Questions for "Evolutionary Christians"

[elliotfc]

Hey Darwin, nice beard.

Do you think evolution was directed,guided by the hand of God?

No.

I mean,do you think evolution was meant to produce human beings (since it would have been the way God created) ?

No.

How about the idea that should we rewind the "tape of life",there might not be nothing like us?

Could you expand on that?

Since humans descend from animals (as far as I see,this is a touch piece to swallow for many) do you think that a clear line should be drawn between "animals and man (which would now inevitably be,another species of animals)".

Ummm, yes and no. Sorry I can't pick one or the other. Yes in that Jesus became a human being, no in that we all run on genetic code and at a fundamental physical level we are very similar.

What about soul? Would this require any life,the great string of DNA,to be either entirely with or without soul?

I can only speak for myself here.

My conception of soul is what God creates to be linked to the human body. Since the human body will die, the soul will be free and in an 'unnatural' human condition, since humans are/were meant to be physical beings.

DNA is akin to a computer language. I see no real reason why DNA absolutely has to be associated with a soul.

I don't know if non-humans, like dogs, have souls or not. They are definitely lower on the hierarchical chain of being.

If only humans can have soul (opposed to such living genetical relatives as chimps) at which point does the soul step in?

Human beings participate in creation. The human soul steps in at the moment of creation. My theological speculation doesn't really extend to animals, like chimps. I have no problem either way, thinking that they have souls or don't have souls would not upset my other opinions.

What about human habit of eating meat to grow larger brain,which could be used,as a modern day equivalent for the old argument concerning the hierarchy of creation ("clearly man is superior,with brains such efficient") ?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the eating of flesh. And you're right, it has to do with hierarchy of creation. It isn't just an extension of the brain being more efficient. I think it rather obvious, myself, that humans are on a totally different level than, say, chimps. I suppose that any of you could theoretically persuade me otherwise, although I'd be more likely to be persuaded otherwise if, say, a chimp were to get me thinking a different way.

Considering that homo sapiens might be just another predator,technically unable to be aware of God,without such "help"?

OK, and thanks for articulating the premise...

What about future evolution? Should we still believe in the immutability of the species,which now has to be considered obsolete?

I can only speak for myself here. Immutability of the species, to me, means that unicellular life won't/didn't eventually (I know, after millionsandmillionsandmillions of years) evolve into pigs. Of course species are MUTABLE in that species may look different now than they did millions of years ago. The question is if the differences are essential, and that is a subjective word. Horses look different now than they did millions of years ago. In that way there is no immutability. But are they still horses? Yes, so in that way there is immutability. To be completely difficult and pedantic, nobody could possibly believe in immutability of species since everybody and everything looks different.

I´m trying to say that if evolution was "guided" by an invisible hand,leading to us as an important example,what does future evolution mean?

Thanks for the "if". The invisible hand could be a metaphor for God, or for nature, or for subterranean demonic manipulators.

With your if, I don't know if the future of evolution matters. You addressed this to evolutionary Christians. As a Christian, I believe God became a human being a couple thousand years ago. So we're it. I'm much more interested in the evolution of ideas than the evolution of the human species. I reckon I could have produced offspring with women from 2000 years ago, so for now that is all that matters. The future could be interesting with the creativity and technologically driven abilities to alter and perhaps reconstruct genes and DNA and whatnot. This could make for interesting speculation; as for evolution, this would be more similar to ideas of ancient astronauts tinkering with earthly life than evolution as driven by environmental conditions.

While one human life is not enough to observe macroevolution,we know that it goes on.

Uhhh...OK...

I don't know. I can understand the theory. Humans did not observe what happened one million years ago, so it's all nice conjecture. And we probably have different definitions for macroevolution.

An estimated age of survival for a single species would be a few million years (hard to predict).

Well that's an understatement. Or not. It's all a matter of waiting for catastrophe, and predicting when catastrophes will happen is anyone's guess. And when a catastrophe happens, it might possibly wipe us all out, and then it wouldn't really matter.

Would future evolution also be guided by God?

I don't know if past evoultion was guided by God, so I can hardly know if future evolution will be guided by God.

Unless we assume ourselves to be some kind of a perfection of it,therefore rendered "immutable" (again,boiling down to the fallacy of progress)

Depends what you mean by progress. Are we physically different from 2000 years ago? Nutritionally and medicinally and hygenically yeah, and those all have repercussions on our physical stature. But I like your phrase "some kind of a perfection". From a certain perspective any species can be thought of as "some kind of a perfection".

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

How do Christians reconcile evolution and Christianity? Why, they just add a lot of superfluous entities.

Christianity is about Jesus Christ? I'm not sure what your point here is. The theory of evolution doesn't have much to do with a man who lived 2000 years ago.

Pretty ironic, seeing as if we added superfluous entities we could just throw out evolution altogether....

Since evolution happens I should hope that we don't throw it away. Superfluous is a matter of perspective and opinion and aesthetic taste, along with a matter of a few thousand other things. Given a stated theory and its premises superfluity doesn't really mean that much. I think there are superfluous entities in evolution, so touche.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

So Mithras doesn't count now?

The obvious answer to your question is no. Since I don't know any Zoroastrians (or maybe they just don't get much publicity?), clearly Mithras doesn't count now. If there were a billion or so people who would say otherwise, they would speak for themselves.

The less obvious answer is also no. Pagan cultic worship was inspired by demonic spirits, and it is not surprising that they would want to create parallels to Christian belief. This is understandable. If you want to obscure a truth, mimicry is a nice tool to use. Smoke and mirrors. Screwtape letters.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I try to look at it this way: The bible is not to be taken literally, but as a book of fables to teach people how to live morally and love one another.

"Is not"

A book "is not" a pencil. I can understand that.

I think everyone will/does/has taken the Bible in their own unique way. For you, the Bible "is not" to be taken literally. I can accept that. And I'm glad you say that it has something to teach, which is the fundamental purpose of the Bible.

People are always trying to apply a higher meaning and purpose to life... some even suggest that we are here to serve god, well, I'm happy to say that I SERVE NO ONE! I REFUSE TO BOW DOWN! Sorry 'bout that, I have many psychological issues that stem from my youth.

I would hope that your attitude will not extend past this life. Given your psychological issues I'm sure God will understand, and deal with you in a unique way as that is the only way God deals with us. Of course God doesn't force you to serve, or bow down, and he will never do so.

As for higher meaning/purpose to life, if I would subscribe{i edited that word} such notions to life, it is because I have a conception of a universe chock full of life. I do not live in a vacuum. I am alive, therefore life has meaning and purpose. How could life not have meaning and purpose? Doesn't everything happen for a reason? If you believe in randomness, even randomness can be explained.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Hey Hawk Watcher

I'm sure people would describe me as a "Cafeteria Christian". But my take on evolution, and the big picture is the following. God created the laws of the universe, the "Big Bang" occurred, and God waited for a sentient being to develop. Then God attempted to communicate with this creature.

I think you may be onto something. (By the way I live in Lake Grove, go to Stony Brook, I play organ at St. Luke's in Brentwood)

The word "waited" is interesting. I don't know if God "waits" for anything as we do, as he is outside of chronological time. And the word "attempted" implies that the communication could have failed. Let me expand on that. Let's say I attempt to throw a football 100 yards. But I only end up throwing it 40 yards. That's a way of understanding the word "attempt". As for what you say above, when God "attempts" to commuincate with us, he does communicate with us. But it is a kind of communication that is radically different from the obvious everyday communication. That makes it obviously problematic. Plus humans have free will. Plus a relationship between God and each human being is unique.

But I do think that you're onto something. I already said that.

To me, the soul is my consciousness. I just can't conceive of awareness after death. But in the past few years, God has really made an effort to reach to me. He probably has all along, but I've only been receptive recently. If he can reach me, perhaps there are many things I don't understand (Understatement!).

Excellent. I like your attitude!

I have no patience with YEC's.

What is a YEC?

God is so technically beyond our imagination, that I cannot fathom why there would be a devil, or hell.

My conceptions of devil/hell differ from what we may consider popular conceptions. Let me just offer how I view those two words.

Devil would be the crown of creation (Lucifer) who was unsatisfied with his position in the universe, the state of the universe, all that jazz. He took it from there. Why there would be a devil...well, why would anyone be a malcontent about his/her role in the universe? Answer that question, and you'll have an inkling as to how the "devil" thinks/thought. Of course God would allow any one of his created creatures to be a malcontent, because of the whole free will thing.

As for hell, hell is a choice. Hell is disconnect with God. If you want to be disconnected with God, that is hell. The analogies and metaphors we have for hell (burning, or Dante's frozen icecube) exist to make our human understanding comprehend how horrible hell is. I think the focus on divine punishment/retribution is misplaced, but then again people understand things like punishment/retribution, so I am not surprised that concepts of hell would include those ideas. I would use the caveat that God's punishment/retribution is superior to human punishment/retribution, in that it is contingent upon human free will.

Sure , I am often temped by sin, but that is part of human nature. Maybe God tests us, but I don't believe it is Satan.

Yes, but Satan believes in you. Sorry.

Don't believe in Satan. Or, believe in Satan differently from the way that you believe in God. Of course Satan would like nothing better than for everyone to believe that he doesn't exist.

But on a fundamental level the test is besides the point, so it that way it doesn't help much to focus on Satan. Satan doesn't control our free will. But as Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, so Satan tempts all of humanity. I don't believe in horns and pitchforks, but I do believe that a Satan exists.

I know my response is only my take. And it is evolving. It's difficult to explain why I call myself a Christian. But God's interactions with me do seem to be associated with the Christian Church. And I totally admire Jesus. And I admit there is so much I don't understand.

I think you are totally on the right track, but that's only my opinion. ;P

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I'm afraid I can't answer the questions since I'm not someone Darwin is adressing. However ...Humans are not descended from animals. We are animals, and like all present examples, the result of the evolutionary process (which is ongoing).

Good point.

Here is a related question. Are humans descended from non-animals?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Well, so far the attempts to answer the questions by people who belive in God seem to be based on or variations of the anthropic principle. They can also be traced back to platonic concepts of God as a distant deity that has little or no direct contact with his/her/its creation. This is also valid for many people I know personally and for some answers I read here.

If by anthropic you mean anthropocentric, yes, as far as planet Earth goes, I accept the anthropic principle.

As for distant deity, as a Christian I believe God became a human being, so that's a very direct way of contacting humanity.

At least they do not state the the bible is a litteral truth, with all the implications that such a declaration would have.

I would never say that all of the Bible is literally true. I am undecided as to how much of the Bible is literally true. But I can say that with every book that I read.

Some attempts are... Well, hard for me to digest. For example, a statement that God did this or that. Based on what can such a bold statement be done?

Based on faith and intuition and the desire to make sense of the universe that we live in? Also it could be based on the conviction that God has a way of speaking to all of us, if we would listen. Of course if we are talking about the distant past, none of can prove what exactly happened. And if you reject abiogenesis, you're faced with a concept of God, even if that concept doesn't correspond with popular conceptions.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The lack of responses,and questions such as those that I raised could,perhaps,be among the reasons that so many xians still reject evolution?

Do we have anyway of knowing the demographics of people who visit this forum? If I were to guess that, oh, 100 Christians saw your thread. Is that a high guess or a low guess?

I think a fundamental problem with your topic is the words you use. I don't reject evolution. I reject certain statements and assumptions of evolutionary theory, but evolution happens regardless of whether the theory exists or not. If you would have said "reject Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theory" perhaps morr responses would have been elicited.

I just thought that perhaps theistic evolution (as it is called) might be closer to Lamarckian than Darwinian evolution,anyone catch my idea?

Ummm...God inserting favorable traits into our genomes? It's a plausible idea I guess. I'm sure a bunch of Christians in fact believe that, but I'd venture to guess that those Chrisitans aren't the type to frequent a skeptic forum.

Perhaps you should visit a different forum, ask your question, and bring back your results? I'd be interested to hear what comes of that. Most likely they'll assault you with Bible quotations, perhaps a few will tell you that you are going to hell. That has happened to me before, and I believe in Jesus!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

You meet a shifty-eyed character on the streets of New York.

Hey bud: I'll sell you this genuin Rolex watch and a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge for $50.

You can't fool me, that's not a genuine Rolex.

OK, fuggedabout da watch - I'll sell you the bridge alone for $60.

Deal!

People do believe what they want to believe...

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Hi Cleopatra, you are very beautiful, and your crocodile is nice too.

Just a hint. Your whole concept is an oxymoron because the Christian that has accepted that it wasn't God who created the Universe and the beings he doesn't accept that God " guided" either Evolution or the Laws of Universe.

Did you mean to say "that has accepted that it WAS God who created the Universe"? I can understand the above statement if that is the case. If not, could you expound?

People who have arrived to believe that God didn't create anything are wondering in which point of the evolution, human realized the existence of God. That is the question and not the vice verca.

Very well put.

And one more think. Maybe there is a problem with the terminology too. I do not know if someone who accepts Evolution can call himself a Christian, I mean that personally this is one of the reasons I do not call myself a Christian although I believe in God.

I call myself a Christian because I believe that God became a human being. I accept evolution as it is, not evolution as it is proclaimed as all-encompassing theory.

Cleopatra, given the above, what am I? Please label me, I don't know how I can get through the day without a box in which I can reside.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

A key point is how much of the sacred text the person takes as true and/or how he/she interprets the texts.

As completely being litteral truth or as a collection of texts containing historical facts told by the perspective of a religious person, stories (true ones, miths, fictional ones- all of them intended to provide moral guidelines), texts inspired -directly or indirectly- by a deity and all the possible intermediate members in this complex "solid solution".

So, people will find a way to conciliate evolution (various levels degrees or concepts of guided evolution, anthropic priciple, etc), their religion (regardless of what it is) and their personal concepts of God.

Can still they be called christians, muslims, jews or anything else? Surely they belive so. And surely some integrants of their own religions will also accept them while others will not.

 

[arcticpenguin]

elliotfc:

YEC is a young earth creationist, someone who believes the earth was created ~ 6000 years ago. This is frequently tied together with a belief in the literal truth of the Genesis story.

 

[Hawk_Watcher]

Elliot,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It's very difficult for me to tie in my recent spirituality with my long time agnostic beliefs (or lack thereof). The conventional view of Satan just seems too story bookish, and does not jibe with my conception of God. But I'm open to discussion.

 

[Cleopatra]

Hi Cleopatra, you are very beautiful, and your crocodile is nice too.

Flattery can lead you everywhere...

Did you mean to say "that has accepted that it WAS God who created the Universe"? I can understand the above statement if that is the case. If not, could you expound?

No, I mean what I said. I was referring to the Christians that do not believe that it was God who create the Universe and the living beings. Those who believe that God didn't create Human they cannot believe that it was God who guided the Evolution because if we accept that he guided the Evolution we must aknowledge him as the creator.

I call myself a Christian because I believe that God became a human being. I accept evolution as it is, not evolution as it is proclaimed as all-encompassing theory.

Cleopatra, given the above, what am I? Please label me, I don't know how I can get through the day without a box in which I can reside.
Elliot [/B]

Well, I am a Cristian because in my country they baptise you when you are 6 months old without asking you, my father decided that since we would live in a country that the 99% are Orthodox Christians, our lives would be easier if we were baptised Christians, if we had plans to live in Israel for ever we would become Jews, for the same practical reasons.

I do not believe in the historical existence of Jesus but I consider his story the most nicely invented story in History and the most "succesful" one because it served the needs of millions of people in History for thousands of years and it still does. Other stories of the same nature ( communism for example) didn't make it not even for 50 years.

I am also persuaded that the scientific method is the safest method we have to approach the Natural world that surrounds us, I have some reservations for the things that the scientific method can accomplish for the world that hides in our heads...and yes, I will say it, for the world that hides in our chest.

I do not wish to label you, especially for something like that. I have been labelling people in the past based on their beliefs and I didn't go very far...

 

[Darwin]

"Unrepentant Sinner's idea sounds good to me. Now I am reading Michael Shermer's book " Why we believe" and he has a lot of stuff for you, maybe you would like to have a look at this book."

Sounds familiar.Thank you.


"Do we have anyway of knowing the demographics of people who visit this forum? If I were to guess that, oh, 100 Christians saw your thread. Is that a high guess or a low guess?

I think a fundamental problem with your topic is the words you use. I don't reject evolution. I reject certain statements and assumptions of evolutionary theory, but evolution happens regardless of whether the theory exists or not. If you would have said "reject Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theory" perhaps morr responses would have been elicited."

Ah,that´s a good point (the number of visitors).Let´s say that I have the idea that there are xians around these boards who would accept evolution,I do not know how many.

As far as my thread goes,I cannot really see how the way we approach biological evolution (in scientific sense) is the case here,as far as we accept it.Whether we are neo-darwinists or,say,entertain Gaia hypothesis.
What do you mean by rejecting certain statements and assumptions?

"Ummm...God inserting favorable traits into our genomes? It's a plausible idea I guess. I'm sure a bunch of Christians in fact believe that, but I'd venture to guess that those Chrisitans aren't the type to frequent a skeptic forum."

By Lamarckian,I talked of evolution that could still be interpreted as "progress for perfection",leaving some divine down there to be caught.Not that much to do with use& disuse etc.
Lamarck´s theory was called "filth" and such,during those times of Bible belt slashes but Darwin´s theory would have been even more "outrageous" in not progressing towards anything (Darwin called Lamarckian evolution "nonsense").

"Perhaps you should visit a different forum, ask your question, and bring back your results? I'd be interested to hear what comes of that. Most likely they'll assault you with Bible quotations, perhaps a few will tell you that you are going to hell. That has happened to me before, and I believe in Jesus!"

I agree that JREF is a bit of an unusual place for such,but as you say yourself,I might get condemned down there and I cannot stand all those biblical quotations.

"Hey Darwin, nice beard."

Thanks.

"Could you expand on that?"

I´m basically saying that while our existence for an example should not necessarily be associated with "accident" and "random chance" which is the creationist interpretation of evolution (or an odd one nonetheless) I´m saying that should we "start it again",there might be nothing like us or the fauna that we see,at all.
I suppose that a theist who feels that biblical text is "set in cement" might have problems with this.

"I don't know if non-humans, like dogs, have souls or not. They are definitely lower on the hierarchical chain of being."

This interests me.
What do you mean by "lower"? You do realize that all this hierarchy among organisms cannot be scientifically defended? (That is,it may be natural for judeo-christian thought)
For an example;having mentioned to a highly religious person that humans are but one more species,I was quick to "learn" that "God made human!" and things like "Humans have souls!".

"Well that's an understatement. Or not. It's all a matter of waiting for catastrophe, and predicting when catastrophes will happen is anyone's guess. And when a catastrophe happens, it might possibly wipe us all out, and then it wouldn't really matter."

As I said,it is calculation.

"Uhhh...OK...

I don't know. I can understand the theory. Humans did not observe what happened one million years ago, so it's all nice conjecture. And we probably have different definitions for macroevolution."

Should we be accurate,there were humans one million years ago...but prehistory ends where writing begins,so in that sense,yes.
Macroevolution is simply evolution on a large scale.
We can still observe and form a fairly accurate picture of what happened far over a few millions of years ago.


That´s all I feel comfortable or necessary to comment on for now.
I apologize for any confusion that might arise from my disorganized style of writing (according to some,that is)

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Christianity is about Jesus Christ? I'm not sure what your point here is. The theory of evolution doesn't have much to do with a man who lived 2000 years ago.

Well they still accept the Bible, which includes a story you may have heard of called Genesis.
Except now its a metaphor or misunderstanding (but still revealed truth from God.)

And now God directs things by means of the cruel and inefficient process of evolution...because He is mysterious.


And the process is telological in a subtle untestable way. Also a soul was added during human evolution, though it has no impact on anything we experience.

Superfluous entities? Naawww.

Since evolution happens I should hope that we don't throw it away. Superfluous is a matter of perspective and opinion and aesthetic taste, along with a matter of a few thousand other things. Given a stated theory and its premises superfluity doesn't really mean that much. I think there are superfluous entities in evolution, so touche.

-Elliot

Superfluous is a matter of reasoning implemented so we don't make stuff up. It is only a matter of perspective in so far as that perspective adds enough data to make the viewpoint necessary.

Taste has nothing to do with it. (Unless you are a cognitive relativist.)

If you think there are superfluous entities in evolution tell me what they are.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, I am a Cristian...

You're an Icon Kisser????

Och! So much respect to be lost so quickly...

 

[elliotfc]

Flattery can lead you everywhere...

Cleo I am delighted to encounter...well, first and foremost, it is comforting to see females on this forum. If this was purely an exercise in testosterone I reckon that eventually my interest would...well, it's just nice to have a woman around.

I participate in a few forums and e-mail discussion lists, and the women are typically outnumbered, but quality of responses from women (in my experience) are more than commensurate from the quantity of responses from men. If this comes across as patronizing, I can provide evidence to the contrary, I assure you.

I quite enjoy reading all that you have to say, and if I am partially persuaded by your photograph and evident skill in dress and manners, so be it! And your crocodile is very nice, too!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Well, I am a Cristian because in my country they baptise you when you are 6 months old without asking you, my father decided that since we would live in a country that the 99% are Orthodox Christians, our lives would be easier if we were baptised Christians, if we had plans to live in Israel for ever we would become Jews, for the same practical reasons.

I'm glad (and I'm sure you'd agree) that your father loved you enough to have your best interest in mind.

Baptism is the most common definition of whether or not one is a Christian. Not belief in the Bible, not whether one goes to Church, not whether holds dogmas XYZ. I, personally, prefer to hold a litmus test for Christianity based around Christ.

I do not believe in the historical existence of Jesus but I consider his story the most nicely invented story in History and the most "succesful" one because it served the needs of millions of people in History for thousands of years and it still does. Other stories of the same nature ( communism for example) didn't make it not even for 50 years.

I'm sincerely glad you can respect the ideas of others, even if you don't accept them on a certain level.

[quoteI am also persuaded that the scientific method is the safest method we have to approach the Natural world that surrounds us, I have some reservations for the things that the scientific method can accomplish for the world that hides in our heads...and yes, I will say it, for the world that hides in our chest.[/quote]

I agree with you completely. I would say that the scientific method has its place, and philosophy/theology has its place. The two may cross/intersect/overlap, and obviously they bumb heads, but clearly they are designed for different things.

I do not wish to label you, especially for something like that. I have been labelling people in the past based on their beliefs and I didn't go very far...

Thanks!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Darwin What do you mean by rejecting certain statements and assumptions?

Hi Darwin.

Does it make sense that an individual may accept anything and everything in evolutionary theory, be it just the most micro of micro-evolutionary thinking, to origin by descent, and yet reject abiogenesis?

I have certain degrees of rejection. I would, as an evolutionary Christian, reject certain things with more absoluteness of rejection than others.

I don't know of any young-earth creationist (YEC I guess is the term) who says that a micro-evolution does not take place. So this sort of person will agree to the evolution that is observed by humans in nature (not necessarily in laboratory conditions), while rejecting the evolution ideas that would have occurred before human history and observation.

Elliot said -"I don't know if non-humans, like dogs, have souls or not. They are definitely lower on the hierarchical chain of being."

To which Darwin replied - "This interests me.
What do you mean by "lower"? You do realize that all this hierarchy among organisms cannot be scientifically defended? (That is,it may be natural for judeo-christian thought)
For an example;having mentioned to a highly religious person that humans are but one more species,I was quick to "learn" that "God made human!" and things like "Humans have souls!".

I agree, for if you pull up any lineage tree every extent species is, in a way of looking at it, an evolutionary dead end. A dog is not lower than me since there are no dogs in my evolutionary past.

Obviously I use "lower" in a non-scientific sense. Maybe.

I *believe*, as a Christian, that God is more interested in humans than non-humans. For only that reason I would consider myself "higher". This is separate from theological chains-of-beings, where angels would be higher than humans, who would themselves be higher than rocks. I'm not talking about that. That could be a fun topic of its own. I simply believe that God is interested in humans in ways that are so far above and beyond other species that it makes me content to use words like "higher" and "lower".

Just Darwin talking here - "Macroevolution is simply evolution on a large scale.
We can still observe and form a fairly accurate picture of what happened far over a few millions of years ago.

Exactly. It is an extrapolation. I see no reason why I have to accept that extrapolation. Combine that with reasons that I feel go against the notion of extrapolation, and you can understand where I cam coming from. As for "form a fairly accurate picture", since we can't travel back in time I don't know how a fairly accurate picture can possibly be formed, that would make people like me content with the theories of people like you. That you are content with your pictures and notions of a few million years ago is apparent, and I accept that your position is reasonable to yourself and millions of others.

Back to extrapolation. Let's say I'm watching dominos fall. I can use my reason to guess that I didn't see the beginning of the domino chain reaction, and where I first started observing the chain reaction was not the beginning of the chain reaction. Then the question is, how far should back should I start the chain reaction? Theoretically I can go as far back as the creation of dominos, but why should I go back that far? I see no reason to extend calculations and theories any farther than can be proven. There may be an aesthetic value to doing so, I admit.

That´s all I feel comfortable or necessary to comment on for now.
I apologize for any confusion that might arise from my disorganized style of writing (according to some,that is)

Considering that you've been dead for over 100 years you're doing a hell of a job.

-Elliot