Creation vs. Evolution

[sandjeep]

Warthaug said,

I don't differentiate between the two - as I said above - the concept of micro vs macro-evolution is largely a creationist creation, and not really a part of modern evolutionary theory.

Ok, bottom line your thoughts here. Did Mankind Evolve from a lower life form that was NOT human?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Both. When asked to explain the conflict between GenI and GenII you quoted two passages which do not even begin to address the issue (or for that matter, could be seen to directly refer to either chapters of Genesis specifically).

I answered the question by stating that Part of Gen 2 was an elaboration on part od Gen 1. That's my answer and I disagree that there is any conflict to resolve.

And the original question in regards to slavery was, in essence, "why do biblical literalists not demand that slavery be reintroduced". We've deviated far from that question, but I think I provided ample references from the bible demonstrating that:

a) The "rightness" of slavery is supported by both the old and new testament.
b) The slavery which existed, and is described in the bible, is "true" slavery not just indentured servitude.

I disagree that "the rightness of slavery" is supported by the Bible. While war, slavery and all manor of ugly things did and do exist and show up in the Bible they are a product of mans rebellion against God. About the only suggestion I have for some one who could read the whole Bible and think it's teaching us to enslave others, is to read it again. If anything the Bible teaches us to serve eachother and to serve God so to formulate a very direct answer to your question "why do biblical literalists not demand that slavery be reintroduced"....

I don't enslave others or ask that I be allowed to because it seems completely incompatable with Gods commands and Biblical teachings to serve others and God.

I don't care to try to speak for other "biblical literalists".

Incidentally, the very chapters I quoted in regards to slavery were used before the civil war as an excuse for slavery, and in those days the institution of slavery was vigorously defended by churches we now label as "literalists". Surely God's will hasn't changed that much over the last couple of centuries?

People do all sorts of wickedness and justify and rationalize it any way they can. Pre-civil war Americans wanted slaves and wanted to believe that the Bible told them it's ok. You would like to make...I don't know...some sort of point...and therefor you seem to want to believe that the Bible says slavery is ok. I don't believe that the condoning of slavery is at all the point of any scripture and think that both you and the pre-civil war slavers are wrong.

And neither of those questions have been answered. Neither, for that matter, (to come back to the original question which lead to the two above questions), was the question answered as to why the biblical literalist movement is so selective in the parts they take literally...

Bryan

I can't speak for the "biblical literalist movement". I'm not part of any movement and they don't keep me up to date on what they do or why. I try to understand Gods word so that I can know God better and be closer to God. I try to understand it all but I'm afraid that I have a long way to go. If I am at all selective, it's not the least bit intentional and all I have to say is that I'm not finished yet. I try (though I often fail) to apply Biblical principles to my own life so that I might better please God and because I believe that Gods advice is sound and things will work out better, for all concerned, if I take it.

If I still haven't answered your questions, I'm afraid that I just don't know how to. For the present, at least, we may just have to live with that. I do have a suggestion as to how you might get more complete answeres that you might find more satisfactory but you might not like the suggestion. Heck, it works for me so I'll go ahead and tell you. I ask, in prayer, for understanding and that I might "get" what I am supposed to and then I read the Bible. When I'm confused or have doubts I lay those things on God and then I read. I told you that you probably wouldn't like it but that's what I do and it works.

 

[H2Andy]

Ok, bottom line your thoughts here. Did Mankind Evolve from a lower life form that was NOT human?

yes

more specifically, we branched off from the chimp line about 5 million years back
(cant' recall exact figure).

before that, our ancestor (a proto-primate) goes back to the time of the dinosaurs, about 65 million years ago.

the first primates emerged from that proto-primate around 17 million years ago.

the human species' ancestors emerged within the primates sometime around 5 million years go (from the same line as all the other apes, including people, chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc.)

Homo sapiens archaic emerged about 400,000 years ago

Homo sapiens neanderthalis emerged about 200,000 years ago

Homo sapiens sapiens (us) emerged roughly at the same time


while there are bound to be tweaks (particularly time-wise, which seems to keep creeping back with older fossils being found), this picture is well established and stable, and i doubt it will change in any significant way.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Warthaug said,



Ok, bottom line your thoughts here. Did Mankind Evolve from a lower life form that was NOT human?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned something that I recently read which was was that primates and bats share a common ancestor. Some sort of a bat-monkey I guess. It's been a while but I don't remember them presenting any explanaition as to how they arived at that conclusion.

 

[H2Andy]

Some sort of a bat-monkey I guess.

no, then it wouldn't be an ancestor

it would have been an animal which led both to monkeys and to bats, but was neither a monkey nor a bat

however, i am not exactly sure that this theory has been accepted by the scientific community. it's certainly one of several proposed theories.

btw, if you want scientific answers, don't go to the popular press for them.

here's a good summary of how the bat-primate common ancestor issue came about:

http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Flying-Primate-Sourcebook.htm

 

[Hank49]

yes

more specifically, we branched off from the chimp line about 5 million years back
(cant' recall exact figure).

before that, our ancestor (a proto-primate) goes back to the time of the dinosaurs, about 65 million years ago.

the first primates emerged from that proto-primate around 17 million years ago.

the human species' ancestors emerged within the primates sometime around 5 million years go (from the same line as all the other apes, including people, chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc.)

Homo sapiens archaic emerged about 400,000 years ago

Homo sapiens neanderthalis emerged about 200,000 years ago

Homo sapiens sapiens (us) emerged roughly at the same time


while there are bound to be tweaks (particularly time-wise, which seems to keep creeping back with older fossils being found), this picture is well established and stable, and i doubt it will change in any significant way.

I think that's a bit presumptuous. All it means is that we've found fossils and bones of those that date back that many years. In 100,000 years or a million (or so) many things could have happened (disease, localized volcanic eruptions, tidal waves etc etc)along the way almost depleting populations that then came back again...perhaps time and time again. The fossils of minute, first group populations could be scattered anywhere which we've yet to find. I don't argue the basics of evolution but I don't think we've scratched the surface as far as how it all went down.

 

[Midnight Star]

There must be something in this "bat monkey" theory thing ... my friend always says his kids act just like chimpanzees, and his wife is a bit "flighty"

Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.

-----

Mike.

 

[H2Andy]

I think that's a bit presumptuous.

well, ok then

as to there being fossils we haven't yet found, that is true but misses the point

we know where we ended up (us), and we have a limited time frame to go back to cover, so i doubt there are many big surprises left

changes to the timeline? sure. revisions to what earlier hominids could and could not do? sure

that there was a human species with wings? i sincerely doubt it

 

[Soggy]

nevermind...I'm just cranky...

 

[adurso]

Warthaug said,



Ok, bottom line your thoughts here. Did Mankind Evolve from a lower life form that was NOT human?

Yes. And if you ever met my mother-in-law you would never doubt this again....