x
Click to expand

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:5/30/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2446
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 5149 total,  7184 ,  2035
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 58% (58/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1973
FJ Points:4484

latest user's comments

#512 - Trust me. As the guy who was attempting to make the point, you… 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#510 - Trust me, message 500 shows me that you didn't get any of thre…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#511 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I don't think so. Just watch those videos and them I'll have some more for you. Bye.
User avatar #512 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me. As the guy who was attempting to make the point, you did not at all get my point. Like you didn't get it an then disagree with it dispite understanding. You just argued against things I didn't say and brought up contradictions where I wasn't making any. Which, again, was probably my short coming, not yours.
#508 - Yeah, that's what i kind of thought. You don't seem to have un…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#509 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No, I have understood you quite well, but you need to check out the burden of proof when it comes to logic. It is extremely important to understand. Check those videos when you have some time. Bye friend.
User avatar #510 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me, message 500 shows me that you didn't get any of three topics you listed. I know you think you did but you really didn't.
#511 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I don't think so. Just watch those videos and them I'll have some more for you. Bye.
User avatar #512 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me. As the guy who was attempting to make the point, you did not at all get my point. Like you didn't get it an then disagree with it dispite understanding. You just argued against things I didn't say and brought up contradictions where I wasn't making any. Which, again, was probably my short coming, not yours.
#499 - I kind of wonder if you actually read my posts or just hurried…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#500 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I read them all.

You did say that you showed me that Humans emerged from Africa but that was my explicit point all along.

You said the Bible claim about Adam being the first man is true but later you said he had a mother as well. Obviously non-biblical there and proof you've changed your story.

The physical Mesopotamian evidence is solid no pun intended , and it shows which stories came first and who wrote them. Go and write your papers disproving the current science and historical research. The evidence is strongly stacked against you otherwise those papers would conform to your preconceived notions about the universe based on an old book.
User avatar #508 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yeah, that's what i kind of thought. You don't seem to have understood much of anything I was saying which may very well be my fault for not expressing it in a clear way.
But I have been arguing on here with various people all night, the latest of which being you and I have finally run out of steam so reread my messages if you care to understand because I'm too tuckered to say no more.
#509 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No, I have understood you quite well, but you need to check out the burden of proof when it comes to logic. It is extremely important to understand. Check those videos when you have some time. Bye friend.
User avatar #510 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me, message 500 shows me that you didn't get any of three topics you listed. I know you think you did but you really didn't.
#511 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I don't think so. Just watch those videos and them I'll have some more for you. Bye.
User avatar #512 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me. As the guy who was attempting to make the point, you did not at all get my point. Like you didn't get it an then disagree with it dispite understanding. You just argued against things I didn't say and brought up contradictions where I wasn't making any. Which, again, was probably my short coming, not yours.
#497 - Alright, well all you seem to want to do is repeat yourself. I…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#498 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I didn't mean to be too snarky but when when people change their story as they go along and make assertions with out solid evidence, it grinds my gears a bit. I hope you watch those videos I put in those links!
User avatar #499 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I kind of wonder if you actually read my posts or just hurried through thinking of your reply because my story never changed though you may have not understood it and I hardly think you should be accusing anyone of not having solid evidence after all the stuff abut Mesopotamia and the social habits of people archaeologists admit to guessing about.
#500 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I read them all.

You did say that you showed me that Humans emerged from Africa but that was my explicit point all along.

You said the Bible claim about Adam being the first man is true but later you said he had a mother as well. Obviously non-biblical there and proof you've changed your story.

The physical Mesopotamian evidence is solid no pun intended , and it shows which stories came first and who wrote them. Go and write your papers disproving the current science and historical research. The evidence is strongly stacked against you otherwise those papers would conform to your preconceived notions about the universe based on an old book.
User avatar #508 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yeah, that's what i kind of thought. You don't seem to have understood much of anything I was saying which may very well be my fault for not expressing it in a clear way.
But I have been arguing on here with various people all night, the latest of which being you and I have finally run out of steam so reread my messages if you care to understand because I'm too tuckered to say no more.
#509 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No, I have understood you quite well, but you need to check out the burden of proof when it comes to logic. It is extremely important to understand. Check those videos when you have some time. Bye friend.
User avatar #510 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me, message 500 shows me that you didn't get any of three topics you listed. I know you think you did but you really didn't.
#511 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I don't think so. Just watch those videos and them I'll have some more for you. Bye.
User avatar #512 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me. As the guy who was attempting to make the point, you did not at all get my point. Like you didn't get it an then disagree with it dispite understanding. You just argued against things I didn't say and brought up contradictions where I wasn't making any. Which, again, was probably my short coming, not yours.
#494 - I don't think that you can make such claims about the culture …  [+] (10 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#496 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They had families that cared for each other. They provided food and protection for their children for a long time. They buried their dead and mourned. They had a social hierarchy like we do today, albeit a simpler one.

The reason then that they were banned from eating these foods is because they got sick because they didn't know about nutrition like we do now. They were also very 'moral' about killing people for eating these forbidden foods, not to mention being killed for many other ridiculous things that were all products of the ignorance of their times. It's pretty obvious they were just like almost every other society back then where they made up gods to enforce rules. Killing disobedient children is hardly moral, or getting killed for wearing two types of cloth! I mean, it just reeks of bronze age ignorance. These people didn't know where the sun went at night!

Shame that 'god' never told them about microbes but instead would say it was 'evil demons' that make people sick. No evidence at all for demons anywhere, let alone the cause of any diseases. The microscope has led to the lives of millions being saved.

There is NOT evidence that human's came from a single pair: we came from a population! This is part of your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Instead of asking for me to show this proof, why don't you link to a scholarly article to demonstrate this new claim of yours? A single pair! LOL. Please.....

The culture changes as people move and change as well. Languages and customs change as people move. That is why the Israelites version of the Flood and Creation stories are different than their Mesopotamian sources.

They were NOT the same people! As I said, people came from many places and in 1000 years there would be genes coming from 1000s of kilometers around. Don't forget the Babylonian Exodus when they took the stories and made them into their own.

No. The statement that many Bible stories from the Old Testament have an origin in Mesopotamia is essentially a fact. These are the Earliest stories that we have of the Myth and it's possible it was loosely based on and actual local flood in the region. People then didn't know much about how the water cycles and weather systems worked so they assumed there were things like gods behind it. This is what all ancient cultures have done and Christianity today, in it's 40,000 different versions is no different.

User avatar #497 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Alright, well all you seem to want to do is repeat yourself. I made my case, I endured your snarky attitude, and I tried to be respectful. I don't know what else to do so I will bid you goodnight or morning to whatever your time zone dictates.
#498 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I didn't mean to be too snarky but when when people change their story as they go along and make assertions with out solid evidence, it grinds my gears a bit. I hope you watch those videos I put in those links!
User avatar #499 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I kind of wonder if you actually read my posts or just hurried through thinking of your reply because my story never changed though you may have not understood it and I hardly think you should be accusing anyone of not having solid evidence after all the stuff abut Mesopotamia and the social habits of people archaeologists admit to guessing about.
#500 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I read them all.

You did say that you showed me that Humans emerged from Africa but that was my explicit point all along.

You said the Bible claim about Adam being the first man is true but later you said he had a mother as well. Obviously non-biblical there and proof you've changed your story.

The physical Mesopotamian evidence is solid no pun intended , and it shows which stories came first and who wrote them. Go and write your papers disproving the current science and historical research. The evidence is strongly stacked against you otherwise those papers would conform to your preconceived notions about the universe based on an old book.
User avatar #508 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yeah, that's what i kind of thought. You don't seem to have understood much of anything I was saying which may very well be my fault for not expressing it in a clear way.
But I have been arguing on here with various people all night, the latest of which being you and I have finally run out of steam so reread my messages if you care to understand because I'm too tuckered to say no more.
#509 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No, I have understood you quite well, but you need to check out the burden of proof when it comes to logic. It is extremely important to understand. Check those videos when you have some time. Bye friend.
User avatar #510 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me, message 500 shows me that you didn't get any of three topics you listed. I know you think you did but you really didn't.
#511 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
I don't think so. Just watch those videos and them I'll have some more for you. Bye.
User avatar #512 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Trust me. As the guy who was attempting to make the point, you did not at all get my point. Like you didn't get it an then disagree with it dispite understanding. You just argued against things I didn't say and brought up contradictions where I wasn't making any. Which, again, was probably my short coming, not yours.
#488 - I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#487 - They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve ov… 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#483 - Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was ref…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.

'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.

Please do watch the Evolution of Genesis this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.

This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.

I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#482 - Of course not, That's what makes it science, it's impartial li…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#484 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They are the same species and will likely have the same brains as us. Their culture would be completely different as they were 'hunter/gatherers' and had none of the education and access to information and modern infrastructure that we do today. If you're talking about consciousness, then because their brains are they same as ours and the brain is the 'seat' of the mind then their consciousness would still be the same as ours. Their societies were very primitive compared to ours but they still had morality. They obviously didn't always kill everyone otherwise they would've never passed their gens along to us. They loved like us, feared like us and grieved like us. They were still 'us'.

You say that 'you showed me that human's originated in Africa' yet it was I that showed you. You've been claiming that they're from the Middle East. lol!

The cud chewing one IS wrong. The other animals mentioned all chew cud but rabbits munch on their food so it appears that they are ruminants. These 'scribes of god' couldn't have been so stupid to confuse shit eating with vomit-eating could they?

So what if there are people in the Middle East? There are people all over the planet! People roamed as hunter/gatherers up until about 12,000 years ago when the neolithic revolution occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

This means we wandered around the planet for almost 200,000 years eking out a meager existence until we learned to farm. This revolution occurred over 10,000 years before there was an Israelite. Just to put it into perspective.

The DNA conclusively shows that Humans came from Africa 200,000 years ago and NOT from the Middle East. This is what the science has strongly determined. If you disagree YOU have to write a paper proving your ideas. Until then, your claim is baseless and is dismissed. Sorry.

The records of Mesopotamia are vast and well dated to be 1000 Years before any Israelites. Again, sigh , write your paper to demonstrate your point or your claim is dismissed. This is how science works.

Even if there were other people who wrote the flood story from somewhere outside of Mesopotamia that still occurred before there were any Israelites. It's a story that was essentially plagiarized by them. This is very well recognized in Historical research.

Adam and Eve are false because they are claimed to be the first humans when we all have come from other living beings. There is no first member of our species as there is a continuous series of changes from 4 billion years ago to now. An unbroken lines of life with each member of a species the same as it parent/s.
User avatar #487 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve over time and as such we are still doing it. While we could mate with them, we are not the same.

discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

The reason the rabbit qualities is not because it looks like it is shewing cud. It clearly doesn't as can be seen just by watching one eat. (I have owned rabbits) The reason they make the list is because God knows their biology and everything on that list has a similar and specific digestive system that makes them unhealthy to eat.

And once again you are claiming the science to be way more specific and precise than it is. It is a guess where they tried to tie the dna of modern humans and their position to where the first humans probably came from. Do you know the region they settled on? It's right below the middle east. Just about as close to it as you can get while still being in Africa. There is room for error and while I don't think they are wrong in any way, you are trying to make the data say stuff it simply doesn't or are perhaps just repeating what you heard someone else say.

And you're still not understand how the Mesopotamian thing works. Someone made the oldest carving record of that story in Mesopotamia. At the same time there were Isrealite's ancestors living in the same general area. The stories they were passing on were of the great flood and while some of it rubbed off on the Mesopotamians, the fact that the oldest record we have is from them does no mean they created it, does not mean that is the oldest record ever made, and does not mean any story after it was taken from them. Does that make sense?

And no, you will not find a reputable article that goes so far as to claim that the Isrealites plagiarized from the Mesopotamians. That little tid bit is added on by atheists who site the discovery.
User avatar #485 - compared (02/09/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you have a nice day.
#477 - Because when you say "species" you mean "can ma…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#479 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No. The bible says 'first human'. Period. It says that YHWH made him from clay but we know that there is no evidence for this whatsoever instead humans had a common ancestor with other animals. No magic breath is evidenced anywhere at all.

The bible makes no mention of Adam's mother at all. The story says life was breathed into clay. No mention of a woman or preceding species is mentioned either. You're really trying to combine your religious beliefs with science but eventually a person like you who continues to question these things will literally wake up one day and say:

'that's it! I don't believe in any of this anymore!'

Not trying to sound harsh, but the curious ones are generally the first to go!
User avatar #483 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was referring to your personal definition of what a human is. It was using its definition which only really makes sense.

And it is understood that some of the story is partly metaphorical or told in story form, not empirical hard on "I made this in seven days which are 24 hours periods which are one revolution of the Earth which is...." form. What was meant when he said he was made out of soil? How much so his was made from soil? Was it meant in the light that soil contains nutrients that make up our bodies and so it was only pointing out that we are made from the earth even though it is filtered through our mother's body first? Maybe, I don't know for sure. But there is no reason to think he made Adam out of a flash of light on a pile of dirt and a puff of breath.

It's possible too. I have always constantly questioned the bible ever sense high school when I realized that I only believe in it because my parents do. I stopped going to church and started reading and researching about it. Looking at other religions and of course exploring history and science. Trying to figure out what I should believe. And while my research and exploring continues on I have to say that the more I delve into it the more I am finding that the bible is flawless and really seems to be head and shoulders above all other religions and, so far, completely in line with science.
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.

'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.

Please do watch the Evolution of Genesis this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.

This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.

I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#475 - And I agree with those massive amounts of evidence that humans…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#478 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Science doesn't give a shit about what the Bible says or how it describes humans because it is not a scientific document. The Bible describes rabbits as animals that chew their cud, and that is obviously false.

There's no evidence for claiming that they moved out of the Middle East either. This is failing the burden of proof again as you have to prove this. The giant amounts of science we have from multiple fields show that Yes, we emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago with no evidence that we came from the Middle East.

Again with the claim the bible is evidence! It is not. It's just a collection of ancient stories that gets pushed hardcore as a religion. There is no evidence for the things that are told. As I've shown, Adam and Eve are false. The flood was a local Mesopotamian flood with different characters. There's no evidence at all for the exodus out of Egypt or any evidence directly attributed to Jesus from his time.

If you claim the bible is real evidence why do the majority of the worlds scientists and historians regard it as mythological?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
User avatar #482 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Of course not, That's what makes it science, it's impartial like that. Does that matter? You said humans started in Africa, I have shown you that they did biologically but that doesn't mean that the first conscious human who wasn't just an animal could have been born in the middle east.
As for the rabbit thing that is another example of where the English translation is at fault. The regional term used to describe the animals like the hair, badger, and other animals that should not be eaten was as "swallow what has been swallowed" but was translated into "chew the cud." It's true that rabbits do not chew the cud, like a camel who chews, swallow, regurgitates and chews more. Instead the rabbit eats and quickly moves it through his system, poops, and then eats that poop to get a second go through.This is what was referred to in the bible.

Well if you want me to prove that men moved to the middle east then i would point to the men currently in the middle east as proof. They certainly did enter the middle east at some point. Now whether they came from there to begin with is another question that science and dna has yet to answer but it does seem like it will eventually get to that point from the advances currently being made.

The bible is an account of things that happened. It claims itself to be true and cannot be proven to be untrue. That counts as evidence I'm afraid. Just as blurry photographs count as evidence of bigfoot even though they don't prove he's real. And I think I have explained already that records of civilizations does not mean they were the first civilization. You have no proven Adam and Eve false and you have no proven the Mesopotamians were the ones who created the flood story, though you did provide some interesting and compelling evidence for it for which I am grateful, if nothing else I learned a few things I didn't know from your souses.

And I no more think the bible is false because of how many scientists or historians believe than i think it is true because of how many Christians there are.
#484 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They are the same species and will likely have the same brains as us. Their culture would be completely different as they were 'hunter/gatherers' and had none of the education and access to information and modern infrastructure that we do today. If you're talking about consciousness, then because their brains are they same as ours and the brain is the 'seat' of the mind then their consciousness would still be the same as ours. Their societies were very primitive compared to ours but they still had morality. They obviously didn't always kill everyone otherwise they would've never passed their gens along to us. They loved like us, feared like us and grieved like us. They were still 'us'.

You say that 'you showed me that human's originated in Africa' yet it was I that showed you. You've been claiming that they're from the Middle East. lol!

The cud chewing one IS wrong. The other animals mentioned all chew cud but rabbits munch on their food so it appears that they are ruminants. These 'scribes of god' couldn't have been so stupid to confuse shit eating with vomit-eating could they?

So what if there are people in the Middle East? There are people all over the planet! People roamed as hunter/gatherers up until about 12,000 years ago when the neolithic revolution occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

This means we wandered around the planet for almost 200,000 years eking out a meager existence until we learned to farm. This revolution occurred over 10,000 years before there was an Israelite. Just to put it into perspective.

The DNA conclusively shows that Humans came from Africa 200,000 years ago and NOT from the Middle East. This is what the science has strongly determined. If you disagree YOU have to write a paper proving your ideas. Until then, your claim is baseless and is dismissed. Sorry.

The records of Mesopotamia are vast and well dated to be 1000 Years before any Israelites. Again, sigh , write your paper to demonstrate your point or your claim is dismissed. This is how science works.

Even if there were other people who wrote the flood story from somewhere outside of Mesopotamia that still occurred before there were any Israelites. It's a story that was essentially plagiarized by them. This is very well recognized in Historical research.

Adam and Eve are false because they are claimed to be the first humans when we all have come from other living beings. There is no first member of our species as there is a continuous series of changes from 4 billion years ago to now. An unbroken lines of life with each member of a species the same as it parent/s.
User avatar #487 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve over time and as such we are still doing it. While we could mate with them, we are not the same.

discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

The reason the rabbit qualities is not because it looks like it is shewing cud. It clearly doesn't as can be seen just by watching one eat. (I have owned rabbits) The reason they make the list is because God knows their biology and everything on that list has a similar and specific digestive system that makes them unhealthy to eat.

And once again you are claiming the science to be way more specific and precise than it is. It is a guess where they tried to tie the dna of modern humans and their position to where the first humans probably came from. Do you know the region they settled on? It's right below the middle east. Just about as close to it as you can get while still being in Africa. There is room for error and while I don't think they are wrong in any way, you are trying to make the data say stuff it simply doesn't or are perhaps just repeating what you heard someone else say.

And you're still not understand how the Mesopotamian thing works. Someone made the oldest carving record of that story in Mesopotamia. At the same time there were Isrealite's ancestors living in the same general area. The stories they were passing on were of the great flood and while some of it rubbed off on the Mesopotamians, the fact that the oldest record we have is from them does no mean they created it, does not mean that is the oldest record ever made, and does not mean any story after it was taken from them. Does that make sense?

And no, you will not find a reputable article that goes so far as to claim that the Isrealites plagiarized from the Mesopotamians. That little tid bit is added on by atheists who site the discovery.
User avatar #485 - compared (02/09/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you have a nice day.
#472 - I do understand evolution and i was not suggesting that empath…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#473 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Adam and Eve did not exist because the bible says they were the first humans and evolution shows that there are no first members of a species. How do you not get that part?

User avatar #477 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Because when you say "species" you mean "can mate" and that's not what the bible is talking about. It is referring to the first human who was capable of understanding morals. His mother was the same species but could not understand the things he could simply because his genes, the mix of his father and mother, were the final step in advancement that pushed the human species into "sentience."
#479 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No. The bible says 'first human'. Period. It says that YHWH made him from clay but we know that there is no evidence for this whatsoever instead humans had a common ancestor with other animals. No magic breath is evidenced anywhere at all.

The bible makes no mention of Adam's mother at all. The story says life was breathed into clay. No mention of a woman or preceding species is mentioned either. You're really trying to combine your religious beliefs with science but eventually a person like you who continues to question these things will literally wake up one day and say:

'that's it! I don't believe in any of this anymore!'

Not trying to sound harsh, but the curious ones are generally the first to go!
User avatar #483 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was referring to your personal definition of what a human is. It was using its definition which only really makes sense.

And it is understood that some of the story is partly metaphorical or told in story form, not empirical hard on "I made this in seven days which are 24 hours periods which are one revolution of the Earth which is...." form. What was meant when he said he was made out of soil? How much so his was made from soil? Was it meant in the light that soil contains nutrients that make up our bodies and so it was only pointing out that we are made from the earth even though it is filtered through our mother's body first? Maybe, I don't know for sure. But there is no reason to think he made Adam out of a flash of light on a pile of dirt and a puff of breath.

It's possible too. I have always constantly questioned the bible ever sense high school when I realized that I only believe in it because my parents do. I stopped going to church and started reading and researching about it. Looking at other religions and of course exploring history and science. Trying to figure out what I should believe. And while my research and exploring continues on I have to say that the more I delve into it the more I am finding that the bible is flawless and really seems to be head and shoulders above all other religions and, so far, completely in line with science.
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.

'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.

Please do watch the Evolution of Genesis this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.

This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.

I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#466 - I'm not trying to demean it in any way, but it isn't a perfect…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma -1
#470 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No theory can be declared perfect.

The massive amounts of evidence from multiple independent lines of inquiry show that yes, we came from Africa about 200,000 ago. We were fully homo sapien then. These lines of inquiry include Geology, archaeology, biology and physics, all pointing strongly to this date.

Species is not a loose term at all. It is precise and I used it in it's correct manner in my last post. I'm not sure why you say you 'agree is a loose term'. It's anything but. Sure, there are some areas where the definition becomes blurry with 'sub=species' and so on, bu that doesn't affect us really here.

The science that distinguishes between mammal and reptile bones is a very mature and well developed science known as paleontology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

Again, the bible is not evidence for the god that you claim. Many books have been written in antiquity that make god claims. Many of them before the Torah and Bible too.

You're still not understanding what I said about evolution. Adam and Eve could not have existed as there is NOT a first member of a species, it is a continuum over time. If you travel far back enough you will find that you can't reproduce with your ancestors from 2 million years ago but you can with ones 100,000 years ago. This is why evolution disproves Adam and Eve. There was never a first human.

There is evidence for a common ancestor to all living things that existed some 3.8-4 billion years ago. You may be thinking of Y-chromosomal Adam, but he was NOT the first man either.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
And I agree with those massive amounts of evidence that humans were in fact living back then and in that area. I have yet to disagree with it. But understand that it is a scientific definition of human. To science, two creatures being in the same species usually means that they can have offspring. While that line is often blurry and hard to define and even rejected as a way to classify species by some scientists, it can be used as a measuring stick. And in that way, the creatures living 200,000 years ago could mate with us but were not necessarily on par with us physically. They looked very close and were almost identical, but were not human enough in whatever sense the bible is describing them, or perhaps they were if it turns out that they moved down from the middle east after Adam and Eve. it's hard to say because, again, things that far back in history are blurry.

And as for the mammal and reptile bones I was talking about before the second great extinction when the dinosaurs that weren't true dinosaurs were turning into mammals, they were meshed together so much that it was hard to find lines to distinguish them. Then they died and mammals evolved a second time and so on and so forth,

But you simply can't say the bible isn't evidence. It is no matter what way you spin it. You can say it isn't fact, you can say you don't believe it, but it is, is fact, evidence, however poor it may seem to you.

As for the definition of species, see above. What science calls the first man spans huge chunks of time, the bible is just more specific.
#478 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Science doesn't give a shit about what the Bible says or how it describes humans because it is not a scientific document. The Bible describes rabbits as animals that chew their cud, and that is obviously false.

There's no evidence for claiming that they moved out of the Middle East either. This is failing the burden of proof again as you have to prove this. The giant amounts of science we have from multiple fields show that Yes, we emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago with no evidence that we came from the Middle East.

Again with the claim the bible is evidence! It is not. It's just a collection of ancient stories that gets pushed hardcore as a religion. There is no evidence for the things that are told. As I've shown, Adam and Eve are false. The flood was a local Mesopotamian flood with different characters. There's no evidence at all for the exodus out of Egypt or any evidence directly attributed to Jesus from his time.

If you claim the bible is real evidence why do the majority of the worlds scientists and historians regard it as mythological?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
User avatar #482 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Of course not, That's what makes it science, it's impartial like that. Does that matter? You said humans started in Africa, I have shown you that they did biologically but that doesn't mean that the first conscious human who wasn't just an animal could have been born in the middle east.
As for the rabbit thing that is another example of where the English translation is at fault. The regional term used to describe the animals like the hair, badger, and other animals that should not be eaten was as "swallow what has been swallowed" but was translated into "chew the cud." It's true that rabbits do not chew the cud, like a camel who chews, swallow, regurgitates and chews more. Instead the rabbit eats and quickly moves it through his system, poops, and then eats that poop to get a second go through.This is what was referred to in the bible.

Well if you want me to prove that men moved to the middle east then i would point to the men currently in the middle east as proof. They certainly did enter the middle east at some point. Now whether they came from there to begin with is another question that science and dna has yet to answer but it does seem like it will eventually get to that point from the advances currently being made.

The bible is an account of things that happened. It claims itself to be true and cannot be proven to be untrue. That counts as evidence I'm afraid. Just as blurry photographs count as evidence of bigfoot even though they don't prove he's real. And I think I have explained already that records of civilizations does not mean they were the first civilization. You have no proven Adam and Eve false and you have no proven the Mesopotamians were the ones who created the flood story, though you did provide some interesting and compelling evidence for it for which I am grateful, if nothing else I learned a few things I didn't know from your souses.

And I no more think the bible is false because of how many scientists or historians believe than i think it is true because of how many Christians there are.
#484 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They are the same species and will likely have the same brains as us. Their culture would be completely different as they were 'hunter/gatherers' and had none of the education and access to information and modern infrastructure that we do today. If you're talking about consciousness, then because their brains are they same as ours and the brain is the 'seat' of the mind then their consciousness would still be the same as ours. Their societies were very primitive compared to ours but they still had morality. They obviously didn't always kill everyone otherwise they would've never passed their gens along to us. They loved like us, feared like us and grieved like us. They were still 'us'.

You say that 'you showed me that human's originated in Africa' yet it was I that showed you. You've been claiming that they're from the Middle East. lol!

The cud chewing one IS wrong. The other animals mentioned all chew cud but rabbits munch on their food so it appears that they are ruminants. These 'scribes of god' couldn't have been so stupid to confuse shit eating with vomit-eating could they?

So what if there are people in the Middle East? There are people all over the planet! People roamed as hunter/gatherers up until about 12,000 years ago when the neolithic revolution occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

This means we wandered around the planet for almost 200,000 years eking out a meager existence until we learned to farm. This revolution occurred over 10,000 years before there was an Israelite. Just to put it into perspective.

The DNA conclusively shows that Humans came from Africa 200,000 years ago and NOT from the Middle East. This is what the science has strongly determined. If you disagree YOU have to write a paper proving your ideas. Until then, your claim is baseless and is dismissed. Sorry.

The records of Mesopotamia are vast and well dated to be 1000 Years before any Israelites. Again, sigh , write your paper to demonstrate your point or your claim is dismissed. This is how science works.

Even if there were other people who wrote the flood story from somewhere outside of Mesopotamia that still occurred before there were any Israelites. It's a story that was essentially plagiarized by them. This is very well recognized in Historical research.

Adam and Eve are false because they are claimed to be the first humans when we all have come from other living beings. There is no first member of our species as there is a continuous series of changes from 4 billion years ago to now. An unbroken lines of life with each member of a species the same as it parent/s.
User avatar #487 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve over time and as such we are still doing it. While we could mate with them, we are not the same.

discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

The reason the rabbit qualities is not because it looks like it is shewing cud. It clearly doesn't as can be seen just by watching one eat. (I have owned rabbits) The reason they make the list is because God knows their biology and everything on that list has a similar and specific digestive system that makes them unhealthy to eat.

And once again you are claiming the science to be way more specific and precise than it is. It is a guess where they tried to tie the dna of modern humans and their position to where the first humans probably came from. Do you know the region they settled on? It's right below the middle east. Just about as close to it as you can get while still being in Africa. There is room for error and while I don't think they are wrong in any way, you are trying to make the data say stuff it simply doesn't or are perhaps just repeating what you heard someone else say.

And you're still not understand how the Mesopotamian thing works. Someone made the oldest carving record of that story in Mesopotamia. At the same time there were Isrealite's ancestors living in the same general area. The stories they were passing on were of the great flood and while some of it rubbed off on the Mesopotamians, the fact that the oldest record we have is from them does no mean they created it, does not mean that is the oldest record ever made, and does not mean any story after it was taken from them. Does that make sense?

And no, you will not find a reputable article that goes so far as to claim that the Isrealites plagiarized from the Mesopotamians. That little tid bit is added on by atheists who site the discovery.
User avatar #485 - compared (02/09/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you have a nice day.
#462 - That is possible. I agree that they were only written down aft…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#467 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Ideas at the House: Richard Dawkins -- Why there was no "first" human The science shows that the hominids dated to around 200,000 ago are human. Empathy and other traits are not something that just spring up in one generation. Obviously many animals like mammals and birds care for their young: it is instinctual. Humans have a more nuanced version of this empathy nut it has taken a long time for it to get to the point where we are now.

Evolution is about small changes over time generally .

Sorry, you're wrong in your understanding of evolution. Here, take it from a master and read that link about evolution.

You say 'Proto-Israelites' when really you're projecting onto other cultures. The Mesopotamian people were entirely separate I did mention that 1000 years thing, didn't I? , and were much larger than the relatively small Israelite population. They got their asses kicked by the Babylonians and this is when they probably took their myths to forge them into their own.

Your last paragraph is also failing the burden of proof. 'How do you know the magic unicorn didn't do it'?.
The Israelites did not exist when that story was first written!

1000 years passed before that story was told by the Israelites.

It is a Mesopotamian story originally as the story came before the Israelites!

How are you missing this man?
User avatar #472 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I do understand evolution and i was not suggesting that empathy sprang up in one generations. What I'm talking about is that the gradual change still results in children who are more advanced than their parents were. Not by leaps and bounds, usually in hardly noticeable ways but different all the same. It often loops back on itself when genes mix, disperse, and come back together between generations and pairings of distant relations. While I don't claim to be a master of Wikipedia articles do understand that my grasp on the subject is sufficient. I never said it was wrong, only that you are thinking it has proven things that it simply hasn't yet, not to say it won't.

And I was also not suggesting that the Israelite were the same as the Mesopotamians before they spit or something. They could have been if you go far enough back in time but there's not a lot on record to suggest that. My point to you was actually the same one you seem to be making to me now that the Israelites existed during and before that 1000 years that you did, in fact, mention. The grandfathers and great grand fathers of the Isrealites who wrote down the flood story were around the same time passing on the stories that the old testament would eventually be written from.

The Isrealites did exist, they did not poof into existence before the first record of them was carved into stone. They were a tribe and to think that they didn't exist as a people makes no sense as everyone has to have had forefathers.

And once again you ware saying it wrong. 1000 years did not pass before the Isrealites TOLD the story, 1000 years passed before they WROTE IT DOWN and that written record also survived to modern day.

Maybe I am missing something, it could happen, it has happened before. But I swear you talk like you don't understand timelines.
#473 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Adam and Eve did not exist because the bible says they were the first humans and evolution shows that there are no first members of a species. How do you not get that part?

User avatar #477 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Because when you say "species" you mean "can mate" and that's not what the bible is talking about. It is referring to the first human who was capable of understanding morals. His mother was the same species but could not understand the things he could simply because his genes, the mix of his father and mother, were the final step in advancement that pushed the human species into "sentience."
#479 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No. The bible says 'first human'. Period. It says that YHWH made him from clay but we know that there is no evidence for this whatsoever instead humans had a common ancestor with other animals. No magic breath is evidenced anywhere at all.

The bible makes no mention of Adam's mother at all. The story says life was breathed into clay. No mention of a woman or preceding species is mentioned either. You're really trying to combine your religious beliefs with science but eventually a person like you who continues to question these things will literally wake up one day and say:

'that's it! I don't believe in any of this anymore!'

Not trying to sound harsh, but the curious ones are generally the first to go!
User avatar #483 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was referring to your personal definition of what a human is. It was using its definition which only really makes sense.

And it is understood that some of the story is partly metaphorical or told in story form, not empirical hard on "I made this in seven days which are 24 hours periods which are one revolution of the Earth which is...." form. What was meant when he said he was made out of soil? How much so his was made from soil? Was it meant in the light that soil contains nutrients that make up our bodies and so it was only pointing out that we are made from the earth even though it is filtered through our mother's body first? Maybe, I don't know for sure. But there is no reason to think he made Adam out of a flash of light on a pile of dirt and a puff of breath.

It's possible too. I have always constantly questioned the bible ever sense high school when I realized that I only believe in it because my parents do. I stopped going to church and started reading and researching about it. Looking at other religions and of course exploring history and science. Trying to figure out what I should believe. And while my research and exploring continues on I have to say that the more I delve into it the more I am finding that the bible is flawless and really seems to be head and shoulders above all other religions and, so far, completely in line with science.
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.

'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.

Please do watch the Evolution of Genesis this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.

This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.

I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#457 - While I do believe the evolutionary story behind how animals a…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma -1
#463 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, but let's keep on with Genesis.

To say 'evidence suggests' is some how a valid way of demeaning the veracity of the theory of evolution you can stop. You'll have to go back to school.

Assuming that you're not however, evolution shows that there NEVER is a first member of a species: every child born is the same species as it's parent. So if we go back to the time of Alexander the Great, we are genetically similar enough to produce viable offspring and hence we're the same species. If however you go back 2 million years and try to reproduce you will find that you cannot. This is because each generation has mutations on its parent DNA and over time these differences compound and can diverge groups so much that two groups of animals will eventually become separate species like the chimps and us.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. Your claim is that the the bible is true and that your god exists. Therefore it is up to you to prove this. I have shown Adam and Eve did not exist due to their never being a first human, let alone one who had life breathed into him by your god.

As I said, the Mesopotamians were around 1000 years before the first Israelites. They took the stories, changed them around a bit and put the name of a Canaanite god on them.

As for prophesies, I think you need to check this site out....

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
User avatar #466 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to demean it in any way, but it isn't a perfect theory. It doesn't have every piece of the evolutionary puzzle and the farther back you go the blurrier it becomes. But you are trying to use it to pinpoint and exact moment in history and you simply can't. It just doesn't work that way. It's not that precise though I wish it were.

And I agree, the word species is a loose term. When trying to distinguish early reptiles from mammal like reptiles it's really difficult because the bones are just so similar. This is where the whole "chicken or the egg" enigma comes in.

But as with many things in life I cannot prove it to you. I can only offer you the evidence and you have to decide it the patterns match up enough to convince you.

And I'm afraid you still did not show that Adam and Eve did not exist. You keep saying it but all you show is the theory of evolution which does not prove they didn't exist. The evidence doesn't even suggest that they didn't. There is even evidence that there is a common single ancestor to all living people. i.e the first man.

www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

And I have been on that site before in my efforts to find contradictions in the bible. Everything there grasps at straws. They misquote several times and even take some things terribly out of context. The closest that site gets to a contradiction is when they point out a few contradictions in the translated English bible that aren't there is you look at the original words in Hebrew. Though this was months ago and they may have added more sense then that I should check out.
#470 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No theory can be declared perfect.

The massive amounts of evidence from multiple independent lines of inquiry show that yes, we came from Africa about 200,000 ago. We were fully homo sapien then. These lines of inquiry include Geology, archaeology, biology and physics, all pointing strongly to this date.

Species is not a loose term at all. It is precise and I used it in it's correct manner in my last post. I'm not sure why you say you 'agree is a loose term'. It's anything but. Sure, there are some areas where the definition becomes blurry with 'sub=species' and so on, bu that doesn't affect us really here.

The science that distinguishes between mammal and reptile bones is a very mature and well developed science known as paleontology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

Again, the bible is not evidence for the god that you claim. Many books have been written in antiquity that make god claims. Many of them before the Torah and Bible too.

You're still not understanding what I said about evolution. Adam and Eve could not have existed as there is NOT a first member of a species, it is a continuum over time. If you travel far back enough you will find that you can't reproduce with your ancestors from 2 million years ago but you can with ones 100,000 years ago. This is why evolution disproves Adam and Eve. There was never a first human.

There is evidence for a common ancestor to all living things that existed some 3.8-4 billion years ago. You may be thinking of Y-chromosomal Adam, but he was NOT the first man either.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
And I agree with those massive amounts of evidence that humans were in fact living back then and in that area. I have yet to disagree with it. But understand that it is a scientific definition of human. To science, two creatures being in the same species usually means that they can have offspring. While that line is often blurry and hard to define and even rejected as a way to classify species by some scientists, it can be used as a measuring stick. And in that way, the creatures living 200,000 years ago could mate with us but were not necessarily on par with us physically. They looked very close and were almost identical, but were not human enough in whatever sense the bible is describing them, or perhaps they were if it turns out that they moved down from the middle east after Adam and Eve. it's hard to say because, again, things that far back in history are blurry.

And as for the mammal and reptile bones I was talking about before the second great extinction when the dinosaurs that weren't true dinosaurs were turning into mammals, they were meshed together so much that it was hard to find lines to distinguish them. Then they died and mammals evolved a second time and so on and so forth,

But you simply can't say the bible isn't evidence. It is no matter what way you spin it. You can say it isn't fact, you can say you don't believe it, but it is, is fact, evidence, however poor it may seem to you.

As for the definition of species, see above. What science calls the first man spans huge chunks of time, the bible is just more specific.
#478 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Science doesn't give a shit about what the Bible says or how it describes humans because it is not a scientific document. The Bible describes rabbits as animals that chew their cud, and that is obviously false.

There's no evidence for claiming that they moved out of the Middle East either. This is failing the burden of proof again as you have to prove this. The giant amounts of science we have from multiple fields show that Yes, we emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago with no evidence that we came from the Middle East.

Again with the claim the bible is evidence! It is not. It's just a collection of ancient stories that gets pushed hardcore as a religion. There is no evidence for the things that are told. As I've shown, Adam and Eve are false. The flood was a local Mesopotamian flood with different characters. There's no evidence at all for the exodus out of Egypt or any evidence directly attributed to Jesus from his time.

If you claim the bible is real evidence why do the majority of the worlds scientists and historians regard it as mythological?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
User avatar #482 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Of course not, That's what makes it science, it's impartial like that. Does that matter? You said humans started in Africa, I have shown you that they did biologically but that doesn't mean that the first conscious human who wasn't just an animal could have been born in the middle east.
As for the rabbit thing that is another example of where the English translation is at fault. The regional term used to describe the animals like the hair, badger, and other animals that should not be eaten was as "swallow what has been swallowed" but was translated into "chew the cud." It's true that rabbits do not chew the cud, like a camel who chews, swallow, regurgitates and chews more. Instead the rabbit eats and quickly moves it through his system, poops, and then eats that poop to get a second go through.This is what was referred to in the bible.

Well if you want me to prove that men moved to the middle east then i would point to the men currently in the middle east as proof. They certainly did enter the middle east at some point. Now whether they came from there to begin with is another question that science and dna has yet to answer but it does seem like it will eventually get to that point from the advances currently being made.

The bible is an account of things that happened. It claims itself to be true and cannot be proven to be untrue. That counts as evidence I'm afraid. Just as blurry photographs count as evidence of bigfoot even though they don't prove he's real. And I think I have explained already that records of civilizations does not mean they were the first civilization. You have no proven Adam and Eve false and you have no proven the Mesopotamians were the ones who created the flood story, though you did provide some interesting and compelling evidence for it for which I am grateful, if nothing else I learned a few things I didn't know from your souses.

And I no more think the bible is false because of how many scientists or historians believe than i think it is true because of how many Christians there are.
#484 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They are the same species and will likely have the same brains as us. Their culture would be completely different as they were 'hunter/gatherers' and had none of the education and access to information and modern infrastructure that we do today. If you're talking about consciousness, then because their brains are they same as ours and the brain is the 'seat' of the mind then their consciousness would still be the same as ours. Their societies were very primitive compared to ours but they still had morality. They obviously didn't always kill everyone otherwise they would've never passed their gens along to us. They loved like us, feared like us and grieved like us. They were still 'us'.

You say that 'you showed me that human's originated in Africa' yet it was I that showed you. You've been claiming that they're from the Middle East. lol!

The cud chewing one IS wrong. The other animals mentioned all chew cud but rabbits munch on their food so it appears that they are ruminants. These 'scribes of god' couldn't have been so stupid to confuse shit eating with vomit-eating could they?

So what if there are people in the Middle East? There are people all over the planet! People roamed as hunter/gatherers up until about 12,000 years ago when the neolithic revolution occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

This means we wandered around the planet for almost 200,000 years eking out a meager existence until we learned to farm. This revolution occurred over 10,000 years before there was an Israelite. Just to put it into perspective.

The DNA conclusively shows that Humans came from Africa 200,000 years ago and NOT from the Middle East. This is what the science has strongly determined. If you disagree YOU have to write a paper proving your ideas. Until then, your claim is baseless and is dismissed. Sorry.

The records of Mesopotamia are vast and well dated to be 1000 Years before any Israelites. Again, sigh , write your paper to demonstrate your point or your claim is dismissed. This is how science works.

Even if there were other people who wrote the flood story from somewhere outside of Mesopotamia that still occurred before there were any Israelites. It's a story that was essentially plagiarized by them. This is very well recognized in Historical research.

Adam and Eve are false because they are claimed to be the first humans when we all have come from other living beings. There is no first member of our species as there is a continuous series of changes from 4 billion years ago to now. An unbroken lines of life with each member of a species the same as it parent/s.
User avatar #487 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve over time and as such we are still doing it. While we could mate with them, we are not the same.

discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

The reason the rabbit qualities is not because it looks like it is shewing cud. It clearly doesn't as can be seen just by watching one eat. (I have owned rabbits) The reason they make the list is because God knows their biology and everything on that list has a similar and specific digestive system that makes them unhealthy to eat.

And once again you are claiming the science to be way more specific and precise than it is. It is a guess where they tried to tie the dna of modern humans and their position to where the first humans probably came from. Do you know the region they settled on? It's right below the middle east. Just about as close to it as you can get while still being in Africa. There is room for error and while I don't think they are wrong in any way, you are trying to make the data say stuff it simply doesn't or are perhaps just repeating what you heard someone else say.

And you're still not understand how the Mesopotamian thing works. Someone made the oldest carving record of that story in Mesopotamia. At the same time there were Isrealite's ancestors living in the same general area. The stories they were passing on were of the great flood and while some of it rubbed off on the Mesopotamians, the fact that the oldest record we have is from them does no mean they created it, does not mean that is the oldest record ever made, and does not mean any story after it was taken from them. Does that make sense?

And no, you will not find a reputable article that goes so far as to claim that the Isrealites plagiarized from the Mesopotamians. That little tid bit is added on by atheists who site the discovery.
User avatar #485 - compared (02/09/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you have a nice day.
#456 - God did dictate the bible both through his son Jesus and by in…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#458 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
The Jesus stories are not acceptable as reliable historical records whatsoever. There is great contradiction in these stories. Much of Matthew and Luke are identical, and not to mention that these stories were written between about 30 and 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus. AS each new gospel is written it becomes more fantastical.

There is no evidence from the alleged life of Jesus to prove he was real, let alone divine. I'm aware that most historians agree that he lived yet every thing we have about him is at least second hand.

Evolution shows that yes, we did actually originate in Africa some 200,000 years ago and not in the Middle East 6-10,000 years ago. This is a fact.

Evolution also shows that there was no 'First man and women' either. To claim otherwise is to not comprehend the theory of evolution.


The Flood myth involved different gods from a culture that was around 1000 years before the Israelites. There was probably a local flood that the original stories turned into fantasies but that also is no proof of the Bible or the god that it talks about.

We have dated artifacts from the Gilgamesh story that precede the existence of the Israeilites by 1000 years. That show we know that the Gilgamesh story came first. By a long way.

The Flood story came about before the Gilgamesh story. It was about a man named Ziasudra and is one of the earliest pieces of writing anywhere in the world. Historians and archaeologists have sophisticated ways of determining the historicity of artifacts and people.
User avatar #462 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
That is possible. I agree that they were only written down after the fact but most records of events are, especially in a time where reading and writing was uncommon. It would be a MIRACLE if the writings are all accurate and embellished. (hehe, see what i did there?)

And I agree, the bible is one of the few records of Jesus. There are a few Roman records that hint at him and his disciples. There are some Jewish stones that could or could not have been talking about him, but the bible is just about the only source and certainly the most fleshed out. But that isn't quote enough to disprove anything.

And I agree, some form of humanoid was in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Were they what can be called human? Biologically, yes, but what constitutes a human by the biblical definition? Is it that they are advanced enough to understand right and wrong? Surely you can agree that there was a point where a simple ape who simply doesn't have the brain power to understand empathy gave birth to the first ape that could finally understand.

I have read enough that I would in fact claim to understand evolution and how it works and it is not impossible that there was a first man and woman so I would say that what you said there is false.

There was not a tribe 1000 years before the Israelites in any sense besides that the Israelites may not have called themselves the Isralites at that time. It is well within the realm of possibility that the proto-Isrealites had the orally passed down story of the flood and it was shared and possible altered by other groups.

As for your statement of the dated Gilgamesh story, that's not how that works. How can you not grasp that the only thing it dates is the RECORD of the story and does not mean the story didn't exist long before it. It's not disproof. Only evidence that the story existed at the time of that record. The Israelite might not have written it down yet or all Israelite records of it have been lost. Of course the opposite might be true as well, but that's the point I'm trying to make.
#467 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Ideas at the House: Richard Dawkins -- Why there was no "first" human The science shows that the hominids dated to around 200,000 ago are human. Empathy and other traits are not something that just spring up in one generation. Obviously many animals like mammals and birds care for their young: it is instinctual. Humans have a more nuanced version of this empathy nut it has taken a long time for it to get to the point where we are now.

Evolution is about small changes over time generally .

Sorry, you're wrong in your understanding of evolution. Here, take it from a master and read that link about evolution.

You say 'Proto-Israelites' when really you're projecting onto other cultures. The Mesopotamian people were entirely separate I did mention that 1000 years thing, didn't I? , and were much larger than the relatively small Israelite population. They got their asses kicked by the Babylonians and this is when they probably took their myths to forge them into their own.

Your last paragraph is also failing the burden of proof. 'How do you know the magic unicorn didn't do it'?.
The Israelites did not exist when that story was first written!

1000 years passed before that story was told by the Israelites.

It is a Mesopotamian story originally as the story came before the Israelites!

How are you missing this man?
User avatar #472 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I do understand evolution and i was not suggesting that empathy sprang up in one generations. What I'm talking about is that the gradual change still results in children who are more advanced than their parents were. Not by leaps and bounds, usually in hardly noticeable ways but different all the same. It often loops back on itself when genes mix, disperse, and come back together between generations and pairings of distant relations. While I don't claim to be a master of Wikipedia articles do understand that my grasp on the subject is sufficient. I never said it was wrong, only that you are thinking it has proven things that it simply hasn't yet, not to say it won't.

And I was also not suggesting that the Israelite were the same as the Mesopotamians before they spit or something. They could have been if you go far enough back in time but there's not a lot on record to suggest that. My point to you was actually the same one you seem to be making to me now that the Israelites existed during and before that 1000 years that you did, in fact, mention. The grandfathers and great grand fathers of the Isrealites who wrote down the flood story were around the same time passing on the stories that the old testament would eventually be written from.

The Isrealites did exist, they did not poof into existence before the first record of them was carved into stone. They were a tribe and to think that they didn't exist as a people makes no sense as everyone has to have had forefathers.

And once again you ware saying it wrong. 1000 years did not pass before the Isrealites TOLD the story, 1000 years passed before they WROTE IT DOWN and that written record also survived to modern day.

Maybe I am missing something, it could happen, it has happened before. But I swear you talk like you don't understand timelines.
#473 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Adam and Eve did not exist because the bible says they were the first humans and evolution shows that there are no first members of a species. How do you not get that part?

User avatar #477 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Because when you say "species" you mean "can mate" and that's not what the bible is talking about. It is referring to the first human who was capable of understanding morals. His mother was the same species but could not understand the things he could simply because his genes, the mix of his father and mother, were the final step in advancement that pushed the human species into "sentience."
#479 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No. The bible says 'first human'. Period. It says that YHWH made him from clay but we know that there is no evidence for this whatsoever instead humans had a common ancestor with other animals. No magic breath is evidenced anywhere at all.

The bible makes no mention of Adam's mother at all. The story says life was breathed into clay. No mention of a woman or preceding species is mentioned either. You're really trying to combine your religious beliefs with science but eventually a person like you who continues to question these things will literally wake up one day and say:

'that's it! I don't believe in any of this anymore!'

Not trying to sound harsh, but the curious ones are generally the first to go!
User avatar #483 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was referring to your personal definition of what a human is. It was using its definition which only really makes sense.

And it is understood that some of the story is partly metaphorical or told in story form, not empirical hard on "I made this in seven days which are 24 hours periods which are one revolution of the Earth which is...." form. What was meant when he said he was made out of soil? How much so his was made from soil? Was it meant in the light that soil contains nutrients that make up our bodies and so it was only pointing out that we are made from the earth even though it is filtered through our mother's body first? Maybe, I don't know for sure. But there is no reason to think he made Adam out of a flash of light on a pile of dirt and a puff of breath.

It's possible too. I have always constantly questioned the bible ever sense high school when I realized that I only believe in it because my parents do. I stopped going to church and started reading and researching about it. Looking at other religions and of course exploring history and science. Trying to figure out what I should believe. And while my research and exploring continues on I have to say that the more I delve into it the more I am finding that the bible is flawless and really seems to be head and shoulders above all other religions and, so far, completely in line with science.
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.

'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.

Please do watch the Evolution of Genesis this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.

This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.

I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#453 - For someone talking about proof you sure like to say things th…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma -1
#455 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
You're right that the Adam and Eve story may have come from an earlier time, but they are still fictitious as the theory of evolution proves.

You uphold the bible as proof but it is just a book of stories as we know that many of them are untrue due to contradictions and large discrepancies with what science and historical research have shown.

These stories are still 1000 years older than the versions on the Torah and Bible except some changes have been made including the names of some characters. Even the name of the Christian god, YHWH was taken from the Canaanites.

As far as prophesies are concerned, the people who wrote the newer parts of the Bible read the old parts of the Bible to make the stories fit.

Adam and Eve have been proven to be false.

User avatar #457 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
While I do believe the evolutionary story behind how animals and man evolved, I'm afraid that you are wrong to say that dna testing and historical science has proven that Adam and Eve were fictitious. There is a reason that they often use the term "evidence suggests." That evidence is good evidence but all it does is tell us what was, not everything about what was and what was happening around it.

And I have done a lot of research about this and there simply are not any definitive contradictions in the original translations of the bible. I agree that the English translations have some flaws as a product of the translation. Of course you can argue that walking on water contradicts science but that's the point of a miracle. That God created science and the laws of nature and breaks them to show he is God. But no, there have been no scientific break through that can, as of yet, definitively disprove things in the bible. That's one of the problem with science, it is great at proving things but not so much at disproving them. Thus why some people still believe in Sasquatch.

And i agree, peoples of that time have similar stories, similar names and customs, it's a product of being near each other. But as I said before, the oldest record that made it to modern day does not mean that record was the first one ever made. I can't help but see it the other way. All these cultures had similar stories so they must have come from somewhere even if they are embellished to an extreme.

And I agree that some parts of the old testament are only really fulfilled int he writing of the new testament as that's the only record of it. But I was not talking about those prophesies. I distinctly only talked about the prophesies that were fulfilled after both testaments were written as proof sense clearly the bible saying the bible is right is poor proof of the bible.

Once again though, you say Adam and Eve have been proven to be false and that's simply not true. I have read all about the evidence of where man came from and while it is solid evidence and I fully agree with it, nothing in it disproves the biblical story. What you are saying would be like if 2000 years from now they find an old bible from a hotel room and say "The oldest record of the bible is from around 2000 a.d.c and so we think the bible was written about then." The oldest record does not mean it is the start of the story.
#463 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, but let's keep on with Genesis.

To say 'evidence suggests' is some how a valid way of demeaning the veracity of the theory of evolution you can stop. You'll have to go back to school.

Assuming that you're not however, evolution shows that there NEVER is a first member of a species: every child born is the same species as it's parent. So if we go back to the time of Alexander the Great, we are genetically similar enough to produce viable offspring and hence we're the same species. If however you go back 2 million years and try to reproduce you will find that you cannot. This is because each generation has mutations on its parent DNA and over time these differences compound and can diverge groups so much that two groups of animals will eventually become separate species like the chimps and us.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. Your claim is that the the bible is true and that your god exists. Therefore it is up to you to prove this. I have shown Adam and Eve did not exist due to their never being a first human, let alone one who had life breathed into him by your god.

As I said, the Mesopotamians were around 1000 years before the first Israelites. They took the stories, changed them around a bit and put the name of a Canaanite god on them.

As for prophesies, I think you need to check this site out....

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
User avatar #466 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to demean it in any way, but it isn't a perfect theory. It doesn't have every piece of the evolutionary puzzle and the farther back you go the blurrier it becomes. But you are trying to use it to pinpoint and exact moment in history and you simply can't. It just doesn't work that way. It's not that precise though I wish it were.

And I agree, the word species is a loose term. When trying to distinguish early reptiles from mammal like reptiles it's really difficult because the bones are just so similar. This is where the whole "chicken or the egg" enigma comes in.

But as with many things in life I cannot prove it to you. I can only offer you the evidence and you have to decide it the patterns match up enough to convince you.

And I'm afraid you still did not show that Adam and Eve did not exist. You keep saying it but all you show is the theory of evolution which does not prove they didn't exist. The evidence doesn't even suggest that they didn't. There is even evidence that there is a common single ancestor to all living people. i.e the first man.

www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

And I have been on that site before in my efforts to find contradictions in the bible. Everything there grasps at straws. They misquote several times and even take some things terribly out of context. The closest that site gets to a contradiction is when they point out a few contradictions in the translated English bible that aren't there is you look at the original words in Hebrew. Though this was months ago and they may have added more sense then that I should check out.
#470 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No theory can be declared perfect.

The massive amounts of evidence from multiple independent lines of inquiry show that yes, we came from Africa about 200,000 ago. We were fully homo sapien then. These lines of inquiry include Geology, archaeology, biology and physics, all pointing strongly to this date.

Species is not a loose term at all. It is precise and I used it in it's correct manner in my last post. I'm not sure why you say you 'agree is a loose term'. It's anything but. Sure, there are some areas where the definition becomes blurry with 'sub=species' and so on, bu that doesn't affect us really here.

The science that distinguishes between mammal and reptile bones is a very mature and well developed science known as paleontology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

Again, the bible is not evidence for the god that you claim. Many books have been written in antiquity that make god claims. Many of them before the Torah and Bible too.

You're still not understanding what I said about evolution. Adam and Eve could not have existed as there is NOT a first member of a species, it is a continuum over time. If you travel far back enough you will find that you can't reproduce with your ancestors from 2 million years ago but you can with ones 100,000 years ago. This is why evolution disproves Adam and Eve. There was never a first human.

There is evidence for a common ancestor to all living things that existed some 3.8-4 billion years ago. You may be thinking of Y-chromosomal Adam, but he was NOT the first man either.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
And I agree with those massive amounts of evidence that humans were in fact living back then and in that area. I have yet to disagree with it. But understand that it is a scientific definition of human. To science, two creatures being in the same species usually means that they can have offspring. While that line is often blurry and hard to define and even rejected as a way to classify species by some scientists, it can be used as a measuring stick. And in that way, the creatures living 200,000 years ago could mate with us but were not necessarily on par with us physically. They looked very close and were almost identical, but were not human enough in whatever sense the bible is describing them, or perhaps they were if it turns out that they moved down from the middle east after Adam and Eve. it's hard to say because, again, things that far back in history are blurry.

And as for the mammal and reptile bones I was talking about before the second great extinction when the dinosaurs that weren't true dinosaurs were turning into mammals, they were meshed together so much that it was hard to find lines to distinguish them. Then they died and mammals evolved a second time and so on and so forth,

But you simply can't say the bible isn't evidence. It is no matter what way you spin it. You can say it isn't fact, you can say you don't believe it, but it is, is fact, evidence, however poor it may seem to you.

As for the definition of species, see above. What science calls the first man spans huge chunks of time, the bible is just more specific.
#478 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Science doesn't give a shit about what the Bible says or how it describes humans because it is not a scientific document. The Bible describes rabbits as animals that chew their cud, and that is obviously false.

There's no evidence for claiming that they moved out of the Middle East either. This is failing the burden of proof again as you have to prove this. The giant amounts of science we have from multiple fields show that Yes, we emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago with no evidence that we came from the Middle East.

Again with the claim the bible is evidence! It is not. It's just a collection of ancient stories that gets pushed hardcore as a religion. There is no evidence for the things that are told. As I've shown, Adam and Eve are false. The flood was a local Mesopotamian flood with different characters. There's no evidence at all for the exodus out of Egypt or any evidence directly attributed to Jesus from his time.

If you claim the bible is real evidence why do the majority of the worlds scientists and historians regard it as mythological?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
User avatar #482 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Of course not, That's what makes it science, it's impartial like that. Does that matter? You said humans started in Africa, I have shown you that they did biologically but that doesn't mean that the first conscious human who wasn't just an animal could have been born in the middle east.
As for the rabbit thing that is another example of where the English translation is at fault. The regional term used to describe the animals like the hair, badger, and other animals that should not be eaten was as "swallow what has been swallowed" but was translated into "chew the cud." It's true that rabbits do not chew the cud, like a camel who chews, swallow, regurgitates and chews more. Instead the rabbit eats and quickly moves it through his system, poops, and then eats that poop to get a second go through.This is what was referred to in the bible.

Well if you want me to prove that men moved to the middle east then i would point to the men currently in the middle east as proof. They certainly did enter the middle east at some point. Now whether they came from there to begin with is another question that science and dna has yet to answer but it does seem like it will eventually get to that point from the advances currently being made.

The bible is an account of things that happened. It claims itself to be true and cannot be proven to be untrue. That counts as evidence I'm afraid. Just as blurry photographs count as evidence of bigfoot even though they don't prove he's real. And I think I have explained already that records of civilizations does not mean they were the first civilization. You have no proven Adam and Eve false and you have no proven the Mesopotamians were the ones who created the flood story, though you did provide some interesting and compelling evidence for it for which I am grateful, if nothing else I learned a few things I didn't know from your souses.

And I no more think the bible is false because of how many scientists or historians believe than i think it is true because of how many Christians there are.
#484 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They are the same species and will likely have the same brains as us. Their culture would be completely different as they were 'hunter/gatherers' and had none of the education and access to information and modern infrastructure that we do today. If you're talking about consciousness, then because their brains are they same as ours and the brain is the 'seat' of the mind then their consciousness would still be the same as ours. Their societies were very primitive compared to ours but they still had morality. They obviously didn't always kill everyone otherwise they would've never passed their gens along to us. They loved like us, feared like us and grieved like us. They were still 'us'.

You say that 'you showed me that human's originated in Africa' yet it was I that showed you. You've been claiming that they're from the Middle East. lol!

The cud chewing one IS wrong. The other animals mentioned all chew cud but rabbits munch on their food so it appears that they are ruminants. These 'scribes of god' couldn't have been so stupid to confuse shit eating with vomit-eating could they?

So what if there are people in the Middle East? There are people all over the planet! People roamed as hunter/gatherers up until about 12,000 years ago when the neolithic revolution occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

This means we wandered around the planet for almost 200,000 years eking out a meager existence until we learned to farm. This revolution occurred over 10,000 years before there was an Israelite. Just to put it into perspective.

The DNA conclusively shows that Humans came from Africa 200,000 years ago and NOT from the Middle East. This is what the science has strongly determined. If you disagree YOU have to write a paper proving your ideas. Until then, your claim is baseless and is dismissed. Sorry.

The records of Mesopotamia are vast and well dated to be 1000 Years before any Israelites. Again, sigh , write your paper to demonstrate your point or your claim is dismissed. This is how science works.

Even if there were other people who wrote the flood story from somewhere outside of Mesopotamia that still occurred before there were any Israelites. It's a story that was essentially plagiarized by them. This is very well recognized in Historical research.

Adam and Eve are false because they are claimed to be the first humans when we all have come from other living beings. There is no first member of our species as there is a continuous series of changes from 4 billion years ago to now. An unbroken lines of life with each member of a species the same as it parent/s.
User avatar #487 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve over time and as such we are still doing it. While we could mate with them, we are not the same.

discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

The reason the rabbit qualities is not because it looks like it is shewing cud. It clearly doesn't as can be seen just by watching one eat. (I have owned rabbits) The reason they make the list is because God knows their biology and everything on that list has a similar and specific digestive system that makes them unhealthy to eat.

And once again you are claiming the science to be way more specific and precise than it is. It is a guess where they tried to tie the dna of modern humans and their position to where the first humans probably came from. Do you know the region they settled on? It's right below the middle east. Just about as close to it as you can get while still being in Africa. There is room for error and while I don't think they are wrong in any way, you are trying to make the data say stuff it simply doesn't or are perhaps just repeating what you heard someone else say.

And you're still not understand how the Mesopotamian thing works. Someone made the oldest carving record of that story in Mesopotamia. At the same time there were Isrealite's ancestors living in the same general area. The stories they were passing on were of the great flood and while some of it rubbed off on the Mesopotamians, the fact that the oldest record we have is from them does no mean they created it, does not mean that is the oldest record ever made, and does not mean any story after it was taken from them. Does that make sense?

And no, you will not find a reputable article that goes so far as to claim that the Isrealites plagiarized from the Mesopotamians. That little tid bit is added on by atheists who site the discovery.
User avatar #485 - compared (02/09/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you have a nice day.
#450 - And it is beyond a god to have set in motion that evolution? T…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma -1
#451 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Unsurprisingly the Bible makes no mention of evolution. I can say that there's a mystic peacock the made the universe but considering that there is no evidence for this that claim is rejected. It's called upholding the burden of proof. If you claim that the Christian god is responsible for life and the universe the onus is on you to present the evidence.

Stories like Adam and Eve have their origins in Mesopotamia 1000 years before there was even such a things as an Israelite. There's no evidence for a global flood either so there's no reason to believe in any stories that stem from it.
User avatar #453 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
For someone talking about proof you sure like to say things that have none. For example, when you say that the Adam and Eve story is from Mesopotamia before the Israelites I would agree. But what is factually false is that you claim this proves that this is where it started. What you seem to not understand is that that is the earliest record of it that we have found. It doesn't mean the stories were created there, only that someone of that time chiseled the story into stone and that stone survived till today. But the story itself could have come from anywhere, even passed down through generations from son to son of Adam and adopted by the Mesopotamian. But to site it as a fact that proves it came from there is a stretch my friend.

That being said, if you were to claim the your mystic peacock was the creator then of course people would ask for proof. You would likely have none. However the proof of God comes from the bible. You see it was written a long time ago supposedly as an account of actual events by men who saw them or knew the men who saw them. So if nothing else there is proof that the stories are as old as the time they supposedly talk about. And then there are the stores themselves. Some are fantastic and seem either made up (such as the world wide flood which I don't believe was world wide as the word they use to describe the land that was flooded was "kol eret" which does not mean "all land" but only "some land" or is used when referring to a country or specific area, but i digress) and those are left to the believer to decide for themselves what they are meant to teach, but beyond that there are writings about morality and prophesies.

The prophesies themselves are more specific than any other religious or spiritual text and most can be proven to have come true to the extent historical science can prove. Things like Alexander the Great and the reformation of the nation of Israel.

But what truly draws the masses to the bible is its moral compass. The morality in the bible, especially the new testament and the love teachings of Jesus just ring true to people and make them want to be better people.
#455 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
You're right that the Adam and Eve story may have come from an earlier time, but they are still fictitious as the theory of evolution proves.

You uphold the bible as proof but it is just a book of stories as we know that many of them are untrue due to contradictions and large discrepancies with what science and historical research have shown.

These stories are still 1000 years older than the versions on the Torah and Bible except some changes have been made including the names of some characters. Even the name of the Christian god, YHWH was taken from the Canaanites.

As far as prophesies are concerned, the people who wrote the newer parts of the Bible read the old parts of the Bible to make the stories fit.

Adam and Eve have been proven to be false.

User avatar #457 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
While I do believe the evolutionary story behind how animals and man evolved, I'm afraid that you are wrong to say that dna testing and historical science has proven that Adam and Eve were fictitious. There is a reason that they often use the term "evidence suggests." That evidence is good evidence but all it does is tell us what was, not everything about what was and what was happening around it.

And I have done a lot of research about this and there simply are not any definitive contradictions in the original translations of the bible. I agree that the English translations have some flaws as a product of the translation. Of course you can argue that walking on water contradicts science but that's the point of a miracle. That God created science and the laws of nature and breaks them to show he is God. But no, there have been no scientific break through that can, as of yet, definitively disprove things in the bible. That's one of the problem with science, it is great at proving things but not so much at disproving them. Thus why some people still believe in Sasquatch.

And i agree, peoples of that time have similar stories, similar names and customs, it's a product of being near each other. But as I said before, the oldest record that made it to modern day does not mean that record was the first one ever made. I can't help but see it the other way. All these cultures had similar stories so they must have come from somewhere even if they are embellished to an extreme.

And I agree that some parts of the old testament are only really fulfilled int he writing of the new testament as that's the only record of it. But I was not talking about those prophesies. I distinctly only talked about the prophesies that were fulfilled after both testaments were written as proof sense clearly the bible saying the bible is right is poor proof of the bible.

Once again though, you say Adam and Eve have been proven to be false and that's simply not true. I have read all about the evidence of where man came from and while it is solid evidence and I fully agree with it, nothing in it disproves the biblical story. What you are saying would be like if 2000 years from now they find an old bible from a hotel room and say "The oldest record of the bible is from around 2000 a.d.c and so we think the bible was written about then." The oldest record does not mean it is the start of the story.
#463 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, but let's keep on with Genesis.

To say 'evidence suggests' is some how a valid way of demeaning the veracity of the theory of evolution you can stop. You'll have to go back to school.

Assuming that you're not however, evolution shows that there NEVER is a first member of a species: every child born is the same species as it's parent. So if we go back to the time of Alexander the Great, we are genetically similar enough to produce viable offspring and hence we're the same species. If however you go back 2 million years and try to reproduce you will find that you cannot. This is because each generation has mutations on its parent DNA and over time these differences compound and can diverge groups so much that two groups of animals will eventually become separate species like the chimps and us.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. Your claim is that the the bible is true and that your god exists. Therefore it is up to you to prove this. I have shown Adam and Eve did not exist due to their never being a first human, let alone one who had life breathed into him by your god.

As I said, the Mesopotamians were around 1000 years before the first Israelites. They took the stories, changed them around a bit and put the name of a Canaanite god on them.

As for prophesies, I think you need to check this site out....

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
User avatar #466 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to demean it in any way, but it isn't a perfect theory. It doesn't have every piece of the evolutionary puzzle and the farther back you go the blurrier it becomes. But you are trying to use it to pinpoint and exact moment in history and you simply can't. It just doesn't work that way. It's not that precise though I wish it were.

And I agree, the word species is a loose term. When trying to distinguish early reptiles from mammal like reptiles it's really difficult because the bones are just so similar. This is where the whole "chicken or the egg" enigma comes in.

But as with many things in life I cannot prove it to you. I can only offer you the evidence and you have to decide it the patterns match up enough to convince you.

And I'm afraid you still did not show that Adam and Eve did not exist. You keep saying it but all you show is the theory of evolution which does not prove they didn't exist. The evidence doesn't even suggest that they didn't. There is even evidence that there is a common single ancestor to all living people. i.e the first man.

www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

And I have been on that site before in my efforts to find contradictions in the bible. Everything there grasps at straws. They misquote several times and even take some things terribly out of context. The closest that site gets to a contradiction is when they point out a few contradictions in the translated English bible that aren't there is you look at the original words in Hebrew. Though this was months ago and they may have added more sense then that I should check out.
#470 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No theory can be declared perfect.

The massive amounts of evidence from multiple independent lines of inquiry show that yes, we came from Africa about 200,000 ago. We were fully homo sapien then. These lines of inquiry include Geology, archaeology, biology and physics, all pointing strongly to this date.

Species is not a loose term at all. It is precise and I used it in it's correct manner in my last post. I'm not sure why you say you 'agree is a loose term'. It's anything but. Sure, there are some areas where the definition becomes blurry with 'sub=species' and so on, bu that doesn't affect us really here.

The science that distinguishes between mammal and reptile bones is a very mature and well developed science known as paleontology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

Again, the bible is not evidence for the god that you claim. Many books have been written in antiquity that make god claims. Many of them before the Torah and Bible too.

You're still not understanding what I said about evolution. Adam and Eve could not have existed as there is NOT a first member of a species, it is a continuum over time. If you travel far back enough you will find that you can't reproduce with your ancestors from 2 million years ago but you can with ones 100,000 years ago. This is why evolution disproves Adam and Eve. There was never a first human.

There is evidence for a common ancestor to all living things that existed some 3.8-4 billion years ago. You may be thinking of Y-chromosomal Adam, but he was NOT the first man either.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
And I agree with those massive amounts of evidence that humans were in fact living back then and in that area. I have yet to disagree with it. But understand that it is a scientific definition of human. To science, two creatures being in the same species usually means that they can have offspring. While that line is often blurry and hard to define and even rejected as a way to classify species by some scientists, it can be used as a measuring stick. And in that way, the creatures living 200,000 years ago could mate with us but were not necessarily on par with us physically. They looked very close and were almost identical, but were not human enough in whatever sense the bible is describing them, or perhaps they were if it turns out that they moved down from the middle east after Adam and Eve. it's hard to say because, again, things that far back in history are blurry.

And as for the mammal and reptile bones I was talking about before the second great extinction when the dinosaurs that weren't true dinosaurs were turning into mammals, they were meshed together so much that it was hard to find lines to distinguish them. Then they died and mammals evolved a second time and so on and so forth,

But you simply can't say the bible isn't evidence. It is no matter what way you spin it. You can say it isn't fact, you can say you don't believe it, but it is, is fact, evidence, however poor it may seem to you.

As for the definition of species, see above. What science calls the first man spans huge chunks of time, the bible is just more specific.
#478 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Science doesn't give a shit about what the Bible says or how it describes humans because it is not a scientific document. The Bible describes rabbits as animals that chew their cud, and that is obviously false.

There's no evidence for claiming that they moved out of the Middle East either. This is failing the burden of proof again as you have to prove this. The giant amounts of science we have from multiple fields show that Yes, we emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago with no evidence that we came from the Middle East.

Again with the claim the bible is evidence! It is not. It's just a collection of ancient stories that gets pushed hardcore as a religion. There is no evidence for the things that are told. As I've shown, Adam and Eve are false. The flood was a local Mesopotamian flood with different characters. There's no evidence at all for the exodus out of Egypt or any evidence directly attributed to Jesus from his time.

If you claim the bible is real evidence why do the majority of the worlds scientists and historians regard it as mythological?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
User avatar #482 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Of course not, That's what makes it science, it's impartial like that. Does that matter? You said humans started in Africa, I have shown you that they did biologically but that doesn't mean that the first conscious human who wasn't just an animal could have been born in the middle east.
As for the rabbit thing that is another example of where the English translation is at fault. The regional term used to describe the animals like the hair, badger, and other animals that should not be eaten was as "swallow what has been swallowed" but was translated into "chew the cud." It's true that rabbits do not chew the cud, like a camel who chews, swallow, regurgitates and chews more. Instead the rabbit eats and quickly moves it through his system, poops, and then eats that poop to get a second go through.This is what was referred to in the bible.

Well if you want me to prove that men moved to the middle east then i would point to the men currently in the middle east as proof. They certainly did enter the middle east at some point. Now whether they came from there to begin with is another question that science and dna has yet to answer but it does seem like it will eventually get to that point from the advances currently being made.

The bible is an account of things that happened. It claims itself to be true and cannot be proven to be untrue. That counts as evidence I'm afraid. Just as blurry photographs count as evidence of bigfoot even though they don't prove he's real. And I think I have explained already that records of civilizations does not mean they were the first civilization. You have no proven Adam and Eve false and you have no proven the Mesopotamians were the ones who created the flood story, though you did provide some interesting and compelling evidence for it for which I am grateful, if nothing else I learned a few things I didn't know from your souses.

And I no more think the bible is false because of how many scientists or historians believe than i think it is true because of how many Christians there are.
#484 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
They are the same species and will likely have the same brains as us. Their culture would be completely different as they were 'hunter/gatherers' and had none of the education and access to information and modern infrastructure that we do today. If you're talking about consciousness, then because their brains are they same as ours and the brain is the 'seat' of the mind then their consciousness would still be the same as ours. Their societies were very primitive compared to ours but they still had morality. They obviously didn't always kill everyone otherwise they would've never passed their gens along to us. They loved like us, feared like us and grieved like us. They were still 'us'.

You say that 'you showed me that human's originated in Africa' yet it was I that showed you. You've been claiming that they're from the Middle East. lol!

The cud chewing one IS wrong. The other animals mentioned all chew cud but rabbits munch on their food so it appears that they are ruminants. These 'scribes of god' couldn't have been so stupid to confuse shit eating with vomit-eating could they?

So what if there are people in the Middle East? There are people all over the planet! People roamed as hunter/gatherers up until about 12,000 years ago when the neolithic revolution occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

This means we wandered around the planet for almost 200,000 years eking out a meager existence until we learned to farm. This revolution occurred over 10,000 years before there was an Israelite. Just to put it into perspective.

The DNA conclusively shows that Humans came from Africa 200,000 years ago and NOT from the Middle East. This is what the science has strongly determined. If you disagree YOU have to write a paper proving your ideas. Until then, your claim is baseless and is dismissed. Sorry.

The records of Mesopotamia are vast and well dated to be 1000 Years before any Israelites. Again, sigh , write your paper to demonstrate your point or your claim is dismissed. This is how science works.

Even if there were other people who wrote the flood story from somewhere outside of Mesopotamia that still occurred before there were any Israelites. It's a story that was essentially plagiarized by them. This is very well recognized in Historical research.

Adam and Eve are false because they are claimed to be the first humans when we all have come from other living beings. There is no first member of our species as there is a continuous series of changes from 4 billion years ago to now. An unbroken lines of life with each member of a species the same as it parent/s.
User avatar #487 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
They were not hte same as us. As you said before, we evolve over time and as such we are still doing it. While we could mate with them, we are not the same.

discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

The reason the rabbit qualities is not because it looks like it is shewing cud. It clearly doesn't as can be seen just by watching one eat. (I have owned rabbits) The reason they make the list is because God knows their biology and everything on that list has a similar and specific digestive system that makes them unhealthy to eat.

And once again you are claiming the science to be way more specific and precise than it is. It is a guess where they tried to tie the dna of modern humans and their position to where the first humans probably came from. Do you know the region they settled on? It's right below the middle east. Just about as close to it as you can get while still being in Africa. There is room for error and while I don't think they are wrong in any way, you are trying to make the data say stuff it simply doesn't or are perhaps just repeating what you heard someone else say.

And you're still not understand how the Mesopotamian thing works. Someone made the oldest carving record of that story in Mesopotamia. At the same time there were Isrealite's ancestors living in the same general area. The stories they were passing on were of the great flood and while some of it rubbed off on the Mesopotamians, the fact that the oldest record we have is from them does no mean they created it, does not mean that is the oldest record ever made, and does not mean any story after it was taken from them. Does that make sense?

And no, you will not find a reputable article that goes so far as to claim that the Isrealites plagiarized from the Mesopotamians. That little tid bit is added on by atheists who site the discovery.
User avatar #485 - compared (02/09/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you have a nice day.
#448 - I do, I can't say I'm a fan of that for the kid's sake. 02/09/2015 on Grandma -2
#416 - It won't let me reply any longer in that comment chain so I ha…  [+] (18 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#452 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
God did not dictate the bible. The Bible states that there was a first man and woman but evolutionary biology has shown this to be false. Even the location of the Garden of Eden in the Bible is wrong: homo sapiens emerged from Africa.

The Bible states there was a global flood with a wooden boat that could hold all the animals. Not only is this story both without evidence and ridiculous, it actually is a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

"God' did not dictate the bible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
User avatar #461 - EdwardNigma (02/09/2015) [-]
As a matter of fuck, the flood myth is in a fair few things, not just the Epic of Gilgamesh and bible. Its also in the Eridu Genesis for example.
And now to disappear as quickly as I appeared because all I wanted to do was put my knowledge of flood myths to use.
#464 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
The Eridu Genesis is from Sumeria which was a part of Mesopotamia. It's version of the flood came 5000 years after the Gilgamesh version.
User avatar #465 - EdwardNigma (02/09/2015) [-]
Yeah. But still, a different story in certain aspects.
Flood myth has been bastardised so much.
#468 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Same story, just changed around a bit.
User avatar #469 - EdwardNigma (02/09/2015) [-]
Basically. A lot of myths are similar to others.
User avatar #456 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
God did dictate the bible both through his son Jesus and by inspiring the men who wrote it. It is his word written down and how we even know of him sens he does not reveal himself to the common man.

And yes, science does say that early humans seem to have lived in Africa, but try to understand the evidence is limited. We only find the bones and remains of some of those who lived, certainly not all, and so all that can be said is that THESE people lived here during this time period. It does not mean they can trace back to a single person or a specific year, it's all in ball parks. So while I do agree that early man was in Africa, I would not say it is definitive enough to say early man was only in Africa nor that the earliest man was in Africa first.

And while the bible does say the Noah built a large boat and filled it with two of each animal it doesn't say he used two of every animal that exists. It goes without saying he didn't load fish onto the boat. And I don't believe it was a world wide flood(as I stated in a previous message) so it suggests that he got two of each animal from the flooded area, but not things such as penguins and polar bears who would not be effected by the flood.

As for the story of Gilgamesh, it was written after the story of the great flood was supposed to have taken place. But once again it's hard to get an exact date. It's funny how you can look at two sources who both talk about a historical event happening and say that one copied from the other instead of thinking it is evidence that the event itself actually occurred. They are the same story. Is it surprising that a great flood story spread through the lands and was written by multiple sources?
#458 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
The Jesus stories are not acceptable as reliable historical records whatsoever. There is great contradiction in these stories. Much of Matthew and Luke are identical, and not to mention that these stories were written between about 30 and 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus. AS each new gospel is written it becomes more fantastical.

There is no evidence from the alleged life of Jesus to prove he was real, let alone divine. I'm aware that most historians agree that he lived yet every thing we have about him is at least second hand.

Evolution shows that yes, we did actually originate in Africa some 200,000 years ago and not in the Middle East 6-10,000 years ago. This is a fact.

Evolution also shows that there was no 'First man and women' either. To claim otherwise is to not comprehend the theory of evolution.


The Flood myth involved different gods from a culture that was around 1000 years before the Israelites. There was probably a local flood that the original stories turned into fantasies but that also is no proof of the Bible or the god that it talks about.

We have dated artifacts from the Gilgamesh story that precede the existence of the Israeilites by 1000 years. That show we know that the Gilgamesh story came first. By a long way.

The Flood story came about before the Gilgamesh story. It was about a man named Ziasudra and is one of the earliest pieces of writing anywhere in the world. Historians and archaeologists have sophisticated ways of determining the historicity of artifacts and people.
User avatar #462 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
That is possible. I agree that they were only written down after the fact but most records of events are, especially in a time where reading and writing was uncommon. It would be a MIRACLE if the writings are all accurate and embellished. (hehe, see what i did there?)

And I agree, the bible is one of the few records of Jesus. There are a few Roman records that hint at him and his disciples. There are some Jewish stones that could or could not have been talking about him, but the bible is just about the only source and certainly the most fleshed out. But that isn't quote enough to disprove anything.

And I agree, some form of humanoid was in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Were they what can be called human? Biologically, yes, but what constitutes a human by the biblical definition? Is it that they are advanced enough to understand right and wrong? Surely you can agree that there was a point where a simple ape who simply doesn't have the brain power to understand empathy gave birth to the first ape that could finally understand.

I have read enough that I would in fact claim to understand evolution and how it works and it is not impossible that there was a first man and woman so I would say that what you said there is false.

There was not a tribe 1000 years before the Israelites in any sense besides that the Israelites may not have called themselves the Isralites at that time. It is well within the realm of possibility that the proto-Isrealites had the orally passed down story of the flood and it was shared and possible altered by other groups.

As for your statement of the dated Gilgamesh story, that's not how that works. How can you not grasp that the only thing it dates is the RECORD of the story and does not mean the story didn't exist long before it. It's not disproof. Only evidence that the story existed at the time of that record. The Israelite might not have written it down yet or all Israelite records of it have been lost. Of course the opposite might be true as well, but that's the point I'm trying to make.
#467 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Ideas at the House: Richard Dawkins -- Why there was no "first" human The science shows that the hominids dated to around 200,000 ago are human. Empathy and other traits are not something that just spring up in one generation. Obviously many animals like mammals and birds care for their young: it is instinctual. Humans have a more nuanced version of this empathy nut it has taken a long time for it to get to the point where we are now.

Evolution is about small changes over time generally .

Sorry, you're wrong in your understanding of evolution. Here, take it from a master and read that link about evolution.

You say 'Proto-Israelites' when really you're projecting onto other cultures. The Mesopotamian people were entirely separate I did mention that 1000 years thing, didn't I? , and were much larger than the relatively small Israelite population. They got their asses kicked by the Babylonians and this is when they probably took their myths to forge them into their own.

Your last paragraph is also failing the burden of proof. 'How do you know the magic unicorn didn't do it'?.
The Israelites did not exist when that story was first written!

1000 years passed before that story was told by the Israelites.

It is a Mesopotamian story originally as the story came before the Israelites!

How are you missing this man?
User avatar #472 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I do understand evolution and i was not suggesting that empathy sprang up in one generations. What I'm talking about is that the gradual change still results in children who are more advanced than their parents were. Not by leaps and bounds, usually in hardly noticeable ways but different all the same. It often loops back on itself when genes mix, disperse, and come back together between generations and pairings of distant relations. While I don't claim to be a master of Wikipedia articles do understand that my grasp on the subject is sufficient. I never said it was wrong, only that you are thinking it has proven things that it simply hasn't yet, not to say it won't.

And I was also not suggesting that the Israelite were the same as the Mesopotamians before they spit or something. They could have been if you go far enough back in time but there's not a lot on record to suggest that. My point to you was actually the same one you seem to be making to me now that the Israelites existed during and before that 1000 years that you did, in fact, mention. The grandfathers and great grand fathers of the Isrealites who wrote down the flood story were around the same time passing on the stories that the old testament would eventually be written from.

The Isrealites did exist, they did not poof into existence before the first record of them was carved into stone. They were a tribe and to think that they didn't exist as a people makes no sense as everyone has to have had forefathers.

And once again you ware saying it wrong. 1000 years did not pass before the Isrealites TOLD the story, 1000 years passed before they WROTE IT DOWN and that written record also survived to modern day.

Maybe I am missing something, it could happen, it has happened before. But I swear you talk like you don't understand timelines.
#473 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Adam and Eve did not exist because the bible says they were the first humans and evolution shows that there are no first members of a species. How do you not get that part?

User avatar #477 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Because when you say "species" you mean "can mate" and that's not what the bible is talking about. It is referring to the first human who was capable of understanding morals. His mother was the same species but could not understand the things he could simply because his genes, the mix of his father and mother, were the final step in advancement that pushed the human species into "sentience."
#479 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No. The bible says 'first human'. Period. It says that YHWH made him from clay but we know that there is no evidence for this whatsoever instead humans had a common ancestor with other animals. No magic breath is evidenced anywhere at all.

The bible makes no mention of Adam's mother at all. The story says life was breathed into clay. No mention of a woman or preceding species is mentioned either. You're really trying to combine your religious beliefs with science but eventually a person like you who continues to question these things will literally wake up one day and say:

'that's it! I don't believe in any of this anymore!'

Not trying to sound harsh, but the curious ones are generally the first to go!
User avatar #483 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was referring to your personal definition of what a human is. It was using its definition which only really makes sense.

And it is understood that some of the story is partly metaphorical or told in story form, not empirical hard on "I made this in seven days which are 24 hours periods which are one revolution of the Earth which is...." form. What was meant when he said he was made out of soil? How much so his was made from soil? Was it meant in the light that soil contains nutrients that make up our bodies and so it was only pointing out that we are made from the earth even though it is filtered through our mother's body first? Maybe, I don't know for sure. But there is no reason to think he made Adam out of a flash of light on a pile of dirt and a puff of breath.

It's possible too. I have always constantly questioned the bible ever sense high school when I realized that I only believe in it because my parents do. I stopped going to church and started reading and researching about it. Looking at other religions and of course exploring history and science. Trying to figure out what I should believe. And while my research and exploring continues on I have to say that the more I delve into it the more I am finding that the bible is flawless and really seems to be head and shoulders above all other religions and, so far, completely in line with science.
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.

'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.

Please do watch the Evolution of Genesis this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.

This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.

I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#492 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
Do watch them and you'll see that the Bible is in no way a scientific journal.
#409 - So then you're going to pick and choose which animal traits to…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#410 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You're the one who picked those traits. The first thing in that post was a direct quote from you.
I've refuted literally every counterpoint you raised to my arguments, and you have now started arguing that using your own points against you is cherry picking.
I'm done. This is what I meant by "One of those Christians." That, and the "Everything I don't understand is a sin" mentality you seem to have.
#399 - I never said the desire for sex is wrong. The opposite in fact…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma -1
#406 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
"But if your argument is that what if the norm for the animal should be the norm for humans then we would all be cannibalistic murderous fornicators who kill each other's young."
For starters, the majority of mammals (which is the group I was comparing us to, not animals as a whole) avoid cannibalism like the plague. Humans, however, do practice it, whether in extreme circumstances (eg, the Donner party) or as a cultural practice.
Second, we are that, much in the way other mammals are. Not all mammal species kill others of their species, just like not all humans kill other humans. But, as a species, we are exactly that: murderous sluts who kill each other's kids, occasionally with the hint of cannibalism, pedophilia, rape, incest, and/or necrophilia thrown in.
So, in a way, I guess you were right. It's not the norm for humans; the norm for humans is worse!
User avatar #409 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
So then you're going to pick and choose which animal traits to point to as natural while others are "just animal things, people wouldn't do them?"

And I would disagree, you can't say that because some humans do it it is a norm. The majority of humans wouldn't intentionally do most of those things with the possible exception of premarital sex and those who so are usually shunned by society. So the norm for humans is to be of a moral caliber which differs from other mammals who consonantly commit taboos for humans.

Once again the "animals do it" argument does not hold water.
#410 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You're the one who picked those traits. The first thing in that post was a direct quote from you.
I've refuted literally every counterpoint you raised to my arguments, and you have now started arguing that using your own points against you is cherry picking.
I'm done. This is what I meant by "One of those Christians." That, and the "Everything I don't understand is a sin" mentality you seem to have.
#393 - The only thing I can say to that is that if sex is the best th… 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#391 - Yes because there is a chance he could produce children still.…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/09/2015 on Grandma 0
#398 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
Wow. I didn't realize right offhand you were one of those Christians. Allow me to rebutt.
First thing you've got wrong is that you're saying the desire for sex is outright wrong. It's not wrong, it's a product of our nature as animals. Every animal on the planet has survival instincts driven by a primal need to live. Mammals are generally more self-aware than other types of animals, causing our brain chemistry to function differently: instead of just the basic reward of survival, our brains let us experience pleasure, typically in the form of a dopamine surge, from doing things that promote our well-being. It's why some food tastes good (stuff that provides necessary nutrients and accessible calories tastes better than cardboard), it's why some smells are better than others, and it's every mammal on the planet has the potential for orgasms from sex. Orgasms release the single biggest surge of dopamine possible for a human being to experience. This causes mammals to seek out the same experience, due to its pleasurable nature. So, telling someone that they can't want sex for pleasure, or that having sex for enjoyment is wrong is like telling someone not to breathe: It goes against our very nature as living beings.
Second, literally every mammal species on the planet has some percentage of homosexuality. Every single one. It is, again, a fact of life that some people, given that we are mammals, are going to want to have sex with the same sex. This is not some abhorrent act that stands against nature; nature is right along with it.
User avatar #399 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I never said the desire for sex is wrong. The opposite in fact. I said it was completely normal and natural in all human beings. What is wrong is how you act on that. Do you feed it? Let it grow until horses and car and men with boobs turn you on and you're having sex with all three? Or do you reject it and only allow yourself to have sex with one person who you want to trust and spend your life with to the point of producing offspring with that person?
So I'm not sure why you would assume I think the desire for sex or the enjoyment of pleasure is wrong. I never said it. Perhaps you just assume I feel that way once you were able to lump me in with "those Christians."

And I am aware of the homosexual rates among animals. But if your argument is that what if the norm for the animal should be the norm for humans then we would all be cannibalistic murderous fornicators who kill each other's young. What is natural for an animal is not natural for a human. You see, unlike animals, we have a system of morals that can and should extend beyond those immediately close to us.

As far as the chemical highs we get from our brains, I agree that they are pleasurable but definitely disagree that sex produces the best. It might produce one of the highest short of drugs but short spurts of intense pleasure are by no means the end all be all of the human experience. I think the more of the world you explore the more you will find that to be true.
#406 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
"But if your argument is that what if the norm for the animal should be the norm for humans then we would all be cannibalistic murderous fornicators who kill each other's young."
For starters, the majority of mammals (which is the group I was comparing us to, not animals as a whole) avoid cannibalism like the plague. Humans, however, do practice it, whether in extreme circumstances (eg, the Donner party) or as a cultural practice.
Second, we are that, much in the way other mammals are. Not all mammal species kill others of their species, just like not all humans kill other humans. But, as a species, we are exactly that: murderous sluts who kill each other's kids, occasionally with the hint of cannibalism, pedophilia, rape, incest, and/or necrophilia thrown in.
So, in a way, I guess you were right. It's not the norm for humans; the norm for humans is worse!
User avatar #409 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
So then you're going to pick and choose which animal traits to point to as natural while others are "just animal things, people wouldn't do them?"

And I would disagree, you can't say that because some humans do it it is a norm. The majority of humans wouldn't intentionally do most of those things with the possible exception of premarital sex and those who so are usually shunned by society. So the norm for humans is to be of a moral caliber which differs from other mammals who consonantly commit taboos for humans.

Once again the "animals do it" argument does not hold water.
#410 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You're the one who picked those traits. The first thing in that post was a direct quote from you.
I've refuted literally every counterpoint you raised to my arguments, and you have now started arguing that using your own points against you is cherry picking.
I'm done. This is what I meant by "One of those Christians." That, and the "Everything I don't understand is a sin" mentality you seem to have.

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#27 - fedexman (05/09/2015) [-]
We need more people like you on FJ
We need more people like you on FJ
User avatar #28 to #27 - Vandeekree ONLINE (05/09/2015) [-]
Thanks, might I ask what brought this comment about?
User avatar #29 to #28 - fedexman (05/09/2015) [-]
Just appreciate what you say, too many ignorant people these days,keep it up man.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree ONLINE (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree ONLINE (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - Absolute Madman (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree ONLINE (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)