Is religion biologically ingrained?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Teaching children to think for themselves and to question everything would be an aim but it might interfere with a lot of their education.

Teaching children critical thinking and rational analysis IS a very important part of education.

Any teacher who demands "blind unquestioned belief" and who doesn't welcome questioning, should be fired imo.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is religion biologically ingrained in the human brain? Is that a reason why many are religious/spiritual?

Does my question make sense?

Like, what if spiritual homo sapiens had survival advantages such as emotional comfort?

It is worldwide and spontaneous happening in isolated cultures as well as in connected cultures. Beyond that all is interpolation, until human brains are understood and human thought fully simulated. That will be a scary thing, however. Perhaps I don't want to know.

 

[Viker]

Genetic factors
More on genetic factors.
.

 

[Apostle John]

LOL

So all the buildings and temples older then 6000 years were build by whom?
Leprechauns?

And the hundreds, if not thousands, of human fossils much much older then 6000 years came about how? Planted there by extra-dimensional unicorns?

Radiometric dating is inherently inaccurate, full of discrepancies and unreliable. Anything dated beyond 6000 years can readily be thrown out because of the flood of Noah making all dating methods corrupt.

Out of curiosity.....

How in your twisted mind, is the technological advance of the past 2 centuries related to how old homo sapiens are as a species?

My mind is quite balanced. You have said homo sapiens are 250,000 years old, the boom in technological advancement in the past 200 yrs frankly makes your dating of the human age look ludicrous.

 

[an anarchist]

My mind is quite balanced. You have said homo sapiens are 250,000 years old, the boom in technological advancement in the past 200 yrs frankly makes your dating of the human age look ludicrous.

You seem to think you are onto something, so explain (you didn't explain here you just reasserted your conclusion)

 

[ChristineM]

Radiometric dating is inherently inaccurate, full of discrepancies and unreliable. Anything dated beyond 6000 years can readily be thrown out because of the flood of Noah making all dating methods corrupt.

Radiometric dating is accurate to less than 5% over 2.5 billion years, much more accurate (Less than 1% error) in the usual range of 100 to 50000 years.
And additional dating methods are often used to validate the original dating method.

The error margin is always given when an item is aged.

The only people who try to spread the "wildly inaccurate" idea are those with a vested interest in woo woo.

Noah's flood didn't happen, there is no evidence whatsoever for such a flood as described in the OT. On the contrary there are several different scientific methods that agree, there was no Noah's flood.

You may however believe whatever you want but when you contradict evidenced science then you have a problem with shrinking gaps

My mind is quite balanced. You have said homo sapiens are 250,000 years old, the boom in technological advancement in the past 200 yrs frankly makes your dating of the human age look ludicrous.

What? I really do not follow your logic here, are you actually using logic or is it guesswork?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Radiometric dating is inherently inaccurate, full of discrepancies and unreliable. Anything dated beyond 6000 years can readily be thrown out because of the flood of Noah making all dating methods corrupt.

It's not just radiometric dating. We even have solid dendrichronoligcal dating - i.e. just counting annual tree rings - that goes back nearly 14,000 years.

And shortening the age of the Earth to ~6,000 years has lots of absurd consequences. For instance, we know that the soils in the Great Lakes region haven't been disturbed (e.g. by a gigantic flood that sat over the land for a year) since the glaciers receded. No issue when we acknowledge that they receded ~12,000 years ago, but it gets awkward trying to fit thousands of years of archaeology into the timeline if you try to date the glacier recession to much later than it actually happened.

And there are the geomagnetic reversals: we can see from the rocks in the sea floor that the poles flip every few million years, on average. Compress even just the ~200 million years of rock in the current sea floor into a few thousand years and you'd have reversals every few decades. Strange that throughout the history of the compass, nobody noticed all the many times that it suddenly started pointing in the other direction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Radiometric dating is inherently inaccurate, full of discrepancies and unreliable

Keep telling yourself that.

Anything dated beyond 6000 years can readily be thrown out because of the flood of Noah making all dating methods corrupt.

Makes no sense.
There's nothing about water that makes dating methods unreliable.
And secondly, that mythical flood never even happened.

You have said homo sapiens are 250,000 years old

At least 250k years old, is what I actually said.

, the boom in technological advancement in the past 200 yrs frankly makes your dating of the human age look ludicrous.

You're just repeating your claim.
I asked you to explain it.

The boom in tech advancement only occurred because the scientific method was developed.
It has nothing to do with how old or young homo sapiens is.

 

[Apostle John]

What? I really do not follow your logic here, are you actually using logic or is it guesswork?

It’s actually very logical when viewed with a balanced mind, with all reliable documented history and no theoretical nonsense going back millions of years.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Makes no sense.
There's nothing about water that makes dating methods unreliable.
And secondly, that mythical flood never even happened.

But remember: this wasn't just regular water; this was special, magical flood water dispensed by God from "windows in Heaven"... i.e. special hatches in the solid dome of the sky.

There's no telling what that sort of water is capable of.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But remember: this wasn't just regular water; this was special, magical flood water dispensed by God from "windows in Heaven"... i.e. special hatches in the solid dome of the sky.

There's no telling what that sort of water is capable of.

Hmmmm, you might be on to something.
Perhaps that is also the water that should be used for dilution in homeopathy...............
That also requires water with magical properties.

My o my, it all comes together now!!!

 

[ratiocinator]

Radiometric dating is inherently inaccurate, full of discrepancies and unreliable.

Bare assertion. The evidence says you are wrong.

Anything dated beyond 6000 years can readily be thrown out because of the flood of Noah making all dating methods corrupt.

Comical double standard. You won't accept the strong, overwhelming for radiometric dating yet you accept an old book of myths as literally true without the slightest hint of objective, supporting evidence.

You have said homo sapiens are 250,000 years old, the boom in technological advancement in the past 200 yrs frankly makes your dating of the human age look ludicrous.

Your reasoning is...... missing.

 

[Apostle John]

But remember: this wasn't just regular water; this was special, magical flood water dispensed by God from "windows in Heaven"... i.e. special hatches in the solid dome of the sky.

There's no telling what that sort of water is capable of.

Leaching much of your radioactive dating isotopes away, also ruining conditions for uniform decay rates thereby giving you spurious results.

 

[Apostle John]

Your reasoning is...... missing.

And you invent a fairytale story based on erroneous dating techniques.

 

[ratiocinator]

Leaching much of your radioactive dating isotopes away, also ruining conditions for uniform decay rates thereby giving you spurious results.

How, exactly, do you think plain old water manages to do that? Or are you actually agreeing that it was magic water?

And you invent a fairytale story based on erroneous dating techniques.

Another bare, evidence-free assertion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Leaching much of your radioactive dating isotopes away, also ruining conditions for uniform decay rates thereby giving you spurious results.

Spurious... but spurious in exactly the same way across all radiometric dating methods regardless of the substances involved?

Spurious... in a way that aligns with non-radiometric dating methods?

That's some feat.

 

[Apostle John]

How, exactly, do you think plain old water manages to do that? Or are you actually agreeing that it was magic water?


Another bare, evidence-free assertion.

You weren’t able to offer anything to prove radiometric dating was nothing but flawed in conversations yesterday. Yesterday, with the ‘evidence’ you provided, it was noticeable scientists thought rocks behaved like closed systems in the natural environment but when the scientists chip/knock, drill a piece off and take it back to the lab, the sample suddenly behaves like an open system and isotopes can be extracted.

 

[an anarchist]

@Apostle John I really can't tell if you are being serious or are a master troll

 

[PureX]

Is religion biologically ingrained in the human brain? Is that a reason why many are religious/spiritual?

Does my question make sense?

Like, what if spiritual homo sapiens had survival advantages such as emotional comfort?

No, but the inclination to ask the questions that drive us to invent gods and religions certainly is "programmed into" our genetic design.

 

[Apostle John]

Spurious... but spurious in exactly the same way across all radiometric dating methods regardless of the substances involved?

Spurious... in a way that aligns with non-radiometric dating methods?

That's some feat.

You can’t date rocks by stars and stars by rocks, that’s tautology and is the same for any dating procedure you come up with, it will all be circular reasoning.