Religion Debates and Discussions

There were somewhere between 170 million and 400 million people on Earth in 1 AD/CE (whatever, idc). There would have been even fewer before. (http://www.ecology.com/population-estimates-year-2050/). There are upwards of seven billion people on Earth now.
Early humans would have had no way to hunt entire species to extinction. With worse weapons and hunting only for subsistence as opposed to for fun, I see no way that early humans could have hunted that many species to extinction.
Humans were basically just an animal at that point, in terms of population. We came nowhere near the staggeringly large number of people there are today.
Of course, I'm no historian or anthropologist or whoever would study things like that, but until I see some source, I don't see a way that's possible.

 

I don't fully understand what the first point is saying, so I'll address the second:
Saying "superior genes," in this context implies that the genes were somehow above flaw, or different physically in some way, especially when paired with "complex." All genes are complex, but all genes are fundamentally just a series of chemicals in a certain pattern that are read in different ways by other chemicals. If by "superior" you meant that they were better suited to life, that too would be misleading, as all genes are specialized to their unique animal. Genes can exist in multiple animals, but the combinations and subtle differences make then suited to their environment. There's no "immune to incest" gene or combination of genes, and no "less likely to be affected by a bottleneck."
No genes are immune to defect. Everything is flawed to some extent. Genes can be mutated or altered by environmental changes. No genes are above this, by the physical nature of DNA.

 

Again, I'd like a source for this. This claim goes against basically all of what science is, and requires evidence beyond the claim's initiation (outside of the Bible). This could be found remains of bodies that appear to have been alive for far longer than expected, or for there to be generations of early humans that seem to be too few to have survived (would be proof because it would suggest that they lived longer that normal), among other proofs.
Plus, it can't have been only his immediate descendants that would need those genes. It would need to be their descendants as well, and theirs, and theirs... At some point, they could transfer, but it would have to be more than one generation.

EDIT: Fitting that I make the 666th post on the thread :>

 

If this were the case, we would see archaeological evidence of it in the fossil record. We'd see, as I stated, far fewer people than predicted. One possible explanation would be that, in fact, people had lived to be centuries old. This is a testable hypothesis, and I'm in no position to give a definitive yes or no. I've never directly studied fossils for humans (or, for that matter, anything), and I've never done research on the fossil record for humans like I have for other various species. I'd be really interested to see the results of a study like that.

 

you know, theres one thing i never got about christianity.


why do you have to die to go to heaven? why can't heaven be here? i mean it can be possibility.


think about it: we are advanced monkeys polluting a rock thats floating threw space. (war of the planet of the apes 4)

 

aka war of the planet of the apes

 

You're living in a pretty spiky bubble if christians keep telling people outside that "bubble" to go to hell.

 

Gehenna is saying that those outside Christ are damned. He is trying to spread the gospel - so to speak - to bring people to Jesus and thereby save them. You don't have to agree with his beliefs but telling atheists to go to hell is not what he's doing.

i've seen a lot more hostility to gehenna from atheists than him, which is kinda ironic tbh

 

This isn't related to what you said, but I forgot about your posts on this thread.
Which side of the debate did you stand on again? i forgot.

 

He is, however, telling them that they WILL go to hell, if they don't follow his beliefs.

If pointing out craziness and sheer stupidity is hostility, then yeah I'm being more hostile than they are. And I don't apologize for that. I treat creationists like the crackpots they are and although they are victims, in a way, they are also continuing to spread one of the greatest lies in human history and they need to be called out on that.

 

I am a Christian. That's how I was raised and I think there's enough evidence to sustain much of the gospel.

So? Like I said, you don't have to agree with it.

I think creationism is bonkers too but going out of your way to attack people who endorse it is not going to change their mind lol

it took my parents years to be OK with the idea of gay marriage. I don't hate them for that. When they were my age, they were socialized to believe that marriage is only right if it is between a man and a woman. People change, given time

 

Gay marriage, it's different. That's a social idea, it's a view or an opinion and there's no set right or wrong. It's just a moral thing, I suppose. Religion is different. The IDEAS and VALUES that religion teaches are the same, they're morals and views, but the actual basis of religion: the stories and supernatural events, those are absolutely false. My position has always been that once we can get everyone on the same page that all that crazy sht didn't happen, then we can discuss whether the Bible's teachings are actually productive in today's society.

And I don't go out of my way to attack Gehenna, I think he's a nice if incredibly misguided guy. But I don't pull any punches in regards to the ridiculous and moronic stuff he says.

 

what evidence again

 

Personally, I think that using religion to have ill wishes to anybody is a dumb thing to do. I'm not a fan of Trump, but using religion as an excuse to hate him seems ignorant.