I don’t even know if anyone is looking for the religious gene. So I don’t think I said they would find it as in someone was looking for it.
So if I found a post of yours where you predicted a religion gene will be found, what would you think of that? How would you explain that you are saying almost the opposite here?
Lausten, I think you know what UV is. We have went over that UV theory sometime back.
I don’t want you to care about what genetic scientist I talk to. You missed the point entirely. The point was this is a very interesting subject and a history changer. You are trying to make it about me. Either you are interested in the subject matter or not.
I know what domestication and UV mean, you are trying to make up theories about them with no evidence. You are the only one saying there is no proof that humans domesticated animals. You are the one who has some theory about how this relates to the Bible. That’s the conversation you say I can’t keep up with but I keep telling you the problem is, there is nothing to discuss. You have not presented anything worth discussing. I’m not trying to “make it about you", I’m telling you to quit interrupting other discussions and trying to say everything is about your little theory.
I don’t even know if anyone is looking for the religious gene. So I don’t think I said they would find it as in someone was looking for it.
So if I found a post of yours where you predicted a religion gene will be found, what would you think of that? How would you explain that you are saying almost the opposite here?
Lausten, I think you know what UV is. We have went over that UV theory sometime back.
I don’t want you to care about what genetic scientist I talk to. You missed the point entirely. The point was this is a very interesting subject and a history changer. You are trying to make it about me. Either you are interested in the subject matter or not.
I know what domestication and UV mean, you are trying to make up theories about them with no evidence. You are the only one saying there is no proof that humans domesticated animals. You are the one who has some theory about how this relates to the Bible. That’s the conversation you say I can’t keep up with but I keep telling you the problem is, there is nothing to discuss. You have not presented anything worth discussing. I’m not trying to “make it about you", I’m telling you to quit interrupting other discussions and trying to say everything is about your little theory.
Yes and I still predict a religious gene will be found. But you said “they" are looking for it. I don’t know what you are talking about. I also predict man will walk on mars. But don’t assume that I am saying there are people head for mars right now today.
Again, you are missing the point. I am not saying humans did not domesticate the animals. Of course they did. But we have no proof of what branch of humans. Just assuming is bad science, just like the UV theory.
RE: the bible. I said pre-history Genesis, which is a long time before the bible. What I am saying is that if man was domesticated. Then the pre-history Genesis were science books. The Bible just used pieces of the old Genesis story to make the fairy tale that ended up in the OT.
I didn’t say “they”. We can’t have a discussion if you don’t read words.
The rest is just adding more confusion to your already confused theory. You are saying less and less as you go. You are saying there was “science” in a time when there was barely any language. Sure, people used logic and reasoning and even a very rudimentary version of the scientific method a long time ago. That really doesn’t tell us much. It has nothing to do with Americans knowing much about religion.
At what point do you stop believing in Santa Clause? Or the tooth fairy? Can’t you realize that there is something drastically wrong at a worldwide level for this this type of behavior to call it a belief system, it has been going on for to long now? Logic or science doesn’t make a dent, it has reached a level of total stupidity. Do a computer search on Behavior patterns and genes. The shoe fits.
I don't buy the "it's all in the genes" bit. The first argument that comes to mind is, if genes control things to that extent, how is it possible for identical twins to have different behaviors or beliefs?It is possible because each individual organism (including organisms who share essentially the same genes) responds to it's unique exposure to contingencies. Of course that capacity, ultimately, is a product of one's genetic makeup.
"Nature v. Nurture" is typically a specious argument, unless the argument is about the relative influence on a behavior.