joG
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 43,839
- Reaction score
- 9,655
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Donar's Hammer. Fine specimen.
Moderator's Warning:
View attachment 67155301
Funny, how people will worry about the Wording in the Bible and what chronology it implies. The Document is not written like a history book and does not really seem useful as such.
It looks like an australopithecus skull without the mandible. Not sure why this is big news, there is already a substantial amount of evidence that points to early hominids originating in what would now be Africa, about 50 million years ago. What would interest me is evidence on how the early hominids reached North and South America. Advanced primates came into play about 70 million years ago, about 20-30 million years prior to that, the Americas had already significantly split westward.
Actually, the "funny" part is how 99.9% of all bible believers will pick and chose which parts to believe or not, which parts are literal or not, and which parts to follow or ignore.
It's a very hypocritical ideology in many ways.
Forget the fact that over the thousands of years of interpretations and re-writings that many of the "stories" have changed, either purposefully to fill a "need", or accidentally based on how some words don't even exist any more.
I do find the people who take the bible as an accurate, historical/factual and literal "word of god" rule book to be some of the most frightening people in the country.
Actually, the "funny" part is how 99.9% of all bible believers will pick and chose which parts to believe or not, which parts are literal or not, and which parts to follow or ignore.
It's a very hypocritical ideology in many ways.
Forget the fact that over the thousands of years of interpretations and re-writings that many of the "stories" have changed, either purposefully to fill a "need", or accidentally based on how some words don't even exist any more.
I do find the people who take the bible as an accurate, historical/factual and literal "word of god" rule book to be some of the most frightening people in the country.
A common critique, and some people do that yes, however... in reality it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. It is a matter of understanding that there is a separation of covenants or dispensations; that some promises and requirements are specifically levied on a certain people operating in a certain culture and period of time, and interpreting scripture in the proper context.
It is complicated, so no surprise some just want to characterize it as "picking and choosing".
It's not "complicated".
The OT is in many ways a completely opposite of the NT.
Yet they're both in the same book.
Very much a yin and yang. (Not really a coincidence either in my opinion.)
Is god an all loving and all forgiving god, or is god a violent and vengeful god?
All depends on which part of the bible you chose to defend your position doesn't it?
These scientists are idiots:
The medieval era wasn't 1.8 million years ago, you can't have an ancient skull in an old village, it makes no sense. Betcha these people do global warming theories in their spare time.
Are you ****ting me? In post 3 of this thread, you brought religion in, and then whine and cry that we're all off topic when we correct you about how insanely wrong you are?
Stop trolling.
1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution
And yet some believe the above is all just a fairy tale .....
Are you serious? He spent this entire thread telling us what he believes, so I gave him the analysis of it. Plain and simple, you can't remain logically consistent and believe both in the bible and evolution.
If you'd like to make some arguments instead of crappy little one liners, I'll be here.
It doesn't say it was created 6,000 years ago, but it implies it from the series of events. You can follow the lineages down from Adam and Eve to Moses, Abraham, and other major biblical characters, which we can historically place.
That means for you to accept this skull isn't a hoax, you have to accept that somehow at least 1.8 million lost years occurred between Adam and Eve and Jesus. Why would the bible magically omit 1.8 million years? How could any society, much less the jews, survive 1.8 million years?
Then you'd have to admit that Adam and Eve looked something like Australopithecus.
Which then would require you to believe that god was somehow unpleased with his first models of humans, destroyed them and created hundreds of new versions until he finally got it 'right' about 6,000+ years ago.
If you can fit all these things into a nice, logical model, then I applaud your mental gymnastics.
As you can see above, the history of the homo genus spans millions of years, which no matter how you count it, doesn't match with the biblical lineages traced from Adam and Eve. Either they weren't actually the first humanoids god created, or there's a massive 1.8 million+ year gap in the bible and the lineages are just wrong.
Adam and Eve are not described as the first humanoid.
These scientists are idiots:
The medieval era wasn't 1.8 million years ago, you can't have an ancient skull in an old village, it makes no sense. Betcha these people do global warming theories in their spare time.
It's not "complicated".
The OT is in many ways a completely opposite of the NT.
Yet they're both in the same book.
Very much a yin and yang. (Not really a coincidence either in my opinion.)
Is god an all loving and all forgiving god, or is god a violent and vengeful god?
All depends on which part of the bible you chose to defend your position doesn't it?
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
is this serious? this might be the greatest post in the history of the internet if this guy is serious
And if not, you might be the front runner!
Glad I could get in the photo.
1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution
And yet some believe the above is all just a fairy tale .....
Fact remains, we didn't bring up that ****, mak did. And no, I won't go debate you in the religious forum because you'll just cry to a mod to get me infracted for criticizing your religion. You inserted yourself into a conversation, then decided you didn't like the topic.
Stop being a child.
I've never reported anyone here for anything. Probably never will. If I want to argue religion, there's a forum specifically for it. I generally avoid it because I simply don't have the time to devote to it. Nah, what I see is apparently a couple of guys out trolling, which is fine, and just dying to jump in with both feet at the first hint of an opening regardless of context. No doubt you see it differently. It's impossible to tell you how little I care.Oh really? There's a forum where religious can be dinged for critiquing the irreligious? Strange I must've missed that one. Why do you think you're criticized? Do I want an argument about religion? Meh. I argue it enough as it is, so what's one more? If you don't need protection, why'd you tell him to go to the religious sub-forum where he'll surely be dinged?
I've never reported anyone here for anything. Probably never will. If I want to argue religion, there's a forum specifically for it. I generally avoid it because I simply don't have the time to devote to it. Nah, what I see is apparently a couple of guys out trolling, which is fine, and just dying to jump in with both feet at the first hint of an opening regardless of context. No doubt you see it differently. It's impossible to tell you how little I care.
The Catholic Church has all but given up on trying to attack it.
Perhaps it was god's skull.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?