Evolution

[Neto]

Being that good scientific methods and investigation is an ongoing dynamic and is always open to changing theories based upon new data and new discoveries I have to say that I believe the only absolute truth is that God created the universe at large and humans. As to how long it took, the fact of the matter is science itself must honestly say: "We don't know." I know I don't know because I wasn't there - I'm not that old.

Especially in light of the new discovery that I remember reading an article about a few months ago in which the remains of a modern human form that was found pre-dates some of the primitive remains that were once thought to be our origins. In short, science had to acknowledge our modern human form existed thousands of years earlier than once was thought. Good science humbly acknowledges it's still on a learning curve.

I see a lot of this sort of thing on my FB page, because I am friends there with a former missionary colleague who is now an atheist, and he has written books on evolution theory, mainly to do with whether the so-called pre-humans had language, culture, & religion. It seems to me that these recent "developments" in evolution theory are cutting the ground from under the feet of its own proponents, because all of these things were long considered the distinctive characteristics of homo sapiens. (I just think that their dating methods are seriously messed up.)

[Josh]

There’s a middle ground between believing in billions of years evolution and believing in the way Ken Ham asserts the earth is exactly a certain number of years old.

[MaxPC]

Being that good scientific methods and investigation is an ongoing dynamic and is always open to changing theories based upon new data and new discoveries I have to say that I believe the only absolute truth is that God created the universe at large and humans. As to how long it took, the fact of the matter is science itself must honestly say: "We don't know." I know I don't know because I wasn't there - I'm not that old.

Especially in light of the new discovery that I remember reading an article about a few months ago in which the remains of a modern human form that was found pre-dates some of the primitive remains that were once thought to be our origins. In short, science had to acknowledge our modern human form existed thousands of years earlier than once was thought. Good science humbly acknowledges it's still on a learning curve.

I see a lot of this sort of thing on my FB page, because I am friends there with a former missionary colleague who is now an atheist, and he has written books on evolution theory, mainly to do with whether the so-called pre-humans had language, culture, & religion. It seems to me that these recent "developments" in evolution theory are cutting the ground from under the feet of its own proponents, because all of these things were long considered the distinctive characteristics of homo sapiens. (I just think that their dating methods are seriously messed up.)

I agree. The one thing that bothers me is the "attitude" of the younger generation of scientists. We were trained to look at our data and make hypotheses using "What if", "Perhaps", and "Maybe".

The younger scientists have the attitude of "definitely", "no doubt", and "absolutely". Then they're conclusions are overturned on a regular basis.

Maybe I'm just too old and am starting to sound like my dad, may he rest in peace.

[Wayne in Maine]

I actually have a lot of respect for young earth, floating-boat-full-of-all-species, flat earthers. They are consistent in their biblical hermeneutic.

What’s most peculiar about many folks who believe such is how their hermeneutic doesn’t make it all the way to Matthew 5. For them, a literal belief of Genesis 1 & 2 is required, but Matthew 5 - 7 or 1 Corinthians 11 get explained away.

Someone wrote a paper in which he referred to Anabaptism as "the Hermeneutic of obedience". Believing in a young, flat earth requires no more challenging of a hermeneutic than to be convinced of one's rightness and to argumentative about it.

[Robert]

I know the earth is a sphere. Last time I took a drive, I could easily see that.

[Josh]

I know the earth is a sphere. Last time I took a drive, I could easily see that.

Fake photos from a Hollywood sound stage!

[RZehr]

The Rare Earth hypothesis, put forth by two scientists named Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee, suggests that since the development of life as it is on Earth was the result of a laundry list of geological and astrophysical events so cosmically random yet so crucially specific down to the smallest detail, it is ball-smashingly unlikely for a comparable civilization to have come into being anywhere else in the universe. That is, while some kind of bacteria or algae or cosmic mushroom may exist underneath some rocks on some far distant planet, the chances of there being another race of intelligent and industrious living things are about the same as you winning the lottery every single day for the rest of your life and then dying on the morning of your 200th birthday after getting struck directly in the face by Doc Brown's time train.

First of all, the position of a solar system is vital -- if it's too close to the center of the galaxy, everything will get melted by supernova radiation, but if it's too far along the edge of the galaxy it won't be able to support life. Then, the star at the center of the solar system can't be too old, too bright, or too big, otherwise complex life won't develop (complex life is very fussy). Finally, the planet on which said life develops has to be in a perfect orbit. In Earth's case, if the orbit was 5 percent smaller or 15 percent larger we would all freeze or burn to death, respectively. The size and location of our moon keeps the planet on a stable axis, preventing rapid and cataclysmic climate changes -- if we didn't have exactly one moon of the exact shape and size orbiting at its exact distance, we would all be superdead (and likely would never have existed to begin with).
The sequence of geologic eras even plays a crucial part -- if the Mesozoic had occurred after the Cenozoic, for example, the exact conditions needed for human life to develop might never have been met, upsetting the evolutionary order and resulting in a race of dinosaur humans.

Even the other planets in the solar system can have an effect. For example, Jupiter plays a huge role in keeping us all alive because it acts like a giant defensive lineman, blocking us from cosmic debris and world-ending asteroids like a celestial Olin Kreutz. There are innumerable other variables, all of which played a part in intelligent life appearing on just one planet out of an entire galaxy. The odds of every one of those things falling into place in the exact configuration necessary to duplicate both the existence and success of human beings are virtually nonexistent. Therefore, the fact that we haven't made contact with any alien civilizations is probably because there isn't anything out there to contact.

Something I found interesting.

[Sudsy]

I chose 'round' earth and 'other' regarding evolution. What I think is a problem is when someone considers that perhaps the earth was not a literal 6 day creation and they are considered then to be a person who cannot believe in God until they first accept the literal descriptive story in Genesis. As if the entire scriptures rest on believing this account literally. My selection of 'other' then is I don't see this as a literal doctrine that must be believed to be saved.

[Hats Off]

The Rare Earth hypothesis, put forth by two scientists named Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee, suggests that since the development of life as it is on Earth was the result of a laundry list of geological and astrophysical events so cosmically random yet so crucially specific down to the smallest detail, it is ball-smashingly unlikely for a comparable civilization to have come into being anywhere else in the universe. That is, while some kind of bacteria or algae or cosmic mushroom may exist underneath some rocks on some far distant planet, the chances of there being another race of intelligent and industrious living things are about the same as you winning the lottery every single day for the rest of your life and then dying on the morning of your 200th birthday after getting struck directly in the face by Doc Brown's time train.

First of all, the position of a solar system is vital -- if it's too close to the center of the galaxy, everything will get melted by supernova radiation, but if it's too far along the edge of the galaxy it won't be able to support life. Then, the star at the center of the solar system can't be too old, too bright, or too big, otherwise complex life won't develop (complex life is very fussy). Finally, the planet on which said life develops has to be in a perfect orbit. In Earth's case, if the orbit was 5 percent smaller or 15 percent larger we would all freeze or burn to death, respectively. The size and location of our moon keeps the planet on a stable axis, preventing rapid and cataclysmic climate changes -- if we didn't have exactly one moon of the exact shape and size orbiting at its exact distance, we would all be superdead (and likely would never have existed to begin with).
The sequence of geologic eras even plays a crucial part -- if the Mesozoic had occurred after the Cenozoic, for example, the exact conditions needed for human life to develop might never have been met, upsetting the evolutionary order and resulting in a race of dinosaur humans.

Even the other planets in the solar system can have an effect. For example, Jupiter plays a huge role in keeping us all alive because it acts like a giant defensive lineman, blocking us from cosmic debris and world-ending asteroids like a celestial Olin Kreutz. There are innumerable other variables, all of which played a part in intelligent life appearing on just one planet out of an entire galaxy. The odds of every one of those things falling into place in the exact configuration necessary to duplicate both the existence and success of human beings are virtually nonexistent. Therefore, the fact that we haven't made contact with any alien civilizations is probably because there isn't anything out there to contact.

Something I found interesting.

They may as well admit to being creationist. Only someone like our Creator could put together a package like this.

[JimFoxvog]

I used to be firmly convinced of theistic evolution. While I think groups like Answers in Genesis sweep over some of the difficulties of their theory, they are much more rational than I had first assumed and do a good job of showing difficulties in the evolutionary theories. I guess I still lean toward theistic evolution of some kind, but am in no way certain.