FIRST FOOTWARE DATES TO 40,000 YEARS AGO
I woke up this mornin’, feelin’ ‘round for my shoes. Know ‘bout ‘at I got these old walkin’ blues. - Robert Johnson, Walkin’ Blues
New research by paleoanthropologists from Washington University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates that modern humans were “feelin’ ‘round” for their shoes earlier than previously thought.
Anthropologists have great interest in the origin and natural history of footwear because it gives insight into a unique human cultural adaptation that assisted the spread of humanity around the world. Humans make use of footwear for protection in all environments and insulation in cold climates.
Unfortunately, footwear isn’t readily preserved in the archeological record because it is often made from soft material. The oldest footwear dates back to only about 10,000 years ago. [Work reported in 2005], however, demonstrated that foot anatomy can indirectly shed some light on the footwear use. Research indicates that toes become less robust when shoes are worn. Interestingly, other parts of the skeletal anatomy are unaffected. The 2005 study indicated that footwear was worn by modern humans about 30,000 years ago. Still, the question remains as to when the first footwear was worn.
A new opportunity to address the question surfaced recently with the discovery of modern human remains in a cave near Zhoukoudian, China. These remains date to about 40,000 years in age and include foot bones.
As part of this new study, the researchers compared the toe size of Europeans, Inuits, and Native Americans. For this study, the Europeans included in the sample made extensive use of footwear, the Inuits used crude footwear, and the Native Americans spent a significant time barefoot. They found that toe size inversely correlated with use of footwear, demonstrating the strength of this method to indirectly detect footwear use.
As part of the calibration, the scientists also examined the foot structure of Neanderthals and the near anatomically modern humans recovered in the Qafzeh-Skhul cave. The toes of both of these hominids were much more robust than even those of the Native Americans in the sample. It’s not likely that these creatures used shoes.
The researchers then determined that the toe size of the modern human remains recovered recently in China were consistent with extensive use of footwear. This find pushes the use of footwear back to 40,000 years ago.
This discovery fits well with the biblical account of human origins as embodied in the Reasons To Believe (RTB) creation model. In short, the RTB model for humanity’s beginnings asserts that God created Adam and Eve, in His image, through direct, miraculous intervention. (See Who Was Adam? for a detailed description of the model and the scientific support for it.)
This model regards the hominids found in the fossil record as animals also created by God’s direct involvement. Accordingly, these creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. RTB’s model considers the hominids to be remarkable creatures that walked erect, possessed some level of limited intelligence, and emotional capacity. This allowed these animals to employ crude tools and even adopt some level of ‘culture’ much like baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees. While the RTB model posits that the hominids were created by God’s divine fiat, they were not spiritual beings, made in His image. The RTB model reserves this status exclusively for modern humans.
The RTB model treats the hominids as analogous to, but distinct from the great apes. Because of this, the RTB model predicts that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities will exist among the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But since the hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be clearly distinct from modern humans, particularly in their cognitive capacity, behavior, ‘technology,’ and ‘culture.’
The early appearance of footwear among modern humans—and the absence of any evidence for footwear usage among the hominids like Neanderthals and the near anatomically modern humans—match the predictions made by the RTB model. The use of footwear is a diagnostic for the image of God. This behavior requires advanced cognitive ability, creativity, and problem solving skills to recognize that covering the feet offers protection from harsh terrain and cold. Designing and manufacturing the tools to make footwear, too, reflects these same qualities.
Only humans made in God’s image get the “walkin’ blues.”
Posted at Reasons.org
July 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I’m a big believer that the human race was previously very advanced and the knowledge was lost. Every time I read an article like this I believe it even more. I think there are some areas of technology that we haven’t caught back up in that were lost previously. Good stuff. Thanks.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Mark,
What do you think about this claim that the world existed 40,000 years ago?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Well Mark, lets hear your spin. How does this fit into the world-is-6000-years old model? guess all of these scientists are wrong, and it is all coincidence, huh?
- ID
July 18th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mark -
Long as we are on the topic, check this out:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/Rating_Article.shtml
It is from a jesus-based propaganda website, so you will feel right at home. fun fun fun ….but do take a moment to let me know your reaction to this research.
- ID
July 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Wow! I feel famous! LOL!
I’ll start from the bottom up: Dave, I disagree with almost everything RTB publishes. Interpretation of data is subjective.
Second, Dave, I notice that they never tell in this article how the ages were determined. They never do, but, you, like most people just accept the ages they put on the remains that they found. Good enough for you, but not for me.
And, Crayon, I guess that answers your question too.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Mark, I’ve listened to and read a lot of Ken Hamm materials (www.AnswersinGenesis.org), and I’ve seen some debates between him and Hugh Ross (www.ReasonstoBelieve.org). Both are very smart and devout.
Just remember, we are saved by faith in God and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ. The age of the universe isn’t critical.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
John,
Not critical, but foundational. Think about it.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Mark dismisses science by saying interpretation of data is subjective. How about interpreting the bible?
You point is well taken that it would be better to know the dating methods and the potential weaknesses. But I wonder if you dismiss science in general by saying interpreting data is subjective while doing the very same or worse with the bible without realizing it.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I believe that God created our universe and God inspired the writers of Bible so the discrepancies between the interpretations of science and Bible will one day converge.
Either science hasn’t advanced there or the interpretations of Bible have human flaws at our time. Therefore I agree with John that the age of our universe is not so critical as compared to believe in our Creator God and Jesus Christ who is God incarnate while He was on our earth.
After all, the focus of Gospel and Bible is Jesus our Savior, not how old is our universe–that may be revised from time to time as science advances.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:55 am
I would just add: When I stand before Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, and everything in it, as we ALL will some day, I would rather let Him explain to me why He said that He created the Universe, including the Earth, and everything on the Earth, in six days, if He didn’t really mean it, than try to explain to Him why I didn’t believe what He said in His word.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Ahh but Ellen, we have reached the point that there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the fact that biblical timelines are verifiably wrong. And when one part of the bible is proven fallible, that of course leads immediately to the conclusion that the rest is not to be taken literally, either. As a fable, or a parable, or whatever… there is still some value, i suppose. But people making decisions as if there is literal truth in the bible is frightening.
And I cant buy beer before the noon kickoff of the Bears game because of that kind of decision-making. Stem cells are still not getting funding. Science curriculums are being subverted with comical nonsense. Resources and time are consumed in the pursuit of religious dogma. and why, when we can provably show that the foundational book that is preventing me buying that beer and researching those stem cells is, in fact, incorrect?
Can you not see how something like the real age of the earth, and the universe itself, is of the utmost importance?
Mark, I know you will somehow gloss over it, but the research that was done on the reasons.org website was indeed… scientific. and more generally, looking into space… the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant. you (well, not you, clearly, but more intellectually honest people, anyway) can do the math. something is visible at X distance, and the speed of light travels so fast… somehow that can’t all fit into 6000 years. Do you really fear the truth so much? (Rhetorical. Of course you do. 1 single biblical fallacy proven 100%, and your world crumbles. and so you continue to stick your head in the sand.)
Whatever. if we could just ignore the people like mark and interact on a cerebral level with the people like john, who are at least open to the accumulation of factual knowledge, we would be so much better off as a society…
We need to pretending that there is equal merit (ANY merit, for that matter) to the dogmatic representation of the universe. only when we sever our ties to the superstitious past can we really make progress towards the future.
- ID
July 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Mark said: “When I stand before Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, and everything in it, as we ALL will some day, I would rather let Him explain to me why He said that He created the Universe, including the Earth, and everything on the Earth, in six days, if He didn’t really mean it, than try to explain to Him why I didn’t believe what He said in His word.”
I feel for you, Mark, because you’re in a difficult situation. None of us lives a doubt-free life, but you’re not free to explore those very reasonable doubts with a clean conscience because doubting is itself a sin in your world.
July 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Skeptimal,
God has proved over and over to me that what I think are “doubts” are actually not. So, your description of my life is completely untrue. I know you are not intentionally trying to be like Dave, and tell me what I think, and how I feel, and how I live.
If, and when, you finally encounter the God of the universe, you will know it, and ALL your doubts will seem to be nothing more than silliness.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Hi! ID:
Thank you for your comments.
I think Genesis 1-2 had to address to Moses’ contemporary audiences so he wouldn’t use our scientific terms today.
Since Sun and moon didn’t appear the first day, so there are rooms to allow days as not 24 hour days. I have also heard the theory that just perhaps God showed Moses His creation work in 6 days ( by God’s advanced videos at that time) So I think a spectrum of interpretations are allowed in Genesis 1-2 and I won’t cry “the sky is falling” if the creation week is not literal 6 days though I don’t want to limit God’s almighty power on the other hand.
Here is a saying from the best seller( Reason for God) writer, Pastor Tim Keller, I think it is worth repeating here. Focus on Jesus’ resurrection is more important. And I do think Jesus welcomes all skeptics and doubters as He told Thomas to reach out and examine His crucifixion wounds.
… Two people said [last night at a Veritas forum]: “I can’t believe in Christianity, because look at the fossils.” And I was trying to say, “Because you believe in evolution does this mean that Jesus Christ couldn’t be raised from the dead?” One said, “No, that has nothing to do with it.” If he was raised from the dead, then you have to take seriously the Scripture and you have to work on all this. If he wasn’t raised from the dead, who cares about Genesis 1–11?
Tim Keller Reasons with America
The New York pastor explains why he’s taking his ministry model on the road.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/23.38.html?start=3#related
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
Hi! ID:
I reread your comment and realized that I didn’t really answer your challenging claims about ” a mountain of evidence pointing to the fact that biblical timelines are verifiably wrong” …etc. I’d like to know what do you mean by that? Can you give some major examples?
Contrary to what you said, I have found tons of evidence that some questionable historical records in the past are now proved correct by Archeology. The absence of proof is not the proof of absence in Archeology, right? Archeology will dig out more proofs gradually to verify the accurate records of Bible.
It is not frightening to treat Bible seriously though you may have seen some extreme cases of misinterpreting Bible and its applications.
By the way, I should correct my last comment about the theory of watching God’s creation in a week. I should say that it is only a speculation I have read, not a theory.
You said”Can you not see how something like the real age of the earth, and the universe itself, is of the utmost importance? ”
I surely see your point of view and perspectives. However, please remember the science you have based will be subjected to many revisions in the future, it is not the last version, not even close to final version I assume.
On the other hand, Bible is a literature too, it has different literature genres and styles that we should pay attention to. Also Bible does use figure of speech, whether metaphors, smilies or parables…etc. When taking all these into considerations and trying to interpret Bible faithfully to what it really means, Bible and natural laws shouldn’t be in conflict. It will converge with science at the end in the future.
Nevertheless, Bible is not a scientific textbook, therefore we shouldn’t treat it as a scientific textbook. That is what I mean God could have revealed all the modern scientific terminologies to Moses, but if Moses wrote down those modern terms, his contemporary audiences wouldn’t understand him at all. Remember his primary audiences had to comprehend what he said and what he wrote at that ancient times.
Furthermore, if God had written down all the formulas and equations of the creation of our universe, I wonder if enough computers are enough to store them. And I also wonder if even Einstein could understand those equations of creation. Therefore, what God had revealed in Genesis 1&2 had to be God’s baby talks to humankind. Very condensed and simplified version of His creation to give us just a glimpse of His wonderful creation of our universe.
Thanks again for your comments. This is my modest try to respond to your comments.
I pray that the Holy Spirit may guide you into the ultimate Truth of God.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 am
Mark said: “I know you are not intentionally trying to be like Dave, and tell me what I think, and how I feel, and how I live.”
I suppose I was getting close to that. I obviously can’t be you, even for a moment, so I don’t know how things look from your perspective. I can empathize, but that empathy is only based on what I know and have seen. I only know that I would so much rather have my life, where I can pursue my conscience freely and where my doubts serve to keep me grounded. I couldn’t do that if I were a Christian, because I know that so many tenets of Christianity are untrue, but I’d be required to behave as if they *were* true.
I’ve been told by Christians many times that my life is unlivable because they can’t imagine living without a god. I, on the other hand, can’t imagine living my life in fear that I might stop believing, and therefore “fall away.” Or so I believe it would be.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Ellen -
Well, at least you are intellectually honest about your process. Gotta respect that, at least. I happily point you to sciencedaily.com as a great place to start your search for the ‘mountain of data’. But the basics would include: the fossil record, radioisotopic decay, ice-core sampling, and of course the physics of spacetime. Is it possible that any one of those methods is incomplete or inconclusive; is it possible that any individual one of those methods results in data with differing explanations? Sure, more or less. But each of those does indeed result in data that shows the world as far, far older than the biblical timeline. It boils down to either one book, thousands of years old, is correct; or the aggregate total of human knowledge since is incorrect. Which seems more likely?
You continue:
“Bible and natural laws shouldn’t be in conflict. It will converge with science at the end in the future. ” Um… is this the part where i should avoid pointing out that the geocentrist model, and the flat-earth society, were verifiably wrong? That pi does not =3? that a 600-year-old man filling a wooden boat with dinosaurs is comically absurd? the bible is, from time to time, completely incorrect. it is only given weight by those who are afrad of the consequences to their view of society were the bible finally disproven as a document with prognosticative powers.
There may be some value to the ’spiritual’ thing, especially if it makes people really think about their place in the universe, but as an explantion for our physical world it is simply not accurate. So far from it being an issue of “his contemporary audiences wouldn’t understand him at all. Remember his primary audiences had to comprehend what he said and what he wrote at that ancient times” - at least it should not contain data that is clearly incorrect.
So, yeah, use it as a parable for clean living (or whatever your preferred nomenclature is), but trying to ascribe to ‘magic’ those things that we have yet to fully understand is just a copout.
It does give me some hope that there are people out there who are at least aware of the fact that the bible is not a literal analog to science (note to mark: you could learn a good many things from ellen!). Take what comfort you can from religion, but make your decisions based on the information available in this world, not the ethereal one.
And let me buy beer on sundays
- ID
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Here Ellen, this is an excellent example of what is going on in the research world vis-a-vis the origins of life and the timeline associated with said research:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707134402.htm
- ID
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Hi! ID:
Thank you for your explanations and the link. I’ve visited that website and found interesting information.
You certainly argue very well. I am not really qualified to counter you in scientific matters. However, I will try my best, albeit only a modest try.
You said :”It boils down to either one book, thousands of years old, is correct; or the aggregate total of human knowledge since is incorrect. Which seems more likely?”
Well, if that one book, even thousands years old was inspired by eternal God who created our universe, then it is more likely that book is correct.
The fact that Bible stands until our days through centuries of critical attacks tells us something unique about Bible.
And science has to go through many revisions in the future just like in the past. Science is not in its final version yet. Who knows another Einstein will come along and shock us with new discoveries or overthrow some dating methods?
The problems that different schools of scientists can interpret same data differently do cause problems, agree? For example, I read the calculations of the age of universe turns out younger than some stars all according to the calculations of expert astronomers. The eruptions of Mt. St. Helen also let us find out lots of phenomena we thought have to be millions of years in their formation can be developed in a few decades. So exactly how old is our universe? I think it is still open in the air.
On the other hand, Bible’s time line is only interpretations by certain scholars, Bible never said the exact number. The calculations of genealogy may not yield correct numbers either because the records do jump generations sometimes.( i.e. it has tenancy to record only those who are important.) Bible didn’t tell us exactly how many years of human history, so I don’t want to corner myself to an exact number either. Christians should learn the lesson from the misinterpretation of our globe being the center of the universe in the middle Age–Bible didn’t say so.
Besides, the writers of Bible were all inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down what they wrote. They didn’t do a dictation though. God allowed them to keep their own literature styles and experiences, feelings too. Bible is not a science textbook, so Psalms are full of poetic languages and human feelings. Nevertheless, God does speak through human experiences in Bible too.
Actually, the weather forecast is still using “sunrise”, “sunset” according to
human observations and feelings and not according to science. Likewise, Bible kept terms like “heartache” instead of brain-ache. using heart to represent all our feelings since when we are sad, we feel heartaches most of time. (headaches too) For those reasons, we shouldn’t attack Bible is not scientific by pointing to pi= 3. ( that is an approximation in their time, they didn’t count to all the digits behind the dot.) or the writers using intestines to represent our feelings…etc.( since we do feel stomach upset from time to time when we are in agony) so we should allow some descriptive languages to be used in their writings to reflect the writers’ emotions. Remember they are not dictating directly from God. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write.
Some of problems you mentioned is simply you think God couldn’t do whatever we humans couldn’t do. Therefore there is no room for miracles. Is that possible for baby or very young dinosaurs to enter Noah’s ark? You bet! I believe there are explanations for those areas you think incorrect. Just wait and see!
At the end, science and Bible will converge, if God is the Creator of our universe and the one who inspires Bible writers. Sorry our lifespan may not allow us to see the day of that convergence.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Well said, Ellen.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Well Ellen, the line that really jumped out was “The fact that Bible stands until our days through centuries of critical attacks tells us something unique about Bible.”
Yeah, it tell us that the church was absolutely great at mass inculcation. We already knew that. If you get sufficient numbers of sheep thinking that if they dont fly right, they go to hell forever, it is a simple matter to keep perpetuating that brainwashing. They teach their kids for the church. It is simple fearmongering, that has persisted until today because some people are unable or unwilling to take that critical step back and say “wow, this is all superstitious nonsense”.
You yourself are certainly not preaching the gospel of Odin, or Baal, or Asmodeus. You recognize that it was simply a way that less advanced cultures explained the inexplicable. Why are you not able to take that same logical leap and apply it to that system you were brought up in?
There are traditions the are far older, and literary works far older, than the bible. only the culture of fear keeps the christian tradition alive.
And as far as withstanding critical attacks, the bible does no such thing. it simply tries to stand outside critical attacks. something mathematically impossible? oh, then it was a ‘miracle’. of course. so there. That is not exactly standing up to criticism… just head-in-the-sand obsitnacy masquerading as viability.
Final thought: “science and Bible will converge, if God is the Creator of our universe and the one who inspires Bible writers” … well, what if NOT? What if the growing gulf between what the bible claims and science can prove continues to diverge, and science one day renders religion completely obsolete as a means of explaining anything? We get closer every day. Example I found this morning: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish.html - In June 2008, there was a gap for creationists to use as an example. July 2008 it is closed.
Something to consider…
- ID
July 24th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Well ID, thank you for giving me that link, interesting story indeed. Perhaps as you said that gap is closed but I bet there are still many other gaps that evolutionists do faith leaps too.
You speculate if Not convergent but divergent instead. Let me quote a physicist’s saying, he said Big bang theory has just caught up with Bible’s creation model. Bible was first in talking about the expansion of universe long before Einstein discovered the general relativity theory. So you see modern science has started to converge with Bible.
However, Bible is not a scientific textbook so we shouldn’t expect it to always use scientific terms. Strictly speaking, Bible also contains Satan’s words, say when Satan tested Jesus. Bible also includes men’s inaccurate sayings, for example, Job’s 3 friends’ arguments had been scolded by God in the end. So we need to read Bible very carefully and not misinterpret it.
Your bias about Bible not withstanding critical attacks, is not true at all. the bible does no such thing??it simply tries to stand outside critical attacks. something mathematically impossible? oh, then it was a ‘miracle’. of course. so there. That is not exactly standing up to criticism… just head-in-the-sand obstinacy masquerading as viability.
Let me give you a few passages from the Apologetic Study Bible, dealing with the challenges to the Book of Daniel. I am reading stuff that deals with what critics said about Bible and what apologists counter them all the times, how can you claim, faithful Bible scholars do not deal with its critics.
THE RELIABILITY OF DANIEL
Critics claim that the book’s language, theology, position in the Hebrew Scriptures with the Writings rather than the Prophets, and inaccuracies about historical events before the second century B.C. demand a late date of composition. Evangelicals respond with the following arguments:
1. Daniel was not placed in the Writings because the book was written later or the authors’ prophetic credentials were in doubt. At Qumran, the religious center from which came the Dead Sea Scrolls, the prophecy enjoyed unusual prominence and both the Septuagint and Josephus (Against Apion 1.8) classified Daniel with the Prophets. Apparently those responsible for fixing the order of the Hebrew Bible did not include the book in the prophetic section because Daniel was mainly a statesman. not a preacher to the nation of Israel in the manner of Isaiah or Jeremiah.
2. Archaeological discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the book in many instances (e.g., the existence of Belshazzar). Alleged historical inaccuracies on close examination are found to be nonexistent or have reasonable explanations.
3. Daniel’s Hebrew is consistent with a sixth century date (it resembles the Hebrew of Ezekiel), and his Aramaic exhibits striking parallels with that of the Elephantine Papyri, also written in imperial Ararmaic and dated to the fifth century B.C. By contrast, the Aramaic of the book does not conform to later samples of the language found at Qumran (e.g., Genesis Apocryphon). Critical assertions that the book’s Persian and Greek loan words require a late date will be discussed in the notes at 3:2 and 3:5.( see notes*)…4. 5. …etc.
You said…. They teach their kids for the church. It is simple fearmongering, that has persisted until today because some people are unable or unwilling to take that critical step back and say “wow, this is all superstitious nonsense”.
You mean fear of going to Hell is the reason people believe in God. But today many people don’t believe the existence of Hell so they won’t be scared of it. Although I have to admit that the fear of hell does play some roles in driving some people to the faith. However, it is not true that Christians are not able to take a critical step back and examine their faith. I, for one, did step back and worried that I was brainwashed when I first encountered the evolution theory. From there I became a skeptic and was wandering in the desert of unbelief for a few years until God brought me back to Him. I am fully convinced this Trinity God is not man made and is not a superstition.
You said :…You yourself are certainly not preaching the gospel of Odin, or Baal, or Asmodeus. You recognize that it was simply a way that less advanced cultures explained the inexplicable. Why are you not able to take that same logical leap and apply it to that system you were brought up in?
Of course I certainly wouldn’t preaching those fake gospels but what do you mean to take that same logical leap and apply it to that system I was brought up in? (I see no logical leap in recognizing they are superstitions.)
May God’s truth shine on you!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
And as far as withstanding critical attacks, the bible does no such thing. it simply tries to stand outside critical attacks. something mathematically impossible? oh, then it was a ‘miracle’. of course. so there. That is not exactly standing up to criticism… just head-in-the-sand obsitnacy masquerading as viability.
Hi! ID;
Talking about brainwashing, I’ve examined myself if I were brainwashed since my childhood. At that time I was a 5th grader introduced to evolution theory for the first time and I started to rebel against my childhood faith and wandered in the unbelieving, rebellious desert for a few years.
So my question for you is ” Have you ever examined yourself and see if you are brainwashed by secular popular sayings that are totally hostile to God? Perhaps you have never thought a smart person like you could be brainwashed. If you think so, think twice; could there be blind spot in your thinking against our Creator God?
July 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
…If you get sufficient numbers of sheep thinking that if they dont fly right, they go to hell forever, it is a simple matter to keep perpetuating that brainwashing…
…And as far as withstanding critical attacks, the bible does no such thing. it simply tries to stand outside critical attacks. something mathematically impossible? oh, then it was a ‘miracle’. of course. so there. That is not exactly standing up to criticism… just head-in-the-sand obstinacy masquerading as viability…
Above quotes are from ID’s previous comments
Hi! ID;
Talking about brainwashing, I’ve examined myself if I were brainwashed since my childhood. At that time I was a 5th grader being introduced to evolution theory for the first time and I started to rebel against my childhood faith and wandered in the unbelieving, rebellious desert for a few years until God in His mercy brought me back to Him and I am fully convinced the He is not a superstitious god.
So my question for you is ” Have you ever examined yourself and see if you are brainwashed by secular popular sayings and TV mediums that are totally hostile to God? Perhaps you have never thought a smart person like you could be brainwashed. If you think so, think twice; could there be some blind spots in your thinking against our Creator God?
Now a few thinking about time. Back to the old good days, our watches were pieces of art and sophistic, almost perfect mechanisms were built in to measure time in precision. When we allow our watches to run their normal courses, it takes 12 hours for them to finish a full cycle. However, if we reset a watch, in a few minutes we can let its short hand move many hours because the watch maker has built in the reset mechanism in watches. So the external force can change the courses of the performances of watches.
Likewise, God created this universe and it is running its natural courses all the times, unless God chooses to intercede, interfere and set it to run differently. If God is our Creator God, He certainly can suspend the natural laws to serve His own purposes, when He chooses to do so, miracles happen. That is very logical, right?
Also the age of universe is hard to calculate because we don’t know if the expansion rate is constant or if the expansion rate is like a balloon that will expand differently with different people or how you blow it to start with. Are scientists certain about the initial condition of the universe? Since it was broken down at the singularity, who’s behind the big bang? I am just posing some questions my little brain happen to know for you big brain people to think about.
When God created Adam, he had an assignment to take care of Garden of Eden, I assume then he had to be already an adult if God gave him the job of a gardener. So he could look like 20 some years old while in reality, he could have just been made and a few days old. I don’t think God made him a baby to start his life. So he might appear like an adult though he was only one day old. ( BTW, which comes first? Chicken or egg? My speculation is mother chicken came first as God probably didn’t create an egg first.)
After saying all these, I should emphasize that there is no exact time line specified in Bible. So there is no conflict so far between science and Bible in time line of human history or the age of universe.
Bible has shown us that humankind is in the center of our Creator God’s mind, but it didn’t tell us that our globe is in the center of our universe. You see that was how ancient Catholic church had gone wrong in its interpretation. Of course, it is hard to imagine how the Creator God of our gigantic universe cares about humankind. We don’t care about the lives of tiny ants, fleas, or do we?
Therefore, it is hard to think God cares about and loves so insignificant creatures like human beings. No wonder David was struck with awe and gratitudes in Psalm 8:3-4
When I view and consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained and established,
What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of [earthborn] man that You care for him?
I hope you see new light from this other ID.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ah Ellen, an interesting query. The answer: I was 1st place in my biblical history class in college, and was confirmed in the family church years ago. I played the game, and realized that although there are parallels between biblical dogma and science, they are insufficient to call said dogma ‘fact’. I have always been a factually-based creature. My greatest strength is the assimilation and analysis of available data. Since the bible is a single data point standing in contention with all other human knowledge, i long ago made a rational decision that i would forgo the biblical teachings in favor of hard data when shaping my worldview.
In particular, those for whom religion is simply a millstone around the neck, making them obstinate in the face of changing realities, made me realize just how powerful and pervasive a force religion can be. I prefer to think for myself in all cases, rather than accept the status quo. A man like our buddy Mark will believe on Wednesday what he believed on Monday, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED ON TUESDAY. That is frightening in the extreme. Rebelling from that sort of tunnel vision and seeking real observable fact is a rational and well-thought-out response to interacting with people like that.
Crap i have a meeting… I will return in a few hours… arrgh! work makes discourse more difficult!
- ID