|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 28, 2008 8:53:46 GMT
If no fossil record is available, how can they be so sure these forms existed? Teeth, bone fragments, etc. ARE a fossil record. That's proof those forms lived before and simultaneous with Archaeopteryx. Not to mention Pedopenna, Epidendrosaurus (millions of years before Archie), and "Lori" the Morrison troodont that will be described and named soon (same time period as Archie, meaning their common ancestor must have lived earlier). The fossil record is always incomplete. Maybe humans evolved from turtles, and they only look like primates because of convergence?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 28, 2008 21:27:03 GMT
[ The fossil record is always incomplete. Maybe humans evolved from turtles, and they only look like primates because of convergence? [/quote] ;D I wouldn't say turtles specifically but certainly we evolved from reptiles. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bjeast on Oct 1, 2008 4:24:15 GMT
I'm one of those religious type guys. Go to church most Sundays. That kind of thing. And for what it's worth, I have a Ph.D. in religious studies. And .... wait for it... I'm also an evolutionist. I just don't see how anybody can't be. I mean, sure, there are problems, things we can't quite explain yet, but in terms of the broad strokes, I think it's a pretty sound theory!
But here's the deal. I don't want to get into it here, but really, we can't talk about creationists and there, ahem, questionable scientific views without talking about how they interpret the first three chapters of Genesis.
It's all about starting points when you read a sacred text. For many of you, this doesn't matter, because the texts aren’t sacred. They're just a compilation of the religious thoughts and experiences of people who lived long ago. But as soon as you grant those texts some kind of authority, like creationists and others do (a starting point), then interpretation becomes very important. In my case, I obviously don't think the texts are meant to be taken in a woodenly literal sense. They are theological narratives, meant to describe humanity's place in the world, relationships to each other, the world and God. But the one thing they aren’t, are scientific treatises. They are written from a pre-scientific point of view and there is no escaping that. To argue or imply otherwise is, at worst, intellectually dishonest, and, at best, wrong.
One more thing – the ancients who compiled those texts had more on the ball than some of the modern readers (creationists). Read Gen 1 and 2 and you’ll notice that they are two different accounts – you can’t really reconcile the details unless you go through a lot of mental gymnastics. I assume (I can’t really prove it) that the ancient redactor knew this and didn’t care because he wasn’t taking them strictly literally. He was a better author and reader than many moderns are.
Anyhow, sorry for the long post. Please don’t misunderstand me. Not trying to convert anyone, or convince anyone. Just trying to explain one position on the texts and to point out that how people read them leads to YouTube videos such as referenced here. :-)
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Oct 1, 2008 4:39:08 GMT
^^^ Very reasonable post if you ask me
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 1, 2008 8:09:58 GMT
Ehy Bjeast,nice to hear your opinion on the matter...It's always good to talk with a reasonable christian
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Oct 1, 2008 11:11:39 GMT
Hi Bjeast -- no offence whatsoever is intended by my question, just as I invite no offence for being an aetheist.
The question is this: I wonder how an evolutionist--or any scientific thinker-- can reconcile that understanding with a belief in the Bible?
As you say, the writings in the Bible are pre-scientific views, as expressed millennia ago.
However, Christ himself endorses everything in the Old Testament:
"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).
Plenty of the events and statements in the New Testament contradict the known laws of physics/biology/etc too...
I'm just interested in your thoughts on this, bjeast -- and others too! Thanks for reading. If anyone takes offense at religious discussion as it relates to Creationism, it might be best to read other threads instead.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Oct 1, 2008 18:01:25 GMT
Like bjeast said, to read the Bible as a scientific text is an aberration, it's not meant to be taken literally (to do that is worse than medieval) In my opinion, that's the fundamental mistake of the Creationists.
But even if it's pre-scientific, the Bible is not only very good literature (the way I read it) it's a sacred text for many and that hardly has to do with science. The way I see it, science doesn't have the right to disqualify it.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 1, 2008 18:25:07 GMT
Like bjeast said, to read the Bible as a scientific text is an aberration, it's not meant to be taken literally (to do that is worse than medieval) In my opinion, that's the fundamental mistake of the Creationists. But even if it's pre-scientific, the Bible is not only very good literature (the way I read it) it's a sacred text for many and that hardly has to do with science. The way I see it, science doesn't have the right to disqualify it. The real problem is that biblical literalists don't have the right to disqualify science because it contradicts a book they believe in.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Oct 1, 2008 18:38:12 GMT
Yeah, I agree, that's what I was trying to say, they are just reshuffling facts to manipulate people. But that is not religion, that's politics
|
|