intersting conundrum re-visited

creation vs evolution
susceptibility

On both sides you have an act of faith. As far as Christianity goes I will add that regardless of the age of the Earth you believe, you still have to take a leap of faith regarding the creation of humans (man). As an evolution proponent, you have to accept that there are missing steps from primate to man. Both sides accept a rationalization for the missing evidence.

Keith and I had an interesting discussion on faith, susceptibility, receptiveness, rationale, and reasoning. Can reasonable and rational people be convinced of things in direct opposition to their core beliefs? Can any person write down the steps, start to finish, the creation theory with partial or inclusive evolution or the denial of it? Can evolutionists write full steps of evolution start to present and explain what "causes" life in an otherwise viable collection of matter?

First, a person must understand part of how a person learns, thinks, and develops. When things don't match, then there is a logical conflict. Whereas you have the creation theory (or faith), which has some logistical flaws, you have to reason out the errors. If the bible's account of the creation is accurate to human standards, then it is beyond the scope of possibility unless you give miracles to 90% of the bible. This itself causes a problem because the bible itself is not error-free.

Problems with the bible are: it is an abridged text, selected volumes by a monk collective. If you are at all a more diverse person with an understand or exposure to the dead sea scrolls, you will be aware also of the Gnostic monks generally known for their bible efforts. The bible that the mid-20th century and later 20th century folk experienced was the King James version. It's important to remember the term, "version", as that is a clinching phrase.

In the 60's, you had a resurgence of counter-culture and abandonment of the church, so true were people wanting to reach the layperson. These people revised the bible in more modern American English vernacular. This again is a version of a version -- altering the text and the meaning. Language is a mighty, powerful and Babel-esque divisive tool. Now there are many versions ... Latin, Catholic, many protestant versions (New American, NIV, NIV II, American Standard, etc.)

So, if you are to accept the bible as the word of God, pure and unquestionable, which version is correct? That, readers, is the error with the bible being the one, true pure word of God. I will not go into the level of inconsistencies with God's reversal of judgment from the Old Testament seeking sacrifices and stoning deaths for minor offenses to Christ's entry and message of, "love" to the point of forgiveness for all persons. This is not to mention the book of Revelations were, again the wicked or sinful are smote and drawn into Hell.

Another thing readers tend to forget is that the books of the bible weren't written start to finish by the "author" as they are attributed. Any bible scholar will report that the book of Luke was not wholly written by Luke. If so, is that all he wrote -- certainly not! The books of the four were written after they died. That's a neat feat for the HUMAN dead. The bible doesn't have any entries by women who were part of the ceremonies in the early parts of Christianity. I'll stop here showing just a few of the limitations of the bible. It is, however, an important book especially if you are Christian.

Creation is not without flaws also. The work of fossil hunting wasn't done much during the 14th century and really wasn't started until the 16th century by the few and wealthy. The more educated were the clerics who could not develop a science that countered the norm standards and powers of the church, so ... you had some educated people searching, but generally it was by luck.

Most fossils aren't "gosh -- lookee there, a whole dinosaur with scales, eyes, etc". I wouldn't doubt that some of the fossils were dragons that were completely and utterly destroyed out of fear. Other fossil rocks were dismissed or used in the manufacturing of homes, tools, etc. and lost forever. As far as the evolution of man ... well, there is the problem.

There are no fossils of the single-celled organism that spawned all life on Earth. There are no fossil records of the the missing link. There are problems in the stratification dating of items:

you know that this area is this old because of rocks and fossils, which you use to verify other dates, but ... if there isn't radio-active dating possible on the local rocks, you have to guess that the rocks are not pushed up from tectonic movement some time last century. If so, your whole time scale is millions or more off. Also, old dating is used as a center point to date more reliable finds. So, rather than use the new find, with more testable features, you go back to the old, "pottery of the 4,000 B.C. (BCE) was found here, so it is this old.

So the questions neither can answer are tough. Creationists can't fully deny evolution, sorry folks, that's a demonstrated fact. Creationists also might want to reconsider the thought of a small family (Noah) breeding everyone on the planet, as well as the two of each species. How, in the short span of the bible did Noah's offspring get to Norway, Australia, the Americas, Mongolia, Hawaii, and these places were "hidden" and unknown to the general populace? How could two of an animal spawn thousands of different species? I will note the incest thing of Noah, but I think you anticipated that.

Evolutionists can't fully write the story of evolution and there are missing links between man and other primate. Also, mentioned by Keith, et al, modern man has no strong limiting factors like predators. I mentioned that technically people do eat people, but societies developed a taboo on these practices for health and group function.

In either group, people are susceptible to suggestion either way. Because humans don't have to spend so much of their existence just surviving long enough to breed (some sociologists might make a strong case in some cultures and subcultures that breeding supersedes survival) they can wonder why they exist and how. Because life is an enigma and generally people are more emotionally sound when things are reasonable, most people have a "pretty good idea of why things are". Generally, though people are less intelligent than they would like to think they are.

Did one guy write the bible ... uh, no. Only through a collective do we have any knowledge at all. We therefore rely on other people for information and baseline data. I doubt that any person could look at the world and, having no knowledge of much of anything, come up with what we know and learn today. People are swayed by people and there is a certain level of susceptibility individually and as a group. How receptive you are defines how malleable you are. Moreover, you are more receptive to things that can fit into your preexisting perspective (Tetris).

So, believe who are silly putty are more easily shaped while iron working is possible, it takes a long time. Another factor is the "I want to believe"+ factor. You want to believe something that does a best fit and miracle job of making things just right. Sadly, nothing is just right for there are leaps of faith you have to make, either as an evolutionist or a Christian.

I believe the bible is a good guide for behavior, in that the the commandments were not too difficult to follow and that the teaching of Christ's love everyone, while very difficult to do, is simple enough to try. I do not, however, believe that God was able to meaningfully convey existence to people who were not too bright. How do you explain a million years or a billion years to someone who maybe has counted to a thousand? How do you explain oceans and other continents to someone who will grow, live and die in the desert (Luke Skywalker's would-be fate)? How do you explain marsupials and monotremes to people who don't understand animal husbandry?

I think God has tried very hard to explain the simple to a simple breed of thing -- humans, in a way that somewhat makes sense. Made man in his own image shouldn't mean that God is humanoid or has two eyes, etc. Could you fully explain to a three year-old or some adults of a disembodied entity that created everything? How about souls? The bible isn't written like a newspaper or like an encyclopedia. You should read it for the basics. In the end, you should love others as God loves you.

As far as creation goes, well ... I think people trying to put humans and dinosaurs together are wrong. I think the concept of 10,000 years old or younger is wrong. It can be argued that man, however genetically linked to other primates we might be, is not the same critter. In the end, language, which enables greater thought and expression separates apes and man. They communicate in many ways like and unlike us, but don't have a written language, but have been spared extinction because of language.

I once would have typed that God created evolution, even within man, and let him sort it out, impacting him with His word, filtered as it was. Now, I would write that no ... this puzzle is still not complete despite the "4-6 years "printed on the box. Please note my timid and regrettably non-committal vernacular; I guess I believe in God, Christ, but not the Holy Ghost, and in evolution. My Zen collection is that genetically we are all linked together, the many "races" finally rejoining into a homogeneous species of generalized humans. There is the only short-term recorded human evolution apart from disease-resistance and other small adaptations (wisdom teeth) and later greater visual
dependence. We are smaller than the whole of the world, each being important to a small degree to a larger impossible to see thing.

An ant cannot perceive the globe as we cannot perceive the whole of existence.

+ accredited to Christ Carter of, "X Files" fame