Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Super19

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

2,035 posts in this topic

Right. The question remains, "Whose image?"

/ Unless it's a case of original sin. Adam being Africa and Eve being everyone else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. The question remains, "Whose image?"

/ Unless it's a case of original sin. Adam being Africa and Eve being everyone else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manica himself admits,

http://www.afp.com/e...als-didnt-breed

Manica freely admits it is entirely likely. That's not in debate. Their work does not address the circa 70,000 BCE genetic entry into Europeans and they know it.

Of course the original author must submit a counter paper to Manica's to note that the speciation and sub-structuring had already had included in the original paper as a factor and didn't explain the totality of the genetic variation as an all or nothing question.

3pduul.jpg

It is known that we share a significant portion of our DNA with Neanderthals.

It is known that we lived in the same spots at the same times for 30,000 years.

It is known we are close enough genetically to breed with them willingly or not.

It is known humans will mate with animals.

You are free to draw your own conclusions if you'd like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The peer reviewing has taken place for the last 2 years, since the findings were published in 2010.

I'm not sure, other than your own religious reasons, why you'd be hostile to these genetic evidences that are reproducable, which is what scientists ensure before they'd put their reputations on the line.

And the main thing that's been asserted is a 1-4% similarity....which is enough to say that many of us aren't 100% Homo Sapien, or made in 'the image of God', as per your religons' accepted 'story'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it turns out there is no God do I have to give my money to Al Gore? The science is settled right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it turns out there is no God do I have to give my money to Al Gore? The science is settled right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hostile?...really?

Perhaps it is because of my religious beliefs that you have made this assumption but while I am religious, I am also a science-loving and knowledge-seeking individual.

I also don't really understand your story about God's image. If your belief is that the belief held within my religion is that human beings resemble God in any way, shape or form then you are grossly mistaken.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some interesting sounding books I've read and am planning on reading on this topic. Notably by Giberson, Dowd, Collins, and a few others on the reconciliation of evolution and belief in God. It's interesting stuff. We shouldn't believe simply because we want to, but we also shouldn't abandon belief just because evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some interesting sounding books I've read and am planning on reading on this topic. Notably by Giberson, Dowd, Collins, and a few others on the reconciliation of evolution and belief in God. It's interesting stuff. We shouldn't believe simply because we want to, but we also shouldn't abandon belief just because evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, God is comparable to a Nigerian scam artist...

The 'salesjob' on God isn't wrapped up in Genesis 1 and 2 as much as he's been 'sold' as the majority belief system over the past 3,500 years.

Now if the Nigerian scam artist perhaps had 3,500 of majority belief in him to back him up, he'd be a bit more successful in his quest for cash, y'think?

Sory, but it'll take a lot more than a scientific debunking of the creation story to disprove God. If it were that easy, then he would've been officially abandoned by the masses quite awhile ago.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, God is comparable to a Nigerian scam artist...

The 'salesjob' on God isn't wrapped up in Genesis 1 and 2 as much as he's been 'sold' as the majority belief system over the past 3,500 years.

Now if the Nigerian scam artist perhaps had 3,500 of majority belief in him to back him up, he'd be a bit more successful in his quest for cash, y'think?

Sory, but it'll take a lot more than a scientific debunking of the creation story to disprove God. If it were that easy, then he would've been officially abandoned by the masses quite awhile ago.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, God is comparable to a Nigerian scam artist...

The 'salesjob' on God isn't wrapped up in Genesis 1 and 2 as much as he's been 'sold' as the majority belief system over the past 3,500 years.

Now if the Nigerian scam artist perhaps had 3,500 of majority belief in him to back him up, he'd be a bit more successful in his quest for cash, y'think?

Sory, but it'll take a lot more than a scientific debunking of the creation story to disprove God.  If it were that easy, then he would've been officially abandoned by the masses quite awhile ago.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salesjob of God was built on Genesis 1 and 2. If that's contradicted by science, which you fully acknowledge, then why would you 'believe' the rest of the malarkey that was sold after it??

Do you behave like this is any other facet of life? Do you dismiss chain/scam letters as bunk, but still continue to believe that there's some Nigerian out there who want to give you a few million dollars, or that by forwarding an email will make your wishes come true??

Wake up my friend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salesjob of God was built on Genesis 1 and 2. If that's contradicted by science, which you fully acknowledge, then why would you 'believe' the rest of the malarkey that was sold after it??

Do you behave like this is any other facet of life? Do you dismiss chain/scam letters as bunk, but still continue to believe that there's some Nigerian out there who want to give you a few million dollars, or that by forwarding an email will make your wishes come true??

Wake up my friend.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because their are cyber bullies doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss the internet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A belief being ancient hardly gives it credibility. What was taught to be true 3,500 years ago being disproven shows that the teachings indoctrinated into the minds of the majority of the vulnerable peoples of our past is hardly infallible, and failed the test of time. The very core of Abrahamic Theistic belief; the infallibility of the word of God. Sharp's video may not disprove the intelligent designer belief but it sure strikes another blow against Abrahamic religions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the people who wrote the creation story wrote in allegory and poem to pass down the belief that God created everything, and never intended it to be read as a literal reading of an exact sequence of events (6 days, woman made from a rib, a tree with magical fruit, a talking snake etc.) why I should I disbelieve the Biblical God if scientists show it to not be literal.

To simplify that run-on sentence; if it was not written to be interpreted literally why should I disbelieve God if a literal reading is shown to be impossible/false/crazy? All that does is prove the fundies got it wrong and that they're too close-minded to admit it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that God have been able to better forsee that the allegory would eventually be his undoing, and that to avoid the problem of being literally false, he should have and could have divinely inspired the author in such a way that left the very first line of his only work purposefully designed for his creation in some sort of unreproachable perpetuity?

Besides, even the allegory is quite specific. Specificity of that magnitude usually points to the author making truth claims.

OR, does Occam's Razor, simply cut toward the more reasonable explanation that men wrote that and the rest of the Bible as a result of their own imaginations at work, which were inspired by the many religions and gods and deities the preceding men created out of thin air as well?

So which sounds more reasoned and rational...honestly?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.