Why can't they accept it?

"The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6eE05Q6EJw



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2017 04:45AM by anybody.

That was an excellent documentary. His books are well worth reading also.

Who do you mean in particular? I've not heard much critiqueing on this video. I have seen it several times and find it riveting; almost...

His name is Spencer Wells .

Thanks for sharing. Watched the entire documentary.

Good question; why can't they accept it? Perhaps because it challenges everything that has been handed down from their progenitors and everything they have been taught from childhood.

Science wasn't around until recently to give us better answers. Religion provided the answers. Religious myth answers the big questions, where did I come from, (more importantly) why am I here and where am I going.

Science and DNA studies hasn't answered the last two questions. Religion claims to have the answers to these questions and that still gives people comfort and meaning to their otherwise sometimes mundane and difficult lives.

Ultimately science will serve humanity better and provide better answers than myth but the transition is the hard part.

just the myths and fables.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just the myths and fables.

For my part, quite the opposite:

I'll keep the myths and fables and you can have the faith.


The narrative structures from our past tell a far richer story of our humanness than meets the literalist's eye.

The good news is, we can have both: the stories of genetics and Gilgamesh.

Reality is far more gripping and intense than fables.

You are so right Don.

It's true that Fact is often stranger than fiction. But I still don't know who the OP is referring to that can't accept it?

Probably tbms that believe the earth is only 6000 years old and started with two white people.

and humans evolved from apes.

This we know from modern science.

The difference now is there is a great effort to deny these scientific facts as lies and substitute religious dogma in its place.

My point is that if you want to believe in a supernatural origin for the human race you still can -- without trying to suppress the facts.


Some people, however, will still just prefer the religious fairy tale.

Please don't perpetuate the erroneous position that man evolved from apes. This is not the position of learned scientists. It is far more complicated than that. Humanoids and other bipeds have common ancestries, but not a direct link. I encourage your investigation into this because it is very interesting. In that way you will be better able to represent a more accepted story of the evolution of man.

"common animal ancestor" would be more accurate.

The people that can't accept it are generally referred to as "creationists" and hold that the story of "Genesis" in the Bible is literally true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Surly you must realize that accepting sciences answers effectively refutes religions answers. For example science presents a time scale of millions and billions of years for evolutionary processes to create earth and life upon it rather than a 7,000 year history as accepted by most Christians.

Also, the Book of Mormon narrative of Native Americans originating from Jerusalem twenty six hundred years ago doesn't hold up either. Either Mormonism is wrong or science is. Science is in conflict with most all religions on some point or another and on many points with most religions. I'm sure you know this but your answer to my comments above didn't reflect this.

I've thought about this post a bit and I've come to a conclusion.

Young earth creationism is a real thing but it isn't something that many believe. The same with Biblical literalism. Yes there are some that take the Bible literal in all aspects but they are comparatively few.

The real shame are those who embrace the age of the earth and reject the literal interpretations of the Bible, yet use that same Bible to justify other, more damaging beliefs.

Most of us can chuckle at Ken Ham and his kind and see his strange opinions as amusing. We get to write him off because of the batshittyness of his ideas and actions. He is harmless.

The real harm are those who on the outside are level headed and on the inside denigrate and discriminate using the Bible. These people embrace science and reject bronze age myths. Yet they literally hate others and use their faith and Bible as justification.

Young earth creationism and Biblical literalism are red herrings.

I see this less as religion and more as a display of cultural domination.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've thought about this post a bit and I've come
> to a conclusion.
>
> Young earth creationism is a real thing but it
> isn't something that many believe. The same with
> Biblical literalism. Yes there are some that take
> the Bible literal in all aspects but they are
> comparatively few.

Is 42% "comparatively few?"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Is 42% "comparatively few?"
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creation
> ist-view-human-origins.aspx

Yes, because it's 42% of Americans, who are in turn 4% of the world. It's not 42% of Canadians, Latin Americans, Asians or Europeans, you know.
Creationism is only really a thing in the USA and in the muslim world.
Make that the lower classes of a lot of countries in the muslim world. There are a lot of muslim-majority countries where the majority of the population understand evolution.

"Compared with the U.S., even larger percentages of people in many other countries reject evolution. For example, in Latin America, roughly four-in-ten or more residents of several countries – including Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. This is true even though the official teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority religion in the region, do not reject evolution. Meanwhile, Muslims in many nations are divided on the topic, although majorities of Muslims in countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia and Iraq reject evolution."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

I'm still highly skeptical of that "relatively few" claim. For good reasons (see above).

What about the story of woman?

Yeah, I don't give a crap about political correctness, but I do give a crap about language that excludes half (or more) of human beings, when it's just so darn easy to include them...

"The real story of humans is greater..."

Is that really so hard?

Toss the outdated and misogynistic first two.

Use the more accurate and inclusive latter one :)

Like I said, this isn't about being PC.
It's about being accurate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2017 03:30PM by ificouldhietokolob.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

(In brief, from Sanskrit, meaning "the thinker")

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Toss the outdated and misogynistic first two.
>
> Use the more accurate and inclusive latter one :)
>
> Like I said, this isn't about being PC.
> It's about being accurate.


I adore you Hie.

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I adore you Hie.

Right back at ya :)
Your saucieness has been sorely missed around these parts, by the way!

Then say what you mean. Say "man" if you mean the male half of our species only. Otherwise, say human, humans or humankind.

I once heard an Egyptian atheist and humanist rail against the Muslim Brotherhood and coin a great term in English: "what we need is to develop a siblinghood between all humans, not just between co-religionists".

Siblinghood? Why didn't we think of that before!

Btw, what would you call a humanist? A manist? ;)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Is that really so hard?

I cannot believe it is. We changed "the rights of Man" (as the French called it in the 1790s) to "human rights" thanks to the insistence of Eleanor Roosevelt. Surely we can be consequent on this? I try to say "humankind" or "humans" whenever "man" is shorter and snappier. At least in English and Spanish. My native Dutch has the word "mens" which can be both a "man" or a "vrouw". It is time for English to choose on a term too.

Crazy perhaps, but not a misogynist like the late Phyllis S.

Because they are in denial, in the case of creationists.

It is my sincerely held belief (hehe) that all religious fundamentalists are aware that their religion is pigeon crap, but they are going through the stages of grief.

The creationist trolls who deny evolution are in, well, denial.

The muzzie terrorists who blow up buildings (and the christians who used to kill abortion doctors) are in anger.

The moderate christians who believe in the Bible as a book of allegories, fables, and myths with a deeper lying meaning, not to be taken literally, in other words, the "God created evolution" folks, are in their bargaining stage.

When that house of cards tumbles, they're in depression for a while, and when they accept the marvellous facts that science has discovered, they've reached acceptance.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpg/1045px-Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpg


A friend once told me the only wrong thing with this cartoon was the steps were going the way -- up instead of down :)

Someone said that people used to believe in thousands of Gods, then dozens, then a few, then only one... "So they're getting there!"

It's going to provoke confusion, at least for English language speaker, to change 'manatee' to 'humanatee'.

We might have to go with personatee, or thingatee.

Yeah, other words, too.

"Say, did you see that they found an ancient humanuscript in Turkey last week?"

:)

Must also acknowledge huwomanuscripts! And remember the passage from the movie "Legally Blonde": "The English language is all about subliminal domination. Take the word "semester". It's a perfect example of this school's discriminatory preference of semen to ovaries. That's why I'm petitioning to have next term be referred to as Winter Ovester."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2017 01:51AM by anybody.

There will always be some myopic SJW who'll insist "man-ual labor" should be changed to "person-al labor."

Yes, the real story of man is great and inspiring. But most of us don't sit around and watch documentaries on our TVs every single evening. We also watch made-up stories -- lots of them. We are hard-wired for stories. Many times a made-up story can get a point across better than nonfiction, in the same way that art or music can get a point across better.

Stories like Star Wars or Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings speak to people because they are engaging and have universal truths.

We have God stories as well. These also speak to people. These often (not always) have universal truths. As a board member pointed out above, science does not tell us why we are here or where we are going. That is the province of God stories.

I remember on the original Star Trek series, even the ever-so logical Vulcans still had religion. They did so for cultural reasons, and also likely for the same reasons we do.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> science does not tell us why we are here or where
> we are going. That is the province of God stories.

Lots of other stories (and even a few science facts) let us speculate about why we're here (and where we're going).
Such speculation is certainly not the sole province of "god" stories :)