a reply to: Raggedyman
You obviously missed this bit where I said:
English is not my first language, so if I have phrased things in a way which comes across as offensive, please be aware that it was not my
I did not intend to attack anybody. Do you really view any religious questioning as a personal attack?
Truthfully that image looks like a normal human, not some monkey ancestor, can you prove its not a homo sapien?
As you can see by this reconstruction, the skull of Homo heidelbergensis is very different from the skull of Homo sapiens:
Here is the skull of heidelbergensis:
For comparison, here is the skull of Homo sapiens:
Heidelbergensis was very widespread, with fossils being found in Africa, Asia and Europe. It was first identified in 1907. It is an ancestor of
Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans.
There are several bipedal hominids which preceded homo sapiens, as well as the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo florensiensis which lived
concurrently with modern humans.
The difference between Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis is really, really obvious. Come on.
Also you make some simple yet fundamental errors, maybe the earth was created for us, that's why it is like it is.
What exactly was my error? If the earth was created for us, then why weren't we the first inhabitants? Why was the Earth occupied for millions upon
millions of years by other creatures?
Did you ever wonder why planets are roughly spherical in shape? It's because they are formed by the accretion of matter formed by gravity. Here, this
site explains it quite nicely in layman's terms:
How Do Planets Form?
You see, planets are not made explicitly for humans. They are formed by the motion of physics.
Do you believe that all fossils are a big hoax, and that evolution is all a nasty lie? If so, no amount of evidence I throw at you will change your
mind. I can't force anyone to accept scientific facts, or anything that they don't choose to believe. I'll tell you this though - often, creationists
and such will refer to things like evolution as being only a "theory" and therefore is of dubious veracity. What they don't realise is that the term
"theory" differs in meaning in a scientific context than in a conversational context. I'll put this in bold so hopefully you'll pay attention to it:
A scientific theory is not merely an idea - it is a commonly accepted explanation that is supported by credible and rigorous studies, with results
being able to be duplicated in multiple studies.
Religion isn't the only issue regarding conflict, greed is a major issue as well, but hey that doesn't support prejudice
I did not say that religion was the only
cause of global conflict. Can you see how it is a factor? Have you heard of groups like the Islamic
State, who use religious reasoning to justify violent acts? Of course religion isn't the only factor in war, but it is a significant one. I'm from the
USSR, a regime which favoured atheism, and I know damn well that religion isn't the cause of all the world's problems.
The reason I mentioned religion in regards to conflict, and not politics and economics, is because the post was about the nature of God, not the
nature of government. I don't want to discuss global economics and governance here, I was hoping for an intelligent response concerning the nature of
God - not so much the existence of God, but the manifestation of God/s.
As I said, I did not intend to offend anyone. I am certainly not prejudiced against anyone's religion. I myself am not an atheist, although I do not
adhere to any established faith (I have my own thing going on). It really is sad that you consider any alternative spiritual and existential
viewpoints as threats against your religion. This is what kills progress.
Just another I am better than you thread
Hahahha, okay I've had fun picking apart your inane post, I was looking forward to getting to this bit. From this particular statement of yours I can
only infer that you're quite insecure. I most certainly do not think I'm any better than anyone else, and did not in any way (intentionally) devalue
Is this really how you see everyone who questions the nature of God? You haven't rebuked any of my points, nor have you contributed anything. All
you've done is exactly what I asked people to refrain from doing, which is to take personal offence and take up arms rather than engage in rational
debate like adults.
You know else doesn't allow religious debate? Terrorists. Go to Syria and try being a Christian there, or even just interpreting the Qoran a little
differently and see how much fun you have. Nobody should get so aggressive when someone raises a few questions.