Stephan Anagnostaras wrote in message ...
>In article <364B5C6D.75E14B08 at indiana.edu>, qmorrisREMOVE at indiana.eduwrote:
>> Will someone go back, read genesis, and tell us WHERE
>> the account of creation PROHIBITS the possibility of evolution?
>>>> Otherwise, shut up. :)
>>Basically, it does. The story of Genesis clearly states the abrupt
>appearance of humans in complex form. Plus, God created man in his image.
>It doesn't say he created the animals and then hoped that one day millions
>of years later man might turn out in his image. It clearly indicates that
>man was created abruptly in God's image. So this precludes the possibility
>of evolution, at least for man.
No, it does not. It says nothing of how man was created. It appears that the
assumption here is that time is a constant, which we know that it is not. It
also appears limiting the scene to the four dimensions in which we live. In
theory there are a number of different dimentions. Each could be a univers
of it's own, with it's own scientific laws that may or may not apply to the
dimensions in which we live.
>>The account of Adam and Eve is even more difficult to reconcile, because
>of the appearance of the male sex before the female sex. Plus, in this
>account humans are apparently created BEFORE simpler animals and
>vegetation (this is the opposite order however of the first creation
>story... of course, we know the historical sources of these two stories
>are different). This account is more problematic, but in either case, both
>accounts agree on the abrupt appearance of man in complex form.
I do not have a problem with the sudden appearrance of any piece of matter
of energy form, if we are talking of a being advanced beyond our
comprehension. We know that matter can be converted to energy, and vice
versa. We cannot currently control both processes except in the most
primitive ways. However, from the use of such technology, we are still in
the infancy. By denying that superior being could have such capabilities
goes against the very process that we discuss here - evolution.
>This aside, I don't think people should make their careers out of testing
>things in the Bible as scientific questions, this is a silly practice.
I agree that careers should not be made of such things, however
contemplating the possibilities does lead to prctical benefits. Asking ones
self, "How could this be done?" has been the start of many a discovery. The
Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and any number of other religious texts can
serve to spur such inquiries.
>Any particular Bible has been translated too many times to have this level
>of technical accuracy and the creation stories (of which there are two)
>have independent sources and disagree on some key issues, relevant to the
>debate, so what is the point?
I think the only point of any of this is a search for, and a continual
testing of the truth as we understand it. What is true for us today may
change because of evidence presented tomorrow. We must always question what
we know, else we become complacent and ignorant.