Converting

[R00tKiT]

Yes, it really is. Aside from adding a few hundred cc's of brain matter you'll need to produce a whole shitload of hellishly complex and entirely new neural systems. There's simply no doing that without a few thousand generations of intermediate steps. You'd have better odds of going from a hand-drawn cart to a Porche in a single leap.

I don't think you're really addressing the issue here. The modern-primitive dichotomy is logically forced, if it's hard for you to imagine where the line had to be drawn, it's a lot easier to do so for a deity. Porche wasn't built in a single leap of course, but you would still have a manufacturing date.

Our closest ancestors surely had a similarly complex brain, but there surely has to be -logically- an infinitesimal increment where we're justified to draw the line, and again, it's not hard for a deity to grasp the infinitesimal. To sum it up, you're arguing from ignorance here, we don't really have a lot of details about all the intermediate steps that took place in the distant past.

Another way to put it is this: you have very low IQ and very high IQ people in this world, cognitive ability between the two groups is simply huge -despite being, obviously, in the same position at the evolutionary tree-, what a theoretical physicist is able to understand in a few minutes is beyond the grasp of, say, an adult with below than average intelligence, even with equal access to education/environment/opportunities. And the anatomical brain differences may not be more than a difference of number of synapses per neuron, which can be prompted by a small "click" or stimulation of the synaptogenesis process.

So the anatomical difference between Einstein's brain and, say, his mom's, might roughly be an example of the gap we're looking for between modern and pre-modern human beings.

Another example to clarify my point : world war didn't really start by a single bomb explosion, or some assassination, it came about through almost a decade of smaller conflicts and diplomatic tensions, but we still have starting and ending dates of the event.

[The Valkyrie]

The religious narrative considers the fall of man to be the first event ever in human history, thus the first man and woman did know God. But of course, atheists can simply deny the occurence.

Humanity didn't fall. They evolved from apelike ancestors, hence why humanity is a type of ape.

If the events of the bible are true, we were pushed.

[Paleophyte]

Yes, it really is. Aside from adding a few hundred cc's of brain matter you'll need to produce a whole shitload of hellishly complex and entirely new neural systems. There's simply no doing that without a few thousand generations of intermediate steps. You'd have better odds of going from a hand-drawn cart to a Porche in a single leap.

I don't think you're really addressing the issue here. The modern-primitive dichotomy is logically forced

You mean mythologically forced. You're trying to rewrite fact to fit your narrative. There is no logical necessity for the dichotomy.

if it's hard for you to imagine where the line had to be drawn, it's a lot easier to do so for a deity.

Not hard, impossible. There is no line that can be drawn between ancestor and descendant. They are of the exact same species by definition.

Porche wasn't built in a single leap of course, but you would still have a manufacturing date.

The date is immaterial. You wanted to build a modern human brain and mind with a single, small change. Not happening.

Our closest ancestors surely had a similarly complex brain, but there surely has to be -logically- an infinitesimal increment where we're justified to draw the line

No there isn't. There is absolutely no logical necessity for reality to conform to your notions or attempts to cram things into pigeon holes.

To sum it up, you're arguing from ignorance here, we don't really have a lot of details about all the intermediate steps that took place in the distant past.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing from the certain knowledge that there was no dividing line between any ancestor and their immediate descendant. What you're arguing for is something that is for all intents and purposes non-human giving birth to something that is human. Evolution don't work like that.

Another way to put it is this: you have very low IQ and very high IQ people in this world, cognitive ability between the two groups is simply huge

Diversity within a species really isn't going to be your friend here. All you've managed to do is add yet another dimension to have shades of grey in. It ffectively guarantees that any "Adam" had a large number of ancestors who were sparkier and more worthy of your deity's attention than he was.

And the anatomical brain differences may not be more than a difference of number of synapses per neuron, which can be prompted by a small "click" or stimulation of the synaptogenesis process.

Synaptogenesis and other small changes won't get you diddly without the complex neural structures already in place. More connections doesn't help if you don't have speech centers.

So the anatomical difference between Einstein's brain and, say, his mom's, might roughly be an example of the gap we're looking for between modern and pre-modern human beings.

A lovely example given that both Einstein and his mother were obviously human.

Another example to clarify my point : world war didn't really start by a single bomb explosion, or some assassination, it came about through almost a decade of smaller conflicts and diplomatic tensions, but we still have starting and ending dates of the event.

Congrats. You've convincingly demonstrated that humans excel at inflicting arbitrary boundaries on reality. Which side of this are you arguing again?

[Succubus#2]

And we're not the ones relying 100% on empirical data, we consider pure reasoning and studying historical figures/prophets a good way to reach truth too.

About those historical figures of which you speak, do they have names?
Tacitus? Josephus? *





* We haven't had those two in a while.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fun thread...but..conversion is zero sum. It's not actually hard for a god believer to believe in a different god.

Early pagan (arabian) christians did not have a hard time converting to islam...or a choice. Submit or die, go!

[R00tKiT]

Duplicate.

[R00tKiT]

No, I'm not. I'm arguing from the certain knowledge that there was no dividing line between any ancestor and their immediate descendant. What you're arguing for is something that is for all intents and purposes non-human giving birth to something that is human. Evolution don't work like that.

Yeah, because evolution never works-just kidding.

I think you're just playing with words now, the differences between Einstein's brain and his mom's aren't really shades of grey, they're really visible, so much so that one earned the label of the most famous physics rockstar of all time, and the other, well.. the woman behind the successful rockstar.

Of course both of them are human, but this is not my point. The example clearly shows that tangible changes in the neurological system can happen even for an immediate descendant. Granted, he didn't have an additional full blown neural system, but he would be a good candidate for the first modern human. The mother, being the metaphor for the pre modern human, was really really close, though, but still pre modern.

Synaptogenesis and other small changes won't get you diddly without the complex neural structures already in place. More connections doesn't help if you don't have speech centers.

And there, you have it : synaptogenesis, a small change, provided tangible differences. Nobody is denying complex neural structures need to be already in place, they just happen to be not enough for whoever possesses them to be modern, something like the little change that happened to Einstein did.

Sure, my scenario is clumsy. But it's enough to refute your illusory certainty about the first modern human being impossible.

In summary, say pre modern humans have all the complex neural structures a modern human has, but with poor synaptogenesis - and as a result, they can't conceive of god and religion. Suddenly some genius baby inherits their neural structures plus good synaptogenesis, and all his descendants inherit the latter property, is it that hard to see the fine line now..? can't we call the genius baby the first modern human?

And what I'am writing here is just one imaginable scenario, how can one be so certain there wasn't some neurological process - of the "small change" variety - introducing the would-be modern humans to concepts that were unconceivable to them - namely god and religions.. just as Einstein thought experiments proved us all wrong about the structure of the universe... we're literally less dumb when thinking about the universe thanks to his synapses.

[Drich]

It's just struck me that choosing a religion to convert to must be really difficult.

Think about it for a moment.

We have Christians and Muslims, in particular, through here all the time showing us the merits of their beliefs.

- The Qu'ran is 100% credible and has no contradictions.  Neither does the Bible.

the bible never makes that claim nor a claim of infallibility. it simple says it is the world of God and thus you can find God by it. that said after 20 years i can't find a contradiction. infallibility comes from the doctrine of sola scriptura a teach not found within the bible but in tradition which refutes the idea of need for a pope.

- The Qu'ran is scientifically correct and infallible.  So is the Bible.

again the bible can not make this claim because it was before science was.. meaning it's system of taxomomy and celestial identification was different than what we use now which means it will indeed contradict as the two foundations of study are not built on the same system of basic learning. for example the bible taxomologically identifies all flying creatures over the size of a med stone a bird. which includes insects mammals/bats and even fist along with most avians. but some smaller avians were considered incets.

The bible is right identifying these thing this way because when it was compiled these were the know forms of taxonomy, but compared to today's standard they would be wrong. just like all of your textbooks would be wrong if they decided to redivide the animal kingdom.

- The Qu'ran made predictions about events that are happening now.  So did the Bible.

actually no the bible made predictions about Christ and his time and the end of man's age. which could be now or 1000 more years from now.

And their believers are so willing, in some cases, to do whatever is necessary to prove their religion to be true.  Why would they do that if the beliefs aren't true?

the only people care enough to share are those who experience something most are middle of the road it works for me types.
if it isn't true then nothing happens. you live a good life tapped into good cosmic vibes that will literally see you through anything without the need of most forms of social structured help or support.

And we KNOW the above is all accurate because who, with God watching over them, would lie to promote their beliefs?  That would be a sin and potentially worthy of a hot trip southwards...

which is true for most religions and even some forms of Christianity. however if you seek the God of the bible there are no preist prophets or go betweens, the bible itself says you do not even need a teacher if you seek out the Holy Spirit first. As God himself will teach you one on one. NO OTHER RELIGION offers that. All other religions and even some forms of christianity filter your experience through priests or prophets.

So we know they're telling the truth.

you do if God is literally doing the teaching.

And then we get to the difficulty of choosing which sub group of the religion to belong to.  Should we become Shia or Sunni?  Catholic or Baptist?

made a video on that. In short all JESUS Christ centered form of religion can ensure salvation.
As the same grace and atonement that extends to you when you willfully sin, is also extended to you when you are trying your best and get it wrong.

With all of this, it's no surprise that atheists seem so stubborn.

Atheist 'seem stubborn because they start with their preferred conclusion "there is no Go or I hate God and work backwards from there.
So no matter how much they loose their arguments the final conclusion is always the same.

We just don't know which of these True Religions to choose from.

Ask and you will find, Seek and it will be revealed to you knock and the door shall be open unto you.

[no one]

Fabricating gods as a means to alleviate the fears of the unknown does not lend any credence to their existence.

[Paleophyte]

No, I'm not. I'm arguing from the certain knowledge that there was no dividing line between any ancestor and their immediate descendant. What you're arguing for is something that is for all intents and purposes non-human giving birth to something that is human. Evolution don't work like that.

I think you're just playing with words now

Nope, I'm talking cold, hard realities. Sorry if you don't understand the words.

the differences between Einstein's brain and his mom's aren't really shades of grey, they're really visible, so much so that one earned the label of the most famous physics rockstar of all time, and the other, well.. the woman behind the successful rockstar.

The differences were trivial in the grand scheme of things. Albert Einstein was exceptionally talented in a very narrow speciality, a fact that may or may not have been the result of differences in brain structure. He wasn't much better than average at many things and had difficulties maintaining a marriage. The difference between him and his mother was razor thin compared to the difference between his mother and a chimp.

Granted, he didn't have an additional full blown neural system, but he would be a good candidate for the first modern human. The mother, being the metaphor for the pre modern human, was really really close, though, but still pre modern.

Sorry, but that comparison fails on so many levels. You're comparing the difference between two humans, one of whom was exceptional at physics, with the gap between a human and a chimp.

And there, you have it : synaptogenesis, a small change, provided tangible differences. Nobody is denying complex neural structures need to be already in place, they just happen to be not enough for whoever possesses them to be modern, something like the little change that happened to Einstein did.

No. You see, those structures simply won't exist to be hooked up by whatever process you want to invoke.
- There's no selection pressure to produce these structures. Quite the opposite. Complex neural structures take a lot of resources so if they aren't of use the selection pressure will be for their removal.
- Simply adding more neurons won't produce the right connections. It's like chucking microchips onto copper wires and expecting a computer to form if you just ad enough copper wires.
- Many of these systems have to work together. Trying to evolve them in isolation and wire them up later is ridiculous.

Sure, my scenario is clumsy.

Stillborn is the word you're looking for.

But it's enough to refute your illusory certainty about the first modern human being impossible.

The only thing you've refuted is the slightest possibility that you understand basic biology.

In summary, say pre modern humans have all the complex neural structures a modern human has, but with poor synaptogenesis

In summary, what you're suggesting here is analogous to making airplanes with tissue paper frames. Sure you can put in all the fancy parts but it'll never get out of the hangar. Then one day somebody finally figured out that one little engineering problem and the stealth fighter was invented. Except that doesn't work because the Wright brothers could never get off the ground.

and as a result, they can't conceive of god and religion.

Why you think this is an evolutionary advantage beggars the imagination. Even pigeons have superstition.

Suddenly some genius baby inherits their neural structures plus good synaptogenesis

Suddenly I threw enough uninsulated wire on the computer chips and the internet was born. Sorry about 4chan, that was not my doing.

and all his descendants inherit the latter property

Name Einstein's descendants. From memory.

is it that hard to see the fine line now..? can't we call the genius baby the first modern human?

In your fairytale, sure. Needs more dragons though. A unicorn would help too.

And what I'am writing here is just one imaginable scenario

Imaginable yes, biologically plausable, no.

how can one be so certain there wasn't some neurological process - of the "small change" variety - introducing the would-be modern humans to concepts that were unconceivable to them - namely god and religions

Argument from "What if stuff I don't know the words for happened to make my mythology right." Sorry, but those complex neural structures don't evolve independently and for no good reason. You're talking neuromythology here.