Father Petroniu from Mount Athos-Creationism vs Evolution

[whitesquirrel7]

why should anything they say be of value just becuase they are monks

these are the same women hating bigots who bar all female things from their island

[Gunnarr123abc]

@whitesquirrel7 By your logic you are a religion hating bigot, so you have no value in your words. Be gone, then!

[goshawk0]

0:33 The pillars of sin are: Ignorance, Forgetfulness and Carelessness..... I take this to mean seek knowledge, truth/wisdom and mindfulness of others and our eventuality. I have saved this video for awhile, there is so much truth in it. for those that like to find little DNA/order of science errors in Father Petroniu's statement. read Douglas R. Hofstadter.. an AI profesor/pulitzer prize winner's book. He scrutinizes the same philosophy to the utmost degree but comes to much the same truth.

[ciplogic]

Anti-evolution I think hurts Christianity at large, because make it look ignorant. Reusing his words: "if someone wants to belong to monkey, is his/her wish" is like: "if you believe that Earth is ellipsoid, it's your wish, or revolve around the sun" Pope agrees with evolution, more than 95% of people that have a word about it believe in it, but not because they don't have a Genesis book at home, but because it can prove, the same as Earth spinning or it is a sphere.

[BakinKoljac]

@ciplogic

a problem is also that the spinning of the earth and her sphere-shape is teached by the bible, too.

the evolution has not such a support in it. i think its different to compare this issues.

[innocentul]

a word can be turn down by other word.. that's the work of satan.. he loves "the wisdom" "philosophia".. he's good at that.. but Gos can be seen only with the heart not with the mind.. after that knowledge , with the heart, the mind will understand too but will can't explaine it to others yet will can tell them to find the truuth with theyr hearts..in two words.. be humble you man or female who ever you see these and you will understand

[leruf]

I think the main flaw in Father Petroniu's argument is that he assumes evolution postulates that man created himself. This is simply not true. Evolution does not alter the fact that all life comes from God, and even an atheist would never say that man created himself. However, I am not going to deny that evolution is often abused as an excuse to discount traditional morality, but such instances are no different from the gospel being abused an an excuse for the crusades.

[iooliani]

People are not consistent. They found a triagle drawn on the sand somewhere being that someplace on the earth or on the moon, or even some other planet and they instantly come to the conclusion: there must be some inteligence behind it, some inteligent being that no one knows what does it look like must have drawn that triangle. Yet they look at the perfect lawa that governs this world and they say, hmm this is the random...

[ghostmast3r]

nicely said :)

[veritiskaja]

Very beutiful....

[VeritasLiber]

The irony is the Tomatoes he's going on about being so perfect are the result of domestication of wild currant tomatoes from Mexico. If they're perfect, he's thanking the wrong 'creator'.

All I'm seeing is wishful thinking trying to bulldoze an observed reality.

On the upside...he has a marvelous speaking voice. I could listen to this guy talk all day.

[revenant101]

Regardless of whether the tomatoes he spoke of are domesticated or not, the Creator - God - remains the same. As for your comment about "wishful thinking" Orthodox Christians would argue that those who deny the existence of our Lord are often the very people doing their best to deny true "observed reality." By denying the existence of God, without true, proper exploration, people relieve themselves of the responsibility to lead their lives according to God's will. -- Explore Orthodoxy!

[VeritasLiber]

But he's attributing their perfection to God when it merely came from man. There is deep irony there and the obviousness that he is merely willing to see the hand of God when it is not there.

And in what manner can you say the existence of god is apparent in 'observed reality'?

[OrthodoxChristian3]

do he is using the example of the tomatoe's difference from the other vegetables as representative of how we are different from every other creature, growing in our own way and in context set apart from all of Creation for a purpose as all things are. He also uses it as an example of plant instinct, which cannot yet be understood by science, proving the existence of a Creator, God AllMighty

[VeritasLiber]

Bad argument.

If something is not understood, it's not proof of invisible creatures. All that is yet not understood is not proof but merely something that feeds the delusion that something must be responsible for the things you yourself have not bothered to try and understand.

And that list of the not-understood is growing smaller every day.

p.s. Plant Instinct? Horticulture works because we know how and why plants do a geat many things.

[OrthodoxChristian3]

its not that it is not understood that is the proof but it is the nature of instinct itself...even in "mindless" plants....evolution is clearly false when pressed against such questions such as, How did instinct get here? How do plants know when to do and how to do all its processess. We understand acquired knowledge but not instinct, according to evolution, the acquired knowledge must somehow be transfered in instinct to the next gen. how is this so? how can a plant acquire knowledge?

[VeritasLiber]

For starters the evolutionary benefitial passing on of instinctual behavior is covered in Origin of Species.

But lets say you did bring up a topic we don't actually know about. Let's say the events that preceded the Big Bang for an example. To cling to the fact we don't currently know as something to be cherished as a wonder unto itself is not enlightenment. It's just dwelling in ignorance and being proud of it for some strange reason..

[Twycross]

If you think pride has any room in Orthodoxy I think you know less about it than you claim that OC3 knows about evolution.

[VeritasLiber]

Supernatural all-knowing all-powerful entity that is always aware of every moment of your life and listens to everything you have to say? An entire universe that serves no other purpose than to house the human race?

Ya, no pride in that.

[Twycross]

Faith is like love. You can't prove either one. You can see some things that hint to either or but you can't hold out a hand full of love or a bag of faith. You believe in love? Then what we are disputing are the details, which in and by themselves aren't as important but important none the less.

I wouldn't say the entire universe serves no other purpose than such a thing. That is not my belief nor is it relevant to my faith. Again I don't see pride. The notion is unOrthodox.

[VeritasLiber]

I believe in the idea of love but love is subjective. What one would call love another could refute and both are correct. But belief in something proves nothing or shall we empty the insane asylums?

[Twycross]

You see when you don't have a good point of focus, a good platform to stand on you fall under the notion of moral relativity.

I think there is a difference we can both notice between the man above in the video speaking and people in insane asylums. Examples like that do nothing to further the discussion and are just made for shock value.

[Twycross]

You know "Why?" Okay. Why?

[VeritasLiber]

Not sure which comment your referring to. A little more information please.

[Twycross]

I replied to you in the order that you wrote your comments. So my first reply goes with your first comment, the 2nd with your 2nd and so on and so forth. (not fourth ;P )

[VeritasLiber]

I do not see where I ask a "why" question.

[Twycross]

Why was in refrence to what you said that we know why plants do things. So why?

[Twycross]

Merely came from man? Let me ask you something, when you hear a nice song from an instruement do you say "wow that instrument sure can play itself" ? no you attribute the sound to the person playing it. Like wise it would be better to attribute the things of this world to its Creator.

[VeritasLiber]

You make a excellent distinction. A song has a writer...who we have physical evidence for. They exist in reality and this is easily observed. But it is a poor comparison to use a song and biological systems as they two have virtually nothing in common to start with so why would you presume they would both need a creator?

[Twycross]

Everything has a source however. And we have physical evidence for a song writer true, but the scale of comparisant is quite a bit different as well. If you notice the greater things are the harder it is to find evidence or proof of them. Even gravity is a theory and though I don't deny gravity exists, you also have to admit that by the scientific method it is still regarded as a theory.

[VeritasLiber]

"Everything has a source however. " Your making a statement you already don't agree with or shall we agree something made God?

I'm not sure you place the same value on the term 'theory' as a scientist would who regards them above 'Laws' as theories are used to proof laws.

[Twycross]

I think you assume my statement contradicts because your definition of God is perhaps lacking. God can't have a creator or else he isn't God. It doesn't apply.

My point stands.

[VeritasLiber]

You can't say "Everything has a source however. " and then claim "God can't have a creator." regardless what your definition of god may be. If you wish to claim that gods need no creator then you forfeit the claim that everything needs a source. To say otherwise would be impossible.

[Twycross]

Sure I can. Because God is outside of those physical laws. You need to be outside of them to create them, and those very laws of physics which say nothing new can be created or destroyed clearly explain that matter can't create or destroy itself.

[VeritasLiber]

Lets take a look at this then.

Since "Everything has a source" but God doesn't ANd your unwilling to change your statement that can only mean one thing.

If God is not a part of 'everything'. the only alternative is that he is a part of 'nothing'.

Ergo, god does not exist. ;)

[Twycross]

Ergo God isn't a thing. Semantics are boring.

[VeritasLiber]

The same could be said for believing in something just because you've been told to.

[Twycross]

I don't believe because i've been told to. I believe because I do. Do you love someone because you are told to or do you just do it because it's just there?

[VeritasLiber]

...So if you were born in India to a long line of Hindu parents, your telling me you would be a Christian?

[Twycross]

If I studied religions a bit yeah. My parents were Orthodox but never really devout, never really taught me anything about it. I became Orthodox by looking at other religions and contrasting it. That's how Orthodox are. I went to a monestary and in their library I found books of Islam and Buddhism and all sorts of things.

[leruf]

@VeritasLiber Actually, St. John of Damascus would agree with you--God does not exist, he is hyperessential ("above existence"). God is not a part of existence, existence is a product of God. There is a reason that Orthodox theologians didn't address the question of God's existence per se, but the Western philosophers got bent over backwards on the question.

[carnunicoleta]

God can reveal Himself if He wants to but then there will be no longer necessary to believe in His existence because you would know for sure. Right?

Therefore if He makes the prove of His existence everybody would know Him and accept Him. But God does not want that because he doesn't needs slaves. He wants people to be free and find in their own soul the likeness with His face. Then people would feel His presence.

So you do not really need to "see" things in order to understand them.

[VeritasLiber]

"God can reveal Himself if He wants to but then there will be no longer necessary to believe in His existence" but that flies in the face of the numerous occassions that god did meet with people face to face in the Old Testament. Now this is not proof of anything since every faith has old books that claim their gods manifested themselves and I doubt you give their word much credability. So you have to ask yourself why is he silent now? To me the reason is obvious. He doesn't exist.

[carnunicoleta]

Oh YES part of what you say is so right !!!

Guess Who invented the freewill ? response: God !!! :)

It is correct that He has revealed Himself to people in the Old Testament and continued to reveal Himself in The New Testament BUT only to people who have believed first ;)

So He is not restraining peoples liberty in any way.

[carnunicoleta]

In addition I just want to tell you that God is still with His people and He will remain forever because He is alive in everybody who finds the likeness with His face. Meaning they believe in Him and love Him.

And you know how love is :) the love you give is the love you receive back only in this case you usually receive more than you give or than you deserve because God is merciful and forgiving.

[carnunicoleta]

I have read the comments you posted below this video and I think you just can't believe or understand anything people are saying to you but you must know that this is ok because no one asks you to.