Originally posted by Bentley
The Bible is a book, not a religion.And it's not even supposed to be a magic book -although there may be weird people who think it is? that counts as religion?-.
I wasn't talking about the bible, and religion can be filled with both weird and normal people. However, the weird one stand out.
Ah, philosophical discussion of faith vs scientific endeavour to uncover the truth.
I could talk about this for days, but unfortunately my time is limited.
I will say this tho, someone said how does one possess instincts if they are not experiences from a past life. The answer is simple and scientifically explained, the memories of Genes, the DNA. Memories, much like most brain functions are a mix of chemical reactions and electrical nerve impulses.
Double post, edit time ran out...
People have an instinctive memory of many things, some are passed down from parents to children, these are learned and refined as the generations pass, others are bred into them. Y
et despite all this, and now made more convenient through both written paper mediums and later digital information, nobody has genetic memory of creation. Nobody remembers God, despite his supposed hand in our making, more directly than most beings. None remember the fabled garden of Eden. Does this then point back to the scientific theory of Evolution? Yes.
If God was responsible for all creation, and not just Earth, via say through the Big Bang event (Which in itself is still just a scientific theory rather than established fact. but is by far the most generally accepted scientific explanation for the formation of our universe) then he was very irresponsible, for he allowed the natural evolution of all life in the universe unsupervised, basically leaving everything to natural selection and random chance, only to appear a relatively short time ago (3 million years since the first humans formed is almost nothing when compared to the untold trillions of years the Universe has existed) to lay down his laws on one planet that we know of. And appearing again and again striking wicked vengeance upon those who were not faithful to his words, (causing extinction level floods across the globe, and sending assassins across Egypt) proves that A: God is not above using that which he abhors and detests to get the results he desires, and B: cannot see all ends, otherwise such methods would not be needed in the first place.
One indicator that the events of the New testament may actually have occurred is that many faiths actually recorded the exact same events around the exact same time. Somehow I don't think that it is a coincidence. However, the differing variations and iterations distinct to each faith means that what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago may be interpreted in very different ways, which brings into question the validity of each one of them. None can take precedence over the other as none of them offer any more proof than the others, all are written word, and nothing else.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonHa, n00b! It's 13.8 billion. What, are you from the ignorant Bible days or sumtin?
^ The universe is 13.7 billion years old, not trillions.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroYour post makes it clear that 1.) You don't appreciate the meaning of a "scientific theory" (it contains facts), 2.) You somehow confused 13.8 billion years with trillions, 3.) You think the genetic memory thing from Assassin's Creed is real, and 4.) You correlate the recording of historical events to the existence of a religious scripture without qualifying your stance on the religious aspect of same.
Double post, edit time ran out...People have an instinctive memory of many things, some are passed down from parents to children, these are learned and refined as the generations pass, others are bred into them. Y
et despite all this, and now made more convenient through both written paper mediums and later digital information, nobody has genetic memory of creation. Nobody remembers God, despite his supposed hand in our making, more directly than most beings. None remember the fabled garden of Eden. Does this then point back to the scientific theory of Evolution? Yes.
If God was responsible for all creation, and not just Earth, via say through the Big Bang event (Which in itself is still just a scientific theory rather than established fact. but is by far the most generally accepted scientific explanation for the formation of our universe) then he was very irresponsible, for he allowed the natural evolution of all life in the universe unsupervised, basically leaving everything to natural selection and random chance, only to appear a relatively short time ago (3 million years since the first humans formed is almost nothing when compared to the untold trillions of years the Universe has existed) to lay down his laws on one planet that we know of. And appearing again and again striking wicked vengeance upon those who were not faithful to his words, (causing extinction level floods across the globe, and sending assassins across Egypt) proves that A: God is not above using that which he abhors and detests to get the results he desires, and B: cannot see all ends, otherwise such methods would not be needed in the first place.
One indicator that the events of the New testament may actually have occurred is that many faiths actually recorded the exact same events around the exact same time. Somehow I don't think that it is a coincidence. However, the differing variations and iterations distinct to each faith means that what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago may be interpreted in very different ways, which brings into question the validity of each one of them. None can take precedence over the other as none of them offer any more proof than the others, all are written word, and nothing else.
In short... lolwut?
Originally posted by Stealth MooseWe have to wait that long??
Simple: when transhuanism becomes dominant, Creationists will be selected against.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYeah, but (*sardonic grin*), if creationists exist, there must've been some evolutionary advantage, at least at one point, to thinking this way. Perhaps when the world was more full of this kind of thinking, then it must've been more likely you'd find a mate, have kids, and pass on those literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible genes.
The belief in evolution is irrelevant to evolution. Just like the belief in gravity is irrelevant to gravity.
Oh the natural selective irony.
Originally posted by Mindship
We have to wait that long??Yeah, but (*sardonic grin*), if creationists exist, there must've been some evolutionary advantage, at least at one point, to thinking this way. Perhaps when the world was more full of this kind of thinking, then it must've been more likely you'd find a mate, have kids, and pass on those literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible genes.
Oh the natural selective irony.
Belief is more powerful then fact.
Originally posted by Mindship
We have to wait that long??Yeah, but (*sardonic grin*), if creationists exist, there must've been some evolutionary advantage, at least at one point, to thinking this way. Perhaps when the world was more full of this kind of thinking, then it must've been more likely you'd find a mate, have kids, and pass on those literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible genes.
Oh the natural selective irony.
Considering that religion is a powerful tool to regulate groups of humans, it has an evolutionary advantage, if not entirely providing for progressive growth.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonIncorrect. Exhibit A:
The belief in evolution is irrelevant to evolution. Just like the belief in gravity is irrelevant to gravity.