Health and Religion

[Astargath]

So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Religion discovered truth and science

"Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

''Religion discovered truth and science '' Did it really, did god specifically told people in the bible about the scientific method?

''When we had little understanding of our world, we needed something to hold on to, to explain the phenomenons we couldn't understand, so we made up a lot of believe systems, some of which evolved into what we now call religion. This was long before man had any understanding of how to to explain these phenomenons by investigating, experimenting and proving what one thinks.

All religion when it was conceived was meant to be peaceful and make people aware of their responsibilities towards one another. Sadly people misused it all the time for all kind of reasons, e.g. to obtain control over the population, power, greed etc. Historically speaking the clergy sadly have often condoned this, or even were active in promoting this misuse of religion.

Usually religion requires it's followers to adhere to unproven dogma's, which is OK with me since belief is something that can't be proven, and if it gives you strength and guidance, by all means, follow it.
What I object to is the insistance of some to convert the so called non believers, sometimes by coercion or by force.

Because of this religion has often in the past stood in the way of scientific advancement, because what scientists found didn't fit the dogma. Just think of Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal...

Everything we have archieved what makes our lives better, more enjoyable and easier has not come to us through religion, like Jon Davis and William Jackson wrote, but through science e.g. technology, economic development, healthcare.
Fundamentalistic religion has even made life less enjoyable for it's followers, as enjoying life would be a sin!''

https://www.quora.com/Does-religion-slow-down-human-advancement-in-science-and-technology

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

[Astargath]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

For example:
Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general.

Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work.

Same with God, from the scientific standpoint.

The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood.

Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right?

The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God.

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

[sathi7890]

religion reproductive health care Ombudsman motherhood reproductive health refers to overall wellness in reproduction.

[Astargath]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

For example:
Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general.

Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work.

Same with God, from the scientific standpoint.

The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood.

Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right?

The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God.

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

[CoinCube]

All religion when it was conceived was meant to be peaceful and make people aware of their responsibilities towards one another. Sadly people misused it all the time for all kind of reasons, e.g. to obtain control over the population, power, greed etc. Historically speaking the clergy sadly have often condoned this, or even were active in promoting this misuse of religion.

Usually religion requires it's followers to adhere to unproven dogma's, which is OK with me since belief is something that can't be proven, and if it gives you strength and guidance, by all means, follow it.
What I object to is the insistance of some to convert the so called non believers, sometimes by coercion or by force.

Because of this religion has often in the past stood in the way of scientific advancement, because what scientists found didn't fit the dogma. Just think of Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal...

Yep, that's us humans for you. We lie, we cheat, we oppress, we seek power over others. Point to any human institution be it economic, scientific, or religious and you simply need to scratch the surface to expose the corruption we introduce. Religious institutions are in no way immune. They are composed of flawed individuals too.

In the Catholic church during the middle ages the corruption got to the point where it was selling permission to sin in the form of indulgences. The corruption was so severe that believers in the church could no longer overlook the hypocrisy and broke away in open rebellion thus the Protestant Reformation.

Galileo certainly was treated very poorly by the Catholic church but he was no saint himself. He refused to marry the mother of his three children making them illegitimate which was a big deal back then. Despite being a wealthy and powerful man, acknowledging illegitimate daughters would have presumably been embarrassing and inconvenient for him. It would also have probably been costly and difficult to find them good husbands. So instead he opted to sent them away at the tender ages of thirteen and twelve respectively to live in a covenant for the rest of their lives. A very harsh fate for a 12 year old when it is imposed not voluntarily chosen. Galileo was human too a good scientist but very human.

Religion discovered truth and science

"Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

''Religion discovered truth and science '' Did it really, did god specifically told people in the bible about the scientific method?

Yes it did or at least that is my belief. The grounding of reality in the divine and the acknowledgement that truth is divine sets us on a quest to seek the truth. Science is nothing more then a formalized and systemic attempt to seek truth. Its prerequisite is the belief and certainty that there is a truth worth seeking.

Friedrich Nietzsche one of the most devastating critics of institutional Christianity that every lived felt this way, as does Jordan Peterson today. Somewhere upthread I posted an eloquent argument by John C. Wright where he makes this case as well. I find the arguments these thinkers put forward persuasive but you will have to make up your own mind.

[timadok911]

self-development is the most important benefit for our brain, when the brain develops in different directions, it becomes flexible for different situations and will be able to tell you interesting solutions to the way out of the crisis. learn, read, listen, watch, discuss on different topics, your brain loves such work))

[Escan0r]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

[BADecker]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.



All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

For example:
Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general.

Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work.

Same with God, from the scientific standpoint.

The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood.

Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right?

The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God.

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok.

Did you miss my little word "how" that you quoted? Did you not see the part where I said, "If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God." Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it. And you can't even think enough to recognize the answers to your questions, even when you copy them to rebut the things I say. You are proving that you are devolving.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Since there is only devolution, why should there be any modern changes made in ages old religions? They have always had the best. If they didn’t, they would have been gone long ago.

However, the religion of science has found things out, many of which just aren’t true, although people often believe them: BB Theory, Black Hole Theory, Age-of the earth ideas, etc., many things. Such things are religion since people believe them, but don’t realize that they are not true.

When you believe religions of science to be true, your health is affected negatively when you place your trust in them. The only reason your health might be affected in good ways is, the ability of your mind to use placebo effect regarding your health, is the thing that makes you healthy even though you have beliefs in the false religions of science. After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody. So, it is a false religion.

Health and religion go hand in hand. It's just that many people have an imprecise or incorrect understanding of which religion is affecting their health, and how.

[Astargath]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

[Astargath]

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok. Did you miss my little word "how" that you quoted? Did you not see the part where I said, "If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God." Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it. And you can't even think enough to recognize the answers to your questions, even when you copy them to rebut the things I say. You are proving that you are devolving.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Since there is only devolution, why should there be any modern changes made in ages old religions? They have always had the best. If they didn’t, they would have been gone long ago.

However, the religion of science has found things out, many of which just aren’t true, although people often believe them: BB Theory, Black Hole Theory, Age-of the earth ideas, etc., many things. Such things are religion since people believe them, but don’t realize that they are not true.

When you believe religions of science to be true, your health is affected negatively when you place your trust in them. The only reason your health might be affected in good ways is, the ability of your mind to use placebo effect regarding your health, is the thing that makes you healthy even though you have beliefs in the false religions of science. After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody. So, it is a false religion.

Health and religion go hand in hand. It's just that many people have an imprecise or incorrect understanding of which religion is affecting their health, and how.

''then BB is God.'' The definition of the big bang is clearly not the definition of god in the bible, I don't see how you can say that if the big bang was real then the big bang would be god, the big bang would be the creator of the universe but the big bang is not a sentient being let alone an omniscient omnipotent one.

''Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it.'' But you are smarter than all of them and you do know, right?

''After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody.'' Fallacy. After all if religion knew what it was doing and was inspired by God it would cure everybody, right? Science has cured infinitely more people than religion because religion has cured 0 people. As I said before, do you go to a church to pray when you are sick or do you go to your doctor? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what religion has found out in the last 5000 years.

[BADecker]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

You can clearly see the differences:







Your B.S. tables are simply a science fiction story. They are a religion that distracts from reality. They are destroying the health of people simply by getting people to believe in falsehood.

Health and religion.

[Astargath]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

You can clearly see the differences:







Your B.S. tables are simply a science fiction story. They are a religion that distracts from reality. They are destroying the health of people simply by getting people to believe in falsehood.

Health and religion.

You can go to museums and check the fossils for yourself unless you are saying all of them are fabricated.

[BADecker]

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok. Did you miss my little word "how" that you quoted? Did you not see the part where I said, "If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God." Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it. And you can't even think enough to recognize the answers to your questions, even when you copy them to rebut the things I say. You are proving that you are devolving.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Since there is only devolution, why should there be any modern changes made in ages old religions? They have always had the best. If they didn’t, they would have been gone long ago.

However, the religion of science has found things out, many of which just aren’t true, although people often believe them: BB Theory, Black Hole Theory, Age-of the earth ideas, etc., many things. Such things are religion since people believe them, but don’t realize that they are not true.

When you believe religions of science to be true, your health is affected negatively when you place your trust in them. The only reason your health might be affected in good ways is, the ability of your mind to use placebo effect regarding your health, is the thing that makes you healthy even though you have beliefs in the false religions of science. After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody. So, it is a false religion.

Health and religion go hand in hand. It's just that many people have an imprecise or incorrect understanding of which religion is affecting their health, and how.

''then BB is God.'' The definition of the big bang is clearly not the definition of god in the bible, I don't see how you can say that if the big bang was real then the big bang would be god, the big bang would be the creator of the universe but the big bang is not a sentient being let alone an omniscient omnipotent one. - Precisely why BB is not real.

''Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it.'' But you are smarter than all of them and you do know, right? - Obviously, I and a lot of non-scientific people are way smarter than a lot of scientists.

''After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody.'' Fallacy. After all if religion knew what it was doing and was inspired by God it would cure everybody, right? - Religion is curing everybody, one way or the other. The only religion that offers the cure to eternal life that people are asking for, is the Christian religion - Jesus salvation. The rest of the religions, including the religions of modern science, are offering the "cure" of damnation that the people are asking for by believing them. Science has cured infinitely more people than religion because religion has cured 0 people. - Placebo effect has cured more people than science could ever think of curing. God has cured many people in the various religious communities. Science has cured essentially none, since science uses things of nature that God palced there to do the curing attempts that they do. As I said before, do you go to a church to pray when you are sick or do you go to your doctor? - Absolutely church, but at least prayer to God, however, if I went to the doctor, it would still be God, not the doctor, doing any good work in me. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what religion has found out in the last 5000 years. - Religion has found that it is right, because Bible prophesy has been proven out to be accurate.

You are way off base.

[BADecker]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

You can clearly see the differences:

http://footage.framepool.com/shotimg/qf/477698726-yellow-cab-work-trip-traffic-light-sidewalk.jpg

https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net/video/thumbnail/NW0fQmiOgijpqxr6o/nyc-crowd-street-people-new-york-city-late-1940s-1950s-vintage-film-movie-3549_bumdbgtl__F0000.png

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gettyimages-907601562.jpg

Your B.S. tables are simply a science fiction story. They are a religion that distracts from reality. They are destroying the health of people simply by getting people to believe in falsehood.

Health and religion.

You can go to museums and check the fossils for yourself unless you are saying all of them are fabricated.

You can't seem to get it through your head that it isn't the existence of fossils that is the point. The point is the interpretation of where they came from and why they exist. The story about the fossils is the fiction, not the fossils themselves.

[CoinCube]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what religion has found out in the last 5000 years.

Modern science arose from a very specific value system. Without that value system it could not have developed. If that value system is abandoned it will not be sustained. Here is a short but eloquent essay on the topic from John C. Wright that I mentioned earlier.

Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendom
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/

The list of inventions created in the Middle Ages would exhaust the patience of an historian. I will mention only in passing a few off the top of my head: the stirrup, the spur, the horse collar, the horse shoe, the wheelbarrow, the chimney, the paper mill, windmills, escapement and clockworks, the pointed arch, the flying buttress, the jib sail, the stern-mounted rudder, the button, the steel crossbow, the quadrant, the almanac, the hour glass, the eyeglass, oil paintings, and most important of all, the university.

While all cultures, even the most primitive have learning, and all civilizations have scholars, only the Christians ever invented the university, an self governing institution solely devoted to the investigation of the trivium and quadrivium. It is not coincidence that to this day the terms used for logical syllogisms and logical fallacies are in Latin; it is no coincidence that the scientific names for everything from beasts to chemicals is in Latin, the language of science.

One of the astonishing things I discovered after my conversion, or at least, it was an astonishment to me, was that nearly everything I knew about history was false. When England and Germany broke away politically, religiously and culturally as much as they could from the rest of the European civilization, they did their level best to rewrite and reinterpret history into a revised form that denigrated all the accomplishments of the universal and ecumenical catholic Christian Church, and offer alternate explanations or alternate origins for her accomplishments.

Under this revised history, or, to be precise, mythology, the Roman Empire fell due to the invasion of virile outer barbarians racially distinct from the Imperial civilization, and everything from free elections to chivalry toward women sprang from the barbaric rather that civilized sources.

Moreover, according to this mythology, the Middle Ages were a time of magic, when men burned witches; whereas the previous Hellenic civilization was a time of enlightened investigation of the natural world, a time of logic and philosophy.

Allow me to quote from my fellow science fiction writer and good friend Mike Flynn:

The philosophers of the “Age of Reason” called the Middle Ages the “Age of Faith,” and claimed that because “God did it!” was the answer to everything, no one searched for natural laws. Some have since imagined a “war” between science and religion, and accused the medievals of suppressing science, forbidding medical autopsies, and burning scientists. Bad times for science and reason!

Or was it? In fact, the Middle Ages were steeped in reason, logic, and natural philosophy. These subjects comprised virtually the entire curriculum of the universities. The first medical autopsies were done in medieval Europe. And no medieval philosopher was ever prosecuted for a conclusion in natural philosophy. In his twelfth-century Dragmaticon, William of Conches wrote, “[They say] ‘We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.’ You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.” Not even the “Age of Reason” could have said it better.

Well, the most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.

The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.

The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.

The people the Church persecuted were not scientists. She upheld and supported the sciences—it was not the secular power, after all, that funded and founded the universities, that was all done by the Church. The people the Church persecuted were astrologers and alchemists. By clearing the strangling underbrush of magic away, the Church is the only thing that permitted science to exist at all.

The Church crushed astrology to allow astronomy to flourish. The oldest astronomical observatory still in use anywhere in the world, significantly enough, is the Vatican observatory.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.

Allow me by way of introduction to quote again from the indispensable Mike Flynn

To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:

The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being,
This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard),
Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:

Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which:
Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.

The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

[CoinCube]

You can go to museums and check the fossils for yourself unless you are saying all of them are fabricated.

You can't seem to get it through your head that it isn't the existence of fossils that is the point. The point is the interpretation of where they came from and why they exist. The story about the fossils is the fiction, not the fossils themselves.

We should be very careful not to overstate our understanding of reality.

In the persecution of Galileo discussed upthread. The religious institutions in his time were so attached to their authority and interpretation that they lost sight of the fact that they were abandoning and suppressing truth rather then strengthening it. Similarly the scientism of today often falls in love with its own "wisdom" making bizarre and often false claims on reality.

When I wandered into the flat earth thread some time ago there was a guy arguing that the earth must be flat because of his interpretation of biblical passages.

The earth could indeed be flat I replied but if it was then humans and the entire universe are probably also flat. I then provided him links to holographic theory which interestingly enough cannot currently be disproven and actually could be true.


Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

We humans have such an infantile understanding of the universe that we cannot even prove whether we are flat or not. I find that amusing.

[Astargath]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

You can clearly see the differences:

http://footage.framepool.com/shotimg/qf/477698726-yellow-cab-work-trip-traffic-light-sidewalk.jpg

https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net/video/thumbnail/NW0fQmiOgijpqxr6o/nyc-crowd-street-people-new-york-city-late-1940s-1950s-vintage-film-movie-3549_bumdbgtl__F0000.png

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gettyimages-907601562.jpg

Your B.S. tables are simply a science fiction story. They are a religion that distracts from reality. They are destroying the health of people simply by getting people to believe in falsehood.

Health and religion.

You can go to museums and check the fossils for yourself unless you are saying all of them are fabricated.

You can't seem to get it through your head that it isn't the existence of fossils that is the point. The point is the interpretation of where they came from and why they exist. The story about the fossils is the fiction, not the fossils themselves.

So what do you think the interpretation is lol, it's quite clear to me. We know they are human fossils and we have found many of them, we can also date them.