Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. But the ones that do will come to dominate the gene pool after a few years, and the genetic makeup of the population will change. In simple words, the species will evolve.
We are not slaves to evolution and dont necessarily need to follow its dictates. If having 20 children each make us evolutionarily fitter should we all do that?
Originally posted by rwingettI appreciate your argument, but I always have a fundamental problem with any line of thought that suggests we are more advanced than the ancients.
Religion was a natural evolutionary development. Mankind could not explain the natural phenomena occuring around him and so invented religion to help make sense of things. It is not surprising that he did so. But religion's usefulness is waning year by year. Mankind no longer has any real need for it, but keeps it around because he's gotten used to it.
...[text shortened]... more secular and the rural, third world areas retaining their religious beliefs the longest.
Sure, we have more scientific knowledge. But as far as human nature is concerned, I doubt we have more insight than they did. And while you characterise religion as being developed to make sense of 'things', I would dispute that religion is really that interested in the PHYSICAL world that you seem to have in mind.
Personally, as a Christian I'm not interested on a daily basis in the evolution/creation issue. I'm a lot more interested in the best way to live my life so as to make both my existence and the existence of others a bit better.
Originally posted by orfeoSo you think that it's more a case of (to use a tired phrase) standing on the shoulders of giants (ie. our predecessors)?
I appreciate your argument, but I always have a fundamental problem with any line of thought that suggests we are more advanced than the ancients.
Sure, we have more scientific knowledge. But as far as human nature is concerned, I doubt we have more insight than they did. And while you characterise religion as being developed to make sense of 'things', I ...[text shortened]... ay to live my life so as to make both my existence and the existence of others a bit better.
Originally posted by XanthosNZMore like the generation gap's grown so huge we can't make out what they're shouting at us anymore. And when they post us notes, it's in funny writing we can't understand.
So you think that it's more a case of (to use a tired phrase) standing on the shoulders of giants (ie. our predecessors)?
Originally posted by rwingettMankind could not explain the natural phenomena occuring around him and so invented religion to help make sense of things.
Religion was a natural evolutionary development.
Oops. Your unsupported assumed is showing. In order for this to be a true statement, you would have to disprove the historical accuracy of all religions, including all of their varied devices in telling their stories.
While that may be doable with most, you'll have your hands full for the rest of your waking life with the Bible. Not that I call into question your literary and/or intellectual prowess, but far greater minds than any found here--- equipped with more precise skills and tools--- have attempted to do just that; all have been equally ineffective.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf so, it's only because the lemmings tend to follow the leader over the edge of the cliff. Most unfortunately for the generations of the preceeding millenia, the Lead Lemmings have been wearing funny hats and praising a comic book character.
but far greater minds than any found here--- equipped with more precise skills and tools--- have attempted to do just that; all have been equally ineffective.
Originally posted by David CA multitude of thanks for setting the record straight. Good thing you came along at this point in time: we were all almost lost.
If so, it's only because the lemmings tend to follow the leader over the edge of the cliff. Most unfortunately for the generations of the preceeding millenia, the Lead Lemmings have been wearing funny hats and praising a comic book character.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't thank me, Skippy. Thank the increasing amount of information and communication available to all of us. Of course, I'm sure you meant this sarcastically, and that's fine...feel free to wallow in your ad populums until Jesus comes home. He should be along any moment now, eh?
A multitude of thanks for setting the record straight. Good thing you came along at this point in time: we were all almost lost.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe statement could be true whether he disproved the historical accuracy of religions or not. Your saying the equivalent of "the only way that God could possibly exist is if you prooved that the Spaghetti Monster does not exist."
Oops. Your unsupported assumed is showing. In order for this to be a true statement, you would have to disprove the historical accuracy of all religions, including all of their varied devices in telling their stories.
While that may be doable with most, you'll have your hands full for the rest of your waking life with the Bible. Not that I call int ...[text shortened]... precise skills and tools--- have attempted to do just that; all have been equally ineffective.
Even disproving all religions would not proove the statement.
As for the rest of you post, I would disagree. The problem however is that the Bible is so open to interpretation, with some Christians taking almost all of it as parables or stories, that when some parts of it are shown to be historically inaccurate they are merely explained away as not being intended to be accurate in the first place. That leaves the basic problem that the key facts under dispute are mostly unprovable either way and the accuracy of the rest is irrelevant. In addition I can also guarantee that any innacuracies that are proven will be denied by you.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYep, and I can show the bible's inaccuracy on the first page too. Ain't i just great!
[b] Mankind could not explain the natural phenomena occuring around him and so invented religion to help make sense of things.
Oops. Your unsupported assumed is showing. In order for this to be a true statement, you would have to disprove the historical accuracy of all religions, including all of their varied devices in telling their stories.
W precise skills and tools--- have attempted to do just that; all have been equally ineffective.[/b]