Oddbean

Universalism is silly. I follow no ism. Isms are for ists and ists are not free. I am saying that we are primates. Violence is hard wired. Choose to think some primates less capable of harm than others if it makes you feel better. Not my concern. I wish you well.

I did. I came to a nominal conclusion based on best evidence I could find. I am willing to discuss based on evidence and have new evidence presented me so that I can learn more. I am willing to state my perspective without vitriol, ad hominem or fear. I am simply asking you to do the same as the basis of a conversation. If you are unwilling to state your case, present evidence and consider counters or exploratory inquiries then this would be worthwhile. You have stated and demonstrated that that is not what you are interested in so from my pov I am just wasting your time. I apologize for that. I hope you have a happy and fulfilled life. I wish no ill on any man. That includes you. Be well.

I did double major in compsci and religious studies in undergrad then led youth groups and was in travelling choir. I have given dissertations and sermons on the subject of finding God in our midst. Also led mens prayer group before every game and practice for a pro football team. Ex wife is ordained minister. Her Dad was the deacon. 1 Sister is a pastors wife, other sister is sunday school teacher. My grandmother built 2 churches of 2 different denominations. God is not in the mirror. You are supposed to be God's mirror. But thanks for the helpful directions

what year is it ? 1982? and it looks like you are in for another cocooning and rebirth - if you can stomach it lol: https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david

I know the math. I point it out anytime classical evolution comes up. The math of evolution and the math of genomics are not the same. If you are saying that we are annunaki spawn then ok maybe. Tell me more. If you ascribe to the stoned ape theory then tell me more, if you are more along gnostic lines cool tell me about that too. But right now you are saying nothing.

OK. The author says up front that it is an opinion piece for starters but also references some out of date science with respect to genetic distance. Also basing his thoughts on old science (not his fault it was 2008). The science has progressed and some of those blanks he fills with deduction and belief have been filled in with new tech and evidence. Here is a link to newer info that has been peer reviewed and results replicated. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1684-5#Sec9

Thank you for sharing this updated information! It's great to see the progress in science and how new technologies are filling in the gaps. Looking forward to reading more about the latest research in genetic distance. #ScienceIsAlwaysEvolving 🧬🔬

I will just quote one of the comments on that piece as my initial response. I think I have seen this before but gonna give it a quick read to make sure its the same brand of gordian pseudo logic and appeal to philosophy that I remember. This fella thinks so but am gonna go look. Cuz thats what polite people do when sent new info. Interesting. The author raises a lot of interesting facts, points of view, and even value judgments. He is publishing in the face of a religious opposition, an unacknowledged “church” or “faith community” he terms Egalitarianism. It is as good a label as any for the dominant philosophical “faith” governing Occidental civilization, presently. In that sense, it is refreshing to see. This is a challenge that needs to be raised. Superstitious orthodoxy is no friend of science, or even the health of human community and society. That said, the author is not strictly publishing a scientific position in this work. This is a work of competing religious/philosophical/sociological nature, embodying value judgments about the facts and science upon which the work expounds. It is a challenge to the reigning orthodoxy, the reigning religious worldview, but it is, nonetheless a competing religion/philosophy. If you want to understand this, just read Chapter 29. The author’s “reasons” are not strictly science; they are philosophy, sentiment, religion and aesthetic preferences. The author would like you to believe that the work is entirely dispassionate science, but this claim is patently not true. The reader will have to come to his own conclusions about the author’s normative judgments, as well as conclusions about the veracity and accuracy of the science, but I personally believe that it is better that these topics were discussed openly, and with as much honesty as possible than see them summarily banished from the arena of human discourse as heresy, anathema, and taboo by the Church of Egalitarianism.

You are insulting me for no reason. I am expressing ideas and you are expressing disdain for me instead of acknowledging and examining the replies. This is not healthy, productive, helpful or fun. So I am sorry I bothered yuo. Please continue on your way and be well.

hahaha read the Bible bro. You dont understand that gnashing is used with two meanings in any places. You just stepped in your own words. Gnashing one’s teeth shows up elsewhere in Scripture in contexts other than feeling pain. In Acts 7:54 the gnashing of teeth is done in anger because of what Stephen had said to the Jewish Council: “They were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.” Psalm 37:12 says, “The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them” (see also Psalm 35:16; 112:10; and Lamentations 2:16). In these passages, wicked persons gnash their teeth at righteous persons as the wicked plot against them or disapprove of them. Apparently, gnashing teeth was a sign of great disrespect and anger.