What was the first religion?

[sealybobo]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a fact. You have no idea how small and insignificant we are. There are stars not only 2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9 x bigger than our star. The old creation stories are so primitive and ancient.

This is the problem with theology. It assumes it has answers when it actually knows very little. The more you know about the cosmos the less you believe in ancient fables.

 

[sealybobo]

Exactly, the first religion was with Adam and Eve and God. Before they messed it up, but that worked out well for all of us.

Well...again Adam and Eve is a nice story but I don't think it is one that should be taken literally. Do some research on Enki and Ninhursag and you will find a very similar story in Sumarian mythology about 2000 year prior to the Genesis account.

Aye, Epic of Gilgamesh contains a story curiously similar to the Genesis creation story. Can actually read it here:

The Epic of Gilgamish Index

And the Aboriginies too have a creation story which is even older still.

Well the old saying is that there is a flood of flood narratives. Gilgamesh is probably one of the best known which is why I pointed to that one, but in reality there are so many flood myths that the Noah story could have come from any or all of them. Now some people will argue that since the story exists in so many cultures around the world that it gains credibility according to the criterion of multiple attestation and that would be true, but as far as I know there is no archaeological evidence for a world wide flood. There was the one nut case who claimed to have found the ark but upon further examination it was just a rock formation. Some people still claim that it is but it's a bunch of horseshit.

But if noah is just an allegory maybe Jesus is too. Theists love trying to explain why god hides but believe he visited 200 years ago Adam smith 1400 years ago Mohammad 2015 Jesus 2500 years ago moses god visited humans? Evolve people.

Well anything is possible. There are certainly those who argue that Jesus never existed. They are called mythicists. I don't find their arguments convincing myself, but there is a school of thought on that

Either he never existed or he was just a man. Or you can believe he was the son of god and nod your head when someone explains the trinity to you.

What do you believe?

 

[sealybobo]

Paul is addressing a specific real world problem where community meetings were being disrupted. I don't even think there were Christian church buildings at the time. And that's where people run into problems saying the Bible says this or the Bible advocates that. Such arguments lack the sophistication of exegesis...

Well what one "thinks" (about whether or not "there were Christian church buildings at the time") is irrelevant I think...here is the full context of the statement from the Bible:

"(34)Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (35)And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Cor. 14:34-35

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BLATANT SEXISM!

(The Bible says: "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:)

EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE!!!

Proof the book was written by men. Or I should say made up or invented or fabricated by man.

 

[sealybobo]

Paul is addressing a specific real world problem where community meetings were being disrupted. I don't even think there were Christian church buildings at the time. And that's where people run into problems saying the Bible says this or the Bible advocates that. Such arguments lack the sophistication of exegesis...

Well what one "thinks" (about whether or not "there were Christian church buildings at the time") is irrelevant I think...here is the full context of the statement from the Bible:

"(34)Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (35)And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Cor. 14:34-35

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BLATANT SEXISM!

(The Bible says: "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:)

EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE!!!

Nothing in the bible is necessarily true. In fact very little is.

 

[dblack]

What I find most interesting is the question of whether religion was a consequence of human consciousness, or a prerequisite. I suspect they are deeply connected, in any case.

Think about the reasons why a caveman would come up with "there must be a god". People still do it today. Its a very primitive superstitious belief that too many humans still believe. Mormons Muslims christians are just the latest evolution of the god theory.

Think about the reasons they would come up with "I". It's not as simple as you might think.

 

[boedicca]

It's logical to believe that the first religion(s) - local/tribal beliefs as there were no large organizations were involved - centered on the mysteries upon which life depended: fertility, food, physical conditions. Whatever powers the little tribe believed affected these things would be worshiped/honored/feared.

 

[BluePhantom]

Either he never existed or he was just a man. Or you can believe he was the son of god and nod your head when someone explains the trinity to you.

What do you believe?

What do I believe? Well I think Jesus was the Son of God but what that title means to us today is not what it meant in antiquity. There was nothing particularly divine about the Son of God. It's a bit more complicated than this but the Son of God was simply a person who was extremely wise regarding scripture and lived a very devout life. Indeed, there could have been many Sons of God and I think Jesus would qualify according to that definition from antiquity. It was the Son of Man that was the divine figure as depicted in Daniel 7 where it is written: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one who looked like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven..." (Dan 7:13, NIV). It is the Son of Man that comes to bring God's kingdom to Earth. Whether Jesus was the Son of Man is a subject of debate depending on whether or not you think God's kingdom has come to Earth yet. Very few think it has and I am not one of them, so my response to whether He was the Son of Man is "that remains to be seen".

 

[LittleNipper]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Obviously I do not, that is correct. Why? I side with evolution and geology because, as a geologist, I can demonstrate in the field and in the laboratory the truth of the science, Virtually the entire planet's compliment of scientists have accepted the fact of evolution. Frankly, that I have to argue the case in the 21st century speaks to the incompetence of our education system. And finally, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah and his ark, then you certainly are very gullible. Sorry, I can't be kind about this because it can readily be demonstrated that the Flintstones is NOT a documentary.

There are other very scientific views that are not being supported because those in control tend to be bias. Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

 

[orogenicman]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Obviously I do not, that is correct. Why? I side with evolution and geology because, as a geologist, I can demonstrate in the field and in the laboratory the truth of the science, Virtually the entire planet's compliment of scientists have accepted the fact of evolution. Frankly, that I have to argue the case in the 21st century speaks to the incompetence of our education system. And finally, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah and his ark, then you certainly are very gullible. Sorry, I can't be kind about this because it can readily be demonstrated that the Flintstones is NOT a documentary.

There are other very scientific views that are not being supported because those in control tend to be bias. Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

This is not scientific evidence for a world wide flood. It is mostly regurgitating claims that have long been debunked. For instance, polystrate fossils is not a real geological term. It is a term made up by creationists to describe fossils that intersect several rock beds, usually in sedimentary rocks. However, "polystrate" tree fossils were not problematic for conventional geologists of the 19th century, nor are they a problem for 20th and 21st century geologists. The same goes for clastic dikes, although they are a real geologic term. Nothing claimed about Mt. St. Helens is true. Palouse Canyon is not evidence of a worldwide Noachian flood. It is evidence of a massive flood in Eastern Washington caused when the ice dam holding back Pleistocene aged Lake Missoula gave way and released the entire contents of that lake over the period of a few days. I could go on and on but the fact remains that none of what is claimed on your web site is evidence of a global flood, and in fact, much of it simply is not true. Here is the real question you need to ask yourself. Given that Ur, Noah's supposed birthplace, is in the Euphrates Valley in Iraq (in the floodplain of the river, in fact), given that in Biblical times (and occasionally in modern times), that river flooded often, sometimes in great torrents, given that the so-called Noachian flood is actually a tale stolen from earlier Babylonian cultures and was handed down word of mouth for centuries before it was written down, given that the flood myth has been refuted since the 19th century and nothing has been found to support it to this day, given all the above, one must ask what the people who make these false claims have to gain from perpetuating such myths as truth.

 

[Hollie]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Obviously I do not, that is correct. Why? I side with evolution and geology because, as a geologist, I can demonstrate in the field and in the laboratory the truth of the science, Virtually the entire planet's compliment of scientists have accepted the fact of evolution. Frankly, that I have to argue the case in the 21st century speaks to the incompetence of our education system. And finally, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah and his ark, then you certainly are very gullible. Sorry, I can't be kind about this because it can readily be demonstrated that the Flintstones is NOT a documentary.

There are other very scientific views that are not being supported because those in control tend to be bias. Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

A rabid conspiracy theorist who links to a YEC'ist website.

Who woulda' thunk it.

 

[zaangalewa]

... You have no idea how small and insignificant we are. ...

A very very ... very ... very ... very small change in one of the basic natural constants would kill us - better to say: would make us undone like the Nazis tried to make undone god in their extermination camps. The strange thing: Without the whole gigantic universe we would not be able to live. Sure we are small - but you have a completly wrong idea about "insignificance". A most little cause is able to create a maximal effect.

 

[orogenicman]

... You have no idea how small and insignificant we are. ...

A very very ... very ... very ... very small change in one of the basic natural constants would kill us - better to say: would make us undone like the Nazis tried to make undone god in their extermination camps. The strange thing: Without the whole gigantic universe we would not be able to live. Sure we are small - but you have a completly wrong idea about "insignificance". A most little cause is able to create a maximal effect.

I am assuming that you are trying to use the anthropic principle as an argument for God. The problem with the anthropic principle, which suggests that the universe is finely tuned for life is that you then have to explain why the vast bulk of the universe is completely, utterly, uninhabitable.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I am assuming that you are trying to use the anthropic principle as an argument for God.

No. I don't need anything for my believe in god. It needs just simple the whole gigantic universe for our small existance.

The problem with the anthropic principle, which suggests that the universe is finely tuned for life is that you then have to explain why the vast bulk of the universe is completely, utterly, uninhabitable.

A long time a bumble bee was an example for a "wrong" aerodynamics. This did not mean a bumble bee was not able to fly - this meant something was wrong with our view on the laws of aerodynamics. In a similiar way works the "anthropic principle". If a phycicist finds out we are all not existing then something is wrong with his theory. Very easy.

With other words: In all thinkable universes with natural laws it seems only universes like our own universe are able to produce living structures, who are able to recognice their universes. And all this living structures are living in gigantic universes - otherwise they would not exist. This is significant as far as we are able to think about. Speculative physics shows not that we are unimportant. Physics shows only that we are not very powerful. And life shows that we are members of an agressive and ignorant species.



Mama tell me what you mean
Tell me why it’s so dark here
Mama, tell me why you’re crying
I don’t know why you’re sad

Are those shooting stars overhead?
What is it that flew over?
Why am I so freezing cold?

Why is your heart beating so fast?
Why is it light over there?
Where is this thunder coming from?

Mama Ana Ahabak
Mama I love you
Mama Ana Ahabak
Come and protect me

Mama, where should we go?
I want to go home, it’s already so late
Mama, why are you kneeling?
What are you saying, isn’t that your prayer?

Don't pull so hard on my hand
Why are you pushing me against the wall?
Why are the lights going out?
I can barely see anything
Tell me, why do we have to be here?
Why aren’t we going home?

Mama Ana Ahabak
Mama I love you
Mama Ana Ahabak
Come and protect me

Mama Ana Ahabak
I can’t see the stars
Mama Ana Ahabak
I only see your face

Can you tell me where we are?
Where are these people running to?
Tell me, is the road ahead of us still long?

Why aren’t you saying anything?
Why are your eyes empty?
Tell me, am I to blame?
I’m sorry.

Mama Ana Ahabak

Mama I love you
Mama Ana Ahabak
Come and protect me

Mama Ana Ahabak (Mama Ana Ahabak)
Because when night falls (when night falls)
Mama Ana Ahabak (Mama Ana Ahabak)
I don’t see the stars
I see only your face (only your face)

Please don’t leave me

source of the translation: http://lyricstranslate.com/de/mama-ana-ahabak-mama-ana-ahabak.html#ixzz3UO8rQCxB

 

[orogenicman]

... I am assuming that you are trying to use the anthropic principle as an argument for God.

No. I don't need anything for my believe in god. It needs just simple the whole gigantic universe for our small existance.

The problem with the anthropic principle, which suggests that the universe is finely tuned for life is that you then have to explain why the vast bulk of the universe is completely, utterly, uninhabitable.

A long time a bumble bee was an example for a "wrong" aerodynamics. This did not mean a bumble bee was not able to fly - this meant something was wrong with our view on the laws of aerodynamics. In a similiar way works the "anthropic principle". If a phycicist finds out we are all not existing then something is wrong with his theory. Very easy.

With other words: In all thinkable universes with natural laws it seems only universes like our own universe are able to produce living structures, who are able to recognice their universes. And all this living structures are living in gigantic universes - otherwise they would not exist. This is significant as far as we are able to think about. Speculative physics shows not that we are unimportant. Physics shows only that we are not very powerful. And life shows that we are members of an agressive and ignorant species.



Mama tell me what you mean
Tell me why it’s so dark here
Mama, tell me why you’re crying
I don’t know why you’re sad

Are those shooting stars overhead?
What is it that flew over?
Why am I so freezing cold?

Why is your heart beating so fast?
Why is it light over there?
Where is this thunder coming from?

Mama Ana Ahabak
Mama I love you
Mama Ana Ahabak
Come and protect me

Mama, where should we go?
I want to go home, it’s already so late
Mama, why are you kneeling?
What are you saying, isn’t that your prayer?

Don't pull so hard on my hand
Why are you pushing me against the wall?
Why are the lights going out?
I can barely see anything
Tell me, why do we have to be here?
Why aren’t we going home?

Mama Ana Ahabak
Mama I love you
Mama Ana Ahabak
Come and protect me

Mama Ana Ahabak
I can’t see the stars
Mama Ana Ahabak
I only see your face

Can you tell me where we are?
Where are these people running to?
Tell me, is the road ahead of us still long?

Why aren’t you saying anything?
Why are your eyes empty?
Tell me, am I to blame?
I’m sorry.

Mama Ana Ahabak

Mama I love you
Mama Ana Ahabak
Come and protect me

Mama Ana Ahabak (Mama Ana Ahabak)
Because when night falls (when night falls)
Mama Ana Ahabak (Mama Ana Ahabak)
I don’t see the stars
I see only your face (only your face)

Please don’t leave me

source of the translation: [URL='http://lyricstranslate.com/de/mama-ana-ahabak-mama-ana-ahabak.html#ixzz3UO8rQCxB[/QUOTE']http://lyricstranslate.com/de/mama-ana-ahabak-mama-ana-ahabak.html#ixzz3UO8rQCxB[/URL]

Except that there is nothing at all wrong with our understanding that the vast bulk of the universe is completely, utterly uninhabitable.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Except that there is nothing at all wrong with our understanding that the vast bulk of the universe is completely, utterly uninhabitable.

If an idea [hypothese] is not able to be wrong then this idea has nothing to do with science. Someone or something was for example able to destroy your existance millions and billions of years ago. But this is not your answer. Your existance is your answer. Some people are deciding for example to be not sheitans by creating uninhabitable concentration camps like Guantanamo. Homeless USA?



There’s a chance that everything is going to be alright
Let’s create a heaven here on earth
Everything’s supposed to turn out right
We are going to turn this earth into heaven
Everything’s going to be alright
We are going to turn this earth into heaven
And no one has to put his life at risk anymore
One of the greatest treasures on earth

I want to get out of this mess
But I have no idea how I’m going to do it
Get out of this damn hood
But I have no idea how
One has locked me up here in this district
Because I’m not supposed to see the rest of the world
I will walk out of this prison
As soon as I know where to go

Refr.
There’s a chance that everything is going to be alright
...

Even if you’re crying your heart out now
Please don’t give up
Even if you have given up on life
Please don’t give up
Even if you feel like you’re dead
Please don’t give up
Even if everything seems to be fucked up
Don’t give up


Refr.
There’s a chance that everything is going to be alright
...

Ich schaue nach jenseits der Grenzen des Hier
und ich weiß da ist mehr für mich drin.
Ich habe keine Angst mich mit ihrer Furcht zu konfrontieren
wenn das bedeutet, dass ich frei sein kann.
Entmutige mich, wenn du denkst, das geht
Aber ich werde nicht aufhören, bevor ich nicht von hier weg bin.
Es kümmert mich einen Dreck
Ich habe keine Angst mich mit ihrer Furcht zu konfrontieren

Refr.
There’s a chance that everything is going to be alright
...


Please don’t give up
Please don’t give up
Please don’t give up
Don’t give up

German translation of the english text of the song from me - source of the english translation of the german text: http://lyricstranslate.com/de/alles-kann-besser-werden-theres-chance-everythings-going-be-alright.html#ixzz3UPxOpdrv

 

[Treeshepherd]

Well what one "thinks" (about whether or not "there were Christian church buildings at the time") is irrelevant I think...here is the full context of the statement from the Bible:

"(34)Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (35)And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Cor. 14:34-35

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BLATANT SEXISM!

(The Bible says: "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:)

EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE!!!

Not true in a literal sense? Is that really all the potential you can possibly imagine for the world's religious scriptures?

The Bible contains illustrations which describe all the failings and triumphs of man, allegorically.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Nothing in the bible is necessarily true. In fact very little is.

Often there is more truth in fiction than can be gleaned from encyclopedias.

 

[LittleNipper]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Obviously I do not, that is correct. Why? I side with evolution and geology because, as a geologist, I can demonstrate in the field and in the laboratory the truth of the science, Virtually the entire planet's compliment of scientists have accepted the fact of evolution. Frankly, that I have to argue the case in the 21st century speaks to the incompetence of our education system. And finally, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah and his ark, then you certainly are very gullible. Sorry, I can't be kind about this because it can readily be demonstrated that the Flintstones is NOT a documentary.

There are other very scientific views that are not being supported because those in control tend to be bias. Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

This is not scientific evidence for a world wide flood. It is mostly regurgitating claims that have long been debunked. For instance, polystrate fossils is not a real geological term. It is a term made up by creationists to describe fossils that intersect several rock beds, usually in sedimentary rocks. However, "polystrate" tree fossils were not problematic for conventional geologists of the 19th century, nor are they a problem for 20th and 21st century geologists. The same goes for clastic dikes, although they are a real geologic term. Nothing claimed about Mt. St. Helens is true. Palouse Canyon is not evidence of a worldwide Noachian flood. It is evidence of a massive flood in Eastern Washington caused when the ice dam holding back Pleistocene aged Lake Missoula gave way and released the entire contents of that lake over the period of a few days. I could go on and on but the fact remains that none of what is claimed on your web site is evidence of a global flood, and in fact, much of it simply is not true. Here is the real question you need to ask yourself. Given that Ur, Noah's supposed birthplace, is in the Euphrates Valley in Iraq (in the floodplain of the river, in fact), given that in Biblical times (and occasionally in modern times), that river flooded often, sometimes in great torrents, given that the so-called Noachian flood is actually a tale stolen from earlier Babylonian cultures and was handed down word of mouth for centuries before it was written down, given that the flood myth has been refuted since the 19th century and nothing has been found to support it to this day, given all the above, one must ask what the people who make these false claims have to gain from perpetuating such myths as truth.

You believe what you need to believe because it is convenient for your atheism. It is also likely necessary for you to get a job among those who have learned to depend on Uniformitarianism to explain everything under the sun. I still believe God spoke the Universe into existence and He doesn't need billions and billions and trillions of trillions of Cosmos years to make anything happen.

"Scientific" for you is constructing a "Mother Nature" story to circumvent the existence of the Creator. It is a total waste of time, money and energy and turns no one into a true Philosopher ----- one who can think outside the box man has fabricated entitled MATERIALISM. You cannot explain why you exist! You don't know where you are heading. And you don't even know WHY things are as they are! Without hope, joy or peace, one becomes nothing but a dull, selfish lout who fears growing old and becoming nonessential. Likely why so many are now committing suicide. It seems for many the only thing they can control. BUT what a total shock they will get once they arrive on the otherside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Obviously I do not, that is correct. Why? I side with evolution and geology because, as a geologist, I can demonstrate in the field and in the laboratory the truth of the science, Virtually the entire planet's compliment of scientists have accepted the fact of evolution. Frankly, that I have to argue the case in the 21st century speaks to the incompetence of our education system. And finally, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah and his ark, then you certainly are very gullible. Sorry, I can't be kind about this because it can readily be demonstrated that the Flintstones is NOT a documentary.

There are other very scientific views that are not being supported because those in control tend to be bias. Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

This is not scientific evidence for a world wide flood. It is mostly regurgitating claims that have long been debunked. For instance, polystrate fossils is not a real geological term. It is a term made up by creationists to describe fossils that intersect several rock beds, usually in sedimentary rocks. However, "polystrate" tree fossils were not problematic for conventional geologists of the 19th century, nor are they a problem for 20th and 21st century geologists. The same goes for clastic dikes, although they are a real geologic term. Nothing claimed about Mt. St. Helens is true. Palouse Canyon is not evidence of a worldwide Noachian flood. It is evidence of a massive flood in Eastern Washington caused when the ice dam holding back Pleistocene aged Lake Missoula gave way and released the entire contents of that lake over the period of a few days. I could go on and on but the fact remains that none of what is claimed on your web site is evidence of a global flood, and in fact, much of it simply is not true. Here is the real question you need to ask yourself. Given that Ur, Noah's supposed birthplace, is in the Euphrates Valley in Iraq (in the floodplain of the river, in fact), given that in Biblical times (and occasionally in modern times), that river flooded often, sometimes in great torrents, given that the so-called Noachian flood is actually a tale stolen from earlier Babylonian cultures and was handed down word of mouth for centuries before it was written down, given that the flood myth has been refuted since the 19th century and nothing has been found to support it to this day, given all the above, one must ask what the people who make these false claims have to gain from perpetuating such myths as truth.

You believe what you need to believe because it is convenient for your atheism. It is also likely necessary for you to get a job among those who have learned to depend on Uniformitarianism to explain everything under the sun. I still believe God spoke the Universe into existence and He doesn't need billions and billions and trillions of trillions of Cosmos years to make anything happen.

"Scientific" for you is constructing a "Mother Nature" story to circumvent the existence of the Creator. It is a total waste of time, money and energy and turns no one into a true Philosopher ----- one who can think outside the box man has fabricated entitled MATERIALISM. You cannot explain why you exist! You don't know where you are heading. And you don't even know WHY things are as they are! Without hope, joy or peace, one becomes nothing but a dull, selfish lout who fears growing old and becoming nonessential. Likely why so many are now committing suicide. It seems for many the only thing they can control. BUT what a total shock they will get once they arrive on the otherside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answering the question "how did we get here" with "must be god" isnt a good answer. First how did you come to that conclusion? Secondly that answer requires more questions like who created god?

 

[sealybobo]

The oldest known religious icon was a snake statue found in a cave in Africa. It is 70,000 years old.

Canadian unearths 70 000-year-old religious snake icon

I'm not gullible. There is no way anyone can prove that a rock sculpture is that ancient unless one fully BELIEVES that the FLOOD never happened. I believe that God created the entire Universe thousands of years ago. You obviously do not and so you must side with this Canadian who is convinced in his own mind that evolution is a fact.

Obviously I do not, that is correct. Why? I side with evolution and geology because, as a geologist, I can demonstrate in the field and in the laboratory the truth of the science, Virtually the entire planet's compliment of scientists have accepted the fact of evolution. Frankly, that I have to argue the case in the 21st century speaks to the incompetence of our education system. And finally, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah and his ark, then you certainly are very gullible. Sorry, I can't be kind about this because it can readily be demonstrated that the Flintstones is NOT a documentary.

There are other very scientific views that are not being supported because those in control tend to be bias. Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

This is not scientific evidence for a world wide flood. It is mostly regurgitating claims that have long been debunked. For instance, polystrate fossils is not a real geological term. It is a term made up by creationists to describe fossils that intersect several rock beds, usually in sedimentary rocks. However, "polystrate" tree fossils were not problematic for conventional geologists of the 19th century, nor are they a problem for 20th and 21st century geologists. The same goes for clastic dikes, although they are a real geologic term. Nothing claimed about Mt. St. Helens is true. Palouse Canyon is not evidence of a worldwide Noachian flood. It is evidence of a massive flood in Eastern Washington caused when the ice dam holding back Pleistocene aged Lake Missoula gave way and released the entire contents of that lake over the period of a few days. I could go on and on but the fact remains that none of what is claimed on your web site is evidence of a global flood, and in fact, much of it simply is not true. Here is the real question you need to ask yourself. Given that Ur, Noah's supposed birthplace, is in the Euphrates Valley in Iraq (in the floodplain of the river, in fact), given that in Biblical times (and occasionally in modern times), that river flooded often, sometimes in great torrents, given that the so-called Noachian flood is actually a tale stolen from earlier Babylonian cultures and was handed down word of mouth for centuries before it was written down, given that the flood myth has been refuted since the 19th century and nothing has been found to support it to this day, given all the above, one must ask what the people who make these false claims have to gain from perpetuating such myths as truth.

You believe what you need to believe because it is convenient for your atheism. It is also likely necessary for you to get a job among those who have learned to depend on Uniformitarianism to explain everything under the sun. I still believe God spoke the Universe into existence and He doesn't need billions and billions and trillions of trillions of Cosmos years to make anything happen.

"Scientific" for you is constructing a "Mother Nature" story to circumvent the existence of the Creator. It is a total waste of time, money and energy and turns no one into a true Philosopher ----- one who can think outside the box man has fabricated entitled MATERIALISM. You cannot explain why you exist! You don't know where you are heading. And you don't even know WHY things are as they are! Without hope, joy or peace, one becomes nothing but a dull, selfish lout who fears growing old and becoming nonessential. Likely why so many are now committing suicide. It seems for many the only thing they can control. BUT what a total shock they will get once they arrive on the otherside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evolution and the big bang are what are ancient primitive ancestors would have come up with if they were smarter but they werent too bright so they came up with god.

God is the answer for anything we dont know. He use to get credit for cancer and lightening but we no longer credit god on those things anymore. God is synonymous with ignorance.