The Co-existence of Science and Theology

12/11/2007 01:37:34 PM · #1176

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yah, except that there IS ample evidence suggesting Africa as the cradle of mankind. No such evidence has ever come to light in South America.

R.

But that evidence is from a few million years ago, not 4004 BCE ...

Oh, and "Lucy" doesn't look a bit like that painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel either ...

Well, that's not the point and you know it :-) Of course, there really ISN'T any point to this particular line of speculation, unless we want to start debating (again) how long a "day" is in God's eyes...

R.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/11/2007 01:43:27 PM · #1177

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Of course, there really ISN'T any point to this particular line of speculation, unless we want to start debating (again) how long a "day" is in God's eyes...

(and what "in His image" means given the physical appearance of those early African finds) ;-)

12/11/2007 02:30:55 PM · #1178

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Of course, there really ISN'T any point to this particular line of speculation, unless we want to start debating (again) how long a "day" is in God's eyes...

(and what "in His image" means given the physical appearance of those early African finds) ;-)

It has been argued that "in His image" is a spiritual state, a state of grace, rather than a physical state.

R.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/11/2007 03:39:57 PM · #1179

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It has been argued that "in His image" is a spiritual state, a state of grace, rather than a physical state.

But of course. I certainly wouldn't expect physical evidence to suddenly be applicable here.

No matter... let's work with what we've got. I've heard this claim before. It's not physical image (since God obviously couldn't have physical form before anything existed). It's not merely having a spirit (unless you contend that dogs and other animals have no spirit), it's His "state of grace" that humans apparently emulate. Fine. I tried to find a definition for "state of Grace." Considering it's the one thing that makes humans unique, you'd think that would be relatively easy to do, but I didn't see much. The best explanation I found was this from WikiAnswers:

The term 'State of Grace'... although not used in the Bible, refers to a persons standing before God at a particular time. The Bible does refer to persons who have 'fallen from grace' as those who were at one time in a 'State of Grace' and have departed from it. In other words, they were believers, and were thus saved by God's grace in Christ and have become unbelievers and are now outside of God's grace, by their own foolish choice.

So... from that it appears that humans were created with God's capacity to believe in God (even though it took many thousands of years to even popularize the concept of monotheism, let alone any notion of a Christian God). :-/

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

12/11/2007 07:18:42 PM · #1180

Here's a commentary from Matthew Henry (1707) about the passage. I just include it as to what I think is the general feeling of what the passage means. I don't have any point behind it:

III. That man was made in Godâ��s image and after his likeness, two words to express the same thing and making each other the more expressive; image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of Godâ��s person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of Godâ��s honour that is put upon man, who is Godâ��s image only as the shadow in the glass, or the kingâ��s impress upon the coin. Godâ��s image upon man consists in these three things:-1. In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his. And this we may safely say, That he by whom God made the worlds, not only the great world, but man the little world, formed the human body, at the first, according to the platform he designed for himself in the fulness of time. But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear Godâ��s image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, Godâ��s representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of Godâ��s image than his government of the creatures. 3. In his purity and rectitude. Godâ��s image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. He was upright, Eccl. 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam. 3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen. 9:6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to Godâ��s service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/12/2007 03:43:32 AM · #1181

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It has been argued that "in His image" is a spiritual state, a state of grace, rather than a physical state.

I like what Voltaire said on this subject:

"If god created us in his image we have certainly returned the compliment"

Message edited by author 2007-12-12 03:45:01.

12/12/2007 11:19:19 AM · #1182

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It has been argued that "in His image" is a spiritual state, a state of grace, rather than a physical state.

I like what Voltaire said on this subject:

"If god created us in his image we have certainly returned the compliment"

Check out the context of that quote.

I also like this one by Voltaire:
""What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

12/12/2007 11:54:19 AM · #1183

Cherry-picking Voltaire quotes is fun!
"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."

12/12/2007 12:20:27 PM · #1184

Isn't it?

12/12/2007 02:25:03 PM · #1185

I'm glad we started dealing in Voltaire quotes because I finally have the attribution to a quote I've enjoyed as expressing my worldview in this whole debate. I'd heard it with slightly different words, but I still like it.

"To believe in God is impossibleâ��to not believe in him is absurd."

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/12/2007 02:44:59 PM · #1186

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"To believe in God is impossibleâ��to not believe in him is absurd."

Ah, speaking of impossible and absurd,

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Lewis Caroll

12/13/2007 11:52:21 AM · #1187

Scitech article on women's evolution

Intersting for me to read this. It does raise a couple of questions. Why do women have to walk upright? What in evolution was required to evolve into this difference? Why don't men with large bellies have this evolutionary trait? If our ancestors (read closest relatives - chimpanzees) don't need to walk upright, why did we evolve to walk upright? Makes me curious as to what triggers an evolutionary change?

It is not reasoned or logical that survival would be the catalyst, as walking upright during pregnancy is not a survival need? Lots of animals survive just fine, pregnant or otherwise, without walking upright.

12/13/2007 12:04:48 PM · #1188

Originally posted by Flash:

If our ancestors (read closest relatives - chimpanzees) don't need to walk upright, why did we evolve to walk upright? Makes me curious as to what triggers an evolutionary change?

I've heard it suggested that as we came down out of the trees and moved into the savannas, with their large expanses of high grass, being able to stand upright became a selectable survival trait.

R.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

12/13/2007 12:31:23 PM · #1189

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
If our ancestors (read closest relatives - chimpanzees) don't need to walk upright, why did we evolve to walk upright? Makes me curious as to what triggers an evolutionary change?

I've heard it suggested that as we came down out of the trees and moved into the savannas, with their large expanses of high grass, being able to stand upright became a selectable survival trait.

R.

That's basically correct. Humans evolved their upright bi-pedal way of movement (it is argued) as a way of surviving. Early human, with their upright way of running, we're able to run down their food source. Humans can run down a gazelle (There is still a tribe somewhere in Africa that hunts this way) since they have the capacity to run long distances where as most other animals can only run in sprints before the go lactic and collapse.

The potential trigger to this evolutionary change may have been the climactic changes that affected the East African Rift valley. The rift valley was a failed crack in the earth's crust. This may have triggered the transformation from tropical rainforest to the Serengeti plains that now exist. Primates, much more home in the trees, all left except for a group that evolved and adapted into the upright form of locomotion we know today.

If you want sources, I can find them, but I don't have the time to find them now.

12/13/2007 12:50:45 PM · #1190

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
If our ancestors (read closest relatives - chimpanzees) don't need to walk upright, why did we evolve to walk upright? Makes me curious as to what triggers an evolutionary change?

I've heard it suggested that as we came down out of the trees and moved into the savannas, with their large expanses of high grass, being able to stand upright became a selectable survival trait.

R.

That's basically correct. Humans evolved their upright bi-pedal way of movement (it is argued) as a way of surviving. Early human, with their upright way of running, we're able to run down their food source. Humans can run down a gazelle (There is still a tribe somewhere in Africa that hunts this way) since they have the capacity to run long distances where as most other animals can only run in sprints before the go lactic and collapse.

The potential trigger to this evolutionary change may have been the climactic changes that affected the East African Rift valley. The rift valley was a failed crack in the earth's crust. This may have triggered the transformation from tropical rainforest to the Serengeti plains that now exist. Primates, much more home in the trees, all left except for a group that evolved and adapted into the upright form of locomotion we know today.

If you want sources, I can find them, but I don't have the time to find them now.

Thank you. That is just the kind of basic information I was looking for. I do not need sources. I can shuffle through some research now. Thanks again.

12/13/2007 01:14:31 PM · #1191

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This concept, although understandable within the specifics, leaves me with some questions on the bigger picture. In other words, to me, this concept/theory on bi-pedal evolution, suggests that all were chimps/apes at one time, but due to needs to survive, humans evolved in the grasslands, the jungles remained to the apes/chimps as no need for bi-pedal evolution was required, then the humans re-populated the areas they had left - as clearly humans exist in tropical climates today. If this is true, then no human bones should be found in the tropical regions during the time of man's bi-pedal evolution in the grasslands, until he/she returned to re-populate the areas of their ancesters. Of course, if human bones were found in tropical regions during this evolutionary period (of say a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, million years) then science would need to explain the apparent discrepancy in this theory/conclusion.

This seems a bit of a stretch to me, as I suspect that human bones have been found and carbon dated to this period in tropical enviornments, however I am reserving judgement until I get some more information.

As always, thanks for your insight.

edited for clarification

Message edited by author 2007-12-13 13:23:07.

12/13/2007 01:20:27 PM · #1192

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
If our ancestors (read closest relatives - chimpanzees) don't need to walk upright, why did we evolve to walk upright? Makes me curious as to what triggers an evolutionary change?

I've heard it suggested that as we came down out of the trees and moved into the savannas, with their large expanses of high grass, being able to stand upright became a selectable survival trait.

R.

This concept, although understandable within the specifics, leaves me with some questions on the bigger picture. In other words, to me, this concept/theory on bi-pedal evolution, suggests that all were chimps/apes at one time, but due to needs to survive, humans evolved in the grasslands, the jungles remained to the apes/chimps as no need for evolution was required, then the humans re-populated the areas they had left - in order to evolve. If this is true, then no human bones should be found in the tropical regions during the time of man's evolution in the grasslands, until he/she returned to re-populate the areas of their ancesters. Of course, if human bones were found in tropical regions during this evolutionary period (of say a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, million years) then science would need to explain the apparent discrepancy in this theory/conclusion.

This seems a bit of a stretch to me, as I suspect that human bones have been found and carbon dated to this period in tropical enviornments, however I am reserving judgement until I get some more information.

That's a whole whack of leaping. Anyway, no organism does anything "in order to evolve". You make it sound as though the species in question makes a conscious decision to modify its behaviour in order to change its morphology.

12/13/2007 01:28:33 PM · #1193

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
If our ancestors (read closest relatives - chimpanzees) don't need to walk upright, why did we evolve to walk upright? Makes me curious as to what triggers an evolutionary change?

I've heard it suggested that as we came down out of the trees and moved into the savannas, with their large expanses of high grass, being able to stand upright became a selectable survival trait.

R.

This concept, although understandable within the specifics, leaves me with some questions on the bigger picture. In other words, to me, this concept/theory on bi-pedal evolution, suggests that all were chimps/apes at one time, but due to needs to survive, humans evolved in the grasslands, the jungles remained to the apes/chimps as no need for evolution was required, then the humans re-populated the areas they had left - in order to evolve. If this is true, then no human bones should be found in the tropical regions during the time of man's evolution in the grasslands, until he/she returned to re-populate the areas of their ancesters. Of course, if human bones were found in tropical regions during this evolutionary period (of say a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, million years) then science would need to explain the apparent discrepancy in this theory/conclusion.

This seems a bit of a stretch to me, as I suspect that human bones have been found and carbon dated to this period in tropical enviornments, however I am reserving judgement until I get some more information.

That's a whole whack of leaping. Anyway, no organism does anything "in order to evolve". You make it sound as though the species in question makes a conscious decision to modify its behaviour in order to change its morphology.

The root question was what triggers an evolutionary change. One answer was survival, and specifically bi-pedal evolution was due to survival in the grasslands. If this is true, then what part of my analysis was "a whole whack of leaping".

If you have additional insight as to the answer for the root question, then please share it.

12/13/2007 01:38:35 PM · #1194

Originally posted by Flash:

All that "in order to evolve" stuff, plus your being quite sure of paleontological findings in lieu of any facts, plus your apparent gross miscalculation of some arbitrary "evolutionary period" lasting about 100 years... though I admit I didn't quite follow what you said.

12/13/2007 01:47:22 PM · #1195

I will agree with Flash in a qualified manner. Although I'm a proponent of evolution, I do agree that our "educated guesses" are often presented as pretty well obvious facts when it comes to paleontology. I'll pick the slights less hot button topic of dinosaurs as an example. We get lay press articles all about how the dinosaurs cared for their young, hunted in packs, T-rex was a scavenger, and all sorts of other behavioral aspects when really we are just guessing these things. Watch your typical Discovery CG special about dinosaurs and it will be filled with it. The problem isn't making the guesses, the problem is just presenting it as known fact when it's built on very little actual evidence.

Hominid evolution is the same. What we do know is A) humans are bipedal and B) natural selection favors beneficial traits. The rest is really speculation.

Message edited by author 2007-12-13 13:48:03.

12/13/2007 01:48:24 PM · #1196

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
The root question was what triggers an evolutionary change. One answer was survival, and specifically bi-pedal evolution was due to survival in the grasslands. If this is true, then what part of my analysis was "a whole whack of leaping".

All that "in order to evolve" stuff, plus your being quite sure of paleontological findings in lieu of any facts, plus your apparent gross miscalculation of some arbitrary "evolutionary period" lasting about 100 years... though I admit I didn't quite follow what you said.

I have re-read my posts above and do not see a single reference that reads "in order to evolve". Additionally, not only did I use, 100 years but I also used, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand and a million years, as I do not know, nor claim to know how long this bi-pedal evolutionary change might have needed.

Lastly, I also stated that I was reserving judgement until I got more information.

Again, please share any insight into the root question, if you have some.

12/13/2007 01:57:01 PM · #1197

Originally posted by Flash:

I have re-read my posts above and do not see a single reference that reads "in order to evolve".

Yeah, because you edited it out after I posted. You can still see it in my post where you are quoted.

Originally posted by Flash:

Additionally, not only did I use, 100 years but I also used, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand and a million years, as I do not know, nor claim to know how long this bi-pedal evolutionary change might have needed.

Ok, whatever. 100 years for an entire species to evolve into a new form? Unless you're a fruit fly, I don't think it's particularly possible.

Originally posted by Flash:

Again, please share any insight into the root question, if you have some.

Sorry, I'm not qualified to theorize through my hat.

Message edited by author 2007-12-13 13:58:29.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/13/2007 02:02:19 PM · #1198

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
I have re-read my posts above and do not see a single reference that reads "in order to evolve".

Yeah, because you edited it out after I posted. You can still see it in my post where you are quoted.

Thank you. I now see where you read it. I did edit it out as it was a poor sentence, and what I was really trying to convey was clearer with the subsequent correction.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/13/2007 02:10:09 PM · #1199

I think bipedalism is related to increasing tool-using -- it's hard to throw a spear if you are walking on all fours. Whether increasing bipedalism led to increased tool-making, or whether the increased tool-making/using provided evolutionary pressure towards bipedalism is certainly debatable; it certainly seems to me that those are mutally-reinforcing characteristics.