Jump to content

Recommended Posts

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Y'man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > HAL9000 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Indeed, modern science has identified a

> > > mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Line Adam amongst

> our

> > > genetic ancestors.

>

> > Your source please Hal.

>

> I've added links above that identify the principal

> sources in this field of study.


Wikipedia, Hal? Sorry, that won't cut it. You could have written it.

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HAL9000 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > I've added links above that identify the principal

> > sources in this field of study.


> Wikipedia, Hal? Sorry, that won't cut it. You

> could have written it.


That is exactly why I made the point that my links "identify the principal sources" - the Wiki pages link through to the original scientific research papers - unless you suspect that I wrote all of them too? Clue: See the footnotes and/or references sections.

"As to whether that is far fetched to you depends on your faith. I find the mathmatical probability of life evolving far- fetched - more chance of me winning the lottery and never buying a ticket (no comments about that please before you all start on me, lol) - so you have to make a personal decision as to what you will believe after a careful search."


I may not have quite got that one. Are you saying the bible is true because it's simply more plausible?


Gosh.


Not sure what people can turn up in a search? I guess people could search their soul, and find it's more convenient to run with the Bible stuff?


That doesn't mean it's true. People choose to believe stuff every day because it's convenient - battered wives and cuckolds. It's not true though.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cripes - is prison that boring? Incest not

> outlawed until time of Moses. See Leviticus.


I just noticed this comment. I've looked through and can find no mention of prison anywhere, to what or whose remark, do you pertain?

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My apologies, Hal, if I said something to make you

> feel a little threatened, it wasn't intentional.

> Why the flippant remark at the end there?


No apology necessary. If anything it is I who should apologise. I was just trying to reflect the humour in your post. I tend to sound a bit robotic on email - hence my choice of screen name. No offence perceived or intended on my part.

An interesting observation from a Times article cited on another thread:


Followers of Padre Pio believe he exuded "the odour of sanctity", had the gift of bilocation (being in two places at once), healed the sick and could prophesy the future.


The divine gift of bilocation is yet another example of Quantum Mechanics appearing within Judaeo-religious ideas. 'Being in two places at once' describes what scientists today might call a Quantum Superposition!

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You mean you started a controversial thread and

> didn't read it? Isn't that known as flaming? ;-P


Well I don't know about controversial! I have read a good deal of it and posted on occasions too. But there are only two possible answers to the question, yes or no. Of course if you say 'yes' you have to define god for those who don't know god. That's a bit difficult. If there is a god I would suggest he/it is beyond being defined in terms of the limitations of language. A bit like how to describe the taste of an apple for example to someone who has never tasted one.


Not sure what 'flaming' is but please PM me when you've arrived at the answer. I am interested...........honest!

Depends what you mean by the question.


Are you asking: Is the universe somehow more than the sum of its parts? If so does that constitute a god? If so what is a god?


Or are you asking: Is there a big man with a white beard sitting on a cloud who has the pope on speed dial?

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> despite > europe's best minds for a thousand years having

> dedicated their lives to theology and yet still

> came up with many many differences in

> interpretation,


Obviously they were not some of the best minds, lol, otherwise they would have ditched the theology bit.



> You say the bible isn't incomplete and any

> interpetation is only there for those who want to

> twist it's meaning for their own ends, but in the

> following sentence you go on to interpret why

> there is an implicit acceptance of incest until

> Leviticus outlaws it.

> If it wasn't incomplete wouldn't the bible have

> had a few more begats to fill in the gaps and said

> 'yes they were related but I bestowed them with

> genetic diversity, and once there were enough of

> you I stopped interfering and made incest rather

> unhealthy to your genetic disposition'?

>

> I can't find those bits in the complete bible,

> clearly I don't understand it ;)


Wasn't 'Adam had sons and daughters' enough to complete the picture? I meant it's complete in the sense it gives you what you need to know, not that it spells out everything in out child friendly format.



P.S I do agree with you that the mitochondrial DNA in itself is not conclusive evidence of an Adam and Eve, although it does at the very least support the account.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "As to whether that is far fetched to you depends

> on your faith. I find the mathmatical probability

> of life evolving far- fetched - more chance of me

> winning the lottery and never buying a ticket (no

> comments about that please before you all start on

> me, lol) - so you have to make a personal decision

> as to what you will believe after a careful

> search."

>

> I may not have quite got that one. Are you saying

> the bible is true because it's simply more

> plausible?


No. I'm saying that the mathematical probability of life evolving by chance is far-fetched compared to life having a powerful designer. (I thought I said no comments on this).


> Not sure what people can turn up in a search? I

> guess people could search their soul, and find

> it's more convenient to run with the Bible stuff?


Trust me. It is never more convenient to run with the bible stuff.

> That doesn't mean it's true.

No it doesn't. But I know which horse I'll back with the same odds.


People choose to

> believe stuff every day because it's convenient -

> battered wives and cuckolds. It's not true though.


What like evolution?

I've never heard anything so ridiculous as someone saying something spectacularly contentious and then forbidding comments on it. What on earth gave you the right to dictate what people could or couldn't comment on? I take it you were joking.


Let me rephrase to again request your clarity - you called evolution far-fetched by comparison with God.


If you're struggling with definitions, let me enlighten you: far-fetched means "unconvincing, unlikely, strained, fantastic, incredible, doubtful, unbelievable, dubious, unrealistic, improbable, unnatural, preposterous, implausible"


And the antonyms (for comparison - and of course by implication your characterisation of God) are: "possible, likely, reasonable, acceptable, realistic, authentic, credible, probable, plausible, feasible, imaginable, believable"


Do I understand you're backing 'God' based on the odds? You don't have to work the odds on evolution, you can watch it in action.


If long-term scales are making you confused, you can just as easily make short term observations of disease resistant bacteria or fruit flies. Unlike God in action, which is a matter of faith.


Or do you simply close your eyes when presented with immutable facts, hug your rosary, and plead to the heavens to rid you of Satan's work?


(light hearted musing... or are you just a troll?)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week
    • Hello, I was wondering if others have had experience of roof repairs and guarantees. A while back, we had a water leak come through in our top floor room.  A roofer came and went out on the roof to take a look - they said it was to do with a leak near the chimney.   They did some rendering around the chimney and this cost £1800 plus £750 for scaffolding (so £2,550 total).  They said the work came with a 10 year guarantee. About a year later, there was another leak on the same wall, which looked exactly the same size and colour as the previous leak. But it was about 2 metres away from it, on the other side of a window.  I contacted the roofer about this new leak, thinking it would be covered by the guarantee. However, he said the new leak was due to a different and unrelated problem, and so was not covered by the guarantee. This new leak, he said, was due to holes in the felt underneath the tiles. He said there are holes in the felt all over the roof (so if this was the cause, I expect the first leak may have been caused by that too - but he didn't mention the holes in the felt for the first repair). It feels like the 10-year guarantee doesn't mean much at all.  I realise that the guarantee couldn't cover all future problems with the roof, but where do you draw the line with what's reasonable?  Is it that a leak is only covered if an identical leak happens in exactly the same place?  There were no terms and conditions with the guarantee, which I didn't question at the time.  
    • I always like Redemptions coffee though I've not visted for awhile..Romeo Jones was always my 1st choice for takeout Coffee Redemption 2nd. What IS with all these independent Yoga and Pilates Studios? Theres one on London Rd in Forest Hill (Mind) thats recently opened and then theres the Pilates place thats opened on North X Road. I looked at the prices of the one on NorthX road and was frankly shocked at how expensive it is, The FH one is slightly less.  Made me decide to stick with classes in The local authority gym
    • Dulwich Village update: The old DVillage location is (again?) under offer. The storefront next to the new grocer is going to open as a yoga and pilates studio...the name of which I've forgotten. 🤦‍♂️  Megan's is starting to push its takeaway coffee and cannibalise some of Redemption Coffee's market share. Is Megan's struggling? It's quite a big restaurant they have and rent cant be cheap. The reinventing of the Megan's branch on Lordship Lane as Ollie's seems to have stalled. And Redemption is looking a bit tired these days...
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...