The problem is that that approach only works if you take a very metaphorical interpretation of the bible.
With regards to evolution, if you accept it as true, then Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden could not have happened. There were no "first humans," as there was no solid dividing line between our apelike ancestors and modern humans. If there was no Garden of Eden, then there was no original sin, which means that Jesus dying for our sins was pointless, unless God intentionally created as as inherently sinful creatures and then decided that we should be tortured eternally.
Well, to address at least that one point, one model I've heard from some Christian evolutionary biologists which seems to fit the data utilizes the Upper Paleolitic Revolution as a possible point in time at which humankind first became "spiritual" and therefore capable of sin. To quickly summarize the Upper Paleolithic Revolution (though I am not a bioligist/archaeologist/what-have-you; mere computer scientist and mathemetician by training), "anatomically modern humans" - ie, humans that look like you and me - have been found as far back as about 195 thousand years in the fossil record. But it wasn't until about 50 thousand years ago that we begin to see them exhibiting modern behavioral traits such as the creation of more advanced tools than they'd been using for 145 thousand years, accelerated language development, and the first evidence of religion. This sudden revolution occurred in East Africa or the Middle East and spread from there across the globe to anatomically human populations on other continents. It's been suggested by some Christian evolutionary biologists that this revolution represents the first moment in time in which God "breathed spirit" into humans, making them moral and creative beings, and from them it spread to others or their offspring. It could've begun with just two - who rebelled against God, making for original sin - and spread into the rest of the heretofore unspiritual, anatomical human population.
This solves at least two major issues. First, it allows for original sin. Second, it fits our genetic data which suggests that the genetic human population could never have been fewer than 10 thousand at any point in history; the unspritual population provides genetic diversity for the expansion of the spiritual population - or even become spriritual themselves through cultural interactions.
My primary source: http://godandnature.asa3.org/opinion-adam-and-the-origin-of-man.html
""With her most recent drive of 482 feet on June 1, 2011 (Sol 2614), NASA's Opportunity Mars Rover has zoomed past the unimaginable 30 kilometer mark in total odometry since safely landing on Mars nearly seven and one half years ago on Jan 24, 2004. That's 50 times beyond the roughly quarter-mile of roving distance initially foreseen"
Dear Universe Today source article,
For the future, can we NOT mix our systems of measurement, please? Seriously, I don't know if I should be thinking in feet, kilometers, miles, or cubits right now. Please please please just choose metric or, if you must, US units. But whichever you choose, stick with one or the other when discussing one topic. Don't switch back and forth. It makes it impossible to get a good mental picture of what you're talking about in terms of scale.
Sincerely,
Self-righteous Complainer (but you left me no choice)
.. that if they give 'em an inch, they'll take a kilometer.
And that would just confuse us Americans.
Fixed that for ya.
Actually, I live in the US and went to public school here, and they taught us both metric and imperial measurements from elementary through high school. I'm very comfortable using either, and usually think of distance in terms of meters and temperature in terms of Celsius. Admittedly, I'm in college studying CS (formerly with a focus in Electrical Engineering) at an engineering school so I probably have more exposure to metric than the average American. But if my public school education is at least any indication of my generation's comfort level with metric, it doesn't seem there would be too much backlash from the public if we were to switch to an entirely metric system within the next twenty or so years.
Of course, there's still the big issue of industries that are built around the imperial system, but if the people are at least comfortable with metric then that's one major hurdle that's already been overcome in my generation.
This is a great discovery, but what are we going to do with it? The obvious thing is to mine it out, but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?
The mass of whatever rare elements we pull off the moon would probably be negligible compared to its overall mass. I would be more worried about the seemingly permanent change in appearance the moon would suffer with mining operations running on it. Without something like an atmosphere, any changes we make will be there for eons. I guess there's no practical reason for it, but I kind of like looking up into the sky and seeing a pristine lunar landscape. Maybe if they only mined the dark side of the moon....
Oh the humanity...
Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson
