theminister Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Right. The question remains, "Whose image?" / Unless it's a case of original sin. Adam being Africa and Eve being everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Right. The question remains, "Whose image?" / Unless it's a case of original sin. Adam being Africa and Eve being everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If it turns out there is no God do I have to give my money to Al Gore? The science is settled right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If it turns out there is no God do I have to give my money to Al Gore? The science is settled right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Has anyone here checked out this page: http://www.facebook.com/AtheistRepublic?fref=ts&filter=3 Vancouver based. Never heard about it until the other day. They have discussion forums solely for topics like this if discussing here doesn't quite cut it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Just because their are cyber bullies doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Oh Sharp ...reason and rationality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.