostly electronic, to compose. As they are better stated and more accurate than anything I would produce as well as generally electronically available, it would be best to just encourage you to read them on your own. I'm sure you can find them. The OP asked about EO and evolution and I can't let the OP get away with the impression that there is only one option, the creationist option that can't believe the Earth is billions of years old or that there was any kind of death before approximately 7000 years ago, give or take a few thousand, at the Fall. It is simply by no means the only view.
My comment about the fever swamps was more directed at jckstraw and his sources than at Chesterton, as he is, after all, mostly a 20th century figure. A better response to Chesteron is more like, "And?" He states a few things most scientists don't fail to consider and seriously underestimates the process and results of the scientific enterprise. Perhaps some people then were deserving of his bluster, and at other points his response to evolutionism are quite handy, but here he really doesn't have any purchase. So he's just plain wrong here. He's quite right generally that scientism is a bad thing. Perhaps I was a bit too strong there - but I don't doubt his tenor would change quite a lot if he were around today, as there are decades more research into the matter under discussion, so his point there is simply not relevant today, at least not as a bludgeon against all of scientific endeavour in paleology.
When we speak of "life" and "death", I think it an error to treat fruit as a living being. The phenomenon I see as referenced as living is animate beings. - Noah was not told to take every manner of fruit and vegetable into the Ark. So it is fallacious, I think, to try to treat fruit as something that "dies" and to speak of its "death" when eaten.
I don't accept that. Doesn't count as "death entering the world".
because it is hard for there to be evolution if Creation is groaning for the liberty that we will have. well, the liberty that we will have is the liberty that we lost, so if Creation is groaning for that liberty, then there is a liberty which they lost, which cannot be true if evolution were true. because what enslaves us is death, sin, corruption, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?