Ship of Fools: final proof?????

Thread: final proof????? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028608

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

Is the debate now over? is this proof that our quest to find if we are created or part of evolution ?

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Of course not. Even the "may be" of the article title hints at the uncertainty.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The debate was finally over about 80 or 90 years ago.

And even if it wasn't, of what relevance would one fossil be? Fossils can be of help in trying to understand the history of some organisms (including ourselves) but they are hardly needed to believe that evolution actually occurs.

Human-like fossils always get huge publicity - and are often quite badly reported. That article includes the phrase "missing link" which makes me wonder if the writers have any idea what they are talking about.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
... if we are created or part of evolution ?

Why should it be an either/or?

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
... if we are created or part of evolution ?
Why should it be an either/or?

I do not understand how can it be ether all the Bible is very clear about the age of the Earth.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

<sniffs the glue ... >

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Is this is a dead horse topic?

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

Nope although people are trying to turn it in to one I am looking at the evidence supplied of the missing link only.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

"Missing link" is a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no missing link between anything and anything. There are many transitional forms. Possibly this is one of them. Nothing more. There's no debate.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
... if we are created or part of evolution ?
Why should it be an either/or?
I do not understand how can it be ether all the Bible is very clear about the age of the Earth.

I'm sure this is dead horse territory, but as long as we remain here I'll chime in.

The Bible says no such thing. A very small minority of Christians interpret the Bible to say that, it is far from the only or even majority view.

The Bible is clear that like all things in heaven and earth, humans are created beings. Beyond that, the Bible is clear that we are uniquely created "in the image of God'. The Bible is silent on exactly how that creation came to be, in what timetable-- heck it's even silent on what precisely it means to be "in the image of God"-- other than noting that whatever it is, it is something common to both male and female.

That being the case, there is absolutely no reason why it can't be both. And, indeed, that is the position of the majority of Christians, including most Christian scholars, even evangelicals.

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

oh okay sounds cool just thought you christian types believed that I know I used to.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Riverfalls to the contrary, this clearly belongs elswhere.

John Holding
Purgatory Host

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I read the story in other papers the other day. It raises some interesting insights, but doesn't really add anything spectacularly new to the story of hominid evolution. We now have a fossil hominid older than any other previously found, and in a location far removed from the hominid fossils we've found from about the same age. What we know now that we didn't last month is that hominids evolved slightly earlier that we previously had evidence for, and that they were more widely distributed than previously thought.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

And if the fossil is accepted by the (relevant bits of the) scientific community as genuine, then the various theories will be adjusted to accommodate for it, and the science of human origins will be thereby strengthened. Where's the problem?

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
I do not understand how can it be ether all the Bible is very clear about the age of the Earth.

'Very clear'? Really?
Only if you are trying to interpret the text literally, [one account of which is poetry] and only if you think that 'truth' is only confined to what can be measured in a test tube as fact, and perhaps only if you can reconcile the conflicting order in the creation accounts in Genesis.

I've often wondered why it is of such importance to interpret the creation accounts literally, and why evolution would necessarily 'disprove' God? Can someone help me out on this and explain to this bear of little brain why it matters?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
I am looking at the evidence supplied of the missing link only.

What do you mean by "missing link"? Of what relevance do you think it is to evolution? The words used to mean some hypothetical living "apeman" intermediate between humans and chimps. That belongs in Tarzan books, not biology.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

joan knox:

quote:
I've often wondered why it is of such importance to interpret the creation accounts literally, and why evolution would necessarily 'disprove' God? Can someone help me out on this and explain to this bear of little brain why it matters?

Well, as far as the Genesis accounts go, the literalists need somewhere to hang their hats and the Bible is IT. If the Bible isn't right (factual?) backwards and forwards how can we depend on it to be right about everything. God wouldn't be playing fair if we were given a manual that was inaccurate.

Besides evolution is all about happenstance and coincidence. One trait pops up willy-nilly and it works and generations of a happy new strain take advantage. Another trait causes sudden catastrophe and basta! they are out of the game. This is way too anarchic for a created world. If God is anything, he is the Man With a Plan, from the First Day to the Apocalypse.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

I guess I just don't understand how one can be a literalist given the diversity of genres used in the various texts. Ah well, different [dead] horses for courses - but I've always thought that faith and proof are very different things anyway. But I suspect I'm going off into a hermeneutical tangent, so shall stop.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Genres, schmenres. It just takes some "plain reading" -and thinking- and don't let it all get too complicated. [Biased]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Creationist Headline: New Find Shows Two New Gaps In Fossil Record [Big Grin]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
I guess I just don't understand how one can be a literalist given the diversity of genres used in the various texts.

Easily. They texts mean what they mean, and the genre and tone and original authorship is part of that. So history is history and letters are letters and jokes are jokes and insulting rants are insulting rants and "Thus saith the LORD!" prophecies are the words of God.

Which is why proper serious fundamentalists and Biblical literalists didn't on the whole support YEC back in the early 20th century. The late 20th-century advance of YEC came from poor hermeneutics. And mostly, I have to say, from pentecostalists and other newish church movements, rather than from hardline conservative evangelicals in the more "reformed" tradition who tended to have more bottom to their theology.

Really, honestly...

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Creationist Headline: New Find Shows Two New Gaps In Fossil Record

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I'm prepared, with no agenda, to be skeptical about the details of evolution. There is a great deal that we just don't know.

But if one is skeptical of evolutionary biology because of imagined conflicts with the Bible's supposed account of creation and the age of the earth-- there is just too much evidence against such a literal reading to be credible. As Cliffdweller has noted, it isn't even good theology. Saint Augustine of Hippo realized that it was silly. Then, all paleontology aside, YEC contradicts astronomical reasoning about the age of the universe. I've never seen even an attempt to engage this evidence. The most notorious creationist smart-ass in the Amazon forums claims that he has no problem with astronomy. I wish he would explain, but he doesn't care to build an argument, only gainsay the statements of others like a bot. For a biblical literalist to focus on evolutionary biology as though it's all that stands in his way looks like a cop-out to me.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0