Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
For the issue of carbon dating and fossils, don't natural disasters have a big impact on the conclusions drawn from them? For example, it is widely accepted that thousands of years ago there were a series of superfloods which covered areas such as the Caspian Sea, the Aegean area, the Mediterranean etc. Also, there was a Great Flood, caused by the melting of the ice sheets, which had taken place by 8,000 years ago. Without directly relating this to Biblical floods, these superfloods did have a massive effect on the landscape. Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.
Also I think I should be more clear on creationist views towards evolution. Your standard US Evangelical tends to believe in microevolution, but rejects macroevolution. However, there is little need for this split within forms of evolution, and this is the viewpoint taken by the vast majority of scientists. The boundaries between the two are purely man-made, despite some vague ideas about fertility and the ability to reproduce. How do we judge when something evolves to a new species? In this respect, Christianity should not conflict with issues such as vestigial organs. I know some Christians argue penguins have wings to help with balance for example, but I don't really accept this idea myself, as it doesn't make sense in the long-run. Although I do appreciate that my views differ from the creationist mainstream in this and so I understand why the point was made.
Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes. Which brings me onto the point regarding our imperfect bodies. Admittedly, the point about the eyes and detaching retinas is a tough one. As a Christian, ridiculous as it sounds to many here I do believe that we were designed for living a peaceful existance in Eden, not in the violence of the world we know. By that logic, we wouldn't need to be built like tanks to protect ourselves. They're not that weakly designed anyway, I've taken my share of knocks and my retina's still attached. On the flip side, why would we evolve so bizarrely, especially considering that it is so unsuitable for our surroundings? Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.
On the issue of having two legs, I think its an isue of interpretation. Why think of ourselves as an improvement over the apes (physically), instead of just being different? It is a fair line of thought to think, "we look similar to apes, so we must have grown to be genetically superior from them". But on the other hand, the apes are much better suited to their surroundings than we would be. Of course we have physical similarities, we live in the same world after all, but humans are better suited to the way they live. Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).
Bookmarks