Posted on 02/28/2002 6:35:58 PM PST by Heartlander
Actually, the article "New Out-of -Africa Theory Unvieled" recently posted on FR postulates that all human DNA can be traced back to a single mother. This confirms, per your logic, that the biblical story of Eve is fact based.
Chew on that for a while.
Furthermore, archeological records have always confirmed the veracity of bibilcal histories. None discovered to date have conclusively, or even come close, to proving the Bible to be errant, even those going all the back to Abraham, c 2500 BC, the actual dawn of recorded history. Once again, per your logic, this is fact and not myth.
You do yourself a disservice by by mindlessly passing off the Bible so cavalierly. There is demonstrably devine wisdom in it. The inability to recognise wisdom is the definition of a fool.
Here I beg to differ. The chronology in Exodus is quite a bit off, according to the archaeological evidence. Some of the towns listed as destroyed bear no evidence of destruction. Some of the towns (Jericho, for instance) weren't even inhabited at the time of the Exodus, and if you shift the time period to cover a time when Jericho was inhabited and showed signs of destruction, other towns turn out to be uninhabited or inhabited with no signs of the destruction meted out to them in the Bible.
Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence for the Jewish sojourn in Egypt. Nothing in Egyptian records -- no bills of sale, no contracts, no government documents -- nothing indicating the Israelites were ever there.
BTW, subscribe to Biblical Archaeology Review. It's a fascinating magazine covering just this subject. You'll love it.
Actually, I believe, there are competing theories as to the chronology of the Egytian Dynasties, which of course has major implications for dating the Exodus. Furthermore, the Hebrews were not a conquered people but rather traveled there of their own accord, meaning that a description of a gloriuos conquest would necessarily be missing. Also, the history of the Exodus would not tend to highlight Eygptian greatness and so its not being recorded by court scibes is understandable. All of this together falls far short of conclusive evidence that the Exodus never happened.
I used to receive Bibical Archeology, unfortunately I let the subscrition lapse, but you're right, it is an excellent publication.
Good point. The Bible has more facts backing it up than evolution. I would be worried too.
The BS-o-meter just ran off the charts here! C'mon, now. Be honest. You know fully well that evolution is not taught as theory in our schools. You know that. It is taught as fact. Therefore, it can not be that important to you, for if it were, you'd make sure that the theory would be taught as theory. But such is not the case.
. . .like other genuinely scientific theories, it is thereby vulnerable to many possible falsifications, but has withstood these tests.
The same can be said for the Bible. What's your point? In fact, the Bible has worn out many hammers. It is not changing, yet your theory changes rapidly. Hmmm. . .
Finally, we evolutionists tend to find it is creationists who have faulty, simplistic, incoherent or (quite often) pathological misunderstandings of the relationship between theories and facts.
Nice backhanded slap, dude. Again (for the umpteenth time on this thread alone which no one seems to even want to acknowledge), faith is faith. You must believe, otherwise it falls apart. But you are telling a bald-face lie (not surprising given your belief in evolution) when you say that we have the problem with the terms "theories" and "facts." Not one scientist can say unequivocally that evolution is absolutely true. No matter how many fossil records you have, the "truth" of evolution can't be claimed. According to your so-called facts, evolution can be suggested. But suggestion and absolute proof are not close to each other. They don't compliment each other, either. And since it can not be claimed empirically, it is a theory.
I never knew that so many on the right of the political spectrum were evolutionists. This is scary. You guys attack people of faith just as much as those on the looney left do. So, in my mind, you both are the exact same.
Nice company. Keep them, please.
One last thing before I go. Why did the entire process of evolution theory begin with the premise that God does not exist? In other words, who ya foolin'? The entire discipline began with the answer it sought, and fashioned its evidence to "prove" that claim.
I like to keep things in order.
Hydrogen is what you get when a proton captures an electron. The proton is one of the stable baryons you can get when a quark-gluon plasma cools and condenses. The electrons and other leptons were already in the plasma.
The quark-gluon plasma was farted out by the big turtle on whose back we all sit.
Thursday October 24 5:19 PM EDT Internet
VATICAN CITY (Reuter) - Pope John Paul II has lent his support to the theory of evolution, proclaiming it compatible with Christian faith in a step welcomed by scientists but likely to raise howls from the religious right.(1)
The Pope's recognition that evolution is "more than just a theory" came in a written message he sent Wednesday to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body of experts that advises the Roman Catholic Church on scientific issues.
It broke new ground by acknowledging that the theory of the physical evolution of man and other species through natural selection and hereditary adaptation appeared to be valid.
Though the Pope made clear he regarded the human soul as of immediate divine creation,(2) and so not subject to the process, his remarks brought banner headlines in the Italian press.
"Pope says we may descend from monkeys," the conservative newspaper Il Giornale said on its front page. La Repubblica said the Pope had "made peace with Darwin."
The theory of evolution, most notably expounded by 19th century English naturalist Charles Darwin, had until now been viewed by the Catholic Church as serious and worthy of discussion but still an open question.
"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge,"(3) the Pope said.
"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
The theories of Darwin and other evolutionists about man's origins were for long anathema to theologians, who saw a conflict with the biblical account of creation in the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Most theologians no longer believe that the doctrine that God created the world and made man in his own image and the theory of evolution stand in each other's way. (4)
But fundamentalist Christians who take a literal approach to Genesis, known as "creationists," have recently reopened the controversy, especially in the southern United States.
In Tennessee, where teacher John Scopes was famously fined $100 by a court in 1925 for teaching evolution in his class in what became known as the Monkey Trial, a bill that would have banned teaching evolution as fact was only narrowly voted down in the state legislature earlier this year.
The Vatican's first substantive response to the theories of evolution was contained in an encyclical, Humani Generis, written in 1950 by the Pope Pius XII.
It cited no objection to discussing evolution while cautioning that the theory played into the hands of communists eager to cut God out of the equation.
Pope John Paul II has previously endorsed the 1950 document. He said Wednesday its essential point was that "if the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."
But he also said: "Today, nearly half a century after appearance of the encyclical, fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."(5)
The Pope's acknowledgment was welcomed as a significant advance by scientists, even though some said it had come late. (6)
"It will allow many Catholic scientists, who have been engaged for some time in research on human evolution, to continue their work without any censure or difficulty,"(7) said Francesco Barone, a leading Italian scientific philosopher.
I agree. But you know that they can't see any wisdom from our points. What we believe is beneath them. We are all some unsophisticated ogres that they all so high-mindedly gloss over. But this is just fine. It's all good.
I am not sure what side you are referring to. However, the mountain of evidence for both stellar and biological evolution is tremendous. I find NONE for creationism or ID. You might try taking some time and actually read the links that PatrickHenry has so thoughtfully provided.
He can't help it about the flatulence. Anyway, the big turtle was always there so we don't have to go any farther anyway. (Alternate version: the big turtle exists outside of time.)
Besides, the questions have all been answered as far as I'm concerned.
Now, get back over to your side where you belong.
You are incorrect. It began with observations of the natural world and desire to explain those observations according to testable and verifiable theories.
It is true that science does not consider the supernatural as an explanation - but that is because the supernatural cannot be tested. If I say Godidit, I cannot test the hypothesis. If I say "GnomesDidIt", I cannot test the hypothesis. If I say "It is all a figment of my imagination, I cannot test the hypothesis." None of these hypotheses help me, none make predictions, none are falsifiable or verifiable. All three have the same explanatory power: zero. All three are a waste of the scientist's time. (Which is not to say that religious ideas are useless, just that they are not scientific. Many people derive great comfort from gnomes.)
Perhaps your problem is with science itself. But then, that would also require rejection of physics, chemistry, and geology as well as evolution. I doubt you are that dedicated to ignorance.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Could you please be more succinct?
I agree. Mentioning the turtle was in poor taste.
You certainly won't get any argument from my end on this statement.
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.