Orthodox Resources Against Pseudo-Evolution

Samseau said:
No, the Bible says death did not exist for humans. Adam and Eve could not die, but other animals and plants that Adam and Eve had dominion over definitely could die, or else they wouldn't have had dominion over them.

How would Adam get his protein if he couldn't hunt in the garden? And they were eating food, otherwise the forbidden fruit would not have been tempting for them.

Thus if animals and plants could die, they could have been morphing through an evolutionary mechanism. Not saying such a mechanism exists, just that it could plausibly exist and even if it did exist, it wouldn't matter at all.
Click to expand...
Adam's pre-fall body was not the same as ours is now.
Meat eating did not exist pre-fall and was only allowed by God after the flood.
Death and entropy entered Creation only after Adam sinned and the first death that Adam experienced was immediately after the exile when God gave them the garments of skin.
 
There is a good documentary called "Expelled, no intelligence allowed" you can find on youtube, Whats good about this documentary is that its something you can share to people who are not religious, its about people at universities and places of work who were expelles and fired for questioning evolution and for finding other evidence that disproves evolution, they ever interviewed the atheist Richard Dawkins and got him to admit on camera that the earth was created by someone. When I was younger and before I knew about Orthodoxy I watched Dr kent hovinds series about creation and evolution it was also good, saint Paisios had a good quote too I will try share it here. Even before I was Orthodox I already didnt believe in evolution.
 
analyst_green said:
Not to advocate for evolution, but there certainly are parts of the Bible that are meant to be read symbolically. For example take Revelation 20:4-7


We know the thousand years is not meant to be taken literally because clearly more than 1000 years have passed since the first resurrection and the End Times have not yet come. The "thousand years" in this context just means a really long time. So I think we have to be careful of assuming a literal reading of every passage since that leads to many erroneous interpretations like those the Protestants have come up with regarding the End Times.

Personally, I have trouble believing the Garden of Eden is entirely literal. I don't see why God would have created a talking snake on Earth for example. The important thing is to always read each passage with Christ in mind and the message He is trying to convey. The historicity and scientific stuff is not critical for salvation, so I content myself with my ignorance.
Click to expand...
I have no problem believing in a literal genesis and a young earth Im actually convinced that it was so. Its way more far fetched and illogical to believe in evolution, its actually quite possible that many of the raw materials for the creation were in a state of chaos and God put it into a state of order as is mentioned in the book, the religion of the apostles, in the scriptures it also gives a hint to this, for example the rocks and the water were there and during creation God seperated them from each other, so its quite possible when they date these rocks they find that they billions and billions of years old but that doesnt mean the earth is that old it could just be the raw materials that were not yet out in order that were in a chaotic state, but the actual earth and life on earth is young, few thousand years old, 6-7 thousand years old, I read a book a few years ago about the story of genesis found in the chinese language in their picture alphabet, for example, i cant remember the exact word if it was paradise or serpant but the picture for that word is 2 trees in a garden with a woman and a snake, or i think thats the pictures for the word temptation, but the entire creation story is found in their alphabet, this is just one of many examples
 
I used to be pretty into science and evolution during my atheist phase. One thing I noticed is when looking at a given trait, lets take the supposed evolution of bipedalism in apes for example, there are multiple competing explanations that explain the environmental or sexual pressured that caused this. From changing from an aboreal environment to savannah, to males carrying food for females. One might add at this point that none of them can be tested. No one can go back and watch these supposed events. So they remain competing just so stories.

Not only that, but the existence of multiple explanations for the evolutionary origins of any given trait proves that its not particularly difficult to string together a story that appears to coherently explain things from the evolutionary paradigm. They cannot all be true. Therefore its clear that its perfectly possible even within the paradigm itself to come up with false evolutionary explanations for things. One can start to ask, might they all be false?

Evolutionists are not doing science. You could quite easily come up with some explanation for the diversity of life and then make up stories that fit with it. The only difference would be that the entire scientific enterprise would not be invested in presupposing it.
 
Lawrence87 said:
I used to be pretty into science and evolution during my atheist phase. One thing I noticed is when looking at a given trait, lets take the supposed evolution of bipedalism in apes for example, there are multiple competing explanations that explain the environmental or sexual pressured that caused this. From changing from an aboreal environment to savannah, to males carrying food for females. One might add at this point that none of them can be tested. No one can go back and watch these supposed events. So they remain competing just so stories.

Not only that, but the existence of multiple explanations for the evolutionary origins of any given trait proves that its not particularly difficult to string together a story that appears to coherently explain things from the evolutionary paradigm. They cannot all be true. Therefore its clear that its perfectly possible even within the paradigm itself to come up with false evolutionary explanations for things. One can start to ask, might they all be false?

Evolutionists are not doing science. You could quite easily come up with some explanation for the diversity of life and then make up stories that fit with it. The only difference would be that the entire scientific enterprise would not be invested in presupposing it.
Click to expand...

Yes - it's an epistemological concept called falsification, if something cannot be falsified, i.e. cannot be tested, then there's no way to know if it's false and therefore no way to know if it's true.

Hence if it cannot be falsified, it is not knowledge, aka science. Science is just the Latin word for knowledge.

Most scientific "theories" today are total bunk because they cannot be falsified - climate change aka globull warming, most theories on "sexual empowerment," child psychology, psychology in general, etc. All trash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top