The Faith & Religion mega Thread

There is, or at least can be, a massive difference between capacity to learn, "smartness", and expertise. There can be no doubt that the child Isaac Newton was just as smart as adult Isaac but the difference in expertise is due to study, research and training. There simply is no substitute any more than an auto mechanic can be effective without training and tools.

Simply put if you or one of your loved ones was in a horrendous automobile accident would you rather have them worked on by some really smart bystander who had spent hours every day studying scripture, let alone a really bright but primitive native "witch doctor", or someone who had graduated in the upper 25% of med school?

Paleontology requires similar appropriate and multi-skilled research, training, and experience. I don't know what Mr. Hovind's IQ is, but it is irrelevant since I do know he has no relevant research, training and experience in Paleontology. He is no more qualified to identify ancient skeletons than the bystander or the "witch doctor" or for that matter even a theoretical physicist since even his "smarts" and his training and expertise is not in an appropriate field. You likely wouldn't hire even a Master Plumber to fix your TV set or your loved one's broken bones.

Given Mr. Hovind's track record I certainly wouldn't hire him for tax advice or marriage counseling, let alone Paleontology.

Originally Posted by mrmazda There was and is only one human kind, roughly 6,000 years old, continuing to date, all descendants of Ad'am and No'ah.

Actually in 2023 we know of at least eight different types of ancestors within the family of humans. In fact we know that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Sapiens even shared the same living space, interacted and interbred in more than a handful of locations.

Originally Posted by mrmazda To "live with dinosaurs" doesn't necessarily imply they lived with or near the seriously bigger ones than the giants they were.

Before the invention of firearms even a half dozen wolves were an extremely serious threat that few would survive more than an hour when attacked. A single big cat can easily take down even an armed human. Nevertheless one's odds of survival would be substantially higher with attacking wolves or pack of lions than with a half dozen Velociraptors that commonly stood less than 6 feet tall and weighed less than 50 pounds.

Originally Posted by mrmazda The cause of that pesky crater could have been the cause of the shaking of the fountains of the deep and instigating the death of the moisture canopy protecting the earth, and keeping oxygen density higher than we now have, that enabled the relative giantism, turning it into torrential rain.

"Fountains of the deep", whatever that entails, doesn't account for the shocked quartz and iridium we know are associated with meteorite impact. To create a 150km diameter crater required the energy in excess of thousands of Hiroshima bombs. No amount of oxygen can overcome the cube-square limitations on how large a specific architecture can support and be mobile. If you could somehow increase an ant's size to the size of an elephant it would collapse under it's own weight. A bumblebee with a 12 foot wingspan could not fly. Humans taller than 9 feet tall is an untenable design. Scale matters.

Originally Posted by enorbet "Fountains of the deep", whatever that entails, doesn't account for the shocked quartz and iridium we know are associated with meteorite impact. To create a 150km diameter crater required the energy in excess of thousands of Hiroshima bombs.

We only know what we think we know about what happened before men began record keeping. "God said ... and it was so."

Originally Posted by enorbet Nevertheless one's odds of survival would be substantially higher with attacking wolves or pack of lions than with a half dozen Velociraptors that commonly stood less than 6 feet tall and weighed less than 50 pounds.

Significantly less than 6 feet - what Jurassic Park called Velociraptors were actually based on Deinonychus in all but name...

Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor#Cultural_significance Velociraptor is commonly perceived as a vicious and cunning killer thanks to their portrayal in the 1990 novel Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton and its 1993 film adaptation, directed by Steven Spielberg. The "raptors" portrayed in Jurassic Park were actually modeled after the closely related dromaeosaurid Deinonychus. Paleontologists in both the novel and film excavate a skeleton in Montana, far from the central Asian range of Velociraptor but characteristic of the Deinonychus range. Crichton met with the discoverer of Deinonychus, John Ostrom, several times at Yale University to discuss details of the animal's possible range of behaviors and appearance. Crichton at one point apologetically told Ostrom that he had decided to use the name Velociraptor in place of Deinonychus because the former name was "more dramatic."

Whilst Velociraptors at 14-20 kg were indeed "less than 50 pounds" (~22.7 kg), Deinonychus weighed around 60-100 kg, which puts them between the ~40 kg of Wolves and 110-225 kg of Lions, and I wouldn't want to be the quarry for half a dozen of any of them.

Anyhow, not sure the relevance/point of any of this, but maybe that trivia will help someone in a pub quiz. :)

I've said this before, and my view hasn't changed: I believe unfallen man is more of a future than a past... I think these myths originate from adult people, already settled into sedimentary habits, recollecting childhood as a state before those habits--the innocence of children... And then applying that to society, there must be some innocent phase when society was young and innocent, before it settled into sedimentary customs, many harmful. But because we can conceive of an innocent society--even if it was never a part of our past--it can be part of our future; and with an infinity of tries, it eventually is a part of our future...

I really hope we achieve that part of our future, before we are in @enorbet's bubbles colonizing other planets, bringing along with us all the microorganisms we have symbiotic relationships with... I sure hope our planet is clean of toxins and pollution before we destroy another one...

However, I do appreciate @hazel's interpretation that unfallen man could just order the weeds out of the garden--however, I think he would get fat: I derive much exercise and stretching pulling the weeds from my garden, and kind of even like it. If man were to have such ability (like Bombadil singing to a tree and convincing it to spit out the hobbits), I think, past present or future, it is when the local self and our infinite self share the same agenda. But in general, the local self cannot consciously wrap its local mind around our infinite self's pov, because a local pov is totally different from an infinite pov, and that's why we can't order about our weeds today, or order an ace to be turned over--but we almost can, which is why when trying, the ace comes, but just a few cards too late

Thank you boughtonp for the expanded breakdown on Velociraptor size but just FTR I actually looked up Velociraptor before I wrote that to avoid any fictionalized Hollywood influence since I'm not a paleontologist either. This is what I based size on...

Originally Posted by wikipedia-velociraptor Two species are currently recognized, although others have been assigned in the past. The type species is V. mongoliensis; fossils of this species have been discovered in the Djadochta Formation, Mongolia. A second species, V. osmolskae, was named in 2008 for skull material from the Bayan Mandahu Formation, China. Smaller than other dromaeosaurids like Deinonychus and Achillobator, Velociraptor was about 1.5–2.07 m (4.9–6.8 ft) long with a body mass around 14.1–19.7 kg (31–43 lb). It nevertheless shared many of the same anatomical features. It was a bipedal, feathered carnivore with a long tail and an enlarged sickle-shaped claw on each hindfoot,..

The point was that while visually a 13 foot tall T Rex, or a 4-legged, 6-9 metric ton Triceratops. or any of the "seriously larger" dinosaurs would have been an imposing sight indeed their size would likely have been mainly a hindrance in posing an actual threat to humans, had they/we existed in similar epochs. The larger ones were slow (T Rex could not run) and could not fit into small areas and being large and noisy were detectable at considerable distance so could likely have been fairly easily avoided.

Velociraptor and several other smaller species presented a much more deadly threat being quieter, faster and small enough to get into any area a human could, and they hunted in packs. It may be difficult for modern humans, especially city dwellers, to realize the increased actual threat of smaller animals but truly I'd rather face a half dozen 10 foot long, venomous Komodo Dragons than a pair of bobcats, hyenas or wolverines. Also, aside from intimidation factor, I'd rather face any of them as an agile pygmy than a (fictional but physically slow and clumsy) 13 foot tall giant human with nothing but sticks and stones as weapons.

Bottom Line - It is far more likely that modern humans would have gone extinct had they lived alongside dinosaurs no matter what time frame one imagines, but far more accurately the conditions that spawned dinosaurs were not conducive to spawning great apes. Coexistence could never even have occurred in the first place.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box I think, past present or future, it is when the local self and our infinite self share the same agenda. But in general, the local self cannot consciously wrap its local mind around our infinite self's pov, because a local pov is totally different from an infinite pov, and that's why we can't order about our weeds today, or order an ace to be turned over--but we almost can, which is why when trying, the ace comes, but just a few cards too late

That's Hinduism basically: that we are all actually God playing the equivalent of an immersive video game but have blotted out that knowledge in order to make the game more exciting.

Well, another thing I like about cover crops of weeds that I pull, is that once pulled, the vacant tubes where the roots were are like empty cappilaries down into the soil already dug out for the roots of the summer veggie crop... and it is least amount of disturbance to local microbes... a loosening where they all stay in place.

Different weeds require different strategies: and I have to say, hindu or no, that singing to them does seem to help remove them. The dock weeds send down such a long taproot that if I pull to hard it breaks... there's different grips for differnt species too... but basically with the right grip and the right frequency of wiggle and singing, they let go of the ground and jiggle into my hand. Of course sometimes they break, and I have to claw it up with a hand cultivator... but many frequntly respond to weed whispering... and that's not the weed whispering

Originally Posted by hazel That's Hinduism basically: that we are all actually God playing the equivalent of an immersive video game but have blotted out that knowledge in order to make the game more exciting.

Ah... now I know what I am, thanks Hazel... except that the God that I create in my video game is Jesus. When I go about thinking about Gods and what a good one would be like, I just go back to those red letters, and think: good advice. Can't think of a better God than one that dies for you. Love I reckon is surrender, ultimately. There's no honour in dominating a 3 year old at chess. We figure out a good surrender that builds their confidence, and allows them to win. Likewise with playing with most children--there is a joy to surrender, where you accidentally slip and let them all peg you with water balloons and yell that your melting... more happiness comes to all of them than had you dominated them with grown up force. The morale goes up. Health increases. So it can be that there is a joy to martyrdom. So have I fused it into Christinduism?

Keep taking the tablets, @slac-in-the-box

I actually find two concepts very interesting: (1) "the Son of God," and (2) "the Son of God as Human Sacrifice."

Both of these concepts are actually not(!) unique to the Christian religion. They can be found throughout the world, in various forms, in many traditions. The name of God's arch-nemesis in the Bible, "Baal," can be rendered "Ba'al" or "Ba'el," which literally means "the son of El." (This being one of the many ancient names of what we now simply call "God." Likely their war god.)

Although it is widely believed that the ancient Jews did indulge in "human sacrifice," the only Biblical mention of the practice was in the story of Isaac, where God relented before the deed was actually done. Nonetheless, it is apparent that God's appetite for tens of thousands(!) of burned-up farm animals maybe only went so far . . .

Today's Christian religion is founded upon the idea of "a human sacrifice of a truly-remarkable human," but it is now completely sanitized. You don't have to kill your sheep or goat. You must merely "believe" that the story is true, and structure your entire life accordingly.

(I make the preceding observations entirely without judgment. You are fully entitled to believe whatever you like.)

Originally Posted by business_kid Keep taking the tablets, @slac-in-the-box

I will install slackware onto the tablets that are given to me--but I wouldn't ever take them.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I actually find two concepts very interesting: (1) "the Son of God," and (2) "the Son of God as Human Sacrifice." Both of these concepts are actually not(!) unique to the Christian religion. They can be found throughout the world, in various forms, in many traditions.

Hindis practice blood sacrifice too.

Kill this lamb, or everyone will get sick... maybe they're getting sick from all the decomposing sacrifices?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs "Baal," can be rendered "Ba'al" or "Ba'el," which literally means "the son of El."

This seems to be wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

In the Northwest Semitic languages - Ugaritic, Phoenician, Hebrew, Amorite, and Aramaic - the word baʿal signified 'owner' and, by extension, 'lord',[14] a 'master', or 'husband'.[17][18]

"Son of El" would be "Ben El", or "Bin El" I think.

Ba'al just means lord or master. In the early days of Israel's history it was used as a general title for gods, including Israel's own God. There are several characters who have names ending with -ba'al, just as there are names ending with -iah. For example, King Saul's son and successor was originally called Ishba'al, which is equivalent as a name to Isaiah ("the Lord's man").

But Ba'al was also the name or title of the Phoenician god whom Jezebel worshipped, and he demanded human sacrifices (mostly children). As a result, the name became toxic, and historic personal names that included it were retrospectively altered by changing -ba'al to -bosheth (shame).