George Floyd Mural Destroyed by Lightning.

Post Reply New Topic

Whether you want to take the Genesis account literally with choosing to eat a fruit isn't the point. Human nature is flawed and pretty detestable, and is in need of setting right.

Can't be done. Human nature will always be detestable.

Scientists have a very good idea what the original Adam (our collective ancestor) looked like



I'm afraid it will give conservative christian MAGAs nightmares
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... uncovered/

I hope the MAGAs poop their pants in terror over that!

You won't get an argument from me on that.

Who doesn't know that?
Jesus wasn't a whitie either.

Last edited by Pepe on 23 Jul 2021, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm just replying to bump grandpappies image a few more times

This is the kind of thing the anti-CRT folk would like to ban from the curriculum because (coincidentally) they also object and probably protested evolution, (Now we know why )

I doubt many of those who "protest evolution" would really care what those who belive in it have to say on the subject of what the "original Adam" looked like.

In fact, a large portion would likely be quite satisfied to see that the "original Adam" resembed the image supplied - Given a belief in creation would likely require a belief that the "word of god" (scriptures) be taken (at least in part) literally, and the bible (specfically the "old testament") covers more than merely the various branches of christianity (Judaism and Islam are also based upon this, for example), and with Christianity being a global religion, there would be a large portion of the global population who would likely welcome seeing the image.

Looking at the 2014 Pew "Religious landscape study" in the USA, the Jehova's Witnesses (74%) are the most likely to believe that "Human's always existed in the present form" (creation), followed by "Evangalical Protestant" (57%), Mormons (52%), "Historically Black Protestant" (45%) and Muslims (41%). [1]

Interestingly, there is not a huge difference between the "Democrats" and "Republicans" in terms of taking everything in scripture literally - which is the closest to a link between political views and a belief in creation\evolution that I could find there - (38% of those who believe this were\leaned Democrat, 44% were\leaned Republican), or only taking certain portions literally (38% of those who believe this were\leaned Democrat, 46% were\leaned Republican), as well as Females being more likely than males to believe scripture is the word of god (literally, partially literally, other\don't know how literal. Males were more likely to believe scripture is not the word of god, with an equal split for other\don't know). [2]

Above taken from: [1]https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-human-evolution/ and [2]https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/interpreting-scripture/

Certainly an interesting set of results, that may not necessarily align with the common stereotypes many perpetuate...

Why would this "Adam" image give Conservatives nightmares? They are no more racist than Progressives.

Speaking of taking scripture "literally"
One must apply the Literal Principal of Biblical interpretation while reading scripture. That is to take the individual passage in the sense that it was written. It may be instruction, history, poetry, prophecy, ect. Rather than taking it in a strict literal sense that would lead to many misinterpretations and distortions.

Damm, Adam is ripped.Just look at that six-pac.

Than why do so many conservatives fly the blue line flag? Its not a secret that that's a racist symbol these days. No such thing as blue lives...least not on this planet.

According to those who believe in a god, they believe the old testament says not have any graven image before him. Still, those pesky prophets talked about hearing from their god that things like this would happen. This is second natural phenomenon. Just a few months earlier, in the Galapagos Islands, the ocean washed away Darwin's arch.

It isn't a racist symbol to Law Enforcement. (Some of who happen to be black) Its a symbol of support for police.
Just because the ADL or SPLC says it is doesn't make it so. They were even trolled not too long ago into making the "OK" hand gesture into a racist symbol.

It's not a racist symbol, it's just a pro-police brutality symbol. See Sweetleaf, that's much better.

Who is most likely to be on the receiving end of police brutality?