cicerone imposter wrote:
Maybe? LOL. Give science and anthropologists some credit. They attempt to provide conclusions on available evidence. As determined by the Bible, earth is only 7,000 years old.
What does giving anyone credit have to do with anything. There a different ways of approaching information, of which science and anthropology have made contributions. Unfortunately, neither is going to help you understand religion in all the ways it is experienced by different believers, so you have to go to the deepest depths of anthropology to become a participate-observer of religion and spirituality, that is if you want to actually understand it.
Most things on this planet evolved based on environment. This world went through a couple of ice ages. The Earth has been alternating between long ice ages and shorter interglacial periods for around 2.6 million years
. For the last million years or so these have been happening roughly every 100,000 years - around 90,000 years of ice age followed by a roughly 10,000 year interglacial warm period.
What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured ...
These are models of (pre)history that you can tentatively accept in order to make sense of the observations they are derived from, but believing science has nothing to do with disbelieving religion. Whatever turns out to be true about the history of the universe, that is the story of God's creation. It is that simple.
Homo sapiens are short-lived on this planet. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia and the fossils of Herto sometimes classified as Homo sapiens idaltu.
Species: H. sapiens
Homo sapiens - Wikipedia
Maybe, and maybe there were other species of primates more similar to ancient humans that went extinct as well, but what does any of that have to do with religion? It is a false assumption that religion and evolutionary theory conflict. It is a false conflict that has been created by humans to convince religious people that they have to abandon religion in order to study science.
It's difficult for christians to accept what are based on facts.
If so, it would only be because they've been tempted into believing that science voids their faith, which is a false belief.
the Bible is only 2000 years old, and during that period in human history, there was no way to determine by scientific methods the evolution of Homo sapiens or the age of this planet. Trying to rationalize science against a book written two thousand years ago is a losing proposition.
They're not in conflict, so you don't have to rationalize one against the other. It's a false opposition created to trick people into rejecting either one or the other and thus moving backward in their progress toward fuller enlightenment.
Did you know that scientific research also found that prayers do not work?
Prayer is a spiritual practice, like meditation. It works. You don't understand the relationship between God, Holy Spirit, the material universe, and human spirituality. We are part of the creation, not separate from it. We have some influence over patterns of occurrence, but there is more going on beyond just our own thoughts, actions, and prayers to influence occurrences. Still, prayer can fail in one way and work in another. You could pray for someone who got in a accident and they might still die, but your prayers could still help achieve some peace for them, even if that peace is only within you.
You're not reading the Bible right. What you have to do is reread it from the perspective that the writers were expressing something that was very deeply true to them in a way that they thought they could best convey it to other readers. You have to do you best to tune into the frame of mind they were trying to reach by writing their insights in the way that they did.
Here is a quote from the beginning of Herbert Spencer's (1867) First Principles on "Religion and Science:"
We too often forget that not only is there “a soul of goodness in things evil,” but very generally also, a soul of truth in things erroneous. While many admit the abstract probability that a falsity has usually a nucleus of reality, few bear this abstract probability in mind, when passing judgment on the opinions of others. A belief that is finally proved to be grossly at variance with fact, is cast aside with indignation or contempt; and in the heat of antagonism scarcely any one inquires what there was in this belief which commended it to men’s minds. Yet there must have been something. And there is reason to suspect that this something was its correspondence with certain of their experiences: an extremely limited or vague correspondence perhaps; but still, a correspondence. Even the absurdest report may in nearly every instance be traced to an actual occurrence; and had there been no such actual occurrence, this preposterous misrepresentation of it would never have existed. Though the distorted or magnified image transmitted to us through the refracting medium of rumour, is utterly unlike the reality; yet in the absence of the reality there would have been no distorted or magnified image. And thus it is with human beliefs in general. Entirely wrong as they may appear, the implication is that they germinated out of actual experiences—originally contained, and perhaps still contain, some small amount of verity.