Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Boston tiger]

I think for science to disprove Christianity it would somehow have to prove that Jesus didn't come back to life after 3 days.
It's impossible to come to back to life but all that needs to be said is that it happened .. It was a miracle etc and because it happened 2000 years ago .. What are you going to do? Like all his miracles they happened too long ago to be debunked etc.

 

[Number37]

How is it interesting? Did you expect me to investigate and talk about all the thousands of different religions and how historically inaccurate they are?? I'm just using Christianity as a prime example. Do you understand it now?? I didn't think I would need to explain this to you.

You don't seem to realise that being profoundly influenced by something has nothing at all do with with reality and facts. They are independent thing ax

It is interesting because you pick and choose, I thought you know it alls evaluated all the evidence not just the evidence that suits your argument.

Which brings me to the point about belief. Belief is mumbo jumbo because geniuses like yourself don't have an explanation for it, other than it supposedly not having anything to do with reality and facts. Just a slight misrepresentation on your part, but lets not get bogged down in semantics.
Here we have an observable phenomenon, with clear cause and effect and your answer is religion is bogus therefore belief is bogus. Now, if as you say, science doesnt support religious text why do so many people accept religion over science? Before you run with the 'they're all stupid', 'Richard Dawkins says' type arguments try offering something original.

 

[jinny1]

It's been done to death a bit but Christianity predates the Bible by 300 odd years. The Bible came from the Church. Because the Church decided what went in and what missed out also means they have control on interpretation of the texts. Genesis is to be interpreted not as a scientific explanation of how life stated. 7 days ?? Really. God could take no time so it's a very clunky story even for creationist. Anyway main stream Christian Churches are very comfortable with evolution and any other good solid scientific theories.

Christians that have the Bible as the sole authority and their Church been born from the Bible not vice versa... is where you'll find Christians not having a bar of evolution etc .

It's all about authority.

Trying to throw a god into the mix really misses the point of evolution: the process isn't directed by anyone. If a god were in charge of evolution, he would be the most cruel, stupid and unfeeling being imaginable. Evolution is the most ineffective system possible for a God to come up with. Anyway there are severe problems with original sin, pain and suffering, death before sin, souls, adam and eve etc if you introduce evolution. Why do you think i keep quoting G R Boarth about how evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary? And this is exactly what i meant by how far Christianity has come. You would have been prosecuted for your beliefs not long ago but the choke hold of religion is being diminished over time as we learn more and refute religion more and more. The progression of science is directly related to the relaxation of Christianity.

And you are just referring to Genesis story right now. For now I'll ignore the fact that the Hebrew version of the bible clearly meant literally 7 days; not to mention Jesus himself referred to it as a literal historical event. All the anachronisms and inaccuracies i've talked about were events after genesis. ALL the major biblical figures throughout the OT, noah's flood, Moses and his people, people living for 1000 years etc etc. Okay, if it was just Genesis that was full of bullshit then it might've been okay, but not if 90% of the OT which is the basis of your religion is a complete lie.

Because these lies also affect the NT. Genesis 4-5 lists Adam's descendants and their ages. The first chapter of 1 Chronicles mentions Adam and his pedigree as historical people. Jesus is considered a descendant of Adam by the author of the Gospel according to Luke: “Jesus was the son of Joseph, son of Heli, ... son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam (Luke 3:23-38). So as you can see now you have to believe that none of the biblical characters/events were real since they are descendants of Adam (who is not a real person) if you believe in evolution.

 

[jinny1]

I think for science to disprove Christianity it would somehow have to prove that Jesus didn't come back to life after 3 days.
It's impossible to come to back to life but all that needs to be said is that it happened .. It was a miracle etc and because it happened 2000 years ago .. What are you going to do? Like all his miracles they happened too long ago to be debunked etc.

Entire bible is full of things that are impossible.... Jesus' resurrection is like the most plausible thing to have occurred

 

[jinny1]

It is interesting because you pick and choose, I thought you know it alls evaluated all the evidence not just the evidence that suits your argument.

Which brings me to the point about belief. Belief is mumbo jumbo because geniuses like yourself don't have an explanation for it, other than it supposedly not having anything to do with reality and facts. Just a slight misrepresentation on your part, but lets not get bogged down in semantics.

Care to elaborate on how I pick and choose?? Because that's what Christians do regarding deciding which part of the bible is real and what parts are metaphor fairy-tales. If we dismiss the accuracy of the biblical Creation account, we are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say. You cant cherry pick bits from the bible and call it a metaphor to support your case; especially when evolution and creation account are completely polar and contradictory. By your arbitrary reasoning i could use your random and completely unsystematic methodology i could say God is a metaphor for science and it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Here we have an observable phenomenon, with clear cause and effect and your answer is religion is bogus therefore belief is bogus. Now, if as you say, science doesnt support religious text why do so many people accept religion over science? Before you run with the 'they're all stupid', 'Richard Dawkins says' type arguments try offering something original.

Now you are just getting silly with all the straw man arguments... You make weird conclusions from things i say... I mean you've already said my argument is like putting 20 people in a room and asking them to make a wish.

What is this clear cause and effect you are talking about LOL!!?

Dude how does many people believing in something make it true??? As much as the billions around the world believe in Santa, it doesn't make it true. We believe what we want to be true and there is research into how religion came to be and why it is so addictive. Blind and ignorant faith doesn't make something true. If everyone shared your archaic philosophy, we would still be stuck in bronze age without having made any advancement in science, medicine, technology, astronomy etc.

 

[Bennett.]

Interestingly you refer to Christianity only.



You missed the point, again.

That's quite normal for said poster.

 

[Roylion]

Maybe the Old Testament is alluding to Mitochondrial Eve and all the business that went on when she was about.

I doubt it.

Any reference to Mitochondrial 'Eve' often leads to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, her female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day. Likewise the male ancestors of Y-chromosomal 'Adam'. Y-Chromsomal 'Adam' would have had a father, two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers and so on. Of course male homo sapiens existed at the time of Mitochondrial Eve, possibly up to 4,000-6,000 individuals.

Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population, about 200,000 years ago never dropped below tens of thousands and anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic homo-sapiens who continued to exist alongside modern homo-sapiens but eventually, like the Neanderthals died out.

Other women alive at Mitochondrial's Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.

Originally, anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo Sapiens in the Middle Palaeolithic about the time of Mitochondrial Eve. The Omo remains in Ethiopia are the oldest known fossils at about 195,000 years old.

 

[Number37]

Care to elaborate on how I pick and choose?? Because that's what Christians do regarding deciding which part of the bible is real and what parts are metaphor fairy-tales. If we dismiss the accuracy of the biblical Creation account, we are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say. You cant cherry pick bits from the bible and call it a metaphor to support your case; especially when evolution and creation account are completely polar and contradictory. By your arbitrary reasoning i could use your random and completely unsystematic methodology i could say God is a metaphor for science and it wouldn't be a problem at all.



Now you are just getting silly with all the straw man arguments... You make weird conclusions from things i say... I mean you've already said my argument is like putting 20 people in a room and asking them to make a wish.

What is this clear cause and effect you are talking about LOL!!?

Dude how does many people believing in something make it true??? As much as the billions around the world believe in Santa, it doesn't make it true. We believe what we want to be true and there is research into how religion came to be and why it is so addictive. Blind and ignorant faith doesn't make something true. If everyone shared your archaic philosophy, we would still be stuck in bronze age without having made any advancement in science, medicine, technology, astronomy etc.

Wait a sec, let's start again. You are getting all tizzed up.
Wasn't it your argument that science has proved this much and before long science will prove much more, wasn't that what that lovely graph you included was all about?
Is it wrong to say that you believe that some scientist, who may not exist yet, is going to provide further answers?

 

[Boston tiger]

I doubt it.

Any reference to Mitochondrial 'Eve' often leads to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, her female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day. Likewise the male ancestors of Y-chromosomal 'Adam'. Y-Chromsomal 'Adam' would have had a father, two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers and so on. Of course male homo sapiens existed at the time of Mitochondrial Eve, possibly up to 4,000-6,000 individuals.

Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population, about 200,000 years ago never dropped below tens of thousands and anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic homo-sapiens who continued to exist alongside modern homo-sapiens but eventually, like the Neanderthals died out.

Other women alive at Mitochondrial's Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.

Originally, anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo Sapiens in the Middle Palaeolithic about the time of Mitochondrial Eve. The Omo remains in Ethiopia are the oldest known fossils at about 195,000 years old.

Just thought there might have been a real dip in our population due to climate etc and that story and that time was somehow passed along. A long shot really.

 

[Number37]

Then there is evolution, which lands the final blow. "Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing" - G R Bozarth

What do humans have the most in common with? Apes or some other animal or thing?

 

[Boston tiger]

Care to elaborate on how I pick and choose?? Because that's what Christians do regarding deciding which part of the bible is real and what parts are metaphor fairy-tales. If we dismiss the accuracy of the biblical Creation account, we are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say. You cant cherry pick bits from the bible and call it a metaphor to support your case; especially when evolution and creation account are completely polar and contradictory. By your arbitrary reasoning i could use your random and completely unsystematic methodology i could say God is a metaphor for science and it wouldn't be a problem at all.



Now you are just getting silly with all the straw man arguments... You make weird conclusions from things i say... I mean you've already said my argument is like putting 20 people in a room and asking them to make a wish.

What is this clear cause and effect you are talking about LOL!!?

Dude how does many people believing in something make it true??? As much as the billions around the world believe in Santa, it doesn't make it true. We believe what we want to be true and there is research into how religion came to be and why it is so addictive. Blind and ignorant faith doesn't make something true. If everyone shared your archaic philosophy, we would still be stuck in bronze age without having made any advancement in science, medicine, technology, astronomy etc.

Is the penny dropping about the Bible. Yes we can pick and choose so no point using it as argument. It's not like the Koran.
Our God walked the earth as a man and certainly didn't tell anyone to write anything down.
The Protestants got together and got rid 6 of the original books. By rights they could have got rid of Genesis and for a lot of people the evolution v creation wouldn't be issue.

Jesus started a Church so your better off to go after the Church than science v bible etc.

 

[Roylion]

Just thought there might have been a real dip in our population due to climate etc and that story and that time was somehow passed along.

No. There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures.

 

[Boston tiger]

No. There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures.

So just how does all work when an organism is evolving? Surely there is a point when the first two of a new species get together. A lot of blurred lines I'll admit.
Anyone here a marine biologist???

 

[Bennett.]

No. There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures.

Yes, Roy knows all. He can make such absolute statements, punctuated with "some suggest" or "studies say" so as to be non committal, yet when even Darwinians can't even agree with each other, I'd question why the focus is on religion when it should be shoring up the 'truth'.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, Roy knows all. He can make such absolute statements, punctuated with "some suggest" or "studies say" so as to be non committal, yet when even Darwinians can't even agree with each other, I'd question why the focus is on religion when it should be shoring up the 'truth'.

So what scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve? Do tell.

 

[Roylion]

So just how does all work when an organism is evolving? Surely there is a point when the first two of a new species get together. A lot of blurred lines I'll admit.
Anyone here a marine biologist???

Put simply. DNA mutations. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens) errors in the process of replication.

 

[Boston tiger]

Put simply. DNA mutations. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens) errors in the process of replication.

I now that but surely at some stage there was the first man and women.

 

[Roylion]

I now that but surely at some stage there was the first man and women.

Do you mean the first modern home sapiens, as opposed to archaic home sapiens?

Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

 

[Boston tiger]

Do you mean the first modern home sapiens, as opposed to archaic home sapiens?

That's what I'm getting at. Is there a cut off and science says that is the human species and the generation before isn't. Or do we have to keep going back to slime.

 

[Roylion]

That's what I'm getting at. Is there a cut off and science says that is the human species and the generation before isn't. Or do we have to keep going back to slime.

The fossil and genetic evidence suggests that modern homo sapiens sapiens (our species) evolved from archaic home sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Possibly from a group of homo rhodesiensis separated geographically from most other of the other Homo sapiens alive at the time. Of course modern homo sapiens just happens to be the only surviving species.

The genetic data shows unequivocally that humanity (home sapiens sapiens) did not descend from a single pair that lived in the genus Homo.

 

[Boston tiger]

The fossil and genetic evidence shows that modern ohm sapiens evolved from archaic home sapiens about 200,000 years ago.

The genetic data shows unequivocally that humanity did not descend from a single pair that lived in the genus Homo.

So there is never a first of a new species. They could all reproduce with their moms and grandmothers etc just comes to a point one day that the new species is so different from their great great great great grand mums that we call it s new species etc.

So do the scientist rekon everything stemmed from the first life form or lots life popped up around the same time geological time speaking. Must have been wild times back them and what was around then to cause life that isn't around now?

I shall mull this over.

 

[Roylion]

So there is never a first of a new species. They could all reproduce with their moms and grandmothers etc just comes to a point one day that the new species is so different from their great great great great grand mums that we call it s new species etc.

Pretty much. Evolution continues to this day.

So do the scientist rekon everything stemmed from the first life form or lots life popped up around the same time geological time speaking. Must have been wild times back them and what was around then to cause life that isn't around now?

The closeness of the relations between various life forms on the planet is measured by similar DNA. A complete set of human DNA has a total of 3.3 billion letters. You are different from me because every now and then, you have a different letter from me at a certain spot. So maybe at position 17, 456, 327 I have an A and you have a G.

A dog’s complete set of DNA is a bit smaller with only 2.8 billion letters. Only 25% of the DNA sequence in the dog genome exactly matches the human sequence. When the tiny changes in the other 75% of the DNA are piled up across 25,000 genes and across trillions of cells in the body, the results are two very different organisms. What is does show is that at sometime in the past every human in the world and every dog in the world had a common ancestor.

Fruit flies and humans have 36% of the same DNA. Zebra Fish and humans share 85% of the same DNA while chimpanzees and humans share 98% of the same DNA.

What caused the first life form? Some claim it was some form of supernatural creator that some call "God", although there is no evidence for this. No one really knows, (despite certain claims in various holy texts around the world). Various scientific theories that don't necessarily involve a supernatural creator have been proposed.

 

[Bennett.]

The fossil and genetic evidence suggests that modern homo sapiens sapiens (our species) evolved from archaic home sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Possibly from a group of homo rhodesiensis separated geographically from most other of the other Homo sapiens alive at the time. Of course modern homo sapiens just happens to be the only surviving species.

The genetic data shows unequivocally that humanity (home sapiens sapiens) did not descend from a single pair that lived in the genus Homo.

Quoting Whyevolutionistrue isn't really plumbing the depths of peer reviewed science...

 

[Roylion]

Quoting Whyevolutionistrue isn't really plumbing the depths of peer reviewed science...

Never seen such a website. This is common scientific knowledge. And there are plenty of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject too. But you already knew that.

I'll ask again. What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?

 

[Number37]

That's what I'm getting at. Is there a cut off and science says that is the human species and the generation before isn't. Or do we have to keep going back to slime.

Good question. Don't expect an answer.