Hey everybody,
I was just wondering how much of evolution our church agrees with.
I'm not sure if this is true or not, but I think that our church says that Adam and Eve lived about 10,000 years ago. I personally think that humans have evolved over the past 10,000 years, physically and mentally.
Since neanderthals are believed to have existed between 30,000 and 10,000 years ago, and they are said to have looked just like modern day humans, are neanderthals considered to be humans, or do we say that they are like any other animal?
Also, if it is true that our church says that Adam and Eve lived 10,000 years ago, this does not correspond with what archaelogists say. They say that evidence for modern homo sapiens emerged about 100,000 years ago. What does our church say about this?
Please don't freak out on me after bringing up the topic on evolution.
Thanks and God bless
Comments
Our Savior was born 2,006 years ago.
Actually, the figure is more like 2,010 or 2,012 years ago. The guy that did the calendar (by his own admission) got it wrong by a few years.
We know that King Herod died in 4B.C.E. and since He was alive whilst our Lord was, it means that Christ must have been born before this.
I don't think the Church has any official date for the creation of the world, the origin of man or any particular stance on evolution.
Of course, the Church rejects any evolutionary theory that denies God as Creator, or otherwise contradicts what we believe regarding the fall of man, etc.
However, I do not believe the Church has any opinion on whether or not God used a process of evolution to create life on earth, or to which extent He did so.
I do know the Byzantine calendar dates creation to 5508 B.C. (so its now 7514) and that the Jewish calendar says Adam was created 5767 years ago; but neither of these are dogma or binding upon the Church.
The idea of evolution is a prevelant one in our society today. People tend to assume that the theory is actually much more theoretically true then science gives it credit for. Nevertheless, it is significant that one define his terms....particularly. Evolution can be divided into two forms so far as I am aware of. When you speak of evolution within a specified grouping such as the the foregoing immunity of viruses established after numerous encounters of an antibiotic or the adaptation of beak finches within particular birds in the gallopagos islands, you are really reffering to microevolution. Now Microevolution goes far from deleneating the same concepts as classical Darwinian evolution. For Darwin's regime in the scientific ensemble of propositions held what is popularly defined as present day macroevolution--evolution promotiong the change of one species or group to another.
A bird that develops a significant amount of characteristics so as to alter it dramatically even unto the emergence of an entirely new creature is a prime example. The scientiifc evidence aat best supports the research behind micro-evolution. On the other hand, the theory of macro-evolution presently remains predominantley presumptuous and substantively unsound. I'm afraid to say that many "qualified scientists" have fabricated evidences for speciation more then they have discovered potetntial artifices that may qualify as actual evidence. The discoveried behind evolutioanry theory are often fashioned to fit the theory rather then the theory the discoveries.
Although, I could give an elaborate refutation for the evolutionary trajectory taken by textbooks and scientists alike, I believe doing so would stray off the major question raised. Christianity (not just Coptic Orthodoxy) really holds no room for the outworkings of an evolutionary worldview. Although there is debate between young and old earth creation.....the notion of sub-human life is unquestionably anthitheitical to the doctrines of the Christian faith and it's integral Creation model. The moment God creates man, He identifies such creation as distinctively "very good". Were--as a few fececous acclamations propose--Adam and Eve to be considered first subhuman creatures, then what of the newly evolved fully human creation existent today? Are we to suppose that the prime-aged descendents of "neandrathalls", supposedly more functional and adaptive", should be deemed "very very good"? I believe this concretley unconcionable.
The seventh day in Genisis indicates a time where all speciation should have ceised, were one to assume speciations has having even begun. There is simply no mention of this "upgraded" creation stemming off the original man that God decrees as "very good", eitheir before or after. Interestingly however, every other creature seems to hold it's identifying marcation within the Genisis text. Eitheir Genesis failed to mention the emergence of sub-human creation or such creation semerged posterior to the Geneis account, in which case God's work has truly not ciesed.
Furthermore, it is philopsophically feitous to suggest that mamals, amphibians, reptiles and the like were merely "good" in the perspective of God, while man was "very good" if one was immediatley descended from the other. How could an omniscient God, all wise in understanding, effecaciously attest to one creation's goodness as being more domineering then another creation's if the latter necessarily depended upon the first for it's existence. The notion of greater goodness would presuppose greater difference in some particular quality or trait; a priori.
Were one to rebut that adaptation had promoted such decree, then the acclaim would fall on unsolid cries of a rivers sway--considering that the physical adaptive traits held no superior atemporality when juxtaposed against the unadaptive traits. All physical reality comes to an unhalting end regardless of it's evolutionary potentiality. The notion that one existence could be objectively greater in value then another's, necessarily denotes a transcendent trait defining the latter's existence; an eternal qaulity that will perpetually define it's prescribed extra-goodness.
Now, the only resolve would be if God had consumatley founded the increaed "goodness" on the spirutal reality which uniquley envolpes mankind. The presented argument can only be avoided were one to initially presume that God had meant to ascribe a temporal idenitifaction of goodness to His creation or if God was altogether semi-omnscient in His characteristics and threfore unable to ascribe the proposed characteristics. However, both claims cause major problems to the classically conceptualized understanding of God and would, in essence, be entirely fruitless. An omniscient God, Who's decrees are never broken, would not prescribe a ephemeral claim of goodness without any transcendent warrant. The good claims are forever good and therfore must be transcendentally established.
The reader should note that my argument, thus far, has only touched the tip of this mutlifacted iceberg of dillemas cumulative to evolutionary theory. Theologically, philosophically, an ultiamtley scientifically macro-evolution holds perditous ramifications. Now, if any reader finds the interest or need to salvage specific refutation of the theory and it's realtion to Christain theology I would recommend searching into a fantastic site enlisted as "www.reasonstobelieve.org"
I would give particulars, however time's inhibition precedes my denotation.
(I apologize for any gramitacal syntactical erros beladen witrhin my persuasional account--no time to correct)
God bless.
Macro-evolution on the other hand, undermines the whole principle of God's omnipotence. For a species to diverge into a completely different entity is to assume that God's creature's were imperfect and had to 'adapt' completely into something else to better survive the environment. For the whole 'apes/monkey evolution into humans' theory in particular, why would God have created something unintelligent into something sentient and with a soul. That would seem to completely conflict with the natural order of God's method of creation (if anyone can understand what im talking about).
A final thing, God created man 'in His own likeness'. It would be illogical for God to have made a much simpler organism to represent His greatness. Currently, we humans have minds of sentience and reasoning that otherwise no organism on earth would of had at all and this is why we are made in 'God's image'. Our intelligience would of not just evolved overtime from cells to fish to rats to monkeys to apes to neanderthals to humans...
Hope i made sense on those last points...forgive me if im wrong...
+CD+
Does this help or support the argument of evolution? If u want, i can give u their names even of this indigenous species.
God bless
Does this help or support the argument of evolution?
I don't think it supports the theory of evolution, but it does support the law of humanity: We all make mistakes...and are nothing but handfuls of dust
Fibo :)
In science, we love to find patterns, and when we find patterns, we want to put a law that describes or models the pattern we've seen.
I remember in physical chemistry, we had a book of laws that was about 300 pages. Then we had to buy another book called "Exceptions to the laws" that was around 1500 pages long. So, its interesting why we even bother to make laws that generalise certain events given that we know that no matter what law we make, there is always an exception.
The Kinetic Theory of Matter:
I take a substance, i heat it, it would go from the solid state -- > liquid state --> gaseous state.
Ice -- > water --> steam.
However , i take carbon, and it doesnt obey that law. Does it? U don't take charcoal and make it into liquid charcoal - do u?
Its endless the examples.
So, ONE law is this: We cannot generalise!
Not every event will obey a law.
With respect now to evolution, i believe in micro-speciation. This is where a species may develop certain characteristics/traits to adapt to its environment... a giraffe's neck in Africa may be longer than a giraffe's neck in another part of the world where the length of the trees in that area may play a significant role in determining the length of the neck. But i don't believe in macro-speciation: a giraffe converting to an ape because there are more bananas than trees (a silly example!).
You see??
Forget evolution... don't even worry about that.. just read the abcnews.com / health section:
For every scientific report suggesting something being bad /good for your health - there is another one counter-attacking it - suggesting the exact opposite!!
Its absolutely remarkable!!
All scientists will look for a pattern in their studies - and as they develop their theories, they will one day fine exceptions to these patterns; where certain cases don't follow the rules.
My question is this. Can you please tell me if you believe in the 'genetic' evolution, or the Darwinian theory where physical properties are passed down when an organism achieves a new physical state (For example, if a giraffe keeps stretching its neck, then its 'long neck' trait gets passed down)?
For example, if a giraffe keeps stretching its neck, then its 'long neck' trait gets passed down
This is not how evolution works. Evolution is surival of the fittest, or most adaptable.
So in case of the giraffe, it was difficult to find food on the ground, so all those animals with short necks died and the ones with longer necks managed to reach the food and survived. They mated, which meant the next generation of early giraffes had longer necks than the previous generation and so on.
This is well known i believe? No? Even it affects the genes - because species do change/evolve even to suit their environment.. but not that one specie will change into another... just small traits change.
Wasnt there a story in the Bible even where someone painted a wall green so the sheep would develop a certain physical trait from just looking at colour of the wall??
The process however, of micro-speciation may take many years to develop. This i don't know...
If we humans evolved from apes, as we are the "fittest" of the species, then why haven't ALL apes, tigers, monkeys and sheep evolved into human beings??
You know what... that was my opinion, best to ask a biologist.. im a physicist.
God Bless
Find a biologist and ask him/her.
OK... cos, we had this psychiatrist tell us that homosexuality was an official medical/psychiatric disorder in 1997. In 2005, it was removed from being classed as a disorder. Not because it was proven scientifically that it wasnt a disorder, but because of public opinion being offended by this classification.
Many psychiatrists now believe its not a disorder.
So, even within the same SCIENTIFIC (!!!) profession, there is HUGE disagreement.
Find a biologist to explain this;preferably one with a phD
Thanks. I'd like to contribute more, but my knowledge of Highschool Biology isn't suffiecient enough...
God Bless