I believe in The Source of all creation, but I admit to not having a lot
of faith in the Bible. Where are the dinosaurs?
I studied the Bible, not through choice, in my younger days. That's why I can argue so effectively with the Jehovah's Witnesses when they visit. Maybe they keep coming back because they enjoy the arguments as much as I do. Perhaps it makes a change from the usual 'Clear off'.
Principally because of the blatant hypocrisy I saw in those that attended church, I now have no religion. I am a scientist, but science is not my religion either. Science has taught me to think for myself, and consider all evidence. That includes evidence I might not necessarily be happy to see.
Take the case of the Nephilim (American standard version, referred to as Giants in the King James version). The description is of a race of not-human people who are considered to be the children of fallen angels. The Nephilim were eventually wiped out by humans.
There were other species of humans. One of these was called 'Neanderthal'. We now know they were contemporary with modern humans for a time. There is no evidence of interbreeding; certainly, if it occurred, it was rare. Neanderthals were bigger than humans and were likely to have been just as intelligent. They died out, for reasons so far unknown.
To humans, they would have been giants. Is the Bible account of Nephilim a race memory, or perhaps a tale passed down through human tribes, of these extinct Neanderthals?
That, of course, is not evidence that the Bible is entirely literal truth. It does suggest its potential value as a historical document.
I have met people who interpret references to 'Leviathan' and so on as references to dinosaurs. These people believe dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. This is patently ridiculous, based on both geological data and plain common sense. We could not have survived in a world populated with such huge carnivores. With no hard outer body-casing, no claws and no teeth to speak of, humans would have been a preferred prey for every meat-eater out there. We still are, occasionally, but nowadays the carnivores are not big enough to lift the roof off a house.
These people insist on the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs for one reason only. They have to fit dinosaurs into their six thousand years. This number is based on adding all the ages of the people detailed in the Bible, assuming there are no gaps, going back to Adam. It adds up to six thousand years or thereabouts.
The flaw in the theory is Adam. From him, they count back seven days to the creation of the universe. Even the Witnesses don't take those seven days literally. How can there be a definition of 'day' before the sun is created, for a start?
Let's concentrate on Adam. Only a few highlights of his life in Eden appear in the Bible. We are told it lies between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Science tells us that man originated in north-east Africa. Not a perfect correlation, but pretty close. We are also told that Adam was created perfect, so he would have been immortal. The same goes for Eve.
Adam's ageing therefore only started when he was expelled from Eden. The six thousand years of the fundamentalist only goes back as far as Adam's expulsion from Eden.
While in Eden, he was immortal. He wouldn't have been counting days. He might have been in there for millions of years.
Eden is only a small part of Earth. While Adam was lounging around in his ivy-leaf outfit, what happened outside Eden? Naturally, there is no record of this since there was nobody to record it. Life could have been left to its own devices. The dinosaurs could have come and gone before the apple-tree incident.
In this scenario, you can have both creation and evolution. I don't 'believe' in creation, but I accept the possibility because I can't prove otherwise. All you need to get rid of is the rigid interpretation of 'seven days', and be flexible over the length of time Adam was in Eden (and remember, this is not specified), and you have a viable theory. It doesn't yet mesh perfectly with the scientific interpretation, but it starts to get close. You'd also need to ditch the six thousand years as a definitive figure. Science changes figures all the time, based on new evidence. Religion needs to be similarly flexible. Besides, the figure was derived by one man, and 'the number of a man' beginning with a six has some pretty negative links.
There is also the interesting matter of the chromosome evidence, but that involves a lot of talking so I'll post that later.
7 comments:
Thoughtful article.
What about these two statements?
“That's why I can argue so effectively with the Jehovah's Witnesses when they visit.”
And….
"The flaw in the theory is Adam. From him, they count back seven days to the creation of the universe. Even the Witnesses don't take those seven days literally. How can there be a definition of 'day' before the sun is created, for a start?"
"Even the Witnesses"..... as if they are the nuttiest of all groups, yet you’ve given them credit for seeing through the largest obstacle to reconciling creation and findings of science (if I read your post correctly). So why do you argue with them? It sounds as if they are the group with whom you are in closest agreement.
I believe in creation, yet it is almost embarrassing to say so. Not because the position is untenable. No! It's because when I identify myself people assign to me all sorts of baggage that the fundamentalists believe…..notions such as the 7 literal days, ideas that JW’s reject. The Bible does not insist on literal days, just as a geezer will speak of events back “in his day.”
I like to blog about these subjects.
http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/07/every_decade_or.html
Maybe we can argue.
Tom Sheepandgoats
The Witnesses are not the nuttiest group by any means, aside from their bizarre delight in announcing the end of the world at regular intervals. They are the only group who appear at my front door, which is why they get so much space here. If the Catholics came round, they'd get the same thing.
Scientologists I will not speak to. They are so mad it might be catching.
The seven literal days are one obstacle; the insistence on the age of the Universe as 6000 years is a bigger one. It makes certain groups attempt to twist scientific findings to fit, and that just makes them look silly.
Ah! Good! They come nuttier than us.
Everyone should get at least one free pass for a missed EOW date, don't you think? There's lots worse things. Since we make no attempt to FORCE our beliefs on others - our weapons are words only - that makes us harmless when compared to most groups who do: the religious right in America, for example, who are forever meddling in politics, to say nothing of groups who seek to impose their will by terrorism.
So if we miss a date, which doesn't happen quite so often as you imply, all that happens is we get a little egg on our face.
Besides, in one case (1914) we hit the nail right on the head:
http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/09/what_makes_a_gr.html
And I think you understand, if I read your comment correctly, that our only unbendable condition is that humans appeared about 6000 years ago. Other life forms may be considerably older - earth itself, gazillions, or whatever scientists say. We have no issue with that. The figurative use of "days" allows for all of that.
Hi Tom
I understand it was the founder of the Witnesses who predicted the end in 1914? He certainly correctly predicted global catastrophe.
You're right too, that the Witnesses I have met have been very pleasant people. None have threatened to behead me for lampooning them.
To the point: Your argument for the 6000 years is specific to humans? So can evolution be true for other species, but not humans?
There is no solid evidence to contradict such a view, since the 'missing link' is still missing. Human remains have been dated at older than 6000 years (I am aware of the difficulties in various dating systems).
So, any thoughts on how long Adam was in Eden, and what was happening on the rest of the earth at the time?
The 6K years stems from the Bible's internal chronology, which starts with Adam. Who begat who, and who lived how long, and a few instances of so many years from this event to that one. It is complicated enough that many have made errors in calculation. Isaac Newton calculated 2060 to be the last year! Someday I will research how he figured that. Do you know?
But the Genesis account puts creation of the animals before Adam, thus before the chronology I referred to. Animal creation takes place within the context of the creative "days," time periods of indeterminant length. That is why Jehovah's Witnesses have no issue with any claims about how old animal fossils are. They may be correct, they may be incorrect....but it doesn't conflict either way with the Bible's record.
As for creation of the earth itself, that occurs even before the creative days. Gen 1:1 "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." After that statement, not before, the account tells of the creative days. So when it comes to age of the earth and universe, we have no conflict. Let em say millions, billions, trillions, gazillions. Maybe. It's outside of our realm.
As to how long was Adam in Eden before the fatal act of disobedience.....I don't know.
You are a curious mix of Genesis and science.
You are a curious mix of Genesis and science.
I am an open mind. There are few of us around. I follow no religion but I don't call myself atheist because I don't deny the possibility of a creator. I have long attempted to reconcile religion and scientific findings, and have found many correspondences.
I can't conclude from this that there is a God, equally I can't conclude that there is not.
There is a great deal in the Old and New Testaments that suggests the people of that time knew a lot more than they are given credit for. Whether they obtained that knowledge from a divine source, I can't say, but science has produced no evidence at all to deny that possiblity. So the possibility remains, and it should be examined rather than dismissed.
After all, the idea that the Universe popped into existence in the Big Bang is no different to saying God made it. Astronomy has evidence that the Universe originated at a point source, from which it continues to expand, but cannot say where that point source came from. The mechanism is known, the origin of that mechanism is not. That there was a 'big bang' is certain. What is not certain is; who lit the fuse?
Experience has taught me that what we see is not the sum total of what exists. There is a great deal science does not know; unfortunately there are a great many scientists who won't accept that. Equally, religion might not have everything absolutely correct. Aren't there a number of books which do not appear in the Bible, for example? Tobit, Azariah, Enoch, to name but a few. Are these considered in the calculation? On what basis are some books included, others excluded?
The Great Flood must have resulted in the loss of considerable historical data. Whether it was an actual event or a metaphor, it certainly represents a great catastrophe. Can we be certain that the familial lists between Adam and Noah are complete?
The idea that man evolved from a common ancestor, which also gave rise to the apes, is temptingly easy in terms of taxonomy, but not proven. Neanderthals have been demonstrated to be a different species, not human ancestors, yet they resembled us far more closely than does a chimpanzee. Australopithecus, likewise, cannot be definitively connected with humans.
Biologically, it seems unlikely that humans appeared out of the gates of Eden into a world of evolving animals. Yet science cannot prove with absolute certainty that this was not so. Many scientists refuse to contemplate the notion. They dismiss the sudden appearance of fully-formed humans as absurd.
I do not, because I have seen no evidence to disprove it. Nor have I seen proof that it is true. Billions of people, of various religions, believe it to be true. That is enough to make me interested.
The only serious bone of contention between us is the six thousand years. Human remains have been found that are older, but are still recognisably human. Not intermediate forms, not Neanderthal, but human.
The study of human evolution cannot definitively disprove the idea that humans simply popped into existence. Religion cannot prove it. On that point, then, I will wait for evidence one way or the other.
I still think it happened more than six thousand years ago, either way.
I wonder, if the world were to end in 2060, what would be the total time between beginning and end? Does that number have any significance?
Post a Comment