How we as humans came to be

[firstpusk]

Since we have example of insects in the fossil record that predate Leviticus by millions of years, what we can conclude is the author of this did not carefully observe what he was writing about. Insects don't have four legs and the author was simply mistaken. We shouldn't read the Bible looking for scientific explanations.

[littlebillie]

so the Bible is NOT the given word of God, and where it is that God has spoken is wide open to human error??? Given that, how do you know what's accurate and what's errored? We need to pick an choose from the parts of the Bible that which is real and that which is a mistake?

 

now THAT'S a whole 'nother can of worms, ain't it?!

[evmori]

The entire Bible is fact. Not parts. The entire book. We must remember that there are stories (parables) used as teaching tools by Jesus. The stories might not be true but they were told by Jesus. Now someone might say (and probably will) that my prior statement is not true. Well it is. It is because the stories were told not whether they are true or not.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

Leviticus is interesting but hardly a required article of faith for a Christian, modern or otherwise. I suppose you won't eat shrimp or lobster because of the prohibitions earlier in the eleventh chapter of Leviticus.

 

I know and understand that many American Christians approach the Bible as both of you do. However, you must understand that this is an approach that is not shared by all or even most other Christians. Going back to the time of St. Augustine it is clear that he did not feel a literal interpretation of Genesis was necessary.

 

I also know that you may not agree with me. That is certainly your right and I respect your beliefs. I simply do not agree that yours is the proper approach to the text in question. I would not agree with the approach of Biblical literalists that the entire Bible is fact. I believe this book provides us with truth. Some is historical, some about human nature, some about our relationship with God and each other, but I can't find any texts that could be remotely considered scientific. That is okay with me because I don't think the people that wrote the Bible understood or care a fig about science.

 

You can view this as a can of worms if you like. I feel it is simply using the marvelous mind that God gave each of us.

[Venturer2002]

According to Merle LeRoy science is all based on theory, and mathematics is the only subject with such formalities as 100% accurate laws.

 

If this is the case, than why do you claim that creationism is bunk? Based on your own statement, you cannot without a doubt prove to me that C-14 dating is 100% accurate, that humans evolved, or that your theory is correct.

 

Because of this, you must be operating under your faith. I reached this conclusion based on the following principles:

 

a) the ideas you base your opinions on are, according to your own statements, unprovable.

 

b) because you cannot prove your statements, you must have formed your convictions based on the faith that they are correct.

 

 

c) this translates into the fact that you, a self-proclaimed atheist, are indeed a theist of some sort.

 

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

Merle's statements defining the differences between science and mathematics were an effort to explain that science is tentative and does not use "proofs" in the sense one does in geometry.

 

Instead science, working in the real world must recognize real world limitations. You demand proof without doubt that C14 dating is 100% accurate, that humans evolved and the theory of evolution is correct. This is not the way science works. Each of the questions you have proposed are different kinds of problems.

 

Let's just start with C14 dating. When a plant or animal dies, the C14 they contain will start to decay over time. The percentage of C14 and rate at which it decays is a clock that can be used to measure within a certain error factor when it breathed its last. Note that this error factor is always given as part of the age calculated. An example is the trees found lived 37,587 years ago plus or minus a number of years. That number gives one an idea of around when an event occurs. By its very nature all measurement in science has error and one always seeks to quantify such error in order to validate the measurement. Any decent general science course will teach this concept. More than one sample will be tested to ensure accuracy and factors that might skew the date are taken into account. The C14 date alone will be checked against other facts to further validate the date such as a the placement of the sample in the geological strata.

 

With that in mind, creationism is bunk because a concept like radiometric dating is misrepresented intentionally by some and this is accepted out of ignorance by others. As I indicated earlier, C14 is measured both against itself by testing more than one sample and against other lines of evidence in order to establish a plausible date not an absolutely accurate one.

 

Given the evidence, one can be fairly certain about the accuracy of radiometric dating, the fact that humans have evolved and that we have a pretty good idea about the factors that influence evolution. Will there be refinements and reassessments? I am more certain about that. Is this the same as religious faith? Not by a long shot. The perspectives are different as well as the aims and outcomes. I don't think theism comes into it at all. The church I go to doesn't tell me I can't accept evolution and still be a Christian. My understanding of God is something that does not stand or fall on the basis of evolution. I don't believe in evolution but I do accept it.

[littlebillie]

"creationism is bunk because a concept like radiometric dating is misrepresented intentionally by some..."

 

Well, an omnipotent, omnisicient Force could have devised a Creation with some amount of decay already in place, if not to show us what was, then the possible logic of how it could have come to be. otherwise - still assuming a Creator - it's a deception.

 

So - would God allow deception in His Creation, a flaw in His Handiwork, even to test our faith? I'd say no. Should we foresake science? I'd say no, again.

 

Should we find a way to see our world in a way that let's religion (God's light to our souls) and science (God's light to our minds) find common ground?

 

Here, I gotta say at least maybe. I don't think we should set faith against knowledge, or knowledge against faith, but rather figure out how these sometimes conflicting, often confusing world views can be broght together in harmony.

 

God would not have given us intelligence with nothing to use it on - THAT would be a punishment...

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

evmori, that's neither here nor there, argument-wise, is it?

 

even so, I'll counter with - after One builds petrified wood - or you build a birdhouse - why are there still trees?

 

or better, to help reign in human hubris and keep us reminded that the clay of our creation remains humble...

[firstpusk]

"Well, an omnipotent, omnisicient Force could have devised a Creation with some amount of decay already in place, if not to show us what was, then the possible logic of how it could have come to be. otherwise - still assuming a Creator - it's a deception."

 

littlebillie,

 

I agree with you on this. Why would a loving God so deceive us? We were given minds with the ability to unravel the mysteries of our world. I think God would expect us to apply that mind. This is a troublesome issue for many biblical Christians and I don't have an answer that will resolve it for them. I think this is where faith is supposed to come in.

 

 

"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

 

Ed,

 

I think that you misunderstand the question on several levels. First, the claim of evolutionary science is that we share a common ancestor with the great apes. No one other than creationists claims that we evolved from chimps or gorillas. Second, apes and monkeys survive because they have found environments to live in that suit them. Finally, I think there is a logical flaw in your whole presumption. My children decended from his parents and grandparents. Why am I and my parents still around?

 

 

[littlebillie]

Ed,

 

In the giving of the law, I'll assume there were no parables or allegories, for the most part (I realize there are some who interpret a change in the dietary laws, but that's another issue).

 

So - if the Bible is all true, what happened to the 4 legged crickets? Did they evolve into 6 legged crickets? How is this addressed by Biblical literalists? I haven't really heard much about this and I'm sincerely interestd.

 

[evmori]

To me, evolution means something evolved from something else like we came from monkeys. Comparing my post to trees is ludicrous. And stating your children decended from your grandparents is just as bad. Both are people!

 

Darwin was the one, not creationists who started the evolution theory. Creationists argue that all things were created by God & nothing, especially humans, evolved from soemthing else. Oh yeah, God did make man from clay & He made woman for man. Nothing evolved. LIfe adapts! I know nothing about these crickets. Did you ever think of the possibility they became extinct? Could be!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

littlebillie,

 

We are not just talking about crickets but "...all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." So it is not one species but hundreds of thousands if not millions of insect species. As I indicated in an earlier post, there are no 4 legged insects in the fossil record only six legged ones. The record goes back a long time before the time of Leviticus and they simply aren't there. What you are asking is that all of these many species of six legged bugs somehow change to four legged ones and back again.

 

Ed,

 

I realize the analogy that I used was not clear to you. You are related to your parents, cousins and siblings. Your coming into existence did not mean they had to all die. The same is true about related species. Extend your arguement and only one species could exist at a time.

 

Your definition of evolution is not correct. It is defined as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. This encompasses both the small changes you grant as "adaption" and the greater changes between species.

 

You not accepting evolution does not make it go away. You can choose to ignore it on religious grounds, but it does not change the fact that the evidence supporting the theory gets stronger every day.

[littlebillie]

firstpusk,

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure the fossil record is sparse on ANYthing with wings and four legs. but I'm not trying to deal with the fossil record here, but Biblical literalism. Since those who argue against evolution a la Darwin have a standard kit that argues against the fossil record, I'm just trying to see if we can find any Biblical clues that there has been evolution.

 

Now, many anti-evolutionists recognize adaptation (moth colors in post-Industrial revolution England for a classic example), but do NOT see that as any real proof of evolution.

 

Since the Bible mentions 4 legged crickets, ETC. (I think the point gets made with even one example, and I find cricket easier to type than katydid or grasshopper), and I suggest it would be decptive for the given Word of God to call something a cricket when it isn't, or describe a cricket inaccurately. If I am granted this - and this, regardless of the fossil record - then we have, perhaps, a Biblical indication of evolution, without using the fossil record against which some have a preferred list of arguments.

 

frankly, I think the fosil record, and seethe of species - evolution, if you will - adds far more to God's glory than a simple here-ya-go, take it or leave it creation.

 

but that's just me :-)

[firstpusk]

littlebillie,

 

I kind of figured that was where you were heading with this. I would agree that any biblical sources documenting evolution would carry a lot more weight than the fossil record. However, insects were among the earlier species to develop on land (405 million years ago). The basic body plan three segments, six legs, etc, has been stable for a pretty long time. So I don't buy the argument.

 

However, I do agree with you that what I call evolution adds tremendously to my sense of wonder over the gift of life on this beautiful earth.