This explanation is at odds with the circumstance that creation tales vary widely and have a strong bias towards the cultures of the societies which propose them.
Creationists please read!
- Thread starter Believe
- Start date
When the Jewish diaspora regroup in Israel those that come from Africa look like Africans and those from Europe looked like Europeans. Can you see the similarity?
Sorry, I dont understand your question or how it could be relevant to the post of mine which you quoted.
A story like the characteristics of a diaspora population will take on features of the indigenous population. I don't know how but it did.
So, creation stories are inaccurate, obviously. I've still no idea of what you're trying to get at.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Says you. But yes, Genesis is relativly missleading to a degree that I can not trust any church that accepts it as fact.
ref kwhilborn (post #40)
Imagine trolling the neuronosphere. Or, if you were axially challenged, maybe just the left half of it.
Me, I'm still picking dendrites out of the applesauce Eve made from the so-called forbidden tree. Yeah, right, like that got us anywhere. We still can't figure out who was watching us and taking notes when we were supposedly the first couple... as if.
@fundamentalists:
Sorry you haven't cured the limping brain syndrome. Try a diet of fact check salad. Avoid the fact-free desserts.
You know of course, that nearly all of the Bible has no authenticated source material, no known authors. The few than named themselves are non-historical or barely known, and even many of those works have been adulterated. Yes, that's what I said. Adulterated.
Mumbo jumbo was good for starters, but I would add hodgepodge, slipshod, hocus pocus, fable fodder and spamalot.
Imagine trolling the neuronosphere. Or, if you were axially challenged, maybe just the left half of it.
Me, I'm still picking dendrites out of the applesauce Eve made from the so-called forbidden tree. Yeah, right, like that got us anywhere. We still can't figure out who was watching us and taking notes when we were supposedly the first couple... as if.
@fundamentalists:
Sorry you haven't cured the limping brain syndrome. Try a diet of fact check salad. Avoid the fact-free desserts.
You know of course, that nearly all of the Bible has no authenticated source material, no known authors. The few than named themselves are non-historical or barely known, and even many of those works have been adulterated. Yes, that's what I said. Adulterated.
Mumbo jumbo was good for starters, but I would add hodgepodge, slipshod, hocus pocus, fable fodder and spamalot.
Last edited:
I find it odd that views on religion on this thread are only from Christianity. I also think to label anyone who does not believe in abiogenisis as weak minded is a poor stance.
Science does not debunk the concept of creation. The known universe could be an experiment or simulation for all we know.
Science does not debunk the concept of creation. The known universe could be an experiment or simulation for all we know.