ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Evolution vs Orthodox Teaching

Does Evolution conflict with orthodox Christian teaching?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 2/3/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog


I never said "evolution can be proved". i DO say "evolution is plausible" and "it cannot be disproved either".

And why do you think it's wasteful? and slow? To God a thousand years is like a day - his notion of slow and fast is no the same as ours.

Making an organism is impressive. Making one that can make others (by procreation) is even more impressive. Making a chemical mechanism that lets organisms evolve into others is more impressive still. Making physical laws that allow such chemicals to self-organize is even yet more impressive.

Biblical evolutionists give God credit for MUCH more impressive feats than you do.
---StrongAxe on 2/18/12

Weak Hatchet: Your reasoning is flawed.

1) God wrote with His own finger:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,

2) You have written that the first three days of Creation may have been long ages so that Evolution is a possibility.

3) Ergo, You don't believe what God wrote, so you don't believe God.

It's really that simple. But, your saying that I am lying about it is itself a lie.

---jerry6593 on 2/18/12

StrongAxe, it bothers me when Christians argue passionately, and persistently for evolution. The idea that life came about, and evolved over billions of years by naturalistic processes cannot be proved. Further God's word is directly opposed to evolution as I have shown. So why would any Christian even toy with the idea of evolution. To say that God may have used evolution is a contradiction in terms:

Why would Almighty God use such a wasteful, violent, slow process such as evolution if He is indeed Almighty? And then clearly say He didn't. If He did use such a process He is not Almighty and is a liar. By saying He has used such a process you are saying He isn't Almighty, and is a liar. Where is your faith? In God or man?
---Warwick on 2/17/12

StrongAxe, yes I know about those brick experiments they werte done by the little elves in La La Land!
---Warwick on 2/17/12


You said: Axe: "Who ever said I didn't believe God?"
You did!

Jerry, remember the dangers of bearing false witness. I never said that, but you presume I don't, by the following faulty logic:

1) Assume: The Bible says God created the world (correct)
2) Assume: StrongAxe believes in evolution (correct)
3) Assume: Creation is incompatible with evolution (flawed)
4) Conclude: StrongAxe does not believe in God (flawed)

We are debating whether evolution is possible, so it is not resolved. Yet you assume it in the above reasoning, which is therefore flawed.


Recent experiments have showed those very bricks forming by themselves.
---StrongAxe on 2/17/12

Cluny, thinking in evolutionary terms if life had not appeared by naturalistic processes then evolution from the first life form to all the creatures which have ever existed could never have occurred. If you want to deny they are connected then accept the fact that the first is necessary for the second to occur. If there weren't any bricks no one could build a brick house!
---Warwick on 2/17/12

Axe: "Who ever said I didn't believe God?"

You did!

God said that He created heaven and earth in six days (Exo 20:11). Do you believe it or do you waffle and try to reinterpret it to align with Darwin?

Your list of supposed spontaneous generation of "proto-life" is pure speculative hogwash. No real scientist on earth believes that life created itself. It is scientifically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!
---jerry6593 on 2/17/12

\\Cluny without the naturalistic appearance of life the naturalistic theory of evolution has nothing upon which to work. They are innescapably connected. Without the first there cannot be the second.\\

No , they are NOT connected. You are simply assuming they are.

Or are you saying that God is unnatural?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/16/12

Here are a couple of names you can search on this subject. Both are highly educated scientists and Orthodox Christians.

Daniel Buxhoeveden and Gayle Woloschak

I know Dr. Woloshak personally and can vouch for her faith. Her parents sang in an Orthodox parish choir I once conducted.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/16/12


Who ever said I didn't believe God? Why do you automatically assume the two are mutually exclusive?

Besides, nobody believes that fully-formed organisms spontaneously emerged ex nihilo the same way Venus is shown emerging from the ocean in the painting Venus on the Half Shell.

Rather, there were many intervening steps - inorganic compounds like methane and carbon dioxide becoming amino acids and nucleic acids, then amino acidics forming simple proteins and nucleic acids forming simple nucleic acid chains, etc, these forming simple protocells, etc. - all of the above having actually been observed.
---StrongAxe on 2/16/12


"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." - George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, ('The Origin of Life', Scientific American, August 1954 (vol. 191).

Like other evolutionist geniuses, you believe the scientifically impossible. Why not believe God. He is much more reliable.
---jerry6593 on 2/16/12

Jason, that we need air to breathe, is something testable, now.

However whether we were created as per Genesis or by a naturalistic process (evolution) cannot be scientifically tested. The scientific method only works upon things in the present. For the past we refer to history books and the Bible is a magnificent text of history. None the less whether we believe it (or evolutionary theory) it is by faith. However as I see it (as an ex nonBeliever) the evidence for creation as per Genesis is overwhelming. Many scientists have become Christian after they reinvestigated evolutionary theory and found it full of holes. Dr Rick Smalley Professor of Chemistry Physics and Astronomy and winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry is but one.
---Warwick on 2/15/12

StrongAxe the point Jerry made, that you miss, is that in Miller's experiments a 50:50 mixture of left and right-handed amino-acids were formed. When both types of amino acids are present, they chemically combine with one another in ways that make the resultant protein totally inactive. Left to themselves, the amino acids Millers experiment produced were nothing but evolutionary dead-ends.

Interestingly this information, and other information which shows his results to to be invalid are censored from almost all biology text books!
---Warwick on 2/15/12

Jason Varner, you may not consider the Bible to be fact, but given this is a Christian site, some of us do. To us when the Bible plainly says something happened, including a specific set of events and a specific timeline, we believe it. There's no arguing with God for us. We believe His Word to be the facts, not theory.
---Jed on 2/15/12

Guys, it is all faith and theory. IF it were fact how we were created or the whole Universe for that matter, than there would be no arguments. It would be like arguing over the fact that humans need to breathe air to live. There is no argument over that because it is 100% fact.

There might be theories about how things could have happened, but we will never know for sure. That is my prediction.
---Jason_Varner on 2/15/12


There is no difference between left- and right-handed amino acids except for symmetry. Life could have used either type. That we only see one of the two today just means one developed all the pieces to self-replicate before the other.

Amino acids do NOT require lack of oxygen to exist, since we use them now in an oxygen-rich world. They require lack of oxygen to form SPONTANEOUSLY. Once the basic blocks have been formed (amino acids, nucleic acids, RNA chains), and machinery to synthesize amino acids purposely, they can be formed way they are built now (i.e. in the presence of oxygen).

But again, you ridicule the results, not because they are implausible, but because they conflict with your theological bias.
---StrongAxe on 2/15/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

StrongAxe I asked my question wondering if you were referring to the Miller-Urey experiments of 6 decades ago. I hardly call them recent. The experimenters set out to create amino acids with sophisticated (for the day) equipment and intelligent input to prove that such compounds could have come about without sophisticated equipment and intelligent input. Not very compelling results, and definitely not abiogenesis.

Further as Jerry pointed out they were a mixture of left-handed and right handed amino acids where life requires only left-handed amino acids. The presence of RH amino acids is destructive. Maybe they should have included a RH amino-acid filter?

I will follow up on the other information when I have more time.
---Warwick on 2/15/12

man's "could have"s reinterpreting God's "did"
---micha9344 on 2/15/12


Look on Wikipedia for "Miller-Urey experiment", which was done in the 1950s and spontaneously formed many amino acids, and inspired similar experiments later.

Also look on Wikipedia for "Abiogenesis". Scroll down to the section on "Complex biological molecules and protocells".

You might also want to read a paper "Spontaneous Formation of Superhelical Strands" by Hiroshi Yanagawa et al.

While such experiments cannot show for sure if this is how any specific form of life ACTUALLY developed, they can show a plausible way it COULD have, which refutes the claims of those who say "It couldn't have possibly happened".
---StrongAxe on 2/15/12

MarkAxe: You refer of course to Miller's famous experiment of the 1950's. Amino acids (both left- and right-handed) were formed in a reducing atmosphere with a cold trap to quickly remove the nitrogenous compounds. The existence of right-handed aminos would destroy any living cell, as would the required absence of oxygen. No such apparatus has ever existed in the natural world - hence no abiogenesis. A few simple amino acids is a long way from being life, let alone a protein or a cell. And no, it is not "a piece of the puzzle". It is an exercise in atheistic futility. The solution to the "puzzle" is the Bible. Learn it, live it, love it!

---jerry6593 on 2/15/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

Cluny without the naturalistic appearance of life the naturalistic theory of evolution has nothing upon which to work. They are innescapably connected. Without the first there cannot be the second.

Adding God into the mixture is a desperate attempt for Christians whose faith is in evolution to make it somehow a thing of God. It doesn't and atheists rightly consider this ridiculous.

And further God's account of supernatural creation exposes the fraud of evolution. Why would any Christian prefer a fable of man over the Truth of God?
---Warwick on 2/14/12

StrongAxe I know of no recent experements like those of which you write. Who did them, and when?
---Warwick on 2/14/12

\\ Evolution requires a lower life form to evolve from. Hence it is impossible to evolve ex nihilo. \\

The theory of evolution has NOTHING to say about the initial origin of life.

Why have you not comprehended this yet?

I know of no one who believes in "evolution ex nihilo." I certainly don't and never said I did.

BTW--the Pharisee of Our Lord's parable abstained from pork, kept the Sabbath, and believed in a young earth six-day creation, just like you. Did this do him any spiritual good?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/14/12


Recent experiments found basic compounds (water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) under the right conditions spontaneously combine to form more complicated ones (amino acids, nucelic acids, etc.) and nucleic acids naturally connect to form chains (simlar to those found in RNA and DNA).

Granted, all pieces of the puzzle have not been found yet, but each time a new piece is found, it weakens the assumption "these things are too complicated to happen naturally".

There have been similar baseless assumptions on the other side too - Bible bashers who said the Bible was wrong when it talked about the Hittites, of whom no evidence had ever been found - until somebody actually eventually found them.
---StrongAxe on 2/14/12

Shop For Church Seating

MarkAxe: "evolved ex nihilo"?

That's an oxymoron!

In theory, Evolution requires a lower life form to evolve from. Hence it is impossible to evolve ex nihilo. Just ask your buddy Cluny, Evolutionists do not want to touch abiogenesis (although Darwin wrote of it), because they understand that it's impossible. Why are you so in love with this hoax that you continue to fight against the Bible? I just don't get it.

---jerry6593 on 2/14/12

StrongAxe, does evolution concur with the fact that women were formed from the rib of a man? Could a woman evolve from the rib of a man in one afternoon while he was sleeping? Or was he really asleep for millions of years? If creation took millions of years instead of six days like the Bible says, then did all the animals that God created before Adam live for millions of years, since the Bible tells us there was no death before Adam's sin? Also, the Bible tells us that on the seventh day God rested from all the work of creation. Evolution states that everything is still evolving today, that we are just another phase in evolution. So is creation still happenning, or did God complete it, like the Bible says.
---Jed on 2/13/12

Jerry6593, yes, they are completely contrary to each other: evolution is lie, and creation is truth.
---Eloy on 2/13/12

StrongAxe natural selection/speciation has nothing to do with the naturalastic appearance of life nor the supposed emergence of different kinds of creatures over time. For example where did the dog 'kind' come from? It obviously didn't come from a dog.

"The evolution model suggests that chemicals coalesced and formed a living single-cell almost four billion years ago and then this changed over long periods of time into all other living things. Examples of evolutionary changes include a dinosaur into a bird..." to quote scientist Dr Carl Werner.

What Dr Werner describes has nothing to do with variations appearing in a kind, but the appearance of totally different kinds.
---Warwick on 2/13/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..."

Colossians 1:16
"For by him were all things created, ..., visible and invisible, ..."

Note that if you take ALL this into consideration, man was not formed MERELY from invisible things (like breath and words), but ALSO from visible things as well (like dust).


Evolution does not mention God for the same reason cooking recipes don't, and street maps don't show stars, and sewing patterns don't list nutrition - they are unrelated. For example, natural selection works the same whether an organism evolved ex nihilo, or God made it directly, or God directed its evolution.
---strongAxe on 2/13/12

Yes, Orthodox Christian teaching records: "The world was CREATED by Christ, and man was CREATED after his shape, so that not from things visible the seen have come into being." Jn.1:10+ Gn.1:26,27+ Col.1:16+ Hb.11:3. And the antiChrist and antiScripture lie of evolution says, "microscopic protozoa and amoebic cells evolved over time into a man."
---Eloy on 2/13/12

\\ The active force in Evolution is random chance acting through naturalistic processes\\

And who says that? Certainly not I.

There is nothing random in God's world.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/13/12

Evolutionists say that.
---Jed on 2/13/12

\\ The active force in Evolution is random chance acting through naturalistic processes\\

And who says that? Certainly not I.

There is nothing random in God's world.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/13/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

StrongAxe, I have answered your Genesis 2:17 question 3 times but they have failed to post it!

I have never said 'day' always means 24hrs. You need to carefully read what I write.

I can think of three meanings for 'day.'

Meaning time of 'daylight', sunrise to sunset, e.g. Genesis 1:14, 3:8.

For 'time' or 'when' without specific limits Genesis 2:4, 17.

A 24Hr period Genesis 1:5 where 'day' is used with a number. It is used as a
singular or plural with a number 410 times outside of Genesis and it
always means an ordinary 24hr day.

---Warwick on 2/13/12

MarkAxe: "evolution does not mention God"

There's a reason for that. Evolution is a substitute Creation for the atheist. The active force in Evolution is random chance acting through naturalistic processes (supposedly either by natural selection or by mutation, coupled with long time periods). The active force in Bible Creation is God - acting instantaneously and using a supernatural process. How can an intelligent man like you possibly confuse the two?

---jerry6593 on 2/13/12

well if you ever read the theory of evolution you will see that Charles Darwin him self does not believe in the theory he came up with. If we evolved form monkeys then why are our in sides more compatible to pigs and not monkeys even though monkeys share 90 plus % of genetic make up as us? and pigs share far less?
---curtis on 2/12/12


Bible: Earth before sun and stars. Evolution: Stars and sun before earth.

Bible: Earth covered in water initially. Evolution: Earth molten blob initially

Bible: Oceans first then dry land. Evolution: Dry land then oceans

Bible:Life first created on land. Evolution:Life started in oceans.

Bible: Plants created before the sun. Evolution: Plants came long after sun.

Bible: Fish and birds created together. Evolution: Fish formed long before birds.

Bible: Land animals created after birds. Evolution: land animals before whales.

Bible: Man and dinosaurs lived together. Evolution: Dinosaurs extinct long before man appeared.

Bible: big bang future. Evolution: big bang past.
---Warwick on 2/11/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

StrongAxe, uh, yeah, there is definately contradiction between the creation story listed in Genesis and the theory of evolution. The Bible tells us that God created the animals and man separately. He created the flying creatures separately from the crawling and swimming creatures. The theory of evolution states that all living things have evolved from one common microscopic ancestor. How could the statement that God created man and the statement that man evolved from a microscopic organism both be true?
---Jed on 2/11/12


Genesis doesn't give DETAILS as to how God created man, nor how long creation days were, so no contradiction with evolution there.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ...

No "evolution" mentioned. No "ungodliness" applies, since evolution does not mention God. (Is baking bread ungodly because God is not in the recipe?)

Because ... Godhead

Nothing specific here.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God...

Believers in theistic evolution believe God works through evolution, so no "they glorified him not" there.
---StrongAxe on 2/11/12

jed: In what consists the image of God in mankind?

jerry: This passage says only that creation exists because of God's will. It does not say what method God used, and does not condemn evolution.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/11/12

Hey, did God create man in his own image on the sixth day of creation or not? If you say yes, you call evolution a lie. If you say no you call God's Word a lie. Plain and simple, isn't it?
---Jed on 2/11/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

Cluny, I am glad God does not think as I do. However we have His word and it is clear He is a supernatural being who created, just as He says in Scripture, by His Almighty supernatural power. To believe God used some evolutionary processes to create is contrary to Scripture and exposes a lack of faith. And that which is not of faith is sin.
---Warwick on 2/11/12

Cluny: "Please give book, chapter, and verse where ANYTHING the Apostles wrote is anti-evolution."

Rom 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ... Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

---jerry6593 on 2/11/12

\\The statement that God is supernatural Creator is directly opposed to evolution.\\

God doesn't even THINK the same way, you do, Warwick.

One thing I've learned is that God never does things the way you think He's supposed to do, so I don't put limits on Him, like you, jerry, or others do.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/10/12

Interesting deduction. Limits. I've noted self puffed preachery types limit the scriptural witnesses to only what can be "evolved" into their heretical / logic beliefs. Lack of scriptural witnesses is a witness in itself. It is a fear of "Truth" that is at the core. Can fear of truth....propagate truth? Yes, a weak or altered version.
---Trav on 2/11/12

\\The statement that God is supernatural Creator is directly opposed to evolution.\\

God doesn't even THINK the same way, you do, Warwick.

One thing I've learned is that God never does things the way you think He's supposed to do, so I don't put limits on Him, like you, jerry, or others do.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/10/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Evolution belief is a religion all it's own. Evolution says you are a " human being " evolved from apes. Yet Yahshua created "man" a creation after his own image. Fossil records prove modern man existed before our known recorded history. Modern man fossilized footprints have been found in the same fossilized mud with dinosaurs in many places like the Paluxey River in Texas. If anything man is going through devolution because of his corruption and wickedness. To remove Yashua means you make man just another species of animal. Then you can justify things like abortion, genocide, holocosts, etc. After all we then can destroy the lower forms of human life...They are only apes. Lose God, Lose Freedom.
---Neptune0461 on 2/10/12


I didn't say computers were like evolution, other than they both share one thing in common: the apostles never talked about either one.

But since you are always going on about how evolution opposes Genesis, because the days in Genesis must necessarily be 24 hours long, please tell me how long the day in Genesis 2:17 is?
(i.e. "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"), yet Adam lived for hundreds of years?

And the explanation "he died a spiritual death" isn't adequate, because nowhere else in the Old Testament does "die" not mean "physically die", does it? (I mean, you are so sure "day" always means the same thing...)
---StrongAxe on 2/10/12

StrongAxe, to compare evolution to computers etc is somewhat ridiculous. Evolution is directly opposed by all teaching in Scripture regarding creation. There is nothing there to support such a view, only the opposite. Conversely computers and such do not of themselves constitute anything antiBiblical, while evolution does.

Believing God used evolution to create is directly akin to the theme of Isaiah, and Jeremiah where the people acted directly in opposition to God's word, and His commands, faithlessly worshiping other gods. And they were drastically punished because of this sin. Roman's 14:23 "..... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."
---Warwick on 2/10/12

Cluny, whenever creation is mentioned in Scripture it is 6-day supernatural creation by the power of God. In Jesus our Creator we see the power of God displayed, and His miracles and creative acts were purely supernatural, never involving long ages.

Conversely evolution proceeds on naturalistic processes and requires long ages. The statement that God is supernatural Creator is directly opposed to evolution.
---Warwick on 2/10/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

StrongAxe it is you who misses the point. God creates purely via supernatural power. No naturalistic processes required. He can of course use naturalistic processes (which He supernaturally created) which He manipulates by supernatural power, to achieve His ends.

On the other hand evolution-the appearance of life, and the appearance of new kinds of creatures is an imagined purely naturalistic process. As imagined there is no need for God. Splicing our supernatural God into an imagined naturalistic process is foolishness, just as many famous atheistic scientists have said. They describe it as laughable!
---Warwick on 2/10/12


You missed my point. Supernatural effects are, but for them to have any meaning in OUR natural world, they must interact with our natural world, and produce natural results through natural laws.

Supernatural fire and brimstone in Sodom produced natural burning and destruction. Superatural conception in Mary produced natural fetal development and birth in Jesus. Supernatural healing by Jesus produced natural sight, hearing, etc.

Besides, your argument about evolution vs. orthodoxy is with Cluny, not me, as I am not orthodox.

Evolution is not "part of orthodoxy", but neither are computers, electricity, blogs. So if you reject one on that basis, you must necessarily reject the others.
---StrongAxe on 2/10/12

\\This was an instaneous, supernatural act, and it required neither naturalistic processes or long ages. This is what the Apostles taught and it is at its core ANTI-EVOLUTION. \\

Please give book, chapter, and verse where ANYTHING the Apostles wrote is anti-evolution. (David, whom you quoted, was NOT an apostle.)

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/10/12

MarkAxe: "supernatural effects ... MUST NECESSARILY work through natural processes."

You do understand what SUPERNATURAL means, don't you? While supernatural processes may indeed have an effect on the natural world, they, by definition, are NOT natural processes. For example:

Psa 33:6, 9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. ... For he spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast.

This was an instaneous, supernatural act, and it required neither naturalistic processes or long ages. This is what the Apostles taught and it is at its core ANTI-EVOLUTION.

Thank you for admitting that the Evolution is not included in Orthodoxy.
---jerry6593 on 2/10/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

\\happenstance played no part in it.\\

I've never said that happenstance played any part in it.

In fact, I've denied this proposition.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/10/12

Strongaxe, you forget that before the natural existed ourt supernatural God had been there from eternity. And before the natural existed He created the heavens and the earth, and all that is in it supernaturally with no assistance from the natural.

He does not need matter upon which to work, He speaks and matter appears. Neither does He need time.
---Warwick on 2/10/12


You forget that any supernatural effects that affect our natural world MUST NECESSARILY work through natural processes.

God rained supernatural fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, and this was devastating. Why? Because they produced NATURAL fire that burned those cities using NATURAL combustion processes.

God created manna and quail for the Israelites in the desert. Why were these beneficial? Because they were NATURALLY edible.

In several places, God cursed people with various plagues and diseases, etc. - which all had natural consequences.

These would have been meaningless if they did not work through natural means.
---StrongAxe on 2/9/12

The question remains: Does evolution conflict with orthodox Christian teaching. The answer is simple because God's word is at its core supernatural and does not allow for naturalistic evolutionary processes to have caused the origin of life, nor the creation of new kinds of creatures.

God's word is clear that He created the world in 6 days, only thousands of years ago and that time and happenstance played no part in it. If this cannot be believed then language has no reliable meaning and God's word is a lie. Atheistic scientists have long ridiculed Christians who propose the idea that God used evolution/billions of years to create. And for good reason: there is no need for God in evolution and God has no need of evolution.
---Warwick on 2/9/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


OK, I'll answer your question directly. NO the Apostles did not teach theistic evolution, and NO they did not teach AGAINST theistic evolution either. Because nobody had thought of the concept at that time. So you cannot deduce what they believed about the subject from total silence. The only thing one can deduce is that they had no opinion on the subject at all - just as they had no opinions in television, the internet, and many other things that nobody would think of for almost two millenia later.
---StrongAxe on 2/9/12

\\You may not be aware of this, but computers were not yet invented in 1915, when EGW died\\

You may not be aware of this, but evolution was not an issue at the time of the apostles.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/9/12

Cluny and MarkAxe: You may not be aware of this, but computers were not yet invented in 1915, when EGW died. Such a response is a blatant attempt to dodge the question. Evolution, in any form, is an alternate concept to the instantaneous Creation described in the Bible. As such, it addresses not only the person of the Creator, but His methods, and the veracity of His recorded Creation account - all of which are religious topics, and thus relevant to Orthodoxy.

Why do you resist answering a simple, direct question concerning the Orthodoxy to which you so tenaciously cling?

---jerry6593 on 2/9/12

Tell you what, jerry.

You answer my question about whether EGW approved of computer use, and I'll answer yours.

Fair enough?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/7/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

All I know & all I believe is, In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE.John 1-3
---Reba on 2/7/12


You asked: Again, was Theistic Evolution taught by the Apostles - YES or NO?

No, because it wasn't relevant at the time, and neither were televangelism and internet blogging. If you only believe things they taught, why are you here?
---StrongAxe on 2/7/12

\\You make no sense whatsoever\\

I forgot to mention that you must understand that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and the wisdom of this world ("makes sense") is foolishness with God, and what "makes no sense" could be Divine Wisdom.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/7/12

Cluny: Ho-hum...

Again, was Theistic Evolution taught by the Apostles - YES or NO?

---jerry6593 on 2/7/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing

\\Cluny: That's looney! You make no sense whatsoever. Again, was Theistic Evolution taught by the Apostles - YES or NO?\\

I thought you could see the parallel.

Just as computers were not an issue during the days of EGW, so any kind of evolution was not an issue in the days of the Apostles.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/6/12

StrongAxe: I always though the 'average' height was the 'average adult's' height, so the percentage who were adults did not make a difference.

I'll add another reason: Both my grandfathers were about 6 feet. My father and mother both grew up in the early 1940s, when people (in Greece) were dieing of starvation. Both are about 5'4". The I was born in an age where there was food, and I came out 6 feet.

Diet also has something to do with it
---Peter on 2/4/12

Cluny: That's looney! You make no sense whatsoever. Again, was Theistic Evolution taught by the Apostles - YES or NO?

---jerry6593 on 2/4/12


There are two good explanations for why the average American is taller now than two centuries ago.

First, life expectancy has increased, so full-sized adults make up a larger portion of the population, since they live longer past puberty.

Second, most people eat meats fed with growth hormones to bring them to maturity faster. These hormones survive in the meat, so we ingest them ourselves. This makes us also grow up taller, and also makes us achieve puberty earlier than hefore.
---StrongAxe on 2/4/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises

I don't think mud is very much conflict for the sun. But if you step in it . . .

I was taught that in scientific method, first you form an educated guess (a "hypothesis"), then do tests to check it out. If numerous people's experiments show the idea to be true, it becomes a theory, then a law. But evolution can't be clearly tested, can it? So, it can't even be a scientific guess, then, I consider.

Do you think physical genes evolved us to experience God's love?
---Bill_willa6989 on 2/4/12

\\Cluny: Specifically, what part, kind, type, etc. of Evolution was taught by the Apostles? Isn't that the definition of Orthodox teaching?\\

Specifically, what part of computer use was taught by EGW? Isn't that the definition of SDA teaching?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/4/12

Cluny: Specifically, what part, kind, type, etc. of Evolution was taught by the Apostles? Isn't that the definition of Orthodox teaching?

---jerry6593 on 2/4/12

Further thoughts:

That there are are variations and development in a species are scientific facts. For example, the average American is taller than 200 years ago. George Washington was outstanding in his time for being 6/3--but such men are commonly seen today.

According to most evolutionary models, enough genetic variation over enough generations will produce a new species.

But are these variations random?

If God marks every falling sparrow, collects our tears, and counts the hairs of our heads, I do not think these variations are random, but are part of His providence.

Even my illnesses (gout, diabetes, et al) are under His control.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/4/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Atoms never disobey the laws of physics. They merely obey multiple laws. There is an electrical force that repels objects of similar charges. There are also strong and weak nuclear forces that attract particles that are very close together. So a group of positive protons can stick together to form the nucleus of an atom, even though they are all positive, because the nuclear force holding them together is stronger than the electrical force that is pulling them apart.
---StrongAxe on 2/3/12

What kind of evolution are you taking about?

There are several forms of this theory, and it's inaccurate to speak of evolution as a monolithic groupthink model.

It might conflict with SDA, but SDA is not Orthodox Christianity, but rather an Arian-Neogalatian heresy.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/12

only if you think evolution is a god. Evolution is a science (sometimes wrong sometimes right) just like the science of atoms. An atom disobeys some of the laws of physics. For example a group of + protons grouped together. Nature sometimes obeys evolutionary principles like adaptation and sometimes does not.
---Scott1 on 2/3/12

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.