Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
...
Third, complexity does not imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights, developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible complexity can emerge in society without a designer or planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.
Many creationists who are on the political Right understand the logic of this insight with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the same insights that show the futility of a state-designed economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently designed” universe.
...
Evolution: A Communist Plot?
Yet another fear causes creationists to reject the findings of science.
Many early proponents of science and evolution were on the political Left. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for evolution and the scientific approach. But its article fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”
Subsequent humanist manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate historical association of science and socialism is based in part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why not an entire economy?
Further, many supporters of evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He argued that the killers were under the influence of Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every moral individual, religious or atheist.
In addition, nearly all agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution. Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals, then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.
To religious fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial: the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is the divine edicts of a god.
This reflects the creationists’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.
Morality from Man’s Nature
We humans are what we are today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics that define our nature.
We are Homo sapiens. Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a rational methodology: science.
Furthermore, our thinking does not occur automatically. We have free will and must choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution, for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like it or acknowledge it or not.
But we humans do not exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival. We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such happiness comes from planning our long-term goals, challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.
But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?
A code of values, derived from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible creatures possessing free will.
We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.
Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.
If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.
Edward Hudgins is the Executive Director of The Objectivist Center.
This is a known feature of the applicable acquatic shellfish enviroments. When creationists wave it around as a "problem," they are trolling for suckers.
Just use the marine calibration curve and figure out the Delta-R for your own area and you'll do fine.
The marine curve is calibrated to work worldwide when used with an appropriate local Delta-R. To establish that get some shell samples collected from the same general environment you are going to use, then date them (make sure they are pre-WWII to avoid bomb contamination). That will let you figure the Delta-R for an area.
A worldwide map and database is here.
For coastal archaeology shell is a good dating material as (1) it didn't walk to the site, (2) it is usually present in decent quantities, and (3) good dense shell is not very likely to be contaminated. If you date a single piece, you are dating a single event--an individual collected that shellfish from the ocean, the group ate the contents, and then dumped the shell. Even if it has been moved by gophers or subsequent disturbance it should provide a good date.
The argument is the solution. I don't think you have to look further than that. So long as people are arguing about this question and not simply saying "Science says" or "The Bible says" it's a sign that society is healthy.
Of course there are things that "science" does say and things that the Bible clearly does say. I wouldn't go against the basic laws of physics or formulas of chemistry. But people ought to be suspicious of great abstractions like "Science" (or "Religion" for that matter) because when they're not, trouble ensues.
Actually, the old earth position was formulated by geologists who were to a man creationists.
And they were wrong, were then and still are now.
If the eugenicists had tried to engineer a whole new species would that have been a good thing? Experts and laymen in those days were functioning within a certain horizon of knowledge much of which they believed derived from Darwin. They took what they could understand from the evolutionary theories of their day. They didn't know about DNA. Today, that horizon of possibilities is larger and you can raise the questions you do, but they wouldn't have been so prominent a century ago.
How very thoughtful. Thomas, I definitely recommend the second link especially, and the ensuing chat.
I keep waiting for right-wing science-based materialists to provide data points, books, manuals, which discuss how to be rationally faithful, sexually, without God. How can a Rationalist be a great wife and be married to a great Husband, all the while both being able to manage to be sexually faithful in a satisfying way to each other? I would love to see the 'data'.
Btw, fwiw, I enjoy HIM, and savour His words .... and thus, the fact you link to 'my' words, is not a credit to me, but to Him, for the words are just a weak attempt at the transcription of His Word.
There is still hope for you even yet Thatcherite....; and DON'T STOP linking to that stuff. Just think of the unintended doubt you are sowing about!!
I'm hoping you can clarify a couple of points for me before I answer.You seem to disagree with the author's statement that morality is man's creation, since you say that it "has to be based on something objective." Do you believe then, that the source of morality is our human nature?
Hmmm... interesting question. Morality is a human invention. I see adhering to a moral code, and upholding it as a standard for others to adhere to, as a long-term strategy for maximizing my flourishing. In that sense it's subjective, like a particular investment strategy is subjective. But the basic assumption of Objectivism is that there is one, objective reality within which we all live. So the constraints on what the best moral system (or family of similar, compatible systems) would be, come from the objective facts of what it means to be human.
Also note that morality by its nature is something that's supposed to apply to everyone in a similar context. I come up with strategies (goals & plans) for myself all the time. But that's not a moral system. My morals are, by definition I'd say, those behaviors that I think I and everyone else should pursue.
I'm also curious about this statement.The purpose of having a moral code is to sustain the kind of society where you can flourish.
Could you expand on this?
Well, I can hardly even conceive of a religion or moral system where its exponents try to sell it by saying, "come, follow my way of life and you will be rewarded with constant suffering, topped off by a painful death which you will nevertheless appreciate because it'll be the only way to stop the suffering that my proposed moral system will have given you."
I claim that nobody in the real world adopts and invests any emotional attachment to supporting a moral system out of pure Kantian devotion to "duty".
BTW, you can view morality as a negative thing - as a collection of prohibitions. But I tend to see morality more as an active pursuit of the best life (taken as a whole) that we're capable of having, by way of upholding & advocating for the moral code that will best support it. So for me, morality also includes the attitudes of benevolence, optimism, & justice, for instance.
Looked at another way, it's like the difference between consumption & investment, or short-term vs. long-term investments. It doesn't take any discipline to spend your financial wealth on stuff. But you never get really rich unless you train yourself to resist your spur of the moment urges to gratification or short-term emotions, and instead keep your eye on the longer term goal.
Looked at yet another way, it's the same thing that drives my company to compete with our competitors, all the while enthusiastically abiding by & supporting the laws that enforce contracts and punish fraud & theft. The overall benefits of having a fair, secure set of basic laws that uphold a free market are vastly greater to us than the benefits if everyone were allowed to lie cheat & steal.
(I hope this makes some sense. I have a cold.)
Part II of my comments....
I neglected to mention in part I of my comments that generally, there hasn't been much political influence exerted on basic scientific research. But there are a couple of potential exceptions to that:
1) if the research inpinges upon public policy issues
and
2) if it gets in the way of someones' personal belief system.
Let's face it, basic research into particle physics hardly has major public policy ramifications, so there isn't much incentive for political influence (outside of cabals of competing particle physicists vying for the same funding, perhaps.)
But take "global warming" as an example -- there you have an area of research which has enormous public policy implications, whch can have huge ramifications for business, industry, trial lwayers, and political power. Thus, one should not be surprised to see eco-Nazis trying to influence the direction of the research and the debate on the issue (it is, after all, the last refuge, outside of Havana, Pyongyang, and Cambridge, MA, of the Marxists remnant trying one last grasp at resting control of the World Economy from the unfetterred Invisible Hand of Adam Smith.) Second hand tobacco smoke is another example where the public policy ramifications have impinged on the research. It's not pretty when that happens.
Another area that could be an example of personal ideology getting into the mix would be in the area of certain types of biological research that offend some peoples' faith-based beliefs. Stem cell research comes to mind. There are sincere people who oppose funding it on moral grounds, notwithstanding the potential upside to medicine that might come to fruition from such research.
If we take funding out of the hands of government entirely, then people are free to invest their dollars in whatever form of research floats their boat, including "none at all," if they prefer living out their lives with their heads in the intellectual sand. No system of funding is perfect, but private funding introduces competetion into the equation, and eliminates government coercion from the process. Nobody likes a monopoly, and getting government out of science research funding means government has one less place to meddle in the affairs of man.
And that's a good thing.
Yes, that's a good point. Not enough credit is given to the terribly disruptive nature of the germ theory of disease WRT religious belief.
Here’s an example of how to understand the way our Constitution is founded in the Christian Bible.
The play West Side Story contains no specific references to any particulars from Romeo and Juliet. But conceptually West Side Story came directly from the Shakespearean work.
The concept of liberty is central and unique to the Christian Bible: it is found in the notion of salvation, free will, the life opportunities granted by God.
This same liberty is the bedrock of our Constitution. Thus it gains substance from the Christian Bible more than anything else.
A 10 Day Excerpt of "Gobucks" Psycho-sexual ObsessionsHomosexual males....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1326548/posts?page=9#9
....radical gay/lesbian agenda and, if you aren't queer now, you probably will be.....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=722#722
..... gay agenda....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1324759/posts?page=11#11
....sexual abuse....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=685#685
Your average gay man......http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=677#677
....male homosexuality..... homo sex..... homo sex is unavoidable.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=664#664
....justify any sexual acts....).http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=555#555
......all sexual privileges, including homosexuality....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=549#549
-.... gales of sexaul perversion....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=448#448
.... the best sex of your life'.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=444#444
....the sex is a brief echo....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=359#359
.....regarding sex, well, gravity is one thing, but sex?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=269#269
.... access to sexual liberties ....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=248#248
I suggest you join the Body of Christ, now, because one benefit, out of many, is that the sex is BETTER.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=170#170
....the sex rule book.....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=148#148
.... homosexual also beyound the scope of TOE?
.....homosexuality, from an evolutionary behvavior standpoint is very strange to me.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=136#136
".... all sexual behavior between men and women,....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=105#105
I'm talking about the agenda of the sex, sex, everything is sex, merchants..... of all sexual acts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=104#104
....'sexual freedom'....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=98#98
....sexual rule book.... - to prevent awful sex from returning to america.....The sexual standard of living is at stake,...... ..... homo perverts, the free love porn stars, the all-highways-are-open sexual license grantors.... the sexual perversion ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=94#94
.... sexual freedom. ..... sexual satisfaction..... have less satisfying sex ..... less satisfying sex too.
..... sexual gratification and satisfaction,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323091/posts?page=43#43
..... the rule book on sex. .....the rules of sex ..... sexual conduct,........ rule book on sex, all sex acts,....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318654/posts?page=190#190
.... gay men to marry straight women....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320236/posts?page=104#104
Sort of like the DC sniper Malvano and the boy he kept w/ him, yes?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320236/posts?page=18#18
.... if their husbands are secretly gay.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320236/posts
It is thanks to religionists that I ended up in the desert of the rationalist sex addicts for over 20 years ......... irrational sexually perverted behavior.
.... perverts that want to expose little kids to perverted sex crap
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316020/posts?page=753#753
.... sexual/happienss agendahttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316020/posts?page=742#742
.... the sexual behavior rule book.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316020/posts?page=730#730
And that's just excerpts from a 10 day span of his posts.
Hey! Stop posting all that pervert stuff. What are you, some kind of creationist?
Post 23 by gobucks on 08 Jun 05. I read the bible to 2 people shacking up.
The concept of liberty comes straight from the Christian Bible. (See post #1091)
Note that this fact has no bearing on any argument about the existence of God.
My Quote was: "In radio carbon dating it works on the basis of carbon 12 and carbon 14 atoms. The accumulation of one in life and their release upon death. And the other is slowly gained after death."
I admit it is a simplistic approach -- but in the 1980's the decay was described as a release of carbon 12. I was not aware of the half life of carbon 12 and 14 but it makes sense that there would be one.
And you responded: The ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14 is relatively stable in the atmosphere. All living things absorb carbon, and so the ratio in living things closely approximates that in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, the Carbon 14, being radioactive, decays over time--it is not released, as you state. With a half life of 5730 years, half of the original amount decays into Carbon 12 with each 5730 years. No additional Carbon 14 is gained after death. Other than your mention of the constant or the baseline that I mention earlier I see no disagreement between you and I on this other than the word choice of release and decay -- and decay is the release of atoms.
We move on to my next quote yet after a certain year in the 1700's the dating is noticeably off with items that historically were named and dated and then dated by carbon 14 and this shift becomes father and father off the farther back items are dated. Again I admit this is a simplistic explanation. Now we are both in agreement on the fact that the constant of carbon twelve and carbon fourteen has not been a constant and has risen by quite a bit over the last 50 years since it began to be measured. And so men have understandably sought to calibrate this -- and in bring that up you have acknowledged that there is an error that occurs and the margin of error increases over time. I will not put words in your mouth, But in my reading of studies on tree rings for the last twenty years I see there are trees with two and three rings per season and that was called not uncommon -- and I remember the day not to many years ago when tree rings were poo-pooed by science as having any reliability -- and that anyone who used tree rings to ascertain dates was roundly rejected. Now in saying that we do have data and I would say concrete data in these tree rings but there is a lot of question as to how rightly to derive true dates from these rings. And I would say since I live in Alaska and have had some interest in glacial varves or "ice core drillings" that here again we are dealing with layers much the same as tree rings and these layers are not necessarily indicative of a single winter season, but in fact they are snow seasons which here in alaska we have a period of snow for a month or so it lays off we have melting even at below zero temps and snow degradation and shrinkage occurs and dirt from the atmoshpere accumulates on that layer and then a few months later it snows some times inches or feet and so with any Alaskan year we can have 2-3 layers and this has shown up here in glaciers and their core samples that were built up during known periods of time say the last 50 years and at least up here this has thrown into serious doubt the traditional method of reading these ice core samples. This is not to say that the core samples are not concrete data but it is to say that the reading of it and interpretation of that data is what is suspect.
And we can say the same things for dirt core samples which were deemed unreliable decades ago. Your response was The dating is not noticeable off because radiocarbon dates are calibrated against the calibration curve, which accounts for atmospheric variation. This curve has been established using individual tree-rings from bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California and from another site in Europe. It extends 11,600 years into the past. Beyond that, the curve is established on glacial varves, and goes in excess of 20,000 years. Again you and I more or less agree. But these dates used to correct radio carbon dating from tree rings and Ice core samples are not cast in stone and since the 1970's have been the subject of repeated revision and I can say with certainty they will change again and again as technology changes (I purposely did not say improve)And at least what I have read -- not from Christian sources but these dates I have seen them being revised upwards not downwards in other words fossils form my childhood have been growing younger and not older -- and this means little or nothing as we are speaking still of vast periods of time. Time I might add that would seem at face value to be incompatible with the biblical record. which I touched on in one of my posts.
And in looking over your comments to snippets I wrote I see we are much in agreement As to Dr. Libby of whom you said now is read on more of a historic basis and that would make sense
You state that there are attempts to make carbon dating more precise and deal with the margin of error that dramatically increases over time. We agree on that but we do not agree with the iron clad numbers that are now postulated of these tree rings and ice core samples. I will not put words in your mouth but I think you have also read of what I mentioned above about these core samples and rings as to how they are interpreted and the radio carbon dating of old objects being made "younger" rather than "older"
And you go on to sate that carbon dating can not be used past 50,000 years and I read that in Dr. Libby's writings decades ago.
And yet I believe this method of dating has been abused to come up with dates in the hundreds of thousands, and the millions to the general public for their general consumption to make either political statements (thats is what I view evolution as) and by these really old numbers they hope to attract federal grants and public financial support -- much as the environmentalists of our day skew their results to gain attention and market share of these coveted federal grants.
my statement -- Volcano's spew hundreds of tons of this and ozone depleting clorofloro carbons in a single belch. Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines in that one blast emitted more florochloro carbons that the us had made from the 1940's until the year 2000 -- (that was repeatedly posted here on FR) the carbon 12 emitted was more than the production of carbon 12 in California from 1900-2000 and the earth has had thousands of said eruptions -- how have those altered the ecology of the earth -- how have those altered the level of carbon 12 and carbon 14 by causing it to rise and rise? And again by how you respond we are in agreement on mount Pinatubo and these volcanic carbon 12 as well.
To which you added that carbon 14 being created in the outer atmosphere which I was not aware of. In either case both of these add to any discussion of any baseline of carbon 12 and 14 as being stable through time as a weak theory and the corrections over extended periods of time are like the supreme courts "last guess"
Your words Again, this shows the need for a calibration curve. But why would we worry about Carbon 12 being emitted from Mount Pinatubo? We worry about Carbon 14, which is created in the outer atmosphere.
I would hazard a guess that because of your vocation you have to believe more in your technology than you might if you were in a different field of trade, and I do not fault you on this. -- I only note this because in various careers and vocations I have had all required of me a certain amount of belief and loyalty. And in hind sight I would say several did not warrant either.
Things are so muck easier when we can discuss things in a civil manner. And we can see that we are not as far apart as appeared some posts earlier and that what I had said was not garbage -- so we will let that pass as part of the heat of the moment.
I will compliment you as having integrity in that you actually went back and looked over what I had said. There is no harm and no foul that we interpret some of the data differently and in time some of what we both say will be proved srong and some of it will be proved right and this is why I can not state my life on the shifting sand of science and technology
Others can and I do not fault them on that, it is their choice to make. To put ones faith in God and the bible is one choice, to put faith in men and science is another and there are hundreds of combinations in between. But to explode with rage over one choice or another does nothing and others calling each other idiots does not make for conversation and no one can learn anything in such confusion.
I don't expect that you would read on but i will add a bit more to this for the benefit of whoever may also read this.
Understand that most Christians because of the introduction of the Gap theory by Dr. C.I. Schofield circa 1900(who had an expertise in nothing) but on his say-so they do no believe in literal 24 hour days, but what they call "epoches" and "ages" and because of this unscriptural belief they will not be pinned down on this point.
What I am suggesting is that many who called themselves creationists no longer believe the bible but instead preach and teach the words and traditions of men in their place -- and this is not a good thing.
Unlike my counterparts I look up a lot in the original Greek and Hebrew and what I read is different than the King James Version account. And I will paint a thumbnail
In Genesis chapter 1 we have God creating earth in seven days -- whether they are our days of 24 hours or divine days as suggested elsewhere in scripture as a thousand years we can not tell. And neither would have any measurable effect to this discussion of carbon dating and evolution a this being a literal seven days or literal seven thousand years are not what is at stake here and will not alter this discussion one iota.
I think what alters the picture is it is what happens between God and Adam in Genesis chapter 2, and may be of some help in understanding or interpreting these words much like one would interpret tree rings or ice core samples.
As I have indicated I am not a fan on the current craze of Intelligent Design because I have no idea where the people in this are going with all of it. And the unpredictability of it makes me pull away from it.
Just as the father of cybernetics with his programing of logic questions is intelligent design because the designer was intelligent himself -- So in my mind everything that God has created from the smallest grain of sand to the wind that carries it to the rock it wears down in time all have intelligent design and I have little use for mathematical equations or algorithms -- but to some this may carry weight so I do not find fault with them. Lets just say I am more cautious as I have live to see many things go wrong when things are relied to heavily upon.
In genesis what I see in creation is that each thing that God created is unique. And that the intelligence of the design is far more than bumps and ridges or patterns on it, the intelligence to me is how all of this fits together and all of this interacts as one great organism that has live for thousands if not tens of thousands of years.
And regardless the boasts I read in my youth, evolution has yet to produce one single chain of species showing linear development. there are questions in my mind of DNA showing something as being an ancestor or simply being a relative or a distant relative.
Anyway in Genesis we see God living with Adam for an undisclosed period of time. And previously I mentioned that in Creation God had made everything in a state of maturity the trees fist birds animals all of them had been created uniquely and in matures states so in the case of the universe the oceans and the building blocks of these things the elements themselves -- would it not follow that these to were all created in matures states so that uranium and what ever are all unique and were created in their half life states from the start -- and therefore they would be inscrutable to the eye of science
I am a bible school grad and was a pastor some years back so what I am writing is more than mere musings - though I have been known to muse in my free time
You see there is this narrative that says that God said it was not good that Adam should dwell alone and that God would make Adam a help-meet
The word in Hebrew is not wife but one to stand with or a helper and so we read that God would form an animal in his hands before adam and and he would give it to Adam to see what he would call it. Consider now the criteria given "to be a help-meet" and to determine if one would be a proper help-meet it would take some level of conversation or fellowship -- now in chapter 3 of Genesis when the serpent speaks realize that Eve did not scream and say you spoke! The Hebrew implies more than the serpent spoke by adding the word cattle to the speaking population.
Now when I said Adam was create mature I do not mean he was created as a crotchety old man. I think Adam was created as a young Child perhaps around age 8 or 10 and I have some real reasons for suggesting that other than just some speculation on my part.
In my minds eye I see God create something for Adam and he squeals with delight and goes and romps off with the thing olls in the grass pets it fellowships with it and converses with it and over time Adam names the thing and returns to the father and reports to him that is was not a suitable help-meet and the bible says then God created something else out of the dust of the earth and Adam squeals with delight and runs off with that and this happens with hundreds if not thousands of creatures and implicit in this passage is also Adam naming all the plants and trees.
First lea me deal with these squeals of delight -- eden is a word that means "delights" and man as he his prone centers around his delights and so men say the Garden was created as only a delight to Adam -- but I see here and elsewhere that in the garden God delighted in his relationship and fellowship with Adam. And of this delight God loved Adam he was his beloved son -- salvation is based upon this love this delight and in the old testament and the new testament God is seeking not those with lip service say I love God but those in their heart and Spirit delight in Him for who he is not what he can give then.And further Christ constantly calls his followers children and compares believers to children and this is in hundreds of passages. It apparently is not large no one can see it. God longs for the relationship he had with his child and son Adam in the garden and seeks those who would seek Him in such a manner.
Now in the purpose of this discussion I believe in the timeless and ageless garden where no sin or corruption was Adam may have grown some but he did not change as in his hair did not fall out. But I think that in the Garden they entered into "a day with the lord is as a thousand years; and so that with each now animal God made and Adam delighted in time was passing to the tune of t thousand years for each day the child Adam spent with God if I understand the passage quoted.
And let me say that to this day we see the remnants of Adam's relationship with animals and there yet remains some communication however muted that would be
So we have this naming of thousands upon thousands of animals and everything else and that would have taken up quite a while
So what was going on outside the garden, not so much evolution but the population of the earth with trees seeds and then animals.
Anyway so Adam appears to have spent quite a bit of quality time with his Father.
Anyway my fingers are telling me I have said enough
Tuff to top that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.