DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Atheism and Nonexistence

Pretty sure Abel died a virgin, but I think Enoch was their son too.

There were several generations between Adam and Enoch.

both sons smashed Eve!! man that snake in the tree screwed that whole family up.

how? where were the women at?

where were the women at?

They were probably neanderthals or still in Africa. Alas, I doubt we'll every have answer for, "Where the women at?" although, I'll continue my searching

They were probably neanderthals or still in Africa. Alas, I doubt we'll every have answer for, "Where the women at?" although, I'll continue my searching

ok, but at the end of the day, somebody was smashing somebody's sister, mom, or cousin.

so if he had other son's and daughters, that means everybody was related when they got knocked up.

boy oh boy.. this worse than the scandal that is saint mary.

Does energy simply go away or does it still exist? Physics says it remains, even if in a different form. Religion says the soul moves on. Seems like a pretty good proof that both religion and science agree that there is indeed a after life, be it what it may. We will all find that place soon enough.

The point I make is I don't think it ends. It evolves in to whatever.

Must have been pretty good Swish, they lived 700, 800, 900 years too!

yeperdoo.

a. Once the world was populated, there was no longer any need for long life spans.

b. changes in climate brought about by the flood.

etc.

lol, what? So God turned down the life span meter thats attached to our spine?

lol, what? So God turned down the life span meter thats attached to our spine?

No, possibly the measure of time changed. The calendar has changed in modern time. Who is to say time wasn't measured in moons in the past. 800 months is about 66 years old to us.

Understanding the earth moving around the sun came about centuries later.

that would be fine, but

http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/life-expectancy/

still doesn't add up to the statement, seeing as the average life expectancy is way lower just a few centuries ago, never mind the time period we are referencing.

and that isn't even close to what LA was implying if you look at his post that i responded to, and then his rebuttal now.

so it still not making any sense.

so we got an incest filled family, created by a being that can turn up the life span of humans with more or less a volume knob.

k.

Life expectancy decreased steadily due to the fact that originally man was created physicaly perfect in a much friendlier envirenment, and then in time it began to increase again with great advances in medicine and medical technology

so you swapped it up from a biblical argument to a scientific one at the drop of a dime.

sounds to me like, by your logic, we are defying God's will be increasing our life span.

such blasphemy.

Contrary to popular belief, neither God nor the Bible is contrary or hostile towards science. IT only refutes the PSEUDOSCIENCE of Ontological Naturalism, which is the religion of fools, not science...and before you accuse me of judging, I didnt say this, God did.

I don't think God hates science. I've always felt he WANTS us to use it in order to help ourselves and understand the intricacies of his work.

Most debates between Christians and atheist are not debates between science and faith, they are debates between the existence of God and Ontological Naturalism. Science has almost NOTHING to do with it.

pretty much. here's another one. if adam and eve were the first two humans, doesn't that means that everybody was participating in incest?

you don't have to be lonely, at cousins only.com.

You here mention of their sons but never any daughters either, unless I missed it. Figure that one out.

You are operating under the composition/division fallacy that all atheists prescribe to some philosophical notion of how life originated. Atheism is rejection in the belief of deities. That's it. For example, if we later found out that aliens seeded Earth, then it would still leave the question of genesis unanswered, but there would be many answered questions regarding the existence of an Abrahamic God, or any other god!

Simply put, you cannot reconcile abiogenesis with a literal interpretation of the Bible. So I get why you would consider abiogenesis to be fallacy. But believing that we were made from a diety based on reading the Bible is not scientific. Where is the experiment? The hypothesis? The scientific method? It is nowhere. The belief that God created us is based on faith, not science. The "proof" that God created us is in a text saying it is so, not based on lab results and quantitative analysis.

The fundamental problem with using the Bible as a scientific text is it does not teach anyone how to properly "do" science. Even if evolution was wrong, it would still have value because it teaches how the scientific method works. The Bible provides no science literacy building. This is fine, but what is not fine is claiming that it does. To claim that this is science is lying for Jesus.

A lot of this depends on "perspective" Many tenets of God being "divine" are of human making.

God does exist, just not in the way folks think.

There really are only two possible scenarios:

1. God and beings known as God were in pointed fact extraterrestrials that came here in the past and shaped things and we mistook them for Gods. Face it, if we met an intelligent species that had 400,000 thousand year head start on humanity they would be so far technologically advanced we would think they are Gods.

2. God is man made and created by man with one VERY important caveat.

We were visited by time travellers, ourselves from the future actually came back to the past and tried to alter human history. This is where religion were created.

I personally think #2 is the most plausible, i think we really mess things up big time in the future, we alter our own DNA somehow and mess up our ability to reproduce at the genetic level, and face with extinction. Or we create some sort of plague there is no cure for, regardless, our only choice is to go back into the past and try to change the timeline. Our ancestors from the past mistook us for God's, or this was done intentionally to set back our advances intentionally.

However, in doing so(changing the timeline) we have created what science calls a Paradox, a break in the time line that veers off from the normal timeline(it ending bad for us) and breaks off into an alternate timeline that goes on for awhile and then ends, when it ends, it starts again at the point of the break.

In otherwords, what the Bible calls the time of creation(Genesis) could very well be where the break occurs(where they came back in time and altered events) and it ends with Armageddon.

the Bible says after everything is over he will create a new heaven and a new earth...this just reeks of a Paradox.

Who knows, we have probably had this conversation thousands of times. Perhaps those feelings are Deja Vu are not what science says, but are in fact leaks in memory from the previous cycle.:)

still doesn't add up to the statement, seeing as the average life expectancy is way lower just a few centuries ago, never mind the time period we are referencing.

The Bible follow the male side of the families, except in some limited instances.

Study: Science and Religion Really Are Enemies After All
New research finds that religious countries and US states produce fewer patents per capita.
—By Chris Mooney | Wed Sep. 3, 2014 5:05 AM EDT

Email
779
Evangelist T.T. Martin's books against the theory of evolution are sold in Dayton, Tennessee, scene of the 1925 Scopes trial. AP
Are science and religion doomed to eternal "warfare," or can they just get along? Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and atheists debate this subject endlessly (and often, angrily). We hear a lot less from economists on the matter, however. But in a recent paper, Princeton economist Roland Bénabou and two colleagues unveiled a surprising finding that would at least appear to bolster the "conflict" camp: Both across countries and also across US states, higher levels of religiosity are related to lower levels of scientific innovation.

"Places with higher levels of religiosity have lower rates of scientific and technical innovation, as measured by patents per capita," comments Bénabou. He adds that the pattern persists "when controlling for differences in income per capita, population, and rates of higher education."

That's the most salient finding from the paper by Bénabou and his colleagues, which uses an economic model to explore how scientific innovation, religiosity, and the power of the state interact to form different "regimes." The three kinds of regimes that they identify: a secular, European-style regime in which religion has very little policy influence and science garners great support; a repressive, theocratic regime in which the state and religion merge to suppress science; and a more intermediate, American-style regime in which religion and science both thrive, with the state supporting science and religions (mostly) trying to accommodate themselves to its findings.

It is in the process of this inquiry on the relationship between science, religion, and the state that the researchers dive into an analysis of patents, both in the United States and across the globe. And the results are pretty striking.

First, the researchers looked at the raw data on patents per capita (taken from the World Intellectual Property Organization's data) and religiosity (based on the following question from the World Values Survey: "Independently of whether you go to church or not, would you say you are: a religious person, not a religious person, a convinced atheist, don't know"). And they found a "strong negative relationship" between the two. In other words, for countries around the world, more religion was tied to fewer patents per individual residing in the country.

Those data aren't shown here, however, because in many ways, that would be too simplistic of an analysis. It is clear that many other factors than just religion (wealth, education, and so on) influence a country's number of patents per capita. What's striking, however, is that after the authors controlled for no less than five other standard variables related to innovation (population, levels of economic development, levels of foreign investment, educational levels, and intellectual property protections) the relationship still persisted. Here's a scatterplot showing what the data look like after applying these controls:


Note that Japan and China clearly stand out as highly secular, highly innovative countries. At the other extreme, meanwhile, we find nations like Portugal, Morocco, and Iran. (The full analysis in the study also included data from the years 1980 and 1995; those are not shown here. Only country data from the year 2000 are labeled above.)

One important point of to keep in mind before comparing individual countries with one another: The figure above should not be interpreted as saying (for example) that China produces more patents per capita than the United States. Indeed, that isn't actually true: While Chinese residents filed more total patent applications (560,681) in 2012 than citizens of any other country including the United States (460,276), the US still filed more patents per capita, since its population is less than a third of China's. Rather, what this result means is that after controlling for other factors, China appears to have more unexplained innovation "left over" than the United States. (For stats nerds: What we are talking about here is the residual after a regression analysis.) It is this leftover or residual value—the differences in innovation that can't be explained by other factors—that the researchers are saying is associated with religion.

The authors then apply a similar analysis to the 50 US states, this time using patent data from the US Patent and Trademark Office and religion questions from a 2008 Pew Survey, including the following: "How important is religion in your life: very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?" Here's the result, after controls for the gross state product per capita, state population, and educational levels:


Note that states like Vermont and Oregon are highly innovative and not very religious, whereas innovation lags in states like Arkansas and Mississippi, even as religion thrives. The authors note in their paper, however, that while the Bible Belt states tend to show the most religion and least innovation, the finding does not depend on them. "The negative association holds throughout the sample," they write.

Once again, before going and trying to compare states with one another: Keep in mind that the figure above does not mean that Delaware or Idaho produce more patents per capita than Massachusetts or California. Once again, it simply means that Delaware and Idaho have more "left over"—or residual—innovation after other factors are controlled for.

It is important to keep in mind that these findings are correlational in nature; the authors explain that they do not allow for "definite causal inferences to be drawn." Their own view is that causation probably "goes both ways": Religiosity stifles innovation, but at the same time, innovation and science weaken religiosity. Or as they put it: "In both international and cross-state U.S. data, there is a significant negative relationship between religiosity and innovativeness (patents per capita), even after controlling for the standard empirical determinants of the latter."

Explaining in more detail, Bénabou notes that he thinks that much comes down to the political power of the religious population in a given location. If it is large enough, it can wield its strength to block new insights. "Disruptive new ideas and practices emanating from science, technical progress or social change are then met with greater resistance and diffuse more slowly," comments Bénabou, citing everything from attempts to control science textbook content to efforts to cut public funding of certain kinds of research (for instance involving embryonic stem cells or cloned human embryos). In secular places, by contrast, "discoveries and innovations occur faster, and some of this new knowledge inevitably erodes beliefs in any fixed dogma."

So what do other scholars think? "It is a very important finding. And it is done well and correctly, using state of the art techniques," comments Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University who is familiar with the Bénabou et al. paper (he is thanked in the acknowledgments). Mokyr admits that "innovation is hard to quantify," but one reasonable way to do it—if still imperfect—is to "count patents."

Doing so, it would seem, lends support to the science-religion conflict thesis: the idea that in places where religion predominates, inquiry truly does take a hit.

And now the Atheist thread has turned into a bible lesson... Can't we Atheist have a thread of our own? lol