Origins of humans can be traced back to Europe, not Africa, study claims

[Squid Surprise]

sorry, I deleted my previous post because I thought it was unclear.
You say that's not what science does, I said science follows the empirical method. When you followed up with what you think science is, you described well the empirical method. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "But that's NOT what science does..."

What I took from your post was that you felt that science was based on an assumption that couldn't be proven by science... Making science a paradox.... I replied that that was not what science is.... Apologies if I misinterpreted...

Taking your black swan approach - you are dead on.... But the theory of evolution doesn't follow that logic... Even if we can prove that a species has remained identical for 500 million years wouldn't mean that others aren't evolving.

The more data that scientists attain, however, the more evidence points to evolution. If one day, a ton of data surfaces stating otherwise, then theories will be amended.... But it's looking pretty unlikely that that will happen...

People argue things like "centuries ago, the world's foremost scientists thought this - and now we don't"..... But while history tends to repeat itself, science has the benefit of basing itself on past results. The longer we take observations, measurements, etc., the less likely it is that something will surface contradicting what we've accomplished.

The most famous anti-science argument is "scientists all thought the world was flat - they were wrong! ".... Well, as we progress, we discover more and more things - we now know FOR SURE, that the world is spherical... We've actually launched objects into space that can verify this.... No further technological advances will show that the Earth is actually flat in the future...

This applies to many of our other theories... We may not be 100% certain exactly how evolution occurred.... But it becomes clearer to scientists every day more data comes in... And all the data points to it.... The odds of science reverting to "God created it in 6 days" gets more remote every day.

 

[Squid Surprise]

As for the religion/faith argument.... There is no way to logically prove God's existence or disprove it.... I never claimed that God didn't exist, I simply stated that it's not a relevant topic here - especially as this is a tech site.

Here's the flaw: I can state that an all-powerful, benevolent (to humanity, that is) being cannot exist, as if it did, humanity would be perfect and life would be perfect.

A religious person will then reply "Who are you to know how God operates? God works in mysterious ways."

I will reply, "If God works in mysterious ways, why am I bothering to pray to it?"

The argument goes back and forth with no winner and no clear answer.... Which is why there is no point arguing faith - you either accept God's existence or you don't.

 

[Scorpionking20]

"no" is always a very strong term when making an argument. I'll use the standard class example. In Britain it was said "All Swans are white". Two problems with this, the main one is that to KNOW this you would have to have examined every Swan in existence. The seconds is for use in an argument, all it takes is a single example/reason and your argument goes up in smoke, much like when eventually someone discovered a black Swan.
The religions you mention are indeed exclusive, if you believe/claim one is true, then that rules out the other ones. BUT there are logical reasons to choose one over another and it requires heavy use of your brain, for example literary analysis (I don't think that is the term I wanted, but it is all I can think of at the moment, maybe textual analysis?). The religions in question all have histories/books which can be studied, compared, and choices made as to which one is credible. Problems of some of the texts might show one is internally inconsistent or there could be other problems. For example Jehovah Witness's use a translation of the New Testament that no reputable Greek scholar would touch with the proverbial 10 foot pole. Mormon's accept both the book of Mormon and the Bible as the word of God. If you accept the Bible as authentic, then that rules out the authenticity of the book of Mormon, and vice versa. Muslim's accept both the Old Testament and the Koran. You read, analyze etc, and decide.
I've often heard it said that on the surface religions are different, but deep down they are all the same. My studies have led me to think that on the surface religions are all quite similar, but deep down they are very, very different. Your mileage may vary.

I think the issue is that it's not science's job to disprove a negative. Thus, and your probably familiar, the spaghetti monster example. If I said there's a bowl sized spaghetti God on the far side of Jupiter from the sun, and that it existed because you can't prove it doesn't exist (telescopes couldn't see in detail to see such an object, in addition to it being on Jupiter's dark side). There will always be these examples where we can insert magical object/creature/deity that can't be disproven. "Bigfoot is real." Since we can't know there's not a single, last bigfoot in a cave somewhere, that doesn't mean there's still no reason to believe in Bigfoot.
I would have to disagree with your comment that logical reasons are why people pick a particular religion. I think there's a cognitive disconnect and people will fill that with what feels good to them at the time. I think all religions, by their nature, are illogical. Secularism is by it's nature logical, and religions would place faith as a "reason" to believe the religion, which of course doesn't work because the definition of faith is to believe something without a reason to do so. While I, myself, hold faith as a vice, most religious persons would hold it as a virtue.
Lastly, in regards to logic applied to religion...I don't find that to be the case because while all religions are mutually exclusive (if one is true, all others must be false) nobody has read every single religions texts in an attempt to find the one "true" faith. People tend to assimilate to a religion close to their local community (I live in Utah...hence my references to Mormons on several occasions, though I've never been mormon) and from time to time, a few drift into something else (Jehovas witness, other Christian denomination, etc) primarily due to life changing factors.
Anyways...I appreciate your comment and kinda see where you were headed. I would just like to state we can't live by believing in things we can't disprove and that I also disagree with the idea that religions are all similar on the surface. There's such a wide variety. In particular I'm thinking about East/West differences. Whereas Judaism, Christianity, and and Islam would be similar due to their Abrahamic beginnings.

 

[captaincranky]

I think the issue is that it's not science's job to disprove a negative. Thus, and your probably familiar, the spaghetti monster example. If I said there's a bowl sized spaghetti God on the far side of Jupiter from the sun, and that it existed because you can't prove it doesn't exist (telescopes couldn't see in detail to see such an object, in addition to it being on Jupiter's dark side). There will always be these examples where we can insert magical object/creature/deity that can't be disproven. "Bigfoot is real." Since we can't know there's not a single, last bigfoot in a cave somewhere, that doesn't mean there's still no reason to believe in Bigfoot.
I would have to disagree with your comment that logical reasons are why people pick a particular religion. I think there's a cognitive disconnect and people will fill that with what feels good to them at the time. I think all religions, by their nature, are illogical. Secularism is by it's nature logical, and religions would place faith as a "reason" to believe the religion, which of course doesn't work because the definition of faith is to believe something without a reason to do so. While I, myself, hold faith as a vice, most religious persons would hold it as a virtue.
Lastly, in regards to logic applied to religion...I don't find that to be the case because while all religions are mutually exclusive (if one is true, all others must be false) nobody has read every single religions texts in an attempt to find the one "true" faith. People tend to assimilate to a religion close to their local community (I live in Utah...hence my references to Mormons on several occasions, though I've never been mormon) and from time to time, a few drift into something else (Jehovas witness, other Christian denomination, etc) primarily due to life changing factors.
Anyways...I appreciate your comment and kinda see where you were headed. I would just like to state we can't live by believing in things we can't disprove and that I also disagree with the idea that religions are all similar on the surface. There's such a wide variety. In particular I'm thinking about East/West differences. Whereas Judaism, Christianity, and and Islam would be similar due to their Abrahamic beginnings.

Right OK. Now that we've "proven to ourselves", that multiple deities couldn't exist, and "monotheism" is the only "sensible" approach to "salvation", I can't help but make the observation, that "religion, is simply the act of "substituting one set of superstitions for another", in perpetuity. If you can read Genesis with a straight face, you're a better man than me. I particularly like the part where man is given, "dominion over the animals", as an excuse for us to be able to slaughter them at will, or on a whim. It seems like the ranting of delusional egomaniacs. Wherein , "God made man in his own likeness". Sure "he" did. dream on.

My idea, or, "theory of creation", if you will, of how humans got here, is that God summarily and somewhat playfully, took a dump on the pristine planet he just created, and Homo sapiens climbed out of it.

Although science fails too, on certain aspects of "how we got here". I'm still waiting for "science" to explain who or what created the "material" which caused "the Big Bang" in the first place. That conundrum always seems to get glossed over in every text I've seen or read on the topic.

Speaking of the Mormons, they must be doing alright in the monetary sense, as they just built a gigantic temple just a bit off dead center in Center City Philadelphia.(*) Every time I go past it, I think to myself, "now that the Mormons are here, I wonder if polygamy can be that far behind"? After all, this is the city of "brotherly love & sisterly affection".

(*) I know they couldn't get a building permit to tear down city hall. Billy Penn, brass hat and all, is the actual center

 

[cliffordcooley]

"God made man in his own likeness". Sure "he" did. dream on.

Do you honestly think God made our bodies in his likeness, when we are to rise up and leave them behind?

"Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

How could anyone think that which is in God's likeness is our bodies? Without our bodies, there is no physical form.

 

[Scorpionking20]

Right OK. Now that we've "proven to ourselves", that multiple deities couldn't exist, and "monotheism" is the only "sensible" approach to "salvation", I can't help but make the observation, that "religion, is simply the act of "substituting one set of superstitions for another", in perpetuity. If you can read Genesis with a straight face, you're a better man than me. I particularly like the part where man is given, "dominion over the animals", as an excuse for us to be able to slaughter them at will, or on a whim. It seems like the ranting of delusional egomaniacs. Wherein , "God made man in his own likeness". Sure "he" did. dream on.

My idea, or, "theory of creation", if you will, of how humans got here, is that God summarily and somewhat playfully, took a dump on the pristine planet he just created, and Homo sapiens climbed out of it.

Although science fails too, on certain aspects of "how we got here". I'm still waiting for "science" to explain who or what created the "material" which caused "the Big Bang" in the first place. That conundrum always seems to get glossed over in every text I've seen or read on the topic.

Speaking of the Mormons, they must be doing alright in the monetary sense, as they just built a gigantic temple just a bit off dead center in Center City Philadelphia.(*) Every time I go past it, I think to myself, "now that the Mormons are here, I wonder if polygamy can be that far behind"? After all, this is the city of "brotherly love & sisterly affection".

(*) I know they couldn't get a building permit to tear down city hall. Billy Penn, brass hat and all, is the actual center

Scientists are with you, in terms of the origin of the Big Bang and wondering how/why it started. I don't think it's understood that "material" caused the big bang? That's one thing with Science...we can't claim to know what we don't know. We can guess and make conjecture, but until we go through the scientific method, we can't actually know things. How humans got here? Well...we evolved just like every other animal. Exactly how? We may yet learn more, but there are lots of individual pieces of evidence to show evolution of hominids along with whales, reptiles, etc, etc.

Yeah...the Mormons run a good gig. 10% of your income, to save your family forever. I've often joked I need to start my own church and only charge 8%. Get some competition going on here!

 

[Bubbajim]

I love that people point out every day that media and commentators lie or spin facts, but did people who recorded events thousands of years ago, when access to information was poor, no one checked facts, and superstition was rife? Oh no, that's the honest to jeebus, gospel truth...

 

[captaincranky]

Do you honestly think God made our bodies in his likeness, when we are to rise up and leave them behind?

No, but I don't think we're going to "rise up" either.

"Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

"Polvo eres, y polvo volveras". It works out exactly the same in Espanol.

How could anyone think that which is in God's likeness is our bodies? Without our bodies, there is no physical form.

The best explanation of "god", I've ever heard, goes like this, man in ancient times, hadn't fully gotten used to dealing with the "superego". Therefore, what we accept today as the "conscience", or the fact we reason internally in our native language, the ancients interpreted as, "the voice of god". The theory goes on to state that, "early men would have been classified as "schizophrenic", and most likely put in insane asylums". Somehow, I think that's more on point than anything I've ever heard in a church.

EDIT: The only thing I really have to say in mankind's "favor", is the fact that, "we've evolved into the best apex predator ever".

Oh, and one final thought. The government should hand the bill for raising all the "lives" the "right to life, far religious right nut jobs" want to save. Maybe if their "high minded principles", were attached to their wallets, a woman would have the right to choose, and be able to walk in and out of an abortion clinic, in peace, and with her dignity intact.

Keep in mind, beliefs, principles, and ideals are cheap, whereas implementing them costs tons and tons of other taxpayer's money.

OK, this really is, "my one final true thought". Scientists classify the "dog", in the trinomial manner as, "Canis lupus familiaris". That's right boyz und gurlz, the common dog is a subspecies of the timber wolf. We've forced "evolution" on the wolf through selective breeding. Wolves though, grow up to be rowdy and uncontrollable wolves. The common dog will herd your cattle, guard your home, lick your face, keep your feet warm, and so forth. So, either man is playing god, following in God's footsteps, or is god, or "D", all of the foregoing. The bottom line? We've managed to create a creature who worships us.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Do you honestly think God made our bodies in his likeness, when we are to rise up and leave them behind?

"Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

How could anyone think that which is in God's likeness is our bodies? Without our bodies, there is no physical form.

This is the flaw in using the bible as a source... because the bible has so many different interpretations, various tangents, and can be used to derive almost any meaning one wants...

Let's take another book from the Bible, Enoch (chapter 65), and see this...
Understand how, on account of this, he constituted man in his own form, in accordance with a similarity. And he gave him eyes to see, ears to hear, and heart to think, and reason to argue.

Anyone reading that verse would assume that God's likeness IS in our bodies.... and perhaps that was what ancient Jews and Christians believed.... as beliefs evolved, our interpretations changed... and Enoch is seldom quoted these days by religious people...

It becomes VERY difficult to believe that the Bible is the direct word of God when there are so many contradictions.... not to mention morals that no longer align with our own societal values.... Such as the consequences for adultery, swearing by God's name, homosexuality and more (it's death by the way)... And anyone interested in a dozen chapters on how to perform the proper animal sacrifices that are pleasing to the Lord?

Let's stick to science and facts - leave the bible to theologians please

 

[cliffordcooley]

Let's stick to science and facts - leave the bible to theologians please

Take this theory to a minister that knows different. And you keep your atheism out of a tech forum.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Really wish you'd actually READ my posts... I'm not an atheist... Agnostic here... unlike many, I'm not so arrogant as to assume 5 billion people must be wrong...

And name me a minister who even acknowledges the Book of Enoch (despite the fact that much of the New Testament derives from its ideas) as part of the canon.... I think only Egyptian Orthodox acknowledges it nowadays.... again, that's the problem with using scripture as sources in a tech argument