Creation or Evolution?
===================================
Q: Being that you're (Pastor Nathaniel) a man of God and a scientist, how do you reconcile all of the evidence of evolution with the creation story of the bible?
I've been reduced to accepting the Bible as the "inspired" word of God that isn't to be taken literally. .Unfortunately, if some things aren't to be taken literally (i.e. the creation story) we cannot with certainty say that anything in the Word is to be taken literally. To do so would be pure conjecture. Hence, undermining the integrity of the Bible and causing me some confusion.
Can you explain how you've crossed this bridge? (The story of the missing bone in your sermon, “Return to Sender”, was inspiring to this scientific/inquiring mind)
from the Mountain:
Go to www.AirJesus.com and listen to the sermon, “Creation or Evolution?”
Q: More Questions
I acknowledge that my knowledge and wisdom at best pale in comparison to yours. However, man as a hominid has only been in existence for 125,000 years. We have fossil evidence of prehistoric man (i.e. Neanderthal, Australopithecine, Australopithecus, Homo-erectus, etc.) and it seems as if there is a clear evolutionary sequence between "Lucy" and current man.
If this is false, please tell me.
from the Mountain:
There is not a clear evolutionary picture of any other creature, why is there of man?
Doesn't it seem strange that of all the animals, man is the only creature that science can find evolutionary records of? This has been a hotly contested area, even among scientists. The missing link between man and ape has never been found.
The fossil records of prehistoric man has to be questioned in terms of objective science.
Remember, in the sermon I said it was “Science” that changed my view of evolution, not religion.
The science didn't hold up.
Prehistoric man's fossil records involve relatively small changes. They were clearly all men. Go and visit the oldest houses in America, they are located up north in Virginia and Massachusetts. What you will find is that a 6 foot tall man will not be able to stand comfortably upright in the rooms.
Why?
Because the people were MUCH shorter 150-200 years ago. What caused the change? Scientist guess that it is the increased daylight in terms of artificial illumination that modern society has that makes the growing cycle longer. Maybe, maybe not, but people are definitely a lot taller in America now than 200 years ago. If you looked at the skeleton records, you would say man is evolving and that's just in 200 years.
If you took a man today and left him in the wild, let his hair grow, never shave or have any modern things, would he really look that much different from the skeletal structure of prehistoric man indicates?
Not really. The changes would probably be more in line with the last 200 years of height change in America.
The major point is this, they were still all men, there has never been discovered a man-ape, the missing link has never been found.
Q: Still More Questions
Additionally, the study on the mitochondria DNA of "Eve" or "Lucy-like" ape-creature suggests that all of the world is somehow tied to this creature. Can you explain how this might not be so.
Is the study of the mitochondria DNA a form of DNA sequencing?
Also, if we assert the laws of thermodynamics, then aren't we also refuting the creation story since matter can't be created or destroyed? Or, are you suggesting that God always was, so what he created was an extension of himself; thus, only transferring energy rather than creating it from nothingness. (I think this is how the ancient Kemetians saw creation. I.E. Nun)
from the Mountain:
The story of creation came from God through Moses, who was educated and trained in Pharaoh’s house. Moses was taught by the best Egypt had to offer. I don't think it's accidental that the Egyptian and Moses versions have similarities.
The first law of Thermodynamics doesn't say that matter can't be created or destroyed. It says that it can't come from nothing or go to nothing. That's what it really says. The law of thermodynamics allow for the conversion of matter into energy and vice versa, that's Einstein’s E=MC2 formula.
What the third law of thermodynamics says is that left by themselves, things get worse, without an external input of energy or order.
Is Lucy the mother of all humans?
I don't know.
I first of all doubt VERY SERIOUSLY if scientists found the ONE woman of all the women of that time that we descended from.
What's the probability of that? I have to get a copy of the program, Conspiracy Theory (the TV show, not the movie) that talked about and had proof that we never went to the moon. That also may be true. I have learned to be very skeptical of media things and look for obvious inconsistencies.
What is the mathematical probability of finding that one woman that started it all. Finding a trace of her DNA is a needle in a million haystacks. Finding an ancient ancestor yes, but the reports said that this was THE woman.
Just do the math, that's awful unlikely probability to find that one woman.
The other thing is the dating method. We only have sure records that go back a few thousand years, maybe 4 at the most. Science depends on carbon 14 dating. I'm sure you know how that works. It's based on a lot of assumptions.
First, it's based on knowing how much carbon 14 was there in the first place.
Second, it's based on the theory that the carbon 14 decay rate is constant.
Both assumptions may be way off. Carbon 14 dating has its many critics.
Creation is a heavy subject. I do believe scientifically evolution or natural selection more accurately is possible, it just didn't happen on this planet from the evidence.
from MountainWings.com
Click here to go
back to the MountainWings
"Advice Answers" Main Page
