Shamans. Plural. Similar experiences between them within the same cultural group led to more structured forms of belief. And while their experiences varied somewhat from culture to culture, the evidence points to a lot of commonalities between groups. Similar imagery, similar processes. Read Inside the Neolithic Mind for more detail.
"Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup
The Christians may have put the books together creating ''the Christian Bible'', but the information which make up the texts aren't ''Christian'' (namely the O.T. and the gospels). My questions pertain to either radical Christian interpretations that go against the ''mainstream'' ideology, or non-Christian interpretations who are able to use other sources of scriptoral, astrological, historical, and naturalistic scientific analasys, as a basis for their comprehension. jan.
weg, I'm not questioning your faith. You said post 21 was preaching, but upon reading it I was baffled as to how you thought so. If anything it is a variation on the ontological proof for God's existence, not a sermon. You believe in God, and here is a proof of His existence (according to the statements). Now if you don't think this is a proof, then state why and even give account of your reasons, that is the purpose of these discourses. Instead you take a very familiar route (athiest) as a pretense in the dismantling of this argument, by totally rubbishing it. In your cas,e by saying it is preaching/evangelising, reminiscient of Sunday shool, and therefore should not be taken seriously. Isn't that what everybody does (one way or another) including yourself. You say post 21 is preaching, therefore shouldn't be) taken seriously, as it goes against the rules of these forums. But it's not preaching, it is logical claim for God's existence, whether you agree it is, or not. So what you're in effect saying is, anyone who takes this preaching seriously, is wrong for doing so (even if only in relation to this site). Are you referring to this... jan.
How so? Presumably all of the N.T. was written by folks we would call Christians. What value does a fringe person such as an astrologer have to offer over a mainstream person, such as a theologian?
So, there isn't actually anything you can tell me that would give me reason to reject the idea of primordial soup? And, that would be because it is you who doesn't know anything about biology and chemistry, or even understand the idea behind primordial soup? It is actually you who is speculating?
I'm awaiting arauca to do that for us, he/she is the one who brought it up. Obviously, that would mean he/she understands it and has taken the time to refute it.
What would you expect from an atheist. At that time they had purged ( 1924 ) the bulk of open minded scientists.
I thank to our friend Aqueous Id, by posting primordial soup link,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup. By the way since you apparently are good in Chemistry , would you help me in my new post : How do you build a polyamide chain in aqueous system. Then we can talk some more about primordial soup
LOL? And, you are in possession or have access to a multimillion dollar laboratory to do such things? Wow, when will believers ever be honest about anything? :facepalm:
