Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

I think it depends on how one interprets the meaning of Biblical Eve. You seem to be a bit presumptuous in this regard. Some great thinkers have given various interpretations of Biblical Eve. Dr. (a person with a lot of education) Phyllis Trible has an interesting view of Biblical Eve. here is a link to some of her thoughts on the biblical story - I would be the first to admit that I am not the best advocate on the subject of the Bible and religion, but at least I have an open and inquiring mind.

http://www.ecu.edu/religionprogram/docs/Jarvis.pdf

 

Trible argues that the first "being" was asexual.

 

I was specifically referring to Trible's argument that the first being was without sex and that man and woman, as it would be interpreted, were created simultaneous. I refer to this in response to the reference of what predated Mt. Eve. Trible's argument could be interpreted to be a "being" that would not be interpreted as a traditional man or woman. If there is something that predates humans as we know them through MT. DNA it may be this "being" she refers to. I find her theory intriguing and in the context of evolutionary science I find some comfort in the connections she makes.

On a side note I think for some, the concept of the first "being" as asexual would be very problematic. But there is a lot of non-religious intolerance as well.

 

That is because that isn't the premise.

We aren't just "descended from apes". We ARE apes. A species of ape. We descended from other species of ape, just as the other apes did.

 

Perhaps I have missed something in your posts but it appears to me that you are advocating the equivalence of religion and science. I have missed this hard separation, I apologize.

As others have pointed out, we are not descendants of apes. We are descended from a common ancestor. We just evolved differently.

Humanities is social science is social studies... they are all the same thing. In the humanities (social science if you wish) there are few absolutes. There is a lot of room for interpretation of humanity (e.g. anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history, etc.).

In science class (e.g. Physics, Chemistry, etc.) water boils at 100C (depending on altitude).

There you would be wrong. I do not want the Republicans to be Left of Centre. I would like them to be grown ups. Responsible. Many today, are neither.

 

what percent of Christians do you think hold the young earth theory? 100%/75%/.../less than 10%?

Did you know in the bible Methuselah lived to be over 900?
Moses lived over 120 years?
Hebrews wandered the desert for 40 years, have you seen a map of the desert they wandered looking for the promise land?

I am not a biblical expert, an I know there are people who pretend to be who are not. In order to understand time in the Bible, I doubt one can use today's standards. How would a primitive man measure a year? Do you know?

Oh, do you believe Modern Man evolved from Neanderthals - now that is pretty funny. Are you anti-science or something?
--- merged: Feb 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM ---

There is a difference between what I believe and what traditional Christians believe. In my mind I have not ruled out the possibility that humans evolved from some other life form. I think in terms of "Adam/Eve" as being the first life forms on earth. If there is a creator I have also not ruled out the possibility that he/she/it, created humans later in the context of earth's history. For all I know he/she/it, may create something we can not comprehend this afternoon.
--- merged: Feb 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM ---

In an earlier post I stated that the issues often get conflated. When discussing evolution it is important to clarify what is being discussed.

I almost missed this - we have a link connecting humans to apes? I don't dispute the genetic similarities, but there are genetic similarities to pigs and other animals as well.

 

Teach fact as fact, theory as theory and present opinion as opinion. If that is being done I have confidence that students can benefit from religion being a part of a school curriculum.

If true there should be evidence of those links. What was the animal that both humans and apes evolved from, where are the skeletal remains?

Is the speed of light a constant or a variable? There are scientific facts and scientific theories. If a theologian offers a theory why does it get less credibility than if the theory comes from a physicist? Both can be highly educated, both can be exceptional thinkers.

 

....if you live in a place with clear and distinct seasons and if you live in the same place all year and if there was no climate change and if someone was actually recording the data and if someone gave the data to the next person to record it and if they both used the same method....

I am not sure this is correct. All humans can be traced to Africa based on what we know. Neanderthals can only be traced to Europe. Humans with European lineage can have traces of both, but people with direct African lineage have no Neanderthal linkages. To me this suggests a clear separation.

 

Religious theory is based on fact. The theory stemmed from human observation of the world. Again, some scientific theory as turned out to be clearly wrong and clearly not based on facts.

O.k., we been here before. The above is your view, I think it is too narrow.