Nevlach Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 To be fair though it all depends on what the word "image" means. I mean nothing you've said here is incorrect but that word image is a bit ambiguous. (cue Ace and Gary pics) It probably won't be a moving of the goalposts as much as it will be about the interpretation of such an unspecific term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Yeah I think it's Francis Collins who makes the point of: are we supposed to think we are literally made in God's image as in with fingers, toes, a GI system etc. or was this meaning made with consciousness, a mind, will, morals etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 If we were created with reflection to the Abrahamic God's morals, then he's one evil mofo that answers for a lot of his actions over the years and why we're capable of so much immorality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 "One evil mofo"? Drinking the misotheist soup this morning, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-The-Great Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 it's not soup, it's tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 On what basis then was the reason for including the creation story, if not for the account of divine creation, the foundation from which the rest of the book, and subsequently all three religions,builds its case in, of and for, a divine creator from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 On what basis then was the reason for including the creation story, if not for the account of divine creation, the foundation from which the rest of the book, and subsequently all three religions,builds its case in, of and for, a divine creator from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 If we were created with reflection to the Abrahamic God's morals, then he's one evil mofo that answers for a lot of his actions over the years and why we're capable of so much immorality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm of the belief that the original Abrahamic creation story is nothing more than a shorthand of the Enuma Elish the Assyrian version of the same which was an abstraction of the earlier Sumerian epic. Being as Abram was actually a from this part of the world the inclusion makes sense, albeit altered from the original to imply monotheism (though not if you look too closely). The continued inclusion bespoke millenia of lack of understanding of its root source and the pagan basis of the belief. Simply put, the story needed a beginning and one which was familiar in its core to most people in the Near East. Continuing to believe its veracity in light of the last hundred years of discovery is all on the modern Luddites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but watching that man describe the drink he created, makes me feel inadequate. It's just ... damn, Neil, you smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I personally did not think it was anything all that special or impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I was watching NovaScience Now, this evening, about what makes humans 'human' and different from other species on this planet. There were some interesting points covered about our evolution. But one thing in particular stood out for me, profoundly, actually. And as it relates to this thread and the topic of this thread, it sort of dawned on me that if science is able to turn the creation story(Adam & Eve) on its ear, even more than it has already, mind you, then perhaps science is capable, as a 'worldy' thing, to disprove the foundation of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian religions....since they're all essentially versions of each other. And what I believe turns the creation story even moreso on its ear, was the proof, the genetic proof in the majority of the world's human population, as a whole, which can be and has been proven to contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. This means, that the majority of humans today, in fact aren't 100% human.....we're almost all a product of inter-species sexual relations by our fore-fathers, or perhaps fore-mothers. The only truly 'human' humans are Africans. Yep, their DNA is purer than yours or mine, because they didn't migrate out of Africa, into Asia and Europe, and onwards, they stayed there and continued to develop as modern day humans. Those that went North, towards Europe, evolved into the separate species 'Homo Neanderthalensis'. Yup, Europeans and Asians are evolution's 'muggles'. Europeans moreso though. Higher muggle-blood factor.... Alright, I await the moving of goalposts and the making of excuses and evidence-less interpretations of so-called interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The part in bold is not a scientific fact. Please put the goalposts back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I would be willing to fully concede the origins of the origin story, which would only further my point about how non-original and therefore non-divine, the foundation of 3 intertwined but simultaneously flawed fable based sources of mythology whose dogma and doctrines still affect the vox populi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 So you don't think there's evidence that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis bred with one another, to the point where the majority of the world's population carries part of the Neanderthal DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 So you don't think there's evidence that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis bred with one another, to the point where the majority of the world's population carries part of the Neanderthal DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I believe a theory among some scientists exists that suggests interbreeding and recent research has also come to light that cast doubt on this theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Or you could just publish the whole article. Picking up where you left off.... The salient point being that Homo Heidelbergensis, if actually an ancestor, would have shared that same DNA with both populations both in Africa and not. The dating of the DNA sequence to the time period indicated lines up with exactly what we know already from genetic decoding that the whole of the non-African populations are related to the same tribe that moved off of the continent. Whether H. Heidelbergnsis is a common ancestor or not does not affect the fact of late inclusion of DNA into the European chain. The question is left not "Did we interbreed?" but "How much of our current DNA is to account for that interbreeding and how much to a common ancestor?" / The article you provided also supports the suggestion that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens could in fact interbreed as they would have been related, making it an almost assured scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I personally am not stating anything definitive either way. What you state as the article supporting the 'suggestion' (your own word) that there could have been interbreeding; the article is merely quoting the opinion of the original scientist who holds that opinion and further wrote a paper about it, and the article also does clarify that it has yet to be peer-reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I personally am not stating anything definitive either way. What you state as the article supporting the 'suggestion' (your own word) that there could have been interbreeding; the article is merely quoting the opinion of the original scientist who holds that opinion and further wrote a paper about it, and the article also does clarify that it has yet to be peer-reviewed. So perhaps more accurately, the scientist who opines the 'suggestion' ('championed the idea' or 'his thesis' to quote exactly) that you also suggest, is merely disagreeing with the new research that casts doubt on his own work so as to uphold his own. You do realize that the very premise of that article is that new research has come to light that casts doubt on the very suggestion you suggest (and maintain)? I believe this is the salient point. Making statements of me of not quoting the entire article does nothing to remove or negate this, and clearly as well as evidently nor does quoting the rest of the article. This is really the only 'assured' scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.