In total there are 25 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Good grief, "Flying Spaghetti Monster"?bluet wrote:I think all religious books should be open for discussion equally, we could include the Qu'ran, the Torah, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Vedas, etc.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as logical as many Christian beliefs, if not more so. At least the Spaghetti Monster consistently uses her noodly appendage to ensure that reality is compatible with whatever her adherents like to claim, which is more than can be said for some other faiths. Leave Dianetics and the Book of Mormon for the fiction section, at the bottom of the pile.Suzanne wrote:Good grief, "Flying Spaghetti Monster"?bluet wrote:I think all religious books should be open for discussion equally, we could include the Qu'ran, the Torah, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Vedas, etc.
I second this: "no" to a Christian forum, "yes" to the evolution of religious thought. I will put in a plug here for Robert Wright's The Evolution of God. I'm not familiar with Murdoch.Robert Tulip wrote: The Vedas are worth reading, and in my opinion are more illuminating than the Koran or Torah, putting those younger faiths into an older context. I'm interested in the evolution of religious thought, potentially going back to the genetic Adam and Eve in Africa, and looking at the comparison between Indian texts and those of the A-brahamic faiths against a long time horizon.
What does this mean? Specifically, what do you mean by the word "genetic?"potentially going back to the genetic Adam and Eve in Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/999030.stmChris OConnor wrote:What does this mean? Specifically, what do you mean by the word "genetic?"potentially going back to the genetic Adam and Eve in Africa
__________ 08 Jan 2010 05:50 __________Monday, 30 October, 2000, 22:05 GMT
Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'
The study confirms the Out of Africa hypothesis
The most recent ancestor of all males living today was a man who lived in Africa around 59,000 years ago, according to an international team of researchers.
The scientists from eight countries have drawn up a genetic family tree of mankind by studying variations in the Y chromosome of more than a thousand men from different communities around the world. The Y chromosome is one of the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) which only men carry (women carry two X chromosomes).
The new research confirms the Out of Africa theory that modern humans originated in Africa before slowly spreading across the world.
But the finding raises new questions, not least because our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one.
The team believes there is an explanation. They propose that the human genetic blueprint evolved as a mosaic, with different pieces of modern DNA emerging and spreading throughout the human population at different times.
Origins of man
Evidence from the fossil record suggests that modern man originated in Africa about 150,000 years ago, before moving steadily across the globe.
This Out of Africa hypothesis has been confirmed by studies of mitochondrial DNA, the segment of genetic material that is inherited exclusively from the mother.
Based on these studies, our most recent common ancestor is thought to be a woman who lived in Africa some 143,000 years ago, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve.
To find the common paternal ancestor, the team drew up a genetic family tree of mankind. They mapped small variations in the Y chromosomes of 1,062 men in 22 geographical areas, including Pakistan, India, Cambodia, Laos, Australia, New Guinea, America, Mali, Sudan, Ethiopia and Japan.
The new genetic family tree supports the Out of Africa scenario. But it suggests that our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one.
Regions of the genome
"You can ultimately trace every female lineage back to a single Mitochondrial Eve who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago," said Dr Spencer Wells of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, UK, who was part of the team.
"The Y chromosome we trace again back to Africa but the date is about 80,000 years ago.
He told BBC News Online that the two studies could be reconciled. "There's a different evolutionary history for each region of the genome but they all are consistent in placing the ancestor of all modern humans alive today in Africa."
The research, published in the journal Nature Genetics, gives an intriguing insight into the journey of our ancestors across the planet, from eastern Africa into the Middle East, then to southeast and southern Asia, then New Guinea and Australia, and finally to Europe and Central Asia.
Some modern-day men living in what is now Sudan, Ethiopia and southern Africa are believed to be the closest living descendants of the first humans to set out on that great journey tens of thousands of years ago.
That is Murdock with a k. There is a fine review of Wright's book at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23537 Here is the startDWill wrote:I second this: "no" to a Christian forum, "yes" to the evolution of religious thought. I will put in a plug here for Robert Wright's The Evolution of God. I'm not familiar with Murdoch.Robert Tulip wrote: The Vedas are worth reading, and in my opinion are more illuminating than the Koran or Torah, putting those younger faiths into an older context. I'm interested in the evolution of religious thought, potentially going back to the genetic Adam and Eve in Africa, and looking at the comparison between Indian texts and those of the A-brahamic faiths against a long time horizon.
By the way, as is well known, Her Pastafarian Mediumness is always cooked medium (al dente) to Her True Believers, but is too hard or too soft for baddies.Robert Wright is not afraid to think big thoughts. Wright, who contributes regularly to a host of magazines including Slate and Time and who edits the Web site Bloggingheads.tv, has written several intellectually ambitious books. In TheMoral Animal (1997), for example, he considered the young (and controversial) science of evolutionary psychology. And in Nonzero (2001), he offered a heady tour of human history and argued that ideas from the mathematical field of game theory reveal how much of that history was driven by the mutual benefits that accrue from human cooperation. In his latest book, Wright takes on an even grander subject: religion. In The Evolution of God, he both surveys the history of religion and, more important, offers a new theory to explain why this history unfolded as it did.
According to Wright's theory, although religion may seem otherworldly—a realm of revelation and spirituality—its history has, like that of much else, been driven by mundane "facts on the ground." Religion, that is, changes through time primarily because it responds to changing circumstances in the real world: economics, politics, and war. Wright thus offers what he emphasizes is a materialist account of religion. As he further emphasizes, the ways in which religion responds to the world make sense. Like organisms, religions respond adaptively to the world.
More formally, Wright argues that religious responses to reality are generally explained by game theory and evolutionary psychology, the subjects of his previous books. Subtle aspects of the human mind, he claims, were shaped by Darwinian natural selection to allow us to recognize and take advantage of certain social situations. The most important of these—and the centerpiece of Wright's theory—are what game theorists call non-zero-sum interactions. Unlike zero-sum games, wherein one player's gain is another player's loss, in some games both players can win; hence "non-zero-sum." The classic example is economic trade. In a free market, trade occurs when both parties benefit from exchange (otherwise they wouldn't engage in it).
Here you go. A generic "Religious Books" forum wouldn't be too bad an idea I guess, since the current religion forum is more for general discussions than the books specifically. I think this new forum would fit in quite well with the "Additional Fiction Book Discussions", e.g. a subforum like the ones for horror or romance or what have ya. Another for classical mythology in the same area would be an asset too.stahrwe wrote:My suggestion is for more than just a forum to discuss the Bible, I would like to see an area where Christians and people of other faiths too can discuss books.
This is offensive. Because Booktalk doesn't match your vision of what it should be, it must be wrong and condemned to being "a small site with a narrow focus"?stahrwe wrote:This also gets to the heart of what Booktalk.org wants to be. Is it going to remain a small site with a narrow focus, or a major forum? In my opinion Booktalk.org has the potential to be big, but not if you keep running off your customers.
