Re: Is shame is a prediction of Biblical Creationism

On Oct 4, 2:35 pm, NITRO <NITRO...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't find this question terribly interesting, but I am curious
about your current beliefs. Last time you were posting here
regularly (about a year ago) you were, what I believe could be
described as an Old Earth Creationist (as distinguished from
a Theological Evolutionist). Have your beliefs modified at all
since then?


My beliefs have modified in the sense that they have become dimmer. I
really cant rationalize a literal translation of the Bible and there
is still a lot I don't know about evolution, so I guess that leaves me
somewhere in between trying to learn all I can. I really have trouble
with the whole question.

There are several things that would confuse me about the 1st couple of
chapters of Genesis. Specifically this whole idea of sewing leaves as
cover vs. getting animal skins to cover later.(If your aware of the
story you would know that the original covering of nudity was leaves,
and then the original couple was given animal skins) This phenomena
seems to correlate to the whole aspect of carnivores coming on the
scene directly after the fall, (Gen 1:29, 30)which if it was all-of-a-
sudden would mean that there were very great changes to existing
creatures or that the carnivores were just created from the dust. This
would of course be unscientific, and would shatter any real rationale
I might have had as a creationist.

Does that mean it could not have happened? No, I believe that it is
possible, especially since God can theoretically do anything at
anytime. But it helps make any logical synthesis I might have had on
the subject pretty much useless. So maybe I'll learn some new
development later.

.

On the other hand, all I have learned about evolution has been for the
last 2 or 3 years under the critical lens of a creationist, which has
been to, by default, doubt anything put forth by science about the
origins of the species. I think that this perspective has actually
helped me differentiate between what might indeed be science and what
might be psuedoscience, so I think it is a healthy mindset.


I went thru something similar about 30 years ago. At the
time, and for at least the next 15 years, it didn't feel very
healthy at all. I spent more than 5 years agonizing over
whether I was going to burn in hell forever, and then another
10 (or more) not believing anything that anybody said about
anything at all - which is as destructive as its opposite.

So I'd like to begin by pointing out that, in my view, the most
literal interpretation of Genesis is not at odds with
evolution:

Consider for example the story of Cain, who after killing his
brother was driven away by God and made a fugitive. Then it is
said, his wife bore him Enoch. Chronologically this was before
Adam and Eve could have had any female children. For me the
clear implication is that there were other homosapiens about
who could be husbands and wives, but that Adam and Eve where
the first to be recognized by God.

Consider also that Genesis 1 and 2 (starting at 2:4) appear to
be two completely different creation stories. Most striking is
the fact that in Gen_1; animals were created first and then man
while in Gen_2; the order is man followed by animals. Since
such a contradiction could not possibly have gone unnoticed by
the author(s) of Genesis, this seems to me to be a clear
and deliberate statement that the story is to be read as
allegory for "God did it", not as literal truth.

For example I'm not just going to accept any fact because
science says so, I need to know why...so I think it is
healthy.

Well, instead of saying "science says so" I do my best to trot
out various pieces of evidence when trying to defend evolution.
The (rather large) bit I have been starting with recently is
the following:

It illustrates the evolution of the human brain over the past
2.5 million years from about 450cc to it's present size of
about 1350cc:

STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html

STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html

KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html

KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html

KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html

KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
rotatable skull here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/qt/wt15kmov.html

Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm

"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm

Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html

Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html


So questions like these help me see other people's
perspective, and Im not then going to be limited by my own
ideas.

Well, I'd like to convince you to limit your ideas to what is
true, or at least to reject ideas that are clearly false.

From what you've said I'm sure you will take the time to
consider to these points.

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

.

Relevant Pages