Posted by eman on October 23, 1998 at 14:54:02:
In Reply to: Not speechless, just busy. posted by John on October 20, 1998 at 18:48:22:
Which literal account of Genesis do you accept? The order of creation as described in the first story of Genesis or the creation described in the 2nd one? For example; According to GE1:3-5, On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 says that the sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. According to GE 1:11-12, 26-27, trees were created before man was created. But in GE 2:4-9, man was created before trees were created. In GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
But in GE 2:7, 19, man was created before birds were created. Also, in GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. But again, in GE 2:7, 19, man was created before animals were created. As far as Adam and Eve, in GE 1:26-27, man and woman were created at the same time. However, in GE 2:7, 21-22, man was created first, woman sometime later.
Archaeopteryx lithographica (the fossil you eluded to) is indeed a transitional form. It has been classified as a bird almost arbitrarily because it has feathers, not because it is "truly" a bird. The avian features Archaeopteryx possess are, 1) a wishbone, 2) feathers, and 3) a bony sternum in one of the latest specimans. Archaeopteryx has many more reptilian characteristics, such as, 1) a pubic peduncle, 2) a long, bony tail, 3) no pygostyle, 4) three well-developed fingers (with the same number of bones as in most dinosaurs), 5) three well-developed metacarpal bones,
6) unfused metacarpal bones, 7) separate metatarsal bones, 8) no hypotarsus, 9) abdominal ribs
Archaeopteryx has many more reptilian characteristics than the modern birds that many like to link it to. Even Fred Hoyle, who erroneously claimed that Archaeopteryx was a forgery, claimed that it was a reptilian fossil with fake feather impressions. Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form merely because of its remarkable blend of reptilian and avian characteristics - Archaeopteryx also existed at the same time as the theropod reptiles and resembled them very highly. Given its temporal and physical correlations to reptiles, plus its less numerous - yet distinct - avian qualities, Archaeopteryx lithographica
stands immune to any creationist attack. What is the evidence that you have seen that would lead you to believe that this fossil could not be millions of years old? You make that claim but fail to provide support.
You are correct in stating that hundreds of years ago, humans had incorrect views of the world, such as believing in a flat earth, etc. Fortunately, man's quest for the truth about his world lead him to discover that the earth was a sphere, the earth orbited the sun, the earth was not the center of the universe, etc. The beauty of scientific thought is that it has the ability to refine and correct itself when presented with new data. Keep in mind though, that scientific ideas and theories are neither accepted or rejected on a whim. They encounter rigorous scrutiny before acceptance. And in order to reject
or modify them, a similar preponderance of evidence must be presented to the scientific community at large, and also given careful scrutiny. Literal Creation will be accepted when, and if, a significant amount of physical evidence, observations, experimentation, etc., is presented to the scientific community and tested for its validity. Scientists don't necessarily have a stake in protecting one over the other. They are only concerned with evidential support for the mechanisms of the universe. The main reasons that I do not believe in the Great Flood are that it is physically implausible based on accepted
laws of science, and all the credible geological, anthropological, and historical evidence gathered denies it. My disbelief has little to do with a simple rejection of your Bible. It has to do with the fact that all science known today rejects it.
While it may be true that Darwin had to use some speculation in order to explain the evidences he gathered, modern science has advanced light years since he wrote his book (by the way, the idea of evolution preceded Darwin; he mainly tried to describe one possible mechanism for it).
As to the answers to your questions concerning early life forms and their evolution of reproduction, you need to study biology more. I'm sorry to say that I have no easy answer for you on those, as they would take up much of this board.
If all you have is your faith that the Bible is inerrant and some, if not most, was meant literally, then there is not much that I could say to convince you otherwise. It is obvious to me based on the fact that there are many diverse Biblical beliefs among a myriad of different Christian denominations, that your Bible was written in a very ambiguous manner, and is open to many individual interpretations. I would venture to guess that your individual interpretation and the belief that your interpretation is without error, are based on faith alone. But then again, that is the very nature of religion.
Physical evidential support and reason need not be a part of it. The main difference between you and I is that although I agree that both are essential to society in some fashion, I believe that religion is religion and science is science. I make no attempt to either try and reconcile them, combine them in some form, or confuse one for the other. One is based on the rigorous study of physical laws and evidence and the other is based almost solely on faith.