Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 9, 2013 at 2:16 am (This post was last modified: May 9, 2013 at 2:30 am by smax.)
On a final note, I'd like to address the issue of premise in this thread:
As I, and others, pointed out, the use of an obviously false premise is a common practice of non-theists. As evidence, I could reference at least 25 other threads on this site which used the same method to create a discussion. That said, I'm not surprised that some non-theists took exception to the approach. If you can't, at all, relate to religion, it's complete and utter nonsense to you, and the last thing you want to do is provoke it. I get that. However, those who have a religious background, and manage to graduate from it, most likely see things a little differently. From my perspective, almost all of the most important and effective questions a non-theist can pose to a theist, are ones posed from the theist's perspective. Theist's, in general, are suffering from mental illness. You can't just ask them to snap out of it. You have to finesse the situation so that you can expose holes and flaws in their delusion.
For this reason, Theists recognize that the use of a false premise to provoke critical thought, by non-theists, poses a significant threat to their beliefs, so naturally they object and ridicule the approach. As I said, however, those objections have never been an effective deterrent, as many non-theists have and still use the approach to great effect in comedy, parodies, speech, and debate.
In this thread, gods activity was called into question, and theists failed to uphold their position with any of their responses to that question. Instead, we saw deflection, insecurity, and completely ineffective and even dishonest apologetics.
(May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The first one, mated with the previous homo sapiens. In time, the previous species became recessive and faded away, leaving only the homo sapiens sapiens species.
Do you find it hard to think of new species appearing slowly, over the course of many generations? Do you think a new species appears spontaneously from the offspring of the previous one?
I find it very hard to believe that a member of one species can mate with the member of another species since species are defined (biological concept definition) as groups of animals that cannot produce fertile offspring. What gave birth to the first Human though and why was that animal not also Human? Thanks for the response!
Quote:I can't... but if I don't trust them, then what can I do? what can I learn? what am I?
If the Universe is merely matter in motion, how does it make any sense that we should be able to assume we can trust our ability to reason, sense, and remember? That seems to be a huge problem for the naturalist.
(May 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Ah... you're doing it again: you're trying to sneak a conceptual being who was granted hypothetical life on the pages of an internet forum into real life. I don't agree that "God is not dead" nor that he was ever alive.
I never said you agreed that He was ever alive, but a being that never existed cannot be dead (what you believe) and a being that did exist who cannot die is not dead either (what I believe), so as I said, we both agree that God is not dead.
Quote: You can't will a being into existence, so show me the money; how do you know God exists?
He has to exist in order for us to know anything at all, a purely natural, material, and Godless Universe would render all knowledge impossible; so as far as I can know anything at all I can know that God exists.
(May 7, 2013 at 10:48 pm)smax Wrote: I set the trap and you take the bait. I've quietly established an extremely predictable pattern on your part. And, the funny thing is, I warned you that I was going to do just that a couple pages back and you still took the bait.
What trap was that?
Quote: But, yeah, you're my TOOODOOR.
Tudor.
Quote:Scripture claims there is no lineage to Joseph. Or does it? Hmmmm.....
Jews viewed adopted lineages just as important as blood lineages, try to keep up.
Quote:This might be the biggest crock of shit you've produced yet. The NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, KJB (CE) HCSB, ISV, NET, ABPE, GWT, KJV, AKJV, ASV, DRB, ERV, WBT, WNT, WEB, and YLT all disagree with your assessment, which is completely and utterly baseless.
Yes, those are English translations and paraphrases. The Aramaic text uses the word “father” and the Greek text uses a term that can be translated as father or husband, which incidentally is a different word than Luke uses in his genealogy which can only be translated as husband. Matthew is talking about Mary’s bloodline and Luke is talking about Joseph’s (adopted father of Jesus). Nobody in the early Church viewed this as an issue at all because they were quite familiar with the original language.
Quote: Even your selective reasoning with the Aramaic texts is baseless.
No it’s not; the Aramaic text says the bloodline in Matthew is Mary’s father’s genealogy, his name was Joseph and he was the son of Jacob.
Quote: where most of the Atheists here do not have the religious background to call you out on this ridiculous take of yours.
My apologies, but you’re one of the most ignorant atheists on here when it comes to Christianity.
Quote: Oh, and thanks for admitting that Jewish customs and tradition had more to do with the inspiratiion of scripture than your alleged "holy spirit".
Obviously you need to read up on what Biblical literalism is.
Quote:By the way, you're not honest enough to compel me to answer any of your questions. You either won't like or accept the answers, or, as I just learned, you'll make some shit up out of thin air.
I knew you couldn’t answer them, that’s why I asked them.
(May 9, 2013 at 2:16 am)smax Wrote: On a final note, (Bolding added by SW)
Promise?
Quote: As I, and others, pointed out, the use of an obviously false premise is a common practice of non-theists.
You used an obviously true premise though, so this is irrelevant.
Quote: I'm not surprised that some non-theists took exception to the approach.
Nor was I surprised.
Quote: From my perspective, almost all of the most important and effective questions a non-theist can pose to a theist, are ones posed from the theist's perspective.
You seriously think that asking someone how they know that something that logically cannot die is not dead is an effective question? That’s funny.
Quote: Theist's, in general, are suffering from mental illness.
Wrong, the vast majority of people on Earth are theistic, so that by definition is the normal healthy human mental condition. You’re the one who apparently has developed an illness that makes you claim to not believe in the existence of something you know to exist.
Quote:In this thread, gods activity was called into question, and theists failed to uphold their position with any of their responses to that question.
You’re irrationality was called out by several non-theists in this very thread; I do not blame them one bit, you’re an embarrassment to their kind.
(May 9, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I find it very hard to believe that a member of one species can mate with the member of another species since species are defined (biological concept definition) as groups of animals that cannot produce fertile offspring. What gave birth to the first Human though and why was that animal not also Human? Thanks for the response!
It’s beginning to look like atheists really do not understand how Evolution works, I’ve got people trying to tell me that something that was not Human gave birth to a Human and that two different species mated to produce fertile offspring…Neither of those claims are empirically supported.
May 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm (This post was last modified: May 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(May 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote:
(May 9, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I find it very hard to believe that a member of one species can mate with the member of another species since species are defined (biological concept definition) as groups of animals that cannot produce fertile offspring. What gave birth to the first Human though and why was that animal not also Human? Thanks for the response!
That image shows how creationists were created, not how humans speciated.
(April 25, 2013 at 6:46 am)Godschild Wrote: I just spoke with Him.
No, no you fucking well didn't.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
(May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The first one, mated with the previous homo sapiens. In time, the previous species became recessive and faded away, leaving only the homo sapiens sapiens species.
Do you find it hard to think of new species appearing slowly, over the course of many generations? Do you think a new species appears spontaneously from the offspring of the previous one?
I find it very hard to believe that a member of one species can mate with the member of another species since species are defined (biological concept definition) as groups of animals that cannot produce fertile offspring. What gave birth to the first Human though and why was that animal not also Human? Thanks for the response!
ok.... let's see if I can write this while my work computer is stuck trying to plot 99k points in libreOffice.
Evolution 101
or "how a human does not come from a non-human"
I'm going to give you an example of how evolution works, in broad strokes, and I'll probably cram into one or two generations what, in reality occurs over some 10 or 20... and I'm not going to use humans as basis for it, given that they're too complex and the evolutionary edge that sparks an evolution towards that goal is very spread out over many traits, making the argument very complex and you would easily get lost in details.
Instead, I'm going to use birds. Not a specific species of birds, just a generic bird, let's call it A. This bird is well suited to its life in island X.
For some reason (freak storm, or whatever) a sample of these birds arrives at another island, Y, where their beaks are not very well suited to feed themselves, but still manage the job.
So A survives barely and breeds.
At some point, one offspring of an individual A, is born with a slightly larger beak, say, 1mm longer. Let's call this A1.
A1 can breed with A. Given the better suitability of this larger beak, A1 can feed itself slightly better than the rest, so it survives and manages to breed, as if it was a member of A.
A1 breeds with an A mate.
Their offspring will be majorly A and a few A1s.
Over a few generations, you have a few A1s running alongside As.
Eventually, A1s breed with A1s, producing more As, A1s and another bird with a yet slightly larger beak, 2mm longer, let's call it A2.
A2 can breed with A1s and As.
Interbreeding yields As, A1s and a few A2s.
Eventually, we get another bird with slightly longer beak, 3mm, let's call it A3. A3 can still breed with A, A1 and A2.
With each increment in beak size, the species becomes more proficient at feeding in island Y and so these new generations become dominant, due to their better feeding, they are healthier, survive longer, look better, mate easier.
As become less favorable to mate with and decline in numbers, even if they may mate with A3s. A1s and A2s merely prefer to mate with A3s or A2s, instead of As or A1s.
In time, A5 appears in island Y. A5 can still breed with any of the previous As, but will prefer A4s or A5s.
As and A1s become rare, although As still thrive in island X.
Eventually, you get A10s which are perfectly suited for life in island Y, but, while they can mate with A5s, they will not mate with As.
By now, A10 is a different species from A, lets call them something different, B, but A5 can mate with both.
However, in island Y, all these A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 will tend to become superseded by the A10 and A9 and will quickly recede.
When Darwin comes along, all he sees is As in island X and A10s (or B) is island Y. Two different species, similar, yet unable to breed among themselves.
PS: I'm not a biologist, much less an evolutionary one, so if there's anyone out there that spots some error in this crude explanation, please correct it.
(May 9, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: No, no you fucking well didn't.
How do you know that?
(May 10, 2013 at 5:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: Evolution 101
or "how a human does not come from a non-human"
This should be very interesting.
Quote:
I'm going to give you an example of how evolution works, in broad strokes, and I'll probably cram into one or two generations what, in reality occurs over some 10 or 20... and I'm not going to use humans as basis for it, given that they're too complex and the evolutionary edge that sparks an evolution towards that goal is very spread out over many traits, making the argument very complex and you would easily get lost in details.
I would have preferred that you stuck with Humans as your example.
Quote:
For some reason (freak storm, or whatever) a sample of these birds arrives at another island, Y, where their beaks are not very well suited to feed themselves, but still manage the job.
So A survives barely and breeds.
At some point, one offspring of an individual A, is born with a slightly larger beak, say, 1mm longer. Let's call this A1.
A1 can breed with A. Given the better suitability of this larger beak, A1 can feed itself slightly better than the rest, so it survives and manages to breed, as if it was a member of A.
A1 breeds with an A mate.
Their offspring will be majorly A and a few A1s.
Over a few generations, you have a few A1s running alongside As.
Eventually, A1s breed with A1s, producing more As, A1s and another bird with a yet slightly larger beak, 2mm longer, let's call it A2.
A2 can breed with A1s and As.
Interbreeding yields As, A1s and a few A2s.
Eventually, we get another bird with slightly longer beak, 3mm, let's call it A3. A3 can still breed with A, A1 and A2.
With each increment in beak size, the species becomes more proficient at feeding in island Y and so these new generations become dominant, due to their better feeding, they are healthier, survive longer, look better, mate easier.
As become less favorable to mate with and decline in numbers, even if they may mate with A3s. A1s and A2s merely prefer to mate with A3s or A2s, instead of As or A1s.
In time, A5 appears in island Y. A5 can still breed with any of the previous As, but will prefer A4s or A5s.
As and A1s become rare, although As still thrive in island X.
Eventually, you get A10s which are perfectly suited for life in island Y, but, while they can mate with A5s, they will not mate with As.
By now, A10 is a different species from A, lets call them something different, B, but A5 can mate with both.
However, in island Y, all these A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 will tend to become superseded by the A10 and A9 and will quickly recede.
When Darwin comes along, all he sees is As in island X and A10s (or B) is island Y. Two different species, similar, yet unable to breed among themselves.
Yes, the finch beak example has been around for nearly 200 years; however it doesn’t really address my question because they are all still finches. The example is also far too optimal to apply to primates, primates very rarely become genetically isolated like island dwelling birds do. Not only this but the genetic information for the different beak sizes is already present and merely being selected upon to produce the differences. How does variation in beak sizes and shapes prevent A10 from being able to produce fertile offspring with A and A1? You lost me there.
I want to know when and how the very first Human appeared, Evolutionists put a date on it (4 million years ago or so) so they must believe that there was a very first Human being and that something that was not a modern Human being gave birth to it. I am fascinated by that claim because it’s not supported by anything we observe in Nature. Changing the expression of a particular phenotype hardly seems like actual Evolution, we see differences in bone structure and muscular structure between different races of people but I for one do not believe any of them are more evolved than the others. It seems like Evolutionists are invoking a bit of a bait and switch here, or possibly even the fallacy of extrapolation. They show us something that even Creationists agree happens and have no issues with, such as variations between finch bird beaks that can sometimes even lead to speciation and they say, “See! That’s how we know that all life on Earth has a common ancestor!” Seems to me they have jumped about a million steps in between their evidence and their conclusion about the evidence.
4 millions years ago? Really?! Are you sure you read right?
If my memory serves me right, Lucy, the Australopithecus, was dated to about 2 million years ago.
And the earliest Homo sapiens was about 200 thousand years ago.
Why A10 can't mate with A1? because its genetics became sufficiently different for incompatibilities to appear in the DNA... or something like that.
The first homo sapiens would have been able to mate with the population that gave birth to it. The homo sapiens traits simply gave it an edge that enabled its offspring to be more successful turning some genetic features of the previous population recessive, while the homo sapiens' became dominant.
I read somewhere that some people still have, nowadays, neanderthal genes running around.... recessive that have no influence, but they're still there.
May 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm (This post was last modified: May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm by Fidel_Castronaut.)
(May 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Changing the expression of a particular phenotype hardly seems like actual Evolution, we see differences in bone structure and muscular structure between different races of people but I for one do not believe any of them are more evolved than the others.
That's because no species (or race if we're talking about humans) is 'more evolved' than another species/race.
Would you say that homo sapiens are 'more evolved' than fish? Of course not (try living underwater without equipment). Evolution is about adaption to the environment, not about being more evolved than another species that may or may not exist in a varying habitat.
(May 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I read somewhere that some people still have, nowadays, neanderthal genes running around.... recessive that have no influence, but they're still there.
I forgot the exact percentage but x% still do have neandathal DNA, which proves that neandathals and Homo sapiens did copulate and produce offspring.
Also, I cite wiki reluctantly not becuase of the articles itself but becuase of the journal articles linked at the bottom which are easier to click on than me copy them over on an iPad:
![[Image: earthp.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/photos/my-images/209/earthp.jpg/)
![[Image: hn5KaAn.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2Fhn5KaAn.jpg)
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
