Do you believe in God, deities, souls, spirits & things like that?

[ghibelline]

I think a genuinely right-wing view of life needs to be based in a genuine belief in God, deities, souls & spirits.

For instance you always find Leftists saying they don't mind Buddhism of the religions because there are no deities or concepts of God in this religion which is probably not entirely true.

The only way to return to a more agricultural way of life is through faith in God, I think.

This is probably why Islam places so much emphasis on God but also spirits such as 'djinni'. The more supernaturally you think the more likely you are to build a society based on replenishable agriculture.

 

[ecjd]

Not really following your point. The original religion of my country was pagan and had nothing got to do with recent foreign imports such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc.

 

[Esatdigiwank]

I believe in the existence of spirits. A spirit appeared in a photo l took once. I also think that spirits interfere with the electricity in My House. It takes hours to charge up My i-phone.

 

[Fishalt]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xlyofmznOs

 

[Declan]

That actually was hair raising, did anyone else feel it

 

[AN2]

I love creepy stuff but

 

[clarke-connolly]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xlyofmznOs

Could be a mini-twister or nothing !

 

[AN2]

I think a genuinely right-wing view of life needs to be based in a genuine belief in God, deities, souls & spirits.

For instance you always find Leftists saying they don't mind Buddhism of the religions because there are no deities or concepts of God in this religion which is probably not entirely true.

The only way to return to a more agricultural way of life is through faith in God, I think.

This is probably why Islam places so much emphasis on God but also spirits such as 'djinni'. The more supernaturally you think the more likely you are to build a society based on replenishable agriculture.

No deities for me I'm afraid feuds

Which one do you believe in?

 

[Professor]

Yes from a Christian POV it's easy to understand their spirits - The Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, through encounter, devotion and faith is passed on to the Father who in turn passes it on to the Son.
We examine the son to find he bears a close resemblance to the father, follows in the fathers footsteps, has the fathers name which is also the name of original saints who were closest to the Holy spirit.

Father and Son attend church services to enhance and enliven their bonds with the Holy Spirit who imparts the power of God to them and through them.
Recharged with Spirit anew they go forth and multiply as the Spirit commands and soon their is a new Son who also will adopt the essence of his fathers spirituality.

It's plain to see.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

For instance you always find Leftists saying they don't mind Buddhism of the religions because there are no deities or concepts of God in this religion which is probably not entirely true.

The question of Buddhism and contemporary Westerners is an interesting one.

 

[AUL LAD]

The question of Buddhism and contemporary Westerners is an interesting one.

I used to think in 2 dimensions --everything i read and was told was in 2 dimensions --very occasionally you would hold an item in your hand and explore it 3 dimensionally .
if you allowed it--god would creep up unannounced and speak -- with me it was with simple flowers --i have spent many hours looking/staring/drinking in at great works of art all over the world and after a while god would speak to you --you would connect with the majesty of the painting or in your hand you would quieten yourself and allow the colours of the flowers to heighten your closeness to god as you see that no painter no art gallery has what you have in your hand at this minute --the brilliance and total honesty of the colours with their non gloss magic sheen impossible to render in 2 dimensions by the worlds most sophisticated printer or by the most accomplished painter.
when my small children would turn and look at me and make a sound --where the look and the sound came from was sacred i knew -i was humbled and i occasionally was overcome with the intensity and sometimes fear came and told me if i am not around this child is defenseless against what i was never sure but something intruded and brought that thought to mind .
i met god once when i was 16 --it lasted about 20 seconds and i thought i went mad and i spent years trying to meet him again and even went to India .
after wandering and searching for years i discovered texts which dealt with meeting god in the Upanishads and i studied these for a few years with the help of a teacher .
there was only one line in my bible which allowed me access to god and permission to meet him any time i wished -however this was opposed by my religion which put a pope as head of my church instead of god .
GOD IS WITHIN YOU -- Christ.
nobody should be fearful about talking about their experience with god --as everyone on earth has a different experience of meeting the same entity-
i am too old to be fearful of what people think of me personally -- there is a god -he /it is not owned by any religion.
there is precisely the same amount of god in a member of a lost amazonian tribe who has never heard of a church or religion or pope or queen as in me and as in you --we all have the same amount -religion has nothing to do with it .
thanks be to god .

 

[Anderson]

I believe in it all, especially God and Demons.

I just think we have been made to forget a lot of the darker things because it allows the sick leaders to conduct their business without much suspicion.

 

[AN2]

Do any of you guys believe in Adam and Eve, I mean literally?

There's a guy here who does and who also claims to he an expert on evolutionary theory, can you adam and eve that

 

[Anderson]

Do any of you guys believe in Adam and Eve, I mean literally?

There's a guy here who does and who also claims to he an expert on evolutionary theory, can you adam and eve that

I believe in them more than I do Adam and Steve!

But in all seriousness though, I believe they did perhaps but not in the biblical sense as we are told, it's a chicken and egg thing.

 

[Professor]

Do any of you guys believe in Adam and Eve, I mean literally?

Sure, again it's open to interpretation, we can believe it's an allegory used in establishing the fundamental foundations of their religions, from back then through the ages till literally now and later on to the end of time.

There are various theories on evolution, Darwin's hogs the limelight, but their are other schools of thought on the subject.

It's rarely a black or white issue, is it?

 

[AUL LAD]

Sure, again it's open to interpretation, we can believe it's an allegory used in establishing the fundamental foundations of their religions, from back then through the ages till literally now and later on to the end of time.

There are various theories on evolution, Darwin's hogs the limelight, but their are other schools of thought on the subject.

It's rarely a black or white issue, is it?

that's a wise reply as if it suits you believe .
i as a kid in school got a hiding for questioning this and the hiding was the best thing that ever happened to me --it made me question everything .
i asked a female religious who was one of a team designated to give us a retreat --how could god hire/use an evil snake for his assistant and what was an evil snake doing in a garden of Eden in the first place .
we are told he seduced/charmed eve and it was not his good looks and he had no arms all he had was his tongue--- i thought i was smart with this and she reported me to the brothers who were horrified at the sexual innuendo to a visitor--- i got a hammering and was told i was an undesirable presence in the school and i was on final warning any other incident and i would be expelled .
i silently stewed on the garden of Eden for years later and looked at it from every angle and when i read the Hindu tradition which is written about by WB Yeats who states in his poem WE PLUCKED TILL TIMES AND TIME WERE DONE THE GOLDEN APPLES OF THE SUN -THE SILVER APPLES OF THE MOON.
This was from the tree of knowledge in the Hindu garden of Eden on mount Meru where everyone without penalty or charge can eat from the tree of knowledge for eternity and the knowledge acquired brings you closer to god and that is therefore as good as it gets in the garden of Eden.
why would god restrict knowledge - no god would .
women were stigmatized for being easy to seduce and treacherous and stupid and selfish and had to be punished by suffering monthly pain for their adult lifetime and kept from high office due to their inherent mental deficiencies .
this is reflected in the constant refusal to give them a meaningful role in the catholic church and elsewhere .
the garden of Eden was surely the most evil garden ever thought up by man and had the biggest effect on humanity for all time.
ORIGINAL SIN is defined in theology as HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY try and say that to your missus and see what happens .

 

[AN2]

I believe in them more than I do Adam and Steve!

Amen

There are various theories on evolution, Darwin's hogs the limelight, but their are other schools of thought on the subject.

It's rarely a black or white issue, is it?

There aren't any that incorporate Adam and Eve

women were stigmatized for being easy to seduce and treacherous and stupid and selfish and had to be punished by suffering monthly pain for their adult lifetime and kept from high office due to their inherent mental deficiencies

Based

 

[Professor]

There aren't any that incorporate Adam and Eve

But there are!

Here, have a quick glance at these . . .

Sumer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iron Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, what you have above are timelines, references and records of Mans Spiritual, Technological, Cultural & Civil Evolution's . . . Among other things . . . - Adam & Eve are mentioned around 4004BC.
True, no?

ETA:- Oh, I forgot to include an integral essential development over the 10,000 year period - Agricultural Evolution = The Garden of Eden

 

[Fishalt]

I think a genuinely right-wing view of life needs to be based in a genuine belief in God, deities, souls & spirits.

For instance you always find Leftists saying they don't mind Buddhism of the religions because there are no deities or concepts of God in this religion which is probably not entirely true.

The only way to return to a more agricultural way of life is through faith in God, I think.

This is probably why Islam places so much emphasis on God but also spirits such as 'djinni'. The more supernaturally you think the more likely you are to build a society based on replenishable agriculture.

It depends.

There are basically two main sects of Buddhism; Theravada, and Mahayana. Theravada is highly spiritual and supernatural. Mahayana is not. Traditional Buddhism (Theravada) definitely posits Gods, or at least conceptualizes them. In the diagram below, you will see the Demon Yama, Lord of Death (but also impermanence and change) presiding over the wheel of Samsara (Death and Rebirth). Buddhism posits reincarnation (at least traditionally) and also different types of heaven and Hell 'places' which are arrived at depending on one's karmic expression. These are different from those concepts espoused in Christianity because they are not inescapable. It is possible to rise from hell to heaven or from heaven to Hell, or somewhere in between. The Theravadists believe these realms actually exist. The Mahayanists (especially the Japanese) believe these refer to mind states, and that they don't actually exist.

In the centre of the wheel of samsara you can see a rooster, a pig, and a snake. These are referred to as the 'Three Poisons', and represent ignorance (the pig) desire (the rooster) and hatred (the snake). They are all biting one another's tails, which represents these energies all feeding into one another, cyclically. These energies, or emotional states, are what keep people trapped in the cycle of samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth over and over. For both sects of Buddhism, the crux of what they believe is that suffering arises from the human need to try to attach to, or preserve, the impermanence of existence. Because change is the only constant, becoming attached to the world, and the things in it, and yes even people, is simply going to result in suffering. And it's quite a convincing argument. Who here hasn't looked at a photograph of themselves as a young person, for example, and felt sadness or nostalgia and everything that goes with it, for what is and what has been?

The way out, they say, is to achieve enlightenment. What is enlightenment? Well, it is more or less the ability to see the world as it truly is, the state of true objective reality--the endless rising and falling of things. A state of realization whereby one can see that all is truly impermanent, cyclical, even death itself being a transition, not a finality.

If you look at the top of the diagram, the Buddha in the top right corner is pointing to the moon on the left, the idea being that there is a way to escape the dominion of Yama and the wheel of Samsara. He is pointing to what people refer to as "Nirvana", freedom from the wheel of death and rebirth, and from suffering.

 

[Mad as Fish]

Could be a mini-twister or nothing !

Looks a purely natural phenomena to me, but I can't say what, and if ghosts exist they must also be considered natural phenomena as well.

To my mind it is apparitions and presence that are the real deal when it comes to ghosts, recognisable forms, noises and other activities rather than just blobby lights in the background, as spooky as they may be.

 

[AUL LAD]

It depends.

There are basically two main sects of Buddhism; Theravada, and Mahayana. Theravada is highly spiritual and supernatural. Mahayana is not. Traditional Buddhism (Theravada) definitely posits Gods, or at least conceptualizes them. In the diagram below, you will see the Demon Yama, Lord of Death (but also impermanence and change) presiding over the wheel of Samsara (Death and Rebirth). Buddhism posits reincarnation (at least traditionally) and also different types of heaven and Hell 'places' which are arrived at depending on one's karmic expression. These are different from those concepts espoused in Christianity because they are not inescapable. It is possible to rise from hell to heaven or from heaven to Hell, or somewhere in between. The Theravadists believe these realms actually exist. The Mahayanists (especially the Japanese) believe these refer to mind states, and that they don't actually exist.

In the centre of the wheel of samsara you can see a rooster, a pig, and a snake. These are referred to as the 'Three Poisons', and represent ignorance (the pig) desire (the rooster) and hatred (the snake). They are all biting one another's tails, which represents these energies all feeding into one another, cyclically. These energies, or emotional states, are what keep people trapped in the cycle of samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth over and over. For both sects of Buddhism, the crux of what they believe is that suffering arises from the human need to try to attach to, or preserve, the impermanence of existence. Because change is the only constant, becoming attached to the world, and the things in it, and yes even people, is simply going to result in suffering. And it's quite a convincing argument. Who here hasn't looked at a photograph of themselves as a young person, for example, and felt sadness or nostalgia and everything that goes with it, for what is and what has been?

The way out, they say, is to achieve enlightenment. What is enlightenment? Well, it is more or less the ability to see the world as it truly is, the state of true objective reality--the endless rising and falling of things. A state of realization whereby one can see that all is truly impermanent, cyclical, even death itself being a transition, not a finality.

If you look at the top of the diagram, the Buddha in the top right corner is pointing to the moon on the left, the idea being that there is a way to escape the dominion of Yama and the wheel of Samsara. He is pointing to what people refer to as "Nirvana", freedom from the wheel of death and rebirth, and from suffering.

View attachment 6875

EXCELLENT POST where did you study this material .

 

[Anderson]

Mitochondrial Eve​

• What is Mitochondrial Eve?
  • All humans alive today can trace their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to a single woman who lived in Africa around 150,000–200,000 years ago. She is often referred to as "Mitochondrial Eve."
  • Mitochondrial DNA is passed exclusively from mothers to their children, so her mtDNA lineage is present in everyone today.
• What Mitochondrial Eve Represents:
  • She was not the "first woman" or the only woman alive at her time. Instead, she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans through the maternal line, meaning other women alive then did not pass on their mtDNA to modern humans.

Y-Chromosomal Adam​

• What is Y-Chromosomal Adam?
  • Similarly, all modern men share a common male ancestor, referred to as "Y-Chromosomal Adam," who lived roughly 120,000–200,000 years ago in Africa.
  • The Y-chromosome is passed from father to son, so this individual represents the most recent common ancestor for the paternal lineage.
• Overlap with Mitochondrial Eve:
  • Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve did not live at the same time, nor were they a couple. Their titles are symbolic of their genetic roles.

Shared Genetic Markers

• Genetic Diversity Points to a Common Origin:
  • Genetic studies show that modern humans are surprisingly homogeneous compared to other species, indicating a common origin from a small ancestral population.
  • All humans share approximately 99.9% of their DNA, meaning that the genetic differences between us are tiny and point to shared ancestry.
• "Out of Africa" Hypothesis:
  • Modern humans originated in Africa and spread out around 70,000 years ago. This migration explains the shared genetic heritage of all humans and is consistent with the idea of a single origin point.

Genetic Bottlenecks

• Population Bottlenecks in History:
  • Genetic evidence suggests that at certain points in human history, populations were very small, which would have amplified the effects of shared ancestry. One such bottleneck might have occurred around 70,000 years ago, possibly linked to the eruption of Mount Toba.
  • These bottlenecks might echo the theological idea of humanity descending from a small group.

Unique Genetic Traits Shared by All Humans

• Chromosome 2 Fusion:
  • Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while our closest relatives, chimpanzees, have 24. This is because two ancestral chromosomes fused into one (Chromosome 2) in the human lineage. This unique feature is shared by all humans, pointing to a common ancestry.
• Universal Mutations:
  • Certain mutations are present in all humans, which allows geneticists to trace lineages and estimate the timeline of common ancestry.

How This Relates to the Adam and Eve Narrative​

• Symbolic Alignment:
  • The genetic evidence of a shared ancestry can be seen as aligning with the idea that all humans descended from a single origin, though not necessarily from one man and one woman at the same time.
  • The "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" concepts resonate with the Biblical narrative in the sense of a common point of origin, though they are not direct confirmation of the story.
• Theological Interpretations:
  • Some theologians suggest that Adam and Eve could represent a "spiritual first couple" chosen by God to bear His image and pass on moral and spiritual lessons, while the biological origins of humanity involved a larger population.

 

[AN2]

You self unaware clown.

You rejected catholicism but then took up with secular deities with the same zeal as the most pious rosary clutching superstitious old woman.

Do you not grasp that your own -isms are just as much an invention of man as the God of catholicism? Or that just like the catholics on here you cringe and scrape before a distorted shadow of yourself?

You are the same as them.

Actually I would include science in these secular deities of yours, in the particular way you conceive it (i.e as "scientism" - you regard science less as a tool to help approach a better understanding of the world, as a kind of sacred authority that you may marshall to claim universality for certain of its contemporaneous theories that seem to corroborate your beliefs.)

But the central one is your piety regarding the creed, dogma, deities, and priests of your online "white-ism" (let us call it).

The same type of piety as the horde of "catholics" on here exhibit.

For what accounts for piety?

Answer, an inferiority complex. And if you had to pick out the one psychological element that unifies every idiot posting on Arsefields, it would of course be having a bad inferiority complex.

It is owing to this inferiority complex that on the cloudy vapour of your fears your imaginations throw these vast distorted shadows of yourselves. I.e. The gaseous vertebrate the catholics invented and called God, is not much different to your own deities consisting of a range of "-isms", in terms of the human interactions and human psychology involved.

Does anyone know WTF roc is talking about?

 

[AN2]

You self unaware clown.

You rejected catholicism

Btw, I think if you were to pick one religion I've "rejected" (not entirely sure why considering I've rejected all of them) then you'd think it would be Protestantism.

Pretty sure I've told you this (on more than one occasion) but you never listen to a word I say. I'm just a caricature to you and your addled imagination

but then took up with secular deities with the same zeal as the most pious rosary clutching superstitious old woman.

A secular deity [sic] is not someone who agrees with me ideologically, so yeah, don't know what you're talking about

Do you not grasp that your own -isms are just as much an invention of man as the God of catholicism? Or that just like the catholics on here you cringe and scrape before a distorted shadow of yourself?

You are the same as them.

Actually I would include science in these secular deities of yours, in the particular way you conceive it (i.e as "scientism"

It would really help if you backed up your unmitigated waffle with examples every now and then

'Scientism' is a pejorative used by religious people and you are a science illiterate

- you regard science less as a tool to help approach a better understanding of the world, as a kind of sacred authority that you may marshall to claim universality for certain of its contemporaneous theories that seem to corroborate your beliefs.)

But the central one is your piety regarding the creed, dogma, deities, and priests of your online "white-ism" (let us call it).

The same type of piety as the horde of "catholics" on here exhibit.

For what accounts for piety?

Answer, an inferiority complex. And if you had to pick out the one psychological element that unifies every idiot posting on Arsefields, it would of course be having a bad inferiority complex.

It is owing to this inferiority complex that on the cloudy vapour of your fears your imaginations throw these vast distorted shadows of yourselves. I.e. The gaseous vertebrate the catholics invented and called God, is not much different to your own deities consisting of a range of "-isms", in terms of the human interactions and human psychology involved.

 

[Jay Homer Simpson]

This very week in 2019, I was on a holiday to Sweden, Maybe I died In a plane crash on the way home and woke up after death in a clown world alternative reality ???

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Btw, I think if you were to pick one religion I've "rejected" (not entirely sure why considering I've rejected all of them) then you'd think it would be Protestantism.

Pretty sure I've told you this (on more than one occasion) but you never listen to a word I say. I'm just a caricature to you and your addled imagination


A secular deity [sic] is not someone who agrees with me ideologically, so yeah, don't know what you're talking about



It would really help if you backed up your unmitigated waffle with examples every now and then

'Scientism' is a pejorative used by religious people and you are a science illiterate

roc_ a while back on P.ie was ranting about how not having enough reverence for contemporary Western Science leads to Auschwitz now he is implying that too much reverence for it leads to the same thing. The whole belief in evolution leads to Auschwitz and making a distinction between Science and Scientism in a lazy rhetorical way is much in line with the type of Evangelical Protestant I was raised on so it did surprise me a bit to hear similar from roc_.

 

[AN2]

roc_ a while back on P.ie was ranting about how not having enough reverence for contemporary Western Science leads to Auschwitz now he is implying that too much reverence for it leads to the same thing. The whole belief in evolution leads to Auschwitz and making a distinction between Science and Scientism in a lazy rhetorical way is much in line with the type of Evangelical Protestant I was raised on so it did surprise me a bit to hear similar from roc_.

Of course, if one of the two of us could be accused of 'scientism' then surely it would be him

Whether that's related to fake pandemics, climate change, the social sciences (includes race denialism) and so on

 

[AN2]

Listen you demented senile old freak - if you make up any more shit about me, pull one more clown like imputation like that out of your decrepit shriveled old ass, and I shall pick up the phone tomorrow and arrange it so your deciding officer looks in depth into your claim. No other warning, just do it one more time, claim some illiterate drivel about me, without a complete citation of what I wrote, and you're going to FO as the kids say.

LMAO

The tuff guy act really doesn't suit you

Jambo, you complete retard.

I am not using the term in the sense that you and the other idiots you argue with online use the term.

I don't use the term

I am using it in the sense of its actual real meaning as used by anyone half way educated who discerns these issues.

You're not even halfway educated and you are a science illiterate

For example, the uncritical copying of the methods of mathematical physics in the equally uncritical belief that these methods are of universal application, and the peerless example for all other scientific activity to follow.

Or claiming the domain of the scientific method is the only possible avenue to deal with questions where facts are uncertain, where stakes are high, values in dispute, decisions needed in the absence of evidence, etc.

Those in thrall to "scientism" to give further examples, rarely understand the limitations of the scientific method, say in dealing with the human body, or dealing with things that are unobservable like atoms, germs, black holes, gravity, or even the process of evolution as it happened in the past etc.

They don't understand that science never ever proves anything as true (beyond mathematical "proofs", but they probably don't understand the implications of mathematical abstractions either).

They don't understand that science is basically just a series of best guesses. They don't understand the crippling mutilations imposed by an objectivist framework, or why it is adopted (for convenience, essentially).

They don't understand the role of the peer community of scientists, or why it exists, for such reasons as that science is never about having certainty and full information about something.

Etc.

Rather they bestow on "science" some character or other of omniscience and omnipotence. - Through ignorance, such as I have outlined above.

That is what we mean when we speak of "scientism", Jambo. And you are guilty as charged.

Still not a single example of my supposed 'scientism'

Most of the science I've discussed here is pretty basic and with les deux flat-earthers & Drooper, who thinks that poking holes in evolution (invariably citing people who believe in it even though he doesn't) somehow supports his God of the gaps pseudoscience

That's not 'scientism'!

 

[Tiger]

Listen you demented senile old freak - if you make up any more shit about me, pull one more clown like imputation like that out of your decrepit shriveled old ass, and I shall pick up the phone tomorrow and arrange it so your deciding officer looks in depth into your claim. No other warning, just do it one more time, claim some illiterate drivel about me, without a complete citation of what I wrote, and you're going to FO as the kids say.


Jambo, you complete retard.

I am not using the term in the sense that you and the other idiots you argue with online use the term.

I am using it in the sense of its actual real meaning as used by anyone half way educated who discerns these issues.

For example, the uncritical copying of the methods of mathematical physics in the equally uncritical belief that these methods are of universal application, and the peerless example for all other scientific activity to follow.

Or claiming the domain of the scientific method is the only possible avenue to deal with questions where facts are uncertain, where stakes are high, values in dispute, decisions needed in the absence of evidence, etc.

Those in thrall to "scientism" to give further examples, rarely understand the limitations of the scientific method, say in dealing with the human body, or dealing with things that are unobservable like atoms, germs, black holes, gravity, or even the process of evolution as it happened in the past etc.

They don't understand that science never ever proves anything as true (beyond mathematical "proofs", but they probably don't understand the implications of mathematical abstractions either).

They don't understand that science is basically just a series of best guesses. They don't understand the crippling mutilations imposed by an objectivist framework, or why it is adopted (for convenience, essentially).

They don't understand the role of the peer community of scientists, or why it exists, for such reasons as that science is never about having certainty and full information about something.

Etc.

Rather they bestow on "science" some character or other of omniscience and omnipotence. - Through ignorance, such as I have outlined above.

That is what we mean when we speak of "scientism", Jambo. And you are guilty as charged.

This is actually a very coherent and well structured post.

Credit it where it’s due.

No surprise that Jambo laughed at it, but Swords laughing too puts her/it into the bin of ignorance.

 

[AN2]

This is actually a very coherent and well structured post.

Credit it where it’s due.

No surprise that Jambo laughed at it, but Swords laughing too puts her/it into the bin of ignorance.

lol Have some self-respect, man

You just complimented him on a post in which he called you an idiot

 

[Tiger]

lol Have some self-respect, man

You just complimented him on a post in which he called you an idiot

Is that right, so where in his reply does he call me an idiot?

 

[Tiger]

Mitochondrial Eve​

• What is Mitochondrial Eve?
  • All humans alive today can trace their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to a single woman who lived in Africa around 150,000–200,000 years ago. She is often referred to as "Mitochondrial Eve."
  • Mitochondrial DNA is passed exclusively from mothers to their children, so her mtDNA lineage is present in everyone today.
• What Mitochondrial Eve Represents:
  • She was not the "first woman" or the only woman alive at her time. Instead, she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans through the maternal line, meaning other women alive then did not pass on their mtDNA to modern humans.

Y-Chromosomal Adam​

• What is Y-Chromosomal Adam?
  • Similarly, all modern men share a common male ancestor, referred to as "Y-Chromosomal Adam," who lived roughly 120,000–200,000 years ago in Africa.
  • The Y-chromosome is passed from father to son, so this individual represents the most recent common ancestor for the paternal lineage.
• Overlap with Mitochondrial Eve:
  • Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve did not live at the same time, nor were they a couple. Their titles are symbolic of their genetic roles.

Shared Genetic Markers

• Genetic Diversity Points to a Common Origin:
  • Genetic studies show that modern humans are surprisingly homogeneous compared to other species, indicating a common origin from a small ancestral population.
  • All humans share approximately 99.9% of their DNA, meaning that the genetic differences between us are tiny and point to shared ancestry.
• "Out of Africa" Hypothesis:
  • Modern humans originated in Africa and spread out around 70,000 years ago. This migration explains the shared genetic heritage of all humans and is consistent with the idea of a single origin point.

Genetic Bottlenecks

• Population Bottlenecks in History:
  • Genetic evidence suggests that at certain points in human history, populations were very small, which would have amplified the effects of shared ancestry. One such bottleneck might have occurred around 70,000 years ago, possibly linked to the eruption of Mount Toba.
  • These bottlenecks might echo the theological idea of humanity descending from a small group.

Unique Genetic Traits Shared by All Humans

• Chromosome 2 Fusion:
  • Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while our closest relatives, chimpanzees, have 24. This is because two ancestral chromosomes fused into one (Chromosome 2) in the human lineage. This unique feature is shared by all humans, pointing to a common ancestry.
• Universal Mutations:
  • Certain mutations are present in all humans, which allows geneticists to trace lineages and estimate the timeline of common ancestry.

How This Relates to the Adam and Eve Narrative​

• Symbolic Alignment:
  • The genetic evidence of a shared ancestry can be seen as aligning with the idea that all humans descended from a single origin, though not necessarily from one man and one woman at the same time.
  • The "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" concepts resonate with the Biblical narrative in the sense of a common point of origin, though they are not direct confirmation of the story.
• Theological Interpretations:
  • Some theologians suggest that Adam and Eve could represent a "spiritual first couple" chosen by God to bear His image and pass on moral and spiritual lessons, while the biological origins of humanity involved a larger population.

I notice that nobody responded to this post.

Just ignored it like the poorly educated gimps that we would expect to ignore it.

Purveyors of ‘scientism’ personified.

 

[AN2]

Is that right, so where in his reply does he call me an idiot?

Are you aware of another group of (religious) idiots I argue with online that excludes you?

 

[AN2]

I notice that nobody responded to this post.

As a biblical creationist, what exactly do you think needed to be responded to?

Just ignored it like the poorly educated gimps that we would expect to ignore it.

Purveyors of ‘scientism’ personified.

 

[Tiger]

As a biblical creationist, what exactly do you think needed to be responded to?

Still, you don’t respond with any scientific objection to the posts claims. Just infantile retorts.

What needs responding to is the mistaken assumption that genetic concepts like Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam somehow contradict the biblical narrative. They don’t. These terms refer to the most recent common ancestors for specific genetic lineages, but they don’t explain the origins of humanity as a whole—and certainly not the origin of life itself.

Your interpretation of these findings assumes the evolutionary framework is the only lens through which they can be understood, but that’s not a given. These concepts merely highlight the genetic unity of humanity—something the Bible affirmed long before science caught up.

What’s most amusing is that your argument leans heavily on a purely materialistic worldview to dismiss a theological one, yet the very premise of shared human ancestry hints at the intentional design of a single, cohesive human family. If your 'science' can’t explain the existence of life, morality, or consciousness without borrowing meaning from outside its scope, maybe it’s your framework—not the biblical one—that needs responding to, however you are incapable of that type of discussion as will be proven by your response to this post.

 

[AN2]

Still, you don’t respond with any scientific objection to the posts claims.

And why might that be?

Take your time

Just infantile retorts.

What needs responding to is the mistaken assumption that genetic concepts like Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam somehow contradict the biblical narrative. They don’t. These terms refer to the most recent common ancestors for specific genetic lineages, but they don’t explain the origins of humanity as a whole—and certainly not the origin of life itself.

Your interpretation of these findings assumes the evolutionary framework is the only lens through which they can be understood, but that’s not a given. These concepts merely highlight the genetic unity of humanity—something the Bible affirmed long before science caught up.

What’s most amusing is that your argument leans heavily on a purely materialistic worldview to dismiss a theological one, yet the very premise of shared human ancestry hints at the intentional design of a single, cohesive human family. If your 'science' can’t explain the existence of life, morality, or consciousness without borrowing meaning from outside its scope, maybe it’s your framework—not the biblical one—that needs responding to, however you are incapable of that type of discussion as will be proven by your response to this post.

 

[Tiger]

And why might that be?

Take your time

Well here’s the thing. I’m not responsible for your ignorance or inability to respond to something. Maybe you grow a pair and talk for yourself.

 

[AN2]

Well here’s the thing. I’m not responsible for your ignorance or inability to respond to something. Maybe you grow a pair and talk for yourself.

Bzzt.. Wrong!

The correct answer is - because I don't have any particular scientific objection to the post

 

[Tiger]

Bzzt.. Wrong!

The correct answer is - because I don't have any particular scientific objection to the post

So, is that your immature way of saying that all humans came from 2 parents?

 

[AN2]

So, is that your immature way of saying that all humans came from 2 parents?

No

Who are the "parents" (or should I say parent) of the first humans?