Is religion biologically ingrained?

[PureX]

Brain is biology.
It's for thought that enables survival.
Religion is one of the emergent properties.
Like prejudice, government, & crime.
(Atheism is rarer emergent property.
Libertarianism is the rarest of all.)

Atheism is not an emergent property of the brain, but the skepticism that underpins it, is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism is not an emergent property of the brain, but the skepticism that underpins it, is.

Is that niggling little mote the best you could
find to argue over, & imagine eeking out a win?

 

[ratiocinator]

You weren’t able to offer anything to prove radiometric dating was nothing but flawed in conversations yesterday.

Bearing false witness again. Just totally ignoring the evidence you've been given and then pretending that it doesn't exist is not an honest way to behave. It becomes utterly laughable when you then accept baseless mythology without a single hint of the tiniest suggestion of objective evidence.

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.

Misrepresentation. It was explained exactly why we can consider certain rocks to be close enough to being a closed system in the natural environment. It was also explained how they are analysed with the example given of rock samples being ionised using heat. This is not something that happens in the natural environment (and doesn't even happen in the lab except for small samples).

You have also, of course, totally ignored how different dating systems are checked against each other and against non-radiometric methods for younger samples: Non-Radiometric Dating Methods for the Past 100,000 Years. Note that non-radiometric methods blow a hole in your 6,000 year fantasy.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

My only possible answer to that is.

 

[Apostle John]

It was also explained how they are analysed with the example given of rock samples being ionised using heat. This is not something that happens in the natural environment (and doesn't even happen in the lab except for small samples).

You have also, of course, totally ignored how different dating systems are checked against each other and against non-radiometric methods for younger samples: Non-Radiometric Dating Methods for the Past 100,000 Years. Note that non-radiometric methods blow a hole in your 6,000 year fantasy.

Wrong. A chemical treatment was mentioned prior to heating which wasn’t explained. This only shows you cannot weigh evidence up.
Regards the non-radiometric methods stated in your link:-
Dendrology- Tree rings can be multiple annually.
Ice cores- same here as in dendrology with observed data and look, what do you know, they use radioisotopes to date them as well, circular reasoning again. The ice age happened shortly after the flood of Noah.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

As I touched on in the post you jumped over, at this point, I'm just talking about dating 10,000-year-old trees by both annual tree rings and carbon dating.

 

[Apostle John]

As I touched on in the post you jumped over, at this point, I'm just talking about dating 10,000-year-old trees by both annual tree rings and carbon dating.

I’ve answered the problems with these methods in this thread.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Does it matter, given his comments to most sensible people, even if religious will be worthless.

 

[PureX]

Is that niggling little mote the best you could
find to argue over, & imagine eeking out a win?

Are you really this offended by such a minimal correction?

My, aren't we the sensitive one, today!

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you really this offended by such a minimal correction?

Offended, no.
But I like to call posters out when they bicker pointlessly.
It's good sport.

 

[Heyo]

My only possible answer to that is.

View attachment 76351

:creative:

 

[Heyo]

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

Citation needed.


And for your education:

 

[InChrist]

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?

I don’t think religion is biological ingrained in the human brain. I do believe a spiritual desire and need for God the Creator is inherent within every human being because we were created to exist in relationship with our Creator. When that relationship is missing life is messed up.

 

[Apostle John]

Citation needed.


And for your education:

Genesis 7:11. The meteorology of today began from that moment in history.

 

[Heyo]

Genesis 7:11. The meteorology of today began from that moment in history.

You haven't watched the videos, have you?
The first explicitly explains how the flood couldn't have happened with the laws of nature intact. It is a thermodynamic impossibility.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wrong. A chemical treatment was mentioned prior to heating which wasn’t explained. This only shows you cannot weigh evidence up.
Regards the non-radiometric methods stated in your link:-
Dendrology- Tree rings can be multiple annually.
Ice cores- same here as in dendrology with observed data and look, what do you know, they use radioisotopes to date them as well, circular reasoning again.

And the desperate straw-clutching just goes on and on. It really is comical. You desperately search through all the evidence you've been given trying to find something or other that might, in your mind, be a flaw and them use all of these, largely imaginary, 'flaws' to make the bizarre claim that not only do they make all the evidence, form all the different scientific fields involved, wrong, but wrong in exactly the way required so that all the 'false' evidence fits neatly together to give us a consistent view of the history of earth and evolution of life.

So, all the dating methods, all the evidence from genetics, biology, palaeontology, geology, and archaeology all fit together to give a fiction. Of course, if you're also a young earth and universe believer (I don't think you've said), we can add in astronomy, physics, astrophysics, and cosmology all being wrong in just the 'right' way to give a consistent but fictional version of the past.

That would truly be miraculous!

The ice age happened shortly after the flood of Noah.

And what do you want to put in place of all this evidence? An old book of myths with exactly no objective evidence whatsoever, not even the hint of a suggestion of one tiny shred, and plenty of evidence that plainly falsifies it.

 

[Apostle John]

And the desperate straw-clutching just goes on and on. It really is comical. You desperately search through all the evidence you've been given trying to find something or other that might, in your mind, be a flaw and them use all of these, largely imaginary, 'flaws' to make the bizarre claim that not only do they make all the evidence, form all the different scientific fields involved, wrong, but wrong in exactly the way required so that all the 'false' evidence fits neatly together to give us a consistent view of the history of earth and evolution of life.

So, all the dating methods, all the evidence from genetics, biology, palaeontology, geology, and archaeology all fit together to give a fiction. Of course, if you're also a young earth and universe believer (I don't think you've said), we can add in astronomy, physics, astrophysics, and cosmology all being wrong in just the 'right' way to give a consistent but fictional version of the past.

That would truly be miraculous!


And what do you want to put in place of all this evidence? An old book of myths with exactly no objective evidence whatsoever, not even the hint of a suggestion of one tiny shred, and plenty of evidence that plainly falsifies it.

So geologists age the earth to 4.5 billion years using the aforementioned radiometric dating. Who then is in a position to argue with them? How do you know the other fields don’t all work to this figure, which they all do, what’s miraculous about it?

 

[Heyo]

So geologists age the earth to 4.5 billion years using the aforementioned radiometric dating. Who then is in a position to argue with them? How do you know the other fields don’t all work to this figure, which they all do, what’s miraculous about it?

Radiometric dating is a tool used by geologists but that tool was given to them by nuclear physicists. You'd need to study physics, especially quantum flavourdynamics to argue about radioactive decay.
Geologists knew long before the discovery of nuclear decay that the earth had to be at least millions of years old using their own tool (stratigraphy) but even they were surprised by the billions of years earth really is.

Do you know what that is? Dead microscopic animals, coccoliths. Over millions of years their shells sank o the bottom of a shallow sea. It must have been millions of years as there is no way they could have lived all at the same time or even just over thousands of years to form a stack of chalk over 100 m high. This was known since the 17th c.

 

[ratiocinator]

So geologists age the earth to 4.5 billion years using the aforementioned radiometric dating. Who then is in a position to argue with them? How do you know the other fields don’t all work to this figure, which they all do, what’s miraculous about it?

Yet more evasion, missing the point, and ignoring the things you have no answer to.

One of the points is that the various different radiometric and other dating techniques have to match each other when they are applied to the same things, and all of those have to match the biological evidence for evolution, otherwise the whole picture would fall apart. What's more, they have to match consistently across all the different instances where they can be reliably compared. The idea that this could happen if all the techniques are just broken in some way is beyond absurd. Creationists like to witter on about improbability, when they think (wrongly) that they can make a case against evolution from it, but totally neglect the absurd levels of improbability that their preposterous assertions require.

And I'll emphasis the part you are clearly running away from:

And what do you want to put in place of all this evidence? An old book of myths with exactly no objective evidence whatsoever, not even the hint of a suggestion of one tiny shred, and plenty of evidence that plainly falsifies it.

 

[Apostle John]

Geologists knew long before the discovery of nuclear decay that the earth had to be at least millions of years old using their own tool (stratigraphy) but even they were surprised by the billions of years earth really is
Do you know what that is? Dead microscopic animals, coccoliths. Over millions of years their shells sank o the bottom of a shallow sea. It must have been millions of years as there is no way they could have lived all at the same time or even just over thousands of years to form a stack of chalk over 100 m high. This was known since the 17th c.

If that were true which it is not, you have just, in your own words, disproved the Theory of Evolution..