|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Privateer wrote: |
If they really want to test the accuracy of the Bible, they should look for Abraham's bones in the Machphelah cave in the field of Ephron, which faces Mamre. Although I don't know if there's a way of distinguishing the first possessor of a genetic marker from his descendants... |
Test the bible's accuracy? What need is there for that?
The bible is a collection of myths, from Genesis to Revelation.
The creation account is one of the more fantastic of those myths, claiming that light and plants both came before the sun, that every single creature was created a herbivore (meaning that all dinosaurs were herbivores unless they coexisted with man) and man came from dust while woman came from a rib.
It also claims there was no rain before a global flood that never happened, that one of the reasons why said mythical global flood occurred was because of the evil, half-breed spawn created from angels mating with humans, and oh, there's that myth about the sun standing still as well (back when the sun revolved around the Earth).
Honestly. What 'test' need be done to determine how inaccurate the bible is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sallymonster wrote: |
| You know, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
Yes, its called theistic evolution. Its a very common (and unobjectionable) viewpoint. Over 38% of Americans accept this viewpoint (only 16% believe in atheistic evolution). |
Which really doesn't make sense as to accept theistic evolution you must completely ignore salient parts of the Bible and reinterpret the rest of it.
Goes to show how religions must evolve to stay alive. Hopefully one day people will just stop the shenanigans and accept that believing in 2000 year old myths really isn't such a great idea after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Imagine living in a place where they value the Bible so highly, they don't know how to read it very well. |
According to one Christian website, only ~10% of self-professed Christians have actually read the entire bible.
I can't help but wonder how quickly fundamental Christianity would be shied away from if more people actually knew what their book said.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sallymonster wrote: |
| You know, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
Yes, its called theistic evolution. Its a very common (and unobjectionable) viewpoint. Over 38% of Americans accept this viewpoint (only 16% believe in atheistic evolution). |
Which really doesn't make sense as to accept theistic evolution you must completely ignore salient parts of the Bible and reinterpret the rest of it.
Goes to show how religions must evolve to stay alive. Hopefully one day people will just stop the shenanigans and accept that believing in 2000 year old myths really isn't such a great idea after all. |
No. You're exactly the kind of literalist I'm deriding, but you're merely of the atheist variety.
There's nothing wrong with believing in a 2000- or 3500-year-old myth. The question is: what do we take away from the myth? If you read the story of Genesis, and you literally interpret the story, then you'll end up with creationism. But the creation story is a myth about the unfolding of human consciousness. It is a work of art. Adam is a symbol of when man became man. The garden is a parable about the loss of innocence and how knowledge and self distances us from God (or at least creates the need for a God).
You see literalism among atheists, too. Many of them also lack the ability to read great works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
No. You're exactly the kind of literalist I'm deriding, but you're merely of the atheist variety.
There's nothing wrong with believing in a 2000- or 3500-year-old myth. The question is: what do we take away from the myth? If you read the story of Genesis, and you literally interpret the story, then you'll end up with creationism. But the creation story is a myth about the unfolding of human consciousness. It is a work of art. Adam is a symbol of when man became man. The garden is a parable about the loss of innocence and how knowledge and self distances us from God (or at least creates the need for a God).
You see literalism among atheists, too. Many of them also lack the ability to read great works. |
Ah, derision. I see.
But really, you don't think there's anything wrong with believing in a myth?
Really? Reread that again....
And in any case, history has pointedly showed us again and again how believing in a literal interpretation of the myth can be have loads of negative consequences. We're still challenging archaic biblical concepts in every day society now!
As for the rest of that, you might have a point except for one glaring fact: the bible is built upon a literal interpretation of the creation story. Every thing that follows presupposes that story to be true. Moses believed it, Jesus believed it, and Paul believed it. They all considered it a literal account of the creation of the Earth.
You cannot take any supernatural biblical account as literal if you don't take that first one as literal.
That's all well and good if you don't, but then you're back to the bible just being a collection of myths, and not a particularly uplifting one at that. The OT is littered with really horrid accounts that are somehow meant to be justified in the grand scheme, and the NT isn't that much better except for the odd plagiarized tidbit about treating others like you'd want to be treated. Not really useful for anything other than a fictional tale to be read for entertainment purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution�new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The research, reported in the journal PLoS One, offers new insights into the nature of human evolution, suggesting a different role for Homo erectus than had been previously thought.
The work was conducted by the Solo River Terrace (SoRT) Project, an international group of scientists directed by anthropologists Etty Indriati of Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia and Susan Ant�n of New York University.
Homo erectus is widely considered a direct human ancestor�it resembles modern humans in many respects, except for its smaller brain and differently shaped skull�and was the first of our ancestors to migrate out of Africa, approximately 1.8 million years ago. Homo erectus went extinct in Africa and much of Asia by about 500,000 years ago, but appeared to have survived in Indonesia until about 35,000 to 50,000 years ago at the site of Ngandong on the Solo River. These late members of Homo erectus would have shared the environment with early members of our own species, Homo sapiens, who arrived in Indonesia by about 40,000 years ago.
The existence of the two species simultaneously has important implications for models about the origins of modern humans. One of the models, the Out of Africa or replacement model, predicts such overlap. However, another, the multiregional model, which posits that modern humans originated as a result of genetic contributions from hominin populations all around the Old World (Africa, Asia, Europe), does not. The late survival of Homo erectus in Indonesia has been used as one line of support for the Out of Africa model.
However, findings by the SoRT Project show that Homo erectus' time in the region ended before modern humans arrived there. The analyses suggest that Homo erectus was gone by at least 143,000 years ago�and likely by more than 550,000 years ago. This means the demise of Homo erectus occurred long before the arrival of Homo sapiens.
"Thus, Homo erectus probably did not share habitats with modern humans," said Indriati.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Neanderthals died out in Western Europe after a surge of modern humans arrived from Africa and made them a minority in their own land, researchers claim.
The swarm of Homo sapiens onto the continent more than 40,000 years ago left the Neanderthals, who had thrived in the frigid conditions for 300 millennia, outnumbered by a massive 10 to one.
The invasion of so many modern humans overturned the Neanderthals' domination of the land and forced them into fierce competition for food, fuel and other crucial resources.
The scenario, described by Paul Mellars, emeritus professor of prehistory and human evolution at Cambridge University, and his colleague, Jennifer French, is the latest attempt by scientists to explain the mystery of the Neanderthals' demise.
Modern humans, along with environmental factors, have long been suspects in the sudden extinction of our thick-browed relatives, but the nature of their decline is still under debate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems there's no canonical explanation about what happened to the neanderthals, but the following article also talks about modern humans having a key role in bringing about their swift end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/science/10neanderthal.html
Interestingly, it says some scientists believe they peacefully coexisted for a time in what is today Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sallymonster wrote: |
| You know, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
Or there were two different independent timelines which God caused to converged together. One timeline proceeded via creationism and the other proceeded via Big Bang and evolution. That's what I say anyways when I get tired of disagreeing with literalists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Udo
Joined: 22 May 2011
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like it or not, blacks are about 200,000 years different from modern europeans, still further from modern east asians.
The average IQ among sub saharan africans is 50-70. The UN can continue to ship corn, rice, coal and other things but just look at National Geographic magazine from 100 years ago- same thing- Albert Sweitzer was working his touckos off trying to help the Africans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
