The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

[nutroll]

Personally, I find the rejection of uniformitarianism very strange. The working of God's creation is surprisingly uniform and consistent if we are to assume that it is not God's will that it should be so. We believe that miracles are happening all the time, and yet we can still count on the sun rising at a certain time and setting at a certain time. We are able to predict solar and lunar eclipses, and meteor showers with amazing accuracy. We know how to predict the movement of heavenly and terrestrial bodies based on laws of physics. If the miracles God works caused global changes in the way the universe works, we should not be able to predict anything. Yes, we believe in the Fall, but if death did not exist before the fall as creationist claim, it would not affect the fossil record at all. The great flood in the time of Noah does not require us to posit a fundamental shift in the laws of physics. It should leave evidence of a catastrophic event, but it need not change anything about the dating of fossil evidence. We have accounts in scripture of the sun standing still, but again, we don't need to posit that time stopped or slowed, and it need not affect how we interpret scientific data. It seems to me that there is no real grounds to reject uniformitarianism except that we don't like what it tells us about the age of the earth. God intervenes in our world all the time without throwing off scientific experiments worldwide. It might affect the order of nature in that place at that time, but not globally. To suggest that uniformitarianism arises out of or necessarily leads to atheism seems very silly to me.

 

[jckstraw72]

Start naming specific fathers and works that I can read which clearly say that creation was new earth. And NO, Seraphim Rose is not a father of the Church.

also, you should read Fr. Seraphim before dismissing him. if you had, you would know that in his book he very explicitly does NOT take a stance on how long the days of creation were.

 

[jckstraw72]

yes, in our observations we see basic uniformity. but here's the problem with that: the earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old according to radiometric dating, and according to this website: Changing Views of the History of the Earth the first radiometric dating was done in 1907, so we've been making such observations for 104 years. so the fact that we have seen uniformity for 104 yrs isnt incompatible with creationism at all, and really isnt surprising to a creationist at all. however, to take those 104 yrs and assume they are normative for the entire 4.5 billion years of the earth's existence is quite another story. so basically we are saying that .000002290749% of the earth's existence is definitively normative for ALL of earth's existence. i dont know how thats even remotely scientific or reasonable to assume.

 

[Gregorios]

also, you should read Fr. Seraphim before dismissing him. if you had, you would know that in his book he very explicitly does NOT take a stance on how long the days of creation were.

I don't think he was dismissing Father Seraphim, I just think he was pointing out that Fr. Seraphim is not a Church Father, nor is he officially glorified as a Saint. I do have an Ikon of him and I love him very much, however, I find some of his opinions suspect and others utterly without merit. Overall, however, I find him to be a very pious man of God, who will be glorified by the Church some day. But when people cite him (or his opponent Lazar) in an argument for something, I tend to become rather dismissive myself, not because they are utterly without merit, but because they are not Church Fathers..and also, at the end of the day, who cares? God created the Earth and everything in it, on it, and outside of it, the mode of operation doesn't matter, it just gives people something to fight or argue about because they are bored. That's the last I will say on this issue.

 

[Michael G]

Not worth saying.

 

[inconsequential]

We don't know how things might have been different prior to the fall or just how deeply the creation was affected by the entrance of death. Things were probably very different prior to the flood as well since lifespans dropped off dramatically afterwards. What if C14 didn't decay prior to the fall? Did things age differently back then? It's enough to make me question uniformitarianism. But then again, I'm not very strongly drawn to either position, just very interested in the discussion.

 

[Gregorios]

Not worth saying.

Excuse me? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Gregorios]

Bout time for this thread to be moved to St. Justin Martyr..mods..

 

[nutroll]

But why should we assume that radiometric dating is any different from any other observation? If the rate at which objects fall has not changed in the time since Newton (which is roughly 6% of the earth's existence according to creationism) is there reason to assume that it used to change or changed in the past? Granted, 104 years is not all that long (although it is almost 2% of the earth's existence according to creationism) Radioactive decay appears to be quite uniform, on what basis do we say that it was not uniform in the past?

I have no problem with saying that the earth is only 6000 years old. I have no problem with saying that God created the world in 6 days. But I think it would be better not to speculate that uniformitarianism is a lie when we have no proof or evidence to think otherwise.

 

[Macarius]

I'm ok with theistic evolution - but then everyone here already knew that.

 

[Gregorios]

I'm ok with cookies.

 

[Michael G]

Excuse me? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I meant that I said something really strongly worded to Jesse and then I retracted my words.

 

[Dorothea]

Of course, I started this thread out of some interesting thoughts on animals - dinosaurs specifically - and how they fit into the time before Abraham and such - that primordial line mentioned by Fr. David who did say nobody knows the details of what went on between the time God created all and Abraham. This is why it is not a dogma because it is not said specifically in the Bible and we just don't know.

I am enjoying everyone's perspectives on this. It's been quite interesting. This thought of dinosaurs being on earth or even in the Garden with Adam and Eve is something I never thought about. I always thought they were here on earth before the first parents (Adam and Eve) and such. Then I thought about the catastrophe of the dying off of the dinosaurs and maybe that was when the fall occurred. But still, we have to think of this - that if there was no animals dying in the Garden, which my first thought was that there wasn't. But then there's the view that maybe it was just talking about Adam and Eve - those made in His Image - were created immortal - and animals weren't. And then there's the deal about the dinosaurs killing each other. So death of animals was going on in the dinosaur world...whenever that may be, unless people believe scientists made that up - dinosaurs killing other dinosaurs for food. Interesting ideas, nevertheless.

 

[jckstraw72]

well i think that before the Fall dinosaurs did not kill each other for food, but afterwards they did. these quotes are not about dinosaurs, but i think they are relevant:

Doubtless indeed vultures did not look around the earth when living things came to be. For nothing yet died of these things given meaning or brought into being by God, so that vultures might eat it. Nature was not divided, for it was in its prime; nor did hunters kill, for that not yet the custom of human beings; nor did wild beasts claw their prey, for they were not yet carnivores. And it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows. St. Basil the Great, On the Origin of Humanity 2.6

As long as Adam loved God and observed His commandment, he dwelt in the Paradise of God and God abode in the paradisiacal heart of Adam. Naked Adam was clothed with the grace of God and, surrounded by the animals, he held and caressed them lovingly, and they, in turn, licked him devoutly, as their Master. When Adam violated God’s commandment., he was stripped of the grace of God, clothed with a garment of skin and exiled from Paradise. Grace-filled Adam became wild, and many animals, because of Adam, were also made savage, and instead of approaching him with devoutness and licking him with love, they lashed out at him with rage in order to tear at or bite him. Elder Paisios, Epistles, pg. 203-204

And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first–for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,–but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him . . . so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man’s sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. Theophilus to Autolycus Book II.XVII

 

[jckstraw72]

But why should we assume that radiometric dating is any different from any other observation? If the rate at which objects fall has not changed in the time since Newton (which is roughly 6% of the earth's existence according to creationism) is there reason to assume that it used to change or changed in the past? Granted, 104 years is not all that long (although it is almost 2% of the earth's existence according to creationism) Radioactive decay appears to be quite uniform, on what basis do we say that it was not uniform in the past?

I have no problem with saying that the earth is only 6000 years old. I have no problem with saying that God created the world in 6 days. But I think it would be better not to speculate that uniformitarianism is a lie when we have no proof or evidence to think otherwise.

im just as inclined to ask why i should think such things stayed the same for billions of year when change is such a huge part of our world. im also inclined to question uniformitarianism because it leads to conclusions that are not in harmony with our Tradition, and it since uniformitarianism is just an assumption and not a provable fact, i have no problem at all dismissing it. for the Fathers, the fall was a cosmic event with huge effects on our world. but when looking at a huge sudden change through uniformitarian lenses you will think youre seeing a long period of time because the change is so massive. for me, there's just way too many unanswerable questions that come along with modern scientific theories, whereas the teachings of the Fathers answer them quite nicely.

 

[jckstraw72]

I don't think he was dismissing Father Seraphim, I just think he was pointing out that Fr. Seraphim is not a Church Father, nor is he officially glorified as a Saint. I do have an Ikon of him and I love him very much, however, I find some of his opinions suspect and others utterly without merit. Overall, however, I find him to be a very pious man of God, who will be glorified by the Church some day. But when people cite him (or his opponent Lazar) in an argument for something, I tend to become rather dismissive myself, not because they are utterly without merit, but because they are not Church Fathers..and also, at the end of the day, who cares? God created the Earth and everything in it, on it, and outside of it, the mode of operation doesn't matter, it just gives people something to fight or argue about because they are bored. That's the last I will say on this issue.

true, he is not a canonized Saint, but its perfectly valid in Orthodoxy to quote modern authorities. do we really want to never quote Elder Paisios or Elder Porphyrios again until they are canonized? and the great thing about Fr. Seraphim's book is that he was the first to take a deep look at the Fathers on this issue and present them to the public. he offers very little of his own commentary in the book, but rather, lets the Fathers speak for themselves.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, I think we have to remember that the dinos before the Fall were just that, unfallen and glorified dinosaurs (I know that sounds kinda dumb, but I am gonna run with it). which means, that like man, they all were vegetarian as well. as silly as this might sound to some folks, the fangs and claws and all that stuff that a T-rex had could have been an affect of the Fall as well, to help it deal with the new fallen universe in which it lived.

if anyone wants Patristic quotes about Creation, just find the last Theistic Evolution thread. there were a ton thrown in there about young earth Creation.

and don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that anyone who believes in evolution is dumb or anything like that, I just personally don't.

 

[Michael G]

Ok, I am unsubscribing now. There is no way I am going to believe that the mouth of a T-Rex is designed to eat plant matter. Next thing I know it I will be told that megladon was a plant eater as well.

 

[jckstraw72]

Ok, I am unsubscribing now. There is no way I am going to believe that the mouth of a T-Rex is designed to eat plant matter. Next thing I know it I will be told that megladon was a plant eater as well.

the bones we have from T-Rex are post-fall. this does not necessarily tell us much of anything about T-Rex pre-fall

 

[ArmyMatt]

the bones we have from T-Rex are post-fall. this does not necessarily tell us much of anything about T-Rex pre-fall

which also means that the jaws from the Megalodon were also post-Fall. I think the problem here lies with folks using the post-fallen world as the standard for how the pre-fallen world was in certain aspects. so yes, every meat eating nasty thing that has ever ran, flew, or swam on this earth was very different before sin and death were introduced to the cosmos.