Ancient Anthropoid Origins Discovered In Africa

Duke University ^ | 13 October 2005 | News office staff

[WildHorseCrash]

For your sake, I hope you're right.

I know I'm right.

[adam_az]

" a talking snake, magic fruit and all that..."


Did you say talking snake and magic fruit?

[BigCinBigD]

"Also, they said, one of the creatures appears to have been nocturnal'

Vampire early monkey ping.

[mlc9852]

So possibly the crucifixion and resurrection are just analogies?

[Attillathehon]

I don't know if any of you remember the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan. In it he described a group of early scientists looking at Mars and saying they couldn't see a thing, therefore there must be an atmosphere. And, if there is an atmosphere, there must be plant life. And, if there is plant life then animal life must have evolved just as it did here on hearth. In other words he said:

Observation: I can't see a thing.

Conclusion: Dinosaurs!

It was a great example of scientists reading too much into the "evidence."

For the record, Carl Sagan believed in evolution and God.

[MeanWestTexan]

"You certainly don't have to believe the Bible, but trying to make those who do look like backwater yokels doesn't help make your case. I'm convinced evolutionists are generally just mean-spirited people."

True for many. But there many, many hateful and dishonest Creationists, as well.

The level of discourse is sadly very low on both sides.

[hyperkitty]

Well, the bible is clearly not literally true in everything. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is given as three. We know that this value (pi) for the mathematical, is actually 3.1428..., so the bible is not literally correct here.

So they just rounded. 3.1428... isn't correct either. If you hit the pi button on a calculator, it comes up with 3.141592654... but that's ok, we all make mistakes from time to time.

[marktwain]

So possibly the crucifixion and resurrection are just analogies?

Without meaning to offend, if such a simple thing as a mathematical ratio can be wrong in the Bible, it certainly leaves open the door to doubt the absolute veracity in all details of events that were written down only many years, if not centuries, after they happened.

This is where faith comes in. A person *chooses* to believe with little or no verifiable evidence. That choice may be based on significant personal events that cannot be easily transmitted to another person. I am not saying that choice is wrong, only that belief in the Bible as literal and absolute truth can easily be shown to be incorrect.

In the case of the circumference of a circle, the question becomes: What are you going to believe? The Bible, or your lying eyes?

Most believers in an absolutely literal Bible will weasel out of this by figuring some way to interpret the passage given as not saying what it says.

[marktwain]

You are absolutely correct, but, I don't claim to be inspired by God in my posts. Thank you for the correction, as I was going by memory.

It certainly points out how fallible memory can be, however. ;-)

[Matchett-PI]

"But you have faith in words written down by a bunch of Bronze age, sandal wearing, goat herders. nice call."

With that "just-so" statement borne of ignorance, you have publically embarrassed yourself and landed on the list of those who deserve Calculated contempt

[Chances Are]

Well, my, my, my, don't we have a rather high opinion of ourself today?

CA....

[fish hawk]

Move along. Nothing of interest here.

[Vaquero]

I laugh at your assumption of my embarrassment and summarily refuse you insipid little list.

have a nice day ; )~

[Matchett-PI]

"It's more trust in the scientific method than in individual scientists. Most scientists aren't satisfied with a "Because I said so" answer either so they check the results of their peers and publish their findings if they deviate in any significant way from the original results. And scientists aren't very coy when it comes to exposing the errors of their colleagues"

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?

"..it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science.."

[metmom]

OTOH, a cubit isn't a real accurate unit of measure. It's the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger; generally held to be about 18 inches. The supposed inaccuracy can be accounted for by simple rounding, which is used in our lives daily. If someone really wants to look for reasons to reject the Bible as being unreliable because of "inaccuracies" I suppose that one can find anything. We still say the sun rises and sets. We know it doesn't but everyone says it and no one is accused of lying. But it's generally just excuses to reject religion.

[Matchett-PI]

"I laugh at your assumption of my embarrassment"

I knew you wouldn't have the sense to be embarrassed because your "just-so" statement about a subject you are in no way qualified to credibly comment on, revealed you to be totally clueless as to your difficulty, to wit:

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

[RightWhale]

Awaiting a new discovery in China of a feather covered anthropoid 38 million years old. Hair is just modified feathers.

[Quark2005]

Either the Bible is true or it isn't, unless you want to pick and choose what may be or may not be true, rendering the entire Bible useless, IMHO.

The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science text. Some of the stories in it are parables, some aren't. (Don't stories about the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" kind of scream out PARABLE!! to you?)

In any case, the Bible cannot be a 100% totally true description of physical events, because it is not even 100% totally internally consistent - there are factual contradictions within. Also, I'm sure there are passages in the Bible that you already don't take literally - do you really think you should hate your immediate family as Jesus commanded in Luke 14:26?

The Bible is infinitely valuable as a spiritual guide, I believe, but as a concrete record of natural history? Hardly the Book's intention.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"For the record, Carl Sagan believed in evolution and God."

Actually, Sagan was an atheist. I do remember the Cosmos episode where he spoke about evolution; it was shown to my 9th grade biology class. It was a Catholic High School and my teacher was a nun. Excellent teacher btw; she taught us that evolution and religion were not enemies. She liked Sagan, but lamented that so bright a man was an atheist.

[marktwain]

OTOH, a cubit isn't a real accurate unit of measure.

Yes, and I've heard that the ancient Hebrews were really counting months instead of years when they passed on the ages of the patriarchs as well.

It just reinforces that the Bible cannot be counted on to answer questions of specific fact, especially in such things as the age of the earth.

I don't expect to convince devoted fundamentalists that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. I am trying to show that the Bible is not literal fact. Unfortunately, people who have invested their lives in this belief system will almost always find a way to rationalize any discrepancies. It is far easier to do this than to change the basis of their belief structure.

This unwillingness to change in the face of evidence is a fundamental part of human nature that has been demonstrated over and over throughout history.

Only severe, life changing crises have been shown to be capable of initiating a serious change in belief structures. Those that can be persuaded by evidence are a small minority.