Evolution and you?

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This reminds me of a poem, it goes something like this:

A fly is a fly because he flies and flies and flies all day,
And if that fly, didn't fly,
Would we call that fly a stay?

Which is, I think, a good question with regards to what you are saying about the thing changing its nature. I think maybe this is really the crux of the issue for you? What makes a fly a fly? What would it look like for a fly, or something else, to evolve or become another thing?

I don't really think it would look like anything, because the idea of a fly, or a designation of a species, is to a large degree a human creation or convenience. We define a species (usually) as a group of creatures that can potentially breed together. When there are small changes in their genetic profile we say that is variation within the species. If we could pinpoint when a change occurred that stopped two populations from breeding, then we would say that they were two species. (Usually that wouldn't happen in a whole population all at one time. But it would be a bunch of small changes of the sort that meant they could no longer breed together - even something like a change in the time they were fertile so breeding seasons would not match up.)

But I suspect that wouldn't be because their nature had changed in the mind of God - that one fixed entity in his mind became some other thing. Rather, animal life exists in many permutations and variations and ways of being and God knows each one intimately as an individual and perhaps as a category as well.

And we see that we actually do have other categories we create for animal life for convenience, like class or genus. But I don't think anyone believes them to be somehow fixed entities for God that he is limited to - they are ways for us to break things down and hold them in our minds and see how they relate to each other, because we are linear.

To me what you are saying seems similar to the problem of saying something can't go from being a tree to a chair because that is a change in its nature. (Though of course no one seriously believes that because we know we create chairs and can see it. But people have advanced the question in terms of how we understand a thing to have a fixed nature.) But the change there is more in terms of how we relate to the object, or to the outward form of the object at this particular place and time. But if we look at it through its entire existence it could be called tree and seed and wood and chair and boards and maybe eventually trash, and that is all true and accurate and God holds them all together.

I tend to think of the idea of species in the same way. And if that is true, then it puts a whole different complexion on the issue of animals evolving from one thing into another as a problem of changing their nature.

Hi MK,
(I liked some of your other posts, just didn't have anything to add.)
Here I think there is a danger of slipping into the idea that everything is merely in flux. I think Chesterton would take you up on that, pointing out that the end logic is that there is no such thing as a thing.

I also think the human responsibility of naming is not mere convenience, but expresses reality in a certain way (not that you deny that, but you seem to come pretty close), and that reality is absolute (ie, NOT going to change into something completely different over the next eon or two.).

Things are real and have an absolute reality, and God has given us the ability to express this. So I don't think you are right on species. Why the logic would apply to all living things except humans is difficult to put, even in terms of human exceptionalism. And if humans are NOT an exception, then there is ultimately no such thing as a human.

(Edit add): I do also think that science can be reconciled to our faith. But I think that scientists are wrong where my Faith is right, and that it is the science that must be reconciled, with constant acknowledgement of its possibility of error and misunderstanding. When the "science" comes from scientists whose initial hermeneutics already denied God, then we can know that their conclusions, especially regarding metaphysics, are likely to be in error.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is true, and that is the problem I spoke of. Evolution directly conflicts our view on what is "good", and changes our view of God. It kind of makes me feel weird.

Then your god must be evolution. Your assertion of its truth is certainly as dogmatic as any religious statement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I havn't even been talking about teaching evolution is public schools. Im simply talking about scientists adhering to the scientific method and peer review process. Just saying that scientists test in a manner that fulfills their preconceived notions rather than following the scientific method smells a lot like a conspiracy theory. Especially when presented with no evidence. If you have a better word for it then let me know and I will be happy to use it.

Again, I personally know conspiracy theorists. They call themselves conspiracy theorists. Thats not an insult. These people I know and respect (on everything except the conspiracy they are pushing). Chill out, broski.



You are the fist person I have ever spoken to who considers "ok guy" an insult. If you dont see the humor in that then this conversation makes a lot more sense now.

"Ok guys" might not equate respect, but is doesnt equate disrespect, or lack of respect. I can venerate the saints and church fathers and still think they can be jerks. St. Constantine was a murderer after all.

There's another side to the coin, Crawdad. That is the fact the the scientists are human beings who have developed world views. Sure, they can follow their scientific methods most scientifically, but when it comes to drawing conclusions about what things mean, they join the human race. Which is Fallen. And doesn't, in general, want to submit to God.

Thomas Huxley, who gets a great deal of respect from the scientific community you have referred to, is a great example, not only because his views drove his science, but because he is so admired. He is admired for his worldview and the supposed enlightenment that he brought, not for his outstanding science. And that tells me what the worldview is of the scientists that admire him.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Thanks for the info. I know lizards are ancient, and so what you said about the Komodo dragon doesn't surprise me.
Dang lizards are scary enough seeing how vicious they are...

So, there is that question of the prehistoric animals living on earth after the Fall, then. There hasn't been evidence of any of the large, like T-Rex's living at that time when the human bones were discovered, was it?
Not to my knowledge...although I'd not be surprised when they find it..

Also, was there dating on that that maybe the human bones found at that dino National Monument were at the same time or maybe later
With what has happened there, I've not seen anything confirming the issue of dating as you inquired.

Others disagreeing on the subject have posted how the dated (according to them) that the dating for the human bones comes later than the dinosaurs...and for more, one can go to Moab Man and Malachite Man. But as said before, personally, trying to find evidence of fossils where both dinosaurs and humans are buried would not be necessary. I'm reminded of a great living fossil (as there are so many )known as the Ginkgo tree, which supposedly thrived 240 million years ago, prior to the dinosaurs.12 Yet, they are not found in layers with dinosaurs or post-Flood humans, even though they exist today. The list of “living fossils” goes on. Because animals and plants aren’t buried together, it is no indication that things didn’t live together.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodActsOnMe

Scientificum Christianus
Aug 6, 2012
78
2
30
✟15,223.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Because it is God's Holy Word inspired and inerrant.

Aha, so do you stone disobedient children and maintain several different wives?

I don't wanna debate, look at Crawdad and my back and forth. if you want, you can see my reasons, but they are theological and not scientiffic.

Then I definitely do not want to debate with you. Theology is no reason to deny scientific facts.


Then your god must be evolution. Your assertion of its truth is certainly as dogmatic as any religious statement.

Just like my assertion that gravity is truth is as dogmatic as any religious statement?
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Um...GodActsOnMe, you do realize you are in the Orthodox Christian forum and that debating with us is not allowed. Sharing your thoughts and asking questions and having fellowship with us is certainly fine, but not debating or proselytizing.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);61129555 said:
Dang lizards are scary enough seeing how vicious they are...

Not to my knowledge...although I'd not be surprised when they find it..

But as said before, personally, trying to find evidence of fossils where both dinosaurs and humans are buried would not be necessary. I'm reminded of a great known as the Ginkgo tree, which supposedly thrived 240 million years ago, prior to the dinosaurs.

12 Yet, they are not found in layers with dinosaurs or post-Flood humans, even though they exist today. The list of “living fossils” goes on. Because animals and plants aren’t buried together, it is no indication that things didn’t live together.

Well, for me personally, I don't see how humans could live amongst velociraptor's and T-Rex's. They'd be dead meat, if you ask me. Just my thoughts on it. As far as plants living whenever, sure, I wouldn't see why not. I guess I can't see how those viscous, huge dinos could live around humans. I understand that Matt and jckstraw have talked about them being in the Garden at the beginning and became carnivores after like many other animals. I suppose so. If that is so, and the Fall came about, the dinos went to their area, and the humans to theirs. Not in the same area, I would guess? Just me thinking out loud.
 
Upvote 0

GodActsOnMe

Scientificum Christianus
Aug 6, 2012
78
2
30
✟15,223.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Um...GodActsOnMe, you do realize you are in the Orthodox Christian forum and that debating with us is not allowed. Sharing your thoughts and asking questions and having fellowship with us is certainly fine, but not debating or proselytizing.

That is precisely what debate is. There is a difference between that and an argument.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Hi MK,
(I liked some of your other posts, just didn't have anything to add.)
Here I think there is a danger of slipping into the idea that everything is merely in flux. I think Chesterton would take you up on that, pointing out that the end logic is that there is no such thing as a thing.

I also think the human responsibility of naming is not mere convenience, but expresses reality in a certain way (not that you deny that, but you seem to come pretty close), and that reality is absolute (ie, NOT going to change into something completely different over the next eon or two.).

Things are real and have an absolute reality, and God has given us the ability to express this. So I don't think you are right on species. Why the logic would apply to all living things except humans is difficult to put, even in terms of human exceptionalism. And if humans are NOT an exception, then there is ultimately no such thing as a human.

(Edit add): I do also think that science can be reconciled to our faith. But I think that scientists are wrong where my Faith is right, and that it is the science that must be reconciled, with constant acknowledgement of its possibility of error and misunderstanding. When the "science" comes from scientists whose initial hermeneutics already denied God, then we can know that their conclusions, especially regarding metaphysics, are likely to be in error.


Ah, no, I'm not saying at all that all things are in flux. More that from our limited perspective they seem that way at times, and our language tends to reflect our experience of things, which is a real experience of a real thing, but not the same depth or perfection of knowledge that God has. God knows everything in the most minute individuality, where each sparrow is named and each feather on the sparrow is known in perfect detail (I personally do not even know one sparrow as an individual); but God also knows each thing in its connectedness to other things, they way it fits into creation as a whole, its past and present and future, its ancestors, each bit of DNA as it has come down through time and where that same pattern is found elsewhere in creation.

I think Chesterton would know precisely what I am saying - he was aware of the problems with the kind of thinking about the nature of categories that Platonism creates (and that is essentially what we are talking about here) and he wasn't an either/or sort of guy as much as both/and, which is the beauty of the Christian position.

I do think that human language can and often does reflect realities, and I would say that is when we give names to animal species or recognize differences in the natural world. When we differentiate a cow from a horse it isn't somehow random or completely constructed - cows are different from horses, and in particular ways. It is a very good thing not to go out in the field and try to milk a horse, or try to ride a cow over a fence in a steeplechase.

We can also differentiate within those species. I have a horse, she's an Arab, which is different from a Appaloosa or a Morgan. She's grey, she has a black mane, she's very mellow. She is, in fact, unique. I can even differentiate her within time - she used to be fat and now she's fit, she used to be dark grey and now she looks white, she used to have an entirely different set of cells which make up her body. All of these things are true, they all are related to each other, they are all held together. I can say animal, horse, Arabian, Cracker, young, old, they are all true and part of the package and leaving any of them out would be incomplete. I could include her pedigree as well.

I can say these things because there is a reality behind them - if there wasn't, I would not be able to make any of those statements, to know her or any horse at all.

It is part of being in space and time though that all of these qualities do not make themselves known or become actual at the same time. I can say this horse has been young and later became old, so the horse as an individual holds both of those ideas together; to know her completely would be to know her both as young and old. But I can't ever say "she is now young and old".

This is a basic difference between my perspective and God's because my perspective is limited. Not only am I not always able to know each thing as it exists fully, I am not always able to see how different individual things are related. All of creation is tied together, but often those ties are not clear because of the limits of our knowledge - we have to work, most of the time, from individual things we perceive and try to put them together to see that whole, the patters that emerge. Most of the time much of the pattern and the relations remain obscure to us.



So while I agree that human language often is reflecting real things, it is never reflecting all things. We choose how specific our language will be, for example, in many cases. So I would say the idea of a species reflects a reality, but not necessarily one that sums up the whole. God didn't quibble with the names Adam gave the animals, but he didn't give Adam the names he called them himself either.

Or, to put all this much more simply - the idea that a species "turning into" another species - say a dinosaur becomes a chicken - is a problem for God seems to me to be no different than saying that it was a problem for God when I went from being a child to an adult, or when the cheese I ate yesterday went from being a bit of a cow to a bit of me.

To say any of this is NOT to say there is no horse, or no human being. It is essentially an apophatic approach - things are not less because we do not grasp them wholly, they are all that we grasp and more.

So there is no question of saying there is no such thing as a human being. And additionally, the question of the soul, which we are told is different, adds an element totally outside any discussion of the human body as a type of animal. Unlike some rather literalist Christians, we are not saying that being in God's image is a matter of having a physical resemblance to God (I assume?). An animal with a human soul would be a person, if not a human being - for whatever reason persons seem to be animals with bodies like ours and I don't think science can say much about why that is and I haven't seen it try. (Perhaps in the past some of the other types of hominids were also persons? It seems possible in the case of Neanderthals who seem to have had awareness of an afterlife.)

I think the question is in a way like the question of how we reconcile free will with God's providence - they may seem, as the Calvinists say, not compatible according to discursive logic, but that is because we are making the mistake of thinking God is discursive.

As for picking religion over science where they disagree - sure, I suppose that would be kind of truism in any worldview. But that doesn't help much with determining if they do in fact disagree and I am not sure that it is really addressing what I said, which was that it should not be surprising when we cannot see clearly how different types of knowledge fit together when we know our perspective is severely limited. And if the grounds given for distrusting one also destroys the other, well, that is not very useful at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

GodActsOnMe

Scientificum Christianus
Aug 6, 2012
78
2
30
✟15,223.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, for me personally, I don't see how humans could live amongst velociraptor's and T-Rex's. They'd be dead meat, if you ask me. Just my thoughts on it. As far as plants living whenever, sure, I wouldn't see why not. I guess I can't see how those viscous, huge dinos could live around humans. I understand that Matt and jckstraw have talked about them being in the Garden at the beginning and became carnivores after like many other animals. I suppose so. If that is so, and the Fall came about, the dinos went to their area, and the humans to theirs. Not in the same area, I would guess? Just me thinking out loud.

You and I both depend on plants for our existence, in more ways than just one. One of those ways indicates that plants came well before any known animal.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You and I both depend on plants for our existence, in more ways than just one. One of those ways indicates that plants came well before any known animal.
Yes, of course. The waters and land were there before animals. That IS actually in Genesis...what came first. :)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, for me personally, I don't see how humans could live amongst velociraptor's and T-Rex's. They'd be dead meat, if you ask me. Just my thoughts on it.
One of the reasons I'm glad the dinosaurs went extinct, however that happened. Some are of the mindset that they went extinct due to the actions of man....and when considering the ways man has wiped out an extensive myriad of animals, large and small, it'd not be surprising to see ways man could learn to take out such creatures. With raptures, it'd be like dealing with wolves or lions or tigers. If man could take out Sabertooths via fire and spears, or take out Mastadons/Wooly Mammoths (despite their immense size and potential danger, as Bull Elephants have been just as dangerous)......T-Rex would not be undefeatable. God gave man dominion and I'm always surprised at the ways man seems able to live up to that...

But if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct by man, there are other options. I'm always reminded of the FarSide:

imagesextinction.jpg

As far as plants living whenever, sure, I wouldn't see why not. I guess I can't see how those viscous, huge dinos could live around humans. I understand that Matt and jckstraw have talked about them being in the Garden at the beginning and became carnivores after like many other animals. I suppose so. If that is so, and the Fall came about, the dinos went to their area, and the humans to theirs. Not in the same area, I would guess? Just me thinking out loud
Although I could see it being the case that dinosaurs and man went to differing areas after the Fall and man kept his distance (Just as a sailor would keep his distance from sharks or a huntsman keep his distance from bears), I think that it's possible that dinosaurs were already carnivores....and they simply lived outside of the Garden.

And when it comes to saying dinosaurs were deadly before the Fall, I also mean to say that it seems animals were deadly in other ways as well. Being an avid animal lover, I've often seen it to be the case where animals that are deadly seem to be made that way by the Lord. More was shared elsewhere on that in a thread entitled Does Anyone Here Enjoy Snakes/ Dangerous Animals?

Seeing the sheer beauty found in animals with deadly skills, it seems odd for that to simply have come after the Fall. IMHO, in the Scriptures, predation is portrayed as something that glorifies God (Job and Psalms (e.g. Ps 104:21)). There is no indication in these passages that something is wrong with the creation. The claim that God’s “very good” creation had no animal death seems contradicted by Job 38:39, wherein God glories in his ability to provide prey for the lion:
Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in their lair?... The eagle mounts up and makes a nest on high... Spies out food; His eyes see from afar. His young ones also suck up blood; And where the slain are, there is he.(Job 38:39-14, 39:27-30)
Psalm 104:21 also expresses the same idea:
The beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God... In wisdom you have created them all...(Psalm 104:20-24)
Regarding the issue of animal predation St. Augustine writes: “One might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment... The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable.” ( Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1 (1983), 92. ). Seen in this light, animal predation and death are simply God’s loving provision for the animal kingdom. Keep in mind that only Adam and Eve were granted eternal life through the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9). Since the animals did not have access to the “tree,” they had no way to avoid death....and it would not be a negative.

It should also be noted that prior to the creation of Eve and before the Fall, God brought the animals to Adam to name. The names Adam chose clearly suggest he was familiar with animal predation and death....the Hebrew word for lion (‘arly, Strong’s number H738) means“in the sense of violence;” cormorant (shalak, H7994) means “bird of prey;” hawk (nets, H5322) means “unclean bird of prey;” eagle (nesher, H5404) means “to lacerate;” owl (tachmac, H8464) means “do violence to.”These names indicate Adam had observed firsthand these flesh-eating predators inflicting suffering and death on each other in God’s “very good” creation, prior to the Fall.

Assuming one accepts this portion of Genesis literally, as most strict creationists do, it would seem to argue for pre-Fall carnivores, since many of the Hebrew animal names appear to indicate a predatory lifestyle.

Just some of the thoughts that I've been wrestling with for a good bit. As a supporter of Old Earth Creationism (Progressive Creationism) and the thought that not all things within creation were originally peaceful as in the Garden of Eden, it seems reasonable to say that even those things deemed to be destructive in nature were made by the Lord as a reflection of how all of creation should always be in awe/fear of Him--and knowing what exactly they must face should they go outside of Him. Be it with sea monsters, deadly sea creatures or monsters of the land (i.e. giant snakes, giant lizards, giant birds, poisonious animals, etc), the Lord made ALL in creation. More was discussed here and here--and an article entitled Why Were Dangerous Animals Created?.

IMHO, David Snokes has done alot of excellent work on the subject when it comes to discussing things we see today as probably existing before the Fall. It's more than reasonable to say that God created a world of good and bad forces....and among these topics is what Snokes describes as dangerous forces in Creation. He implies that some conclude that these forces were only products of the fall but the author declares that these forces are good. This discussion moves into an interesting observation about the “Leviathan” he highlights that this “Sea Monster” which first appears in Genesis 1:21 (tannin) is found also in many other locations in Scripture.

This discussion again is mostly for the benefit of those who deny death before the fall as it is obvious that the creation of the “great sea monster” in Genesis 1:21 implies that death did occur before the fall as from all practical purposes “Great Sea Monsters” don’t live on “milk”. In his book, the discussion leads up to the conclusion that “God is dangerous and powerful"... in which the author quotes Romans 1:20 “for his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”There are alot of things in creation which are truly "terrifying" in nature and put one in check...some of them I'd not want to engage.

So with Dinosaurs that were deadly, who knows ....perhaps they were made that way as a warning for Adam/Eve in the Garden for what exists OUTSIDE of the world they live in, as a warning for what would come if they sinned when the Lord would have to cast them out. It could also have been the case that Adam/Eve were called to take Dominion over such creatures but didn't have to face them in the home of the Garden. Thinking out loud...


For reference, some of what I'm thinking was more so based on things I checked out at Internet Monk (one of the best places for discussion amongst liturgical circles, be it Anglican or Orthodox or Catholic, etc) ...as people like Father Ernesto Obregon, an Orthodox priest, have often been one of the main contributors there. Always enjoyed their conversations...For views on Adam being a priest in the Garden/death happening before the Fall:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I have a horse, she's an Arab, which is different from a Appaloosa or a Morgan. She's grey, she has a black mane, she's very mellow. She is, in fact, unique. I can even differentiate her within time - she used to be fat and now she's fit, she used to be dark grey and now she looks white, she used to have an entirely different set of cells which make up her body. All of these things are true, they all are related to each other, they are all held together. I can say animal, horse, Arabian, Cracker, young, old, they are all true and part of the package and leaving any of them out would be incomplete. I could include her pedigree as well.

I can say these things because there is a reality behind them - if there wasn't, I would not be able to make any of those statements, to know her or any horse at all.

It is part of being in space and time though that all of these qualities do not make themselves known or become actual at the same time. I can say this horse has been young and later became old, so the horse as an individual holds both of those ideas together; to know her completely would be to know her both as young and old. But I can't ever say "she is now young and old".

This is a basic difference between my perspective and God's because my perspective is limited. Not only am I not always able to know each thing as it exists fully, I am not always able to see how different individual things are related. All of creation is tied together, but often those ties are not clear because of the limits of our knowledge - we have to work, most of the time, from individual things we perceive and try to put them together to see that whole, the patters that emerge. Most of the time much of the pattern and the relations remain obscure to us.

So while I agree that human language often is reflecting real things, it is never reflecting all things. We choose how specific our language will be, for example, in many cases. So I would say the idea of a species reflects a reality, but not necessarily one that sums up the whole. God didn't quibble with the names Adam gave the animals, but he didn't give Adam the names he called them himself either.

Or, to put all this much more simply - the idea that a species "turning into" another species - say a dinosaur becomes a chicken - is a problem for God seems to me to be no different than saying that it was a problem for God when I went from being a child to an adult, or when the cheese I ate yesterday went from being a bit of a cow to a bit of me.

To say any of this is NOT to say there is no horse, or no human being. It is essentially an apophatic approach - things are not less because we do not grasp them wholly, they are all that we grasp and more.

Technically, on what you noted, one does seem that principle come into play when the Lord does miracles....defying the laws of nature.

The Exodus Account is one of the greatest examples---as there was much "MUTATION"/Random occurrence...with materials/elements that had absolutely NO connection being SUDDENLY made to connect. Some quick examples, as found in the lengthy account and instructions surrounding the tenth plague and the Exodus (Exodus 11:1-13:16).
Exodus 7
...10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

..7 This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD : With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. 18 The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.' "

A Staff turning into another object ENTIRELY like a snake has serious ramifications......and is a continuation of what was said in Exodus 4:1-17 when God first called Moses/told him to throw down his staff and see it transform. The section of Exodus 4:1-17 narrates dialouge between God and Moses regarding the signs He will perform before Israel and Pharoah.....and it is framed by explicit references that will bring Moses' staff info focus. Exodus 4:3-9 goes into depth about the three signs (i.e. the turning of his hand into leprosy, the turning of the staff into a snake and the waters turning into blood)......indicating that the extent of the Lords power over the realm of nature to do things that seem SCIENTIFICALLY impossible


The miracle of turning WATER into Blood was even more of a radical miracle than the turning of a staff info a snake. And as evidenced when it came saying that even in vessels of wood/stone water was turned into blood, the extent of the first plague shows that it cannot be explained simply as the result of natural causes.Its interesting to note that in John 2, Jesus did the same thing with water transmutation..........except that He turned the Water into wine, with no record of his adding anything else to it that was necessary for it to transform as other often had to do when making wine.


For another example Exodus 8:17 and Psalm 105:31 come to mind when the Lord spoke, and there came swarms of flies, and gnats throughout their country....simply from Moses throwing handfuls of dust into the air and seeing it transform. Where is it the case that GNATS are somehow related to Dust---or have the same mechanics as Dust does? Was it necessary for Gnats to be guided step by step into becoming another thing ALTOGETHER? No---as God can do ANYTHING.


There are many other miracles besides this where the natural laws of nature seemed to be violated in order to prove a point. Since the Bible unquestionably teaches that God brought the universe into existence (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6) and that He owns and rules it all by his own Purposes (Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 10:14), this certainly would be possible. God can do what seems to be impossible ....and with man going through jumps in his evolution, why would it not be possible?
 
Upvote 0

GodActsOnMe

Scientificum Christianus
Aug 6, 2012
78
2
30
✟15,223.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, of course. The waters and land were there before animals. That IS actually in Genesis...what came first. :)

What it fails to mention, however, is why it is impossible for it to have been otherwise.

Oh, and Easy, dinosaurs did not exist during the same time as humans.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
YGod gave us the Revelation in part because there were things we wouldn't be able to figure out for ourselves. I can see a few possible ways it might fit, and that is enough for me to be satisfied if there is no way to make a better fit. God can do things in a way I can't understand.

I thought it was interesting that Knee-vee said that for him evolution was something that caused him difficulties that brought him close to atheism. I think I feel the opposite - not because of any particular scientific theory - those change all the time, no surprise there. But my Christianity is in part dependent on the same things that allow me to see science and evolution as something that could potentially be reconciled with my religion. I can believe that Christ really existed in history because I believe we really can have knowledge through the world. I can believe in God because I think it is possible for us to know real things, we aren't stuck in some relativistic chaos. These are the same things that lead me to think science can lead to real knowledge and that evolution is a very strong theory. So if Christianity asked me to give up that way of thinking, I'd no longer have any reason to think I could know what the Church says is true - I'd have no more reason to believe in it than Mormonism.

So ultimately I'm content to say how we reconcile evolution with death is largely a mystery and might remain that way.

Some things are really left best within the realm of mystery....good thoughts
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);61130482 said:
One of the reasons I'm glad the dinosaurs went extinct, however that happened. Some are of the mindset that they went extinct due to the actions of man....and when considering the ways man has wiped out an extensive myriad of animals, large and small, it'd not be surprising to see ways man could learn to take out such creatures. With raptures, it'd be like dealing with wolves or lions or tigers. If man could take out Sabertooths via fire and spears, or take out Mastadons/Wooly Mammoths (despite their immense size and potential danger, as Bull Elephants have been just as dangerous)......T-Rex would not be undefeatable. God gave man dominion and I'm always surprised at the ways man seems able to live up to that...

But if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct by man, there are other options. I'm always reminded of the FarSide:

imagesextinction.jpg
:D I love the Farside.


Although I could see it being the case that dinosaurs and man went to differing areas after the Fall and man kept his distance (Just as a sailor would keep his distance from sharks or a huntsman keep his distance from bears), I think that it's possible that dinosaurs were already carnivores....and they simply lived outside of the Garden.

And when it comes to saying dinosaurs were deadly before the Fall, I also mean to say that it seems animals were deadly in other ways as well. Being an avid animal lover, I've often seen it to be the case where animals that are deadly seem to be made that way by the Lord.

When the Fall happened, animals (with the exceptions of domesticated ones) were not obedient to man anymore because of his causing the Fall. This is why animals are afraid and/or will attack man (mostly when provoked). It's in the Animals and Man book I read a few years ago (excellent btw. If you're an animal lover, I highly recommend it).

Also, it says somewhere in Isaiah about how it was in Paradise. All got along in harmony - the lions, oxes, lambs, etc.

There is the belief, although I'm not sure how popular it is in Orthodoxy, that there was animal deaths in the Garden. This was explained by Fr. David in his lecture that I posted in the sticky section called "What We Believe." I didn't put that part because he was just answering some questions about the Garden, and that there is that belief. It is not a dogmatic one, of course, but he said people are free to believe or not believe it.

Sorry i didn't get to your other parts of your post. I can't concentrate on that long of paragraphs and such.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
:D I love the Farside.
That man has a sick sense of humor. Very dark at times, but hilarious:):D
When the Fall happened, animals (with the exceptions of domesticated ones) were not obedient to man anymore because of his causing the Fall. This is why animals are afraid and/or will attack man (mostly when provoked). It's in the Animals and Man book I read a few years ago (excellent btw. If you're an animal lover, I highly recommend it).
Is the book available online for free? Or is it gonna cost me some money? Either way, would love to check it out. Seeing Genesis 9 where the Lord declared after the Flood to Noah/the animals that the dread of man will be on the animals and man will have dominion, it makes sense as to why the animals are fearful of man. I was always under the impression, however, that before the Flood and after the Fall animals didn't seem to fear man....
Also, it says somewhere in Isaiah about how it was in Paradise. All got along in harmony - the lions, oxes, lambs, etc
Vegetarian lifestyles coming back into existence. Animals such as lions have been shown to be able to eat grain and survive in captivity..

.
There is the belief, although I'm not sure how popular it is in Orthodoxy, that there was animal deaths in the Garden. This was explained by Fr. David in his lecture that I posted in the sticky section called "What We Believe." I didn't put that part because he was just answering some questions about the Garden, and that there is that belief. It is not a dogmatic one, of course, but he said people are free to believe or not believe it.
From what I've seen from other Orthodox who accept evolutionary theory from the perspective of it being used by the Lord, it has been interesting to see some of the arguments given on why death could have existed in the Fall. I'll try to go back/find the names of the people I reviewed who talked on the subject...but some of them have been brought out by others in previous discussions.

It really is a battle..
Sorry i didn't get to your other parts of your post. I can't concentrate on that long of paragraphs and such.
No need for apology, IMHO..for I'm not tripping at all, as I wasn't really expecting it. Being detail-oriented, my mind works around trying to be covered on all points, with there being freedom to either take or leave whatever one wishes as enough is there. Always love hearing whatever insights you have to share :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);61130482 said:
IMHO, David Snokes has done alot of excellent work on the subject when it comes to discussing things we see today as probably existing before the Fall. It's more than reasonable to say that God created a world of good and bad forces....and among these topics is what Snokes describes as dangerous forces in Creation.
I'm not sure I'd totally agree about God creating good and bad forces. I am of the believe He is All loving, all good. It's His very essence. Maybe you are implying that good and bad "forces" because of man's free will to choose? There was no hell to begin with. And hell wasn't created for humans but for Satan and his demons. It's not fit for man. But coming back to these bad and good forces....well, I think it's tied into free will, because angels have free will also, which explains Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels siding with him and the huge battle that went on between the angels that stayed loyal to God led by Archangel Michael and the ones who went with Lucifer.
 
Upvote 0