|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 15, 2016 7:18:40 GMT 10
mankind descended from one man and one woman who had two sons.
Think about that.
Take all the time you need.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 15, 2016 8:17:25 GMT 10
According to new data based on using DNA as a tool for research into human origins, there were once twelve distinct human species on the planet. Twelve. And counting! The picture isn't complete and the research is a work in progress. The consensus is that there are more discoveries to be made and fresh insights to be gained. So expect the figure of twelve to be revised - upwards.
When respected authorities like Chris Stringer (Google him) say "distinct human species" he means as distinct from each other as horses, donkeys and zebras, or lions and tigers. It seems that our homo sapiens sapiens species walked the planet with Neanderthals, Denisovans and others. Even interbred with them. And here's the bit I struggle with: according to Stringer and others if you're a whitefella Caucasian you've got about 3% Neanderthal DNA because as homo sapiens sapiens moved out of Africa around 60 000 years ago or more and spread into the Middle East they encountered other human species. Those moving into Europe encountered Neanderthals, those moving further east into Asia encountered Denisovans and so on. Apparently indigenous Australians have between 2%-3% Denisovan DNA and so do Native Americans. Not only that, since the Australian landmass and also the Americas have, according to current data, never contained any other human species but our own, this Denisovan DNA would have been acquired before the remote ancestors of indigenous Australians and native Americans left the Eurasian supercontinent. So here's the question I struggle with: I've always understood that hybrids are sterile. A horse may mate with a donkey and produce offspring which we call a mule, but that offspring will be sterile. A lion and a tiger might frolic together and produce a "tigon" or "liger" (??) hybrid but this is freakshow stuff and the hybrid offspring will be sterile. What makes us humans different so that our particular human species, homo sapiens sapiens, could encounter (DNA evidence indicates that the number of sapiens who left Africa wouldn't have been much more than a thousand so all of non-African humanity is descended from that very small gene pool) other human species and interbreed with them while other species produce sterile hybrid offspring? The other question I struggle with is why did the other human species die out and we're the only ones left? To answer in terms of homo sapiens sapiens triumphalism doesn’t cut it for me. Too facile, too trite. I don't buy it. These other human species weren't inferior as humans. A donkey isn’t inferior to a horse and a tiger isn't inferior to a lion. The jury is out on this one. Did our lot practise genocide? Did they hunt them and eat them? There are people who suggest that they did. Or is the truth something different that contains lessons for us, the single human species left standing? Does it have to do with environmental factors? Is there a lesson for us that as a species we're more vulnerable to environmental change than we're prepared to admit and that as the planet warms and sea levels rise the situation facing homo sapiens sapiens calls for less triumphalism and hubris, and a lot more humility?
I find these to be much more interesting and productive lines of enquiry than wasting time debating with biblical literalists over Cain & Abel. Maybe after Cain slew Abel he found a cute little Neanderthal to mix his genes with. I dunno. Who cares!
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Apr 15, 2016 8:46:36 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 15, 2016 23:02:19 GMT 10
Pim, the bible is the basis of modern religion.
The fact that it so easy to disprove the fairytales contained within proves that religion is based on lies and the continuing use of this book shows that the lies keep being perpetuated over and over.
Why do you continue to defend this fiction?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 15, 2016 23:35:28 GMT 10
No, the bible is the basis of Christianity, not "all religion". Have to go ... sorry
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 15, 2016 23:44:31 GMT 10
I don't believe that the God believers on this board are anything but "Christians".
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 16, 2016 8:02:34 GMT 10
I began the post last night and then suddenly had to go without being able to develop an answer to your post. It happens. You know how it is. But back to your "lies" and "fiction" and the implied reproach that in defending the right of Christianity to exist and for Christians to practise their religion publicly I'm defending liars and pedlars of fiction, I can only respond that I don't think Christians are liars or pedlars of fiction. In fact quite the contrary. A believing Christian bases his Christianity on faith, s/he believes that this faith is based on the truth, and furthermore s/he believes that this is a truth that will set you free. That’s John 8:32. To that add hope which is grounded in faith, and leaven all of the above with the sort of charity that Paul describes in 1Cor13.
Now you're free to reject all of the above, even to despise it. That’s your choice and your right. Just as I have the perfect right to struggle with it and, while not being able to make the required leap of faith, nevertheless I don't despise religion and even envy Christians the deeper truths some of them discover beyond the fairy tales. If someone tries to impose those ideas on you, you have the perfect right to slam the door in their face and to tell them to bugger off. Mind you I'd hope you'd show more class and breeding than that. A polite but firm "No thank you" and "have a nice day" would be more preferable in my view, but you get my meaning: freedom of religion should also imply freedom from religion. I think we practise the "freedom from" part better in Australia than in the United States and I value that. But having said that I reject the notion that it’s somehow reprehensible to defend the right of believing Christians to profess their faith.
Have you ever given evidence in a court of law where you had to swear that the evidence that you give will be the truth, the whole truth etc etc? You don't have to answer that! I have and I swore on the bible. I also recall that when I was inducted into the ACT Teaching Service in the early 1970s (it was called the Commonwealth Teaching Service back then) I had to make the loyalty oath and I swore on the bible that I would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law so help me God. If it had been you in those two situations you'd have declined to swear on the bible and you'd have made an affirmation. An equally valid act that has the same status in law. There should be no adverse reflection on anyone who chose to make an affirmation rather than swear on the bible and if you found yourself judged harshly or discriminated against because you chose to make a secular affirmation you'd find me firmly and 100% in your corner defending your right to freedom from religion. So I defend freedom of religion just as firmly as I defend freedom from religion, and I reject utterly the notion that religion is a lie, that religious people are liars, and that anyone who defends the right of a religious person to profess their faith is somehow reprehensible. That’s bullshit and I reject it utterly.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 16, 2016 11:21:36 GMT 10
Pim, I have not said that religion is a lie, I have stated that it is based on a lie (i.e. the bible), big difference.
I don't care if people choose to believe fairytales, that is their right.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 16, 2016 12:50:50 GMT 10
Whatever, Yorick ... Pim, I have not said that religion is a lie, I have stated that it is based on a lie (i.e. the bible), big difference. I'll take that on faith Slarti - aaah, faith again ... I don't think religion is based on a lie. And that's not just a statement about Christianity. I don't think Islam is based on a lie - and you and I could probably name a dozen people we've encountered over the past ten years on NTB for whom that statement is pure heresy. Heresy? Why do we have to mine the vocabulary of religion to come up with a word like "heresy"? Nevertheless I stand by it and even repeat it: Islam is not based on a lie. Nor is Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Daoism or Hinduisim, or shamanism. Nor are the Dreamtime myths of Australia's First Peoples. When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and the cosmic view that results is the vehicle of the culture that provides meaning and purpose for people within that culture, you can call it a lie if you like. I won't be joining you in that echo chamber. Good! I'm glad we've got that one settled! I agree! |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 16, 2016 13:04:51 GMT 10
Spam away! I'll wait for Slarti.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 16, 2016 13:11:30 GMT 10
Yorick's spam count continues:  |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 16, 2016 13:17:50 GMT 10
Hi Slarti you're doubtless getting on with Life and that's a good and positive thing. I hope you'll be able to get back to the thread to resume the debate before Yorick succeeds in drowning the thread in the morass of his spamming.
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Apr 16, 2016 13:17:52 GMT 10
Millions of people believe they hold conversations with their god. A lie? Well, to convince oneself that they are actually "talking" to their god, is that lying to oneself? Is it delusion? The really hilarious thing is that those millions of people hold a conversation with (pray to) “thin air” yet when “thin air” ignores them, they then claim that to be “god's will!”   |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 16, 2016 13:30:58 GMT 10
And Yorick's spam count continues ...  |
|
