Atheist=smarter and better person?

[Nobunaga]

... This thread should be merged with one of those "Proof there's a God" threads, or "Christians, Explain This!" threads.

...

[InkL0sed]

I thought the Big Bang theory was generally not thought to be so likely anymore...

[Neoteny]

I thought the Big Bang theory was generally not thought to be so likely anymore...

Which one?

[PLAYER57832]

I thought the Big Bang theory was generally not thought to be so likely anymore...

No, it is still the predominant theory. It has gained more evidence just recently, not less.

However, scientific theories do tend to be refined and modified.

[Neoteny]

Actually even evolution says we are the offspring of two (Adam and Eve) original beings. To claim that there was no Adam and Eve is idiotic because essentially all religions and sciences believe that (I thought you believed in science).

Umm, wow.
So evolution claims we are all the incestuous children of 2 people.

Who exactly told you these terrible, terrible lies?

Science DOES say that all human beings currently alive can trace their ancestry to one female... nicknamed "Eve" after the Bible. This is based upon mitochondrial DNA evidence, mitocondria being passed on with very little change from the mother. Similar studies are going on in the Y chromosomes for males, but the male versions show more "drift".

Neither actually proves that there was one Eve and one Adam.... think of it this way, you are descended from the same grand parents as your cousins, but also have 3 other grandparents. In the case of "Eve", we would have millions of "cousins". BUT, it is not disproven, either ... which means it could be possible, scientifically.

For the Christian, it is so because the Bible says it is (though please note, that does not mean that Jay's particular narrow version is correct .. much of what Jay claims is plain false).

The sciences confirm many events SUCH AS THE FLOOD from the Bible. If you aren't going to take the time to know your stuff I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Again maybe, you could enlighten us unwashed masses as to these unequivocal proofs of a flood that destroyed all living things on Earth

Again, there is evidence that the Earth was inundated by floods, though not necessarily at the same exact time. However lack of evidence is not proof against a world-wide flood. Scientifically, it is a "maybe".

Religiously, this is an area of disagreement within the Christian community. Some feel, that it was, literally, a world-wide flood of 40 days and that the evidence has been obscured by various geologic processes. Some feel, for a lot of reasons (namely surrounding passages in the Bible and early Jewish writings) that there were beings not covered by the flood, that the "entire world" was the entire world of Noah. Some feel that while human beings perceived it as one event, it might actually have been a series of events and that the distinction was not critical to human understanding and so has been blurred by us. (sort of like trying to explain outer space to someone who thinks the world is flat -- no matter how clear you try to be, some concepts will just not be understood)

Others feel it was not meant literally at all, that it spoke of evil and destruction and rescue by God and that the importance is belief in God, adherance to the law, etc.

Seems more likely then a universe the size of a shoebox explodes and nubulas appear then planets begn to be created. The odds of that happening coincedently are less the the universe being shaped by an ultimate being. And the fact that the big bang is a theory is because most people in the National Academy of sciences are athiest, they persist to prove this theory because they can't accept the other option.

Interestingly enough, most Christians seem to think the "big bang theory" matches Genesis pretty well.

To add to your discussion on Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, even if we do trace the chromosomes back to a single grandfather, the likelihood that these two individuals lived at the same time, much less close enough to know each other, is infinitesimal. Damn those scientists and their clever names; always tricking simple-minded people like Nataki into thinking they know what they're talking about...

[joecoolfrog]

Actually even evolution says we are the offspring of two (Adam and Eve) original beings. To claim that there was no Adam and Eve is idiotic because essentially all religions and sciences believe that (I thought you believed in science).

The sciences confirm many events SUCH AS THE FLOOD from the Bible. If you aren't going to take the time to know your stuff I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Oh and the census you claim didn't exist is in secular Western Civilization books (I took 2 classes in college / at a secular college). Don't make all these claims if you are just going to make things up.

Your analysis would appear to be as impressive as your CC playing ability

[tzor]

I thought the Big Bang theory was generally not thought to be so likely anymore...

No it's still there. Although a better name for it is the "Big transparency event," the moment the universe went from opaque to transparent, which actually occured at T really really young (I forget the exact time this event is supposed to have taken place). The fact that this event was (even then) not perfectly uniform is one of the explanations for the formation of galaxy chains in the universe.

I don't think anyone believes in the "multiple origin" of man theory anymore. Evolution does have a hard time with species migration (the exact moment a species becomes a different species from the parent) but the notion that at one point there was one unique "homo sapien" is a strong argument. We might say that man came form Eden, because as far as we can tell, central Africa was a real paradise about the time that homo sapien frist started walking the earth.

I'll just make one argument about the "flood," and that comes from a later story in Genesis. Lot fist thought that everyone in the whole world died when Soddom and Gamora got nuked. (Which was why his daugthers decided to get pregnant from him.) I don't think the idea that the whole world was flooded is necessary to prove that there is truth in the story, because no one can see the whole world at once.

[kagetora]

PROVEN FALLACY IN THE BIBLE: There was no global flood.

You watch TV much? Because the flood has enough evidence so as not to be ruled out.

The Great Flood

The closest there has ever been to a global flood was "Snowball Earth." During which, the earth essentially froze over. This is possible because ice is less dense than water.

There is not enough liquid on earth to flood it. After all, about 97% of liquid on earth is already in the oceans.

[jay_a2j]

PROVEN FALLACY IN THE BIBLE: There was no global flood.

You watch TV much? Because the flood has enough evidence so as not to be ruled out.

The Great Flood

The closest there has ever been to a global flood was "Snowball Earth." During which, the earth essentially froze over. This is possible because ice is less dense than water.

There is not enough liquid on earth to flood it. After all, about 97% of liquid on earth is already in the oceans.

You obviously didn't read the article.

[kagetora]

Read it:

Did you know that the Himalayas are growing taller? As are every mountain range in the world? Therefore, areas that could have been underwater will no longer be.

The sedimentary rock I agree with the conventionalists. Eventually, all land will be covered in sedimentary rock. Why? Because wind and rain will move it there.

As for the stories, do any two of them have an estimation of when they happened that are close to each other? Is it not possible, and more likely, that they all suffered from different floods?

[Neoteny]

I don't think anyone believes in the "multiple origin" of man theory anymore. Evolution does have a hard time with species migration (the exact moment a species becomes a different species from the parent) but the notion that at one point there was one unique "homo sapien" is a strong argument. We might say that man came form Eden, because as far as we can tell, central Africa was a real paradise about the time that homo sapien frist started walking the earth.

I can't see any argument presenting one unique Homo sapien as being anywhere close to valid. If there was only one, who would he mate with? What the hell was his mom? You're talking about "speciation," not "migration" and seem to be missing how it works.

[MeDeFe]

afaik ALL of biology has a pretty hard time defining exactly where to draw the lines between species. There's yet no definition that will work in every case.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is fun. Wish I had a chance to call someone "moran." Fun, fun, fun!

[tzor]

I can't see any argument presenting one unique Homo sapien as being anywhere close to valid. If there was only one, who would he mate with? What the hell was his mom? You're talking about "speciation," not "migration" and seem to be missing how it works.

I suppose any other homo would do in a pinch in the early years.

No seriously, Homo neanderthalensis were around at the time. Homo heidelbergensis was dying out when Homo sapiens were first walking the earth. It wasn't until much later that Homo sapien became the only homo subspecies on the planet by then the genetic pool was secure.

[Juan_Bottom]

It wasn't until much later that Homo sapien became the only homo subspecies on the planet by then the genetic pool was secure.

That, I agree with.

[heavycola]

The stupidity level on this forum shows no sign of bottoming out. It's incredible.

[Juan_Bottom]

The stupidity level on this forum shows no sign of bottoming out. It's incredible.

You should probably point some fingers, otherwise I assume you are talking about yourself too.

[Neoteny]

I can't see any argument presenting one unique Homo sapien as being anywhere close to valid. If there was only one, who would he mate with? What the hell was his mom? You're talking about "speciation," not "migration" and seem to be missing how it works.

I suppose any other homo would do in a pinch in the early years.

No seriously, Homo neanderthalensis were around at the time. Homo heidelbergensis was dying out when Homo sapiens were first walking the earth. It wasn't until much later that Homo sapien became the only homo subspecies on the planet by then the genetic pool was secure.

You're shifting from an individual to a population. Was that your original intent or are you changing your argument?

[tzor]

You're shifting from an individual to a population. Was that your original intent or are you changing your argument?

The population position was to the question who them first Homo Sapien mated with, but the argument still revolves around an individual. At some point in history one person was born with the dominant trait that would set him apart from others of his species, thus forming a sub-species. It's not like 20 children from different families suddenly got the mutation from the atmosphere. Genetic mutations always have to start out from the individual and work to the group.

[InkL0sed]

You're shifting from an individual to a population. Was that your original intent or are you changing your argument?

The population position was to the question who them first Homo Sapien mated with, but the argument still revolves around an individual. At some point in history one person was born with the dominant trait that would set him apart from others of his species, thus forming a sub-species. It's not like 20 children from different families suddenly got the mutation from the atmosphere. Genetic mutations always have to start out from the individual and work to the group.

You're thinking of it on much too micro a scale. It doesn't quite work that way. Individuals get incredibly minor mutations, they don't form subspecies within one generation.

[Neoteny]

You're shifting from an individual to a population. Was that your original intent or are you changing your argument?

The population position was to the question who them first Homo sapien mated with, but the argument still revolves around an individual. At some point in history one person was born with the dominant trait that would set him apart from others of his species, thus forming a sub-species. It's not like 20 children from different families suddenly got the mutation from the atmosphere. Genetic mutations always have to start out from the individual and work to the group.

Oh god, that's terrible. Subspecies by definition can all mate together, so you don't need to bring other populations into the mix. Ink's right, individuals are relatively neutral evolutionarily. Because of this fact, your hypothesis doesn't make much sense. There is no reason an individual could mate with a different subspecies but can't mate with the species it's mother and father is in. I might give you the birth of a subspecies in an individual, but even that's a bit far-fetched as a subspecies will likely appear as an isolated population that collects mutations that the rest of the species does not. Really, the individual perspective doesn't matter. It's really hard to even theoretically prove an "Adam."

[Pedronicus]

For teh record

I think:

Religion is for idiots.
Religion causes wars.
Global warming is happening and we are the cause.
Guns in a modern country like America should be banned.

Am I smart? (I think so)

[jay_a2j]

For teh record

I think:

Religion is for idiots.
Religion causes wars.
Global warming is happening and we are the cause.
Guns in a modern country like America should be banned.

Am I smart? (I think so)

Wow! Wrong on all counts! Bravo!!

[Smokingdude420]

For teh record

I think:

Religion is for idiots.
Religion causes wars.
Global warming is happening and we are the cause.
Guns in a modern country like America should be banned.

Am I smart? (I think so)

i wouldn't say all religions cause war and are for idiots im Pagan and if you read your history Pagans were murdered by Christians we didn't want war we just wanted our old way of life not this fake crap religion gun shouldn't be banned though they should be legalized that anyone can carry them its been proven time and time again theirs less crime when everyone carry's a gun look at Texas and yeah im sure Global warming is our fault but that's because people are stupid

[Iliad]

For teh record

I think:

Religion is for idiots.
Religion causes wars.
Global warming is happening and we are the cause.
Guns in a modern country like America should be banned.

Am I smart? (I think so)

YES!