Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Mister Agenda]

I thought most atheists were somewhat agnostic, viz. "No one has found a good reason to believe in God, but I suppose His existence is a remote possibility."

But on this thread the atheistic disposition seems to be, "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist." Is that where you stand? You claim to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist?

In which case I wonder how you would know for sure, that is, infallibly. Are you infallible?

Do you have to be infallible to be sure that God exists? Certainty and fallibility are not on the same axis.

[Mister Agenda]

No it's not a conflation since I believe that, over 4 billion years, several times Yahweh introduced new varieties of DNA. Whereas you're assuming that DNA sprouted only once (abiogenesis) and then evolved. 

So for example, having had success with apes, Yahweh probably took a segment of ape DNA, made some minor adjustments, lo and behold the first humans. 
I mean, why start fresh? Why not build on an existing proven model?

It's not an assumption. It's not a problem for abiogenesis or evolution if DNA started many times. It's just not what the available evidence indicates.

Why should an infinitely creative omnipotent being not start fresh every time, instead of endlessly repeating themselves and micro-tweaking gene sequences? That sounds more like aliens than the Yahweh who spoke the universe into being.

[The Grand Nudger]

But on this thread the atheistic disposition seems to be, "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist." Is that where you stand? You claim to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist?

In which case I wonder how you would know for sure, that is, infallibly. Are you infallible?

You probably need to be reminded that there’s space between knowing your arguments and objections are false and knowing that gods don’t exist.

That said, while most atheists don’t take that position - if knowing there are no gods…I do. I don’t feel like I need to be infallible to know things. I manage to know my own name despite being fallible, for example.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Jal

But on this thread the atheistic disposition seems to be, "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist." Is that where you stand? You claim to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist?

In which case I wonder how you would know for sure, that is, infallibly. Are you infallible?

Certainty is not the same as infallibility. I am 100% percent certain that gods do not exist.

I may be wrong, but I’m not uncertain.

Boru

Oops. Yeah, what Mister Agenda said.

[Angrboda]

That's not how the burden of proof works.  And you're conflating evolution and abiogenesis.  Even if God created the first cell, evolution would still be true.

No it's not a conflation since I believe that, over 4 billion years, several times Yahweh introduced new varieties of DNA. Whereas you're assuming that DNA sprouted only once (abiogenesis) and then evolved. 

So for example, having had success with apes, Yahweh probably took a segment of ape DNA, made some minor adjustments, lo and behold the first humans. 
I mean, why start fresh? Why not build on an existing proven model?

Parsimony is not your friend.

[Angrboda]

The thing with science, though, is it's transparent, you could discover the evidence and reasoning involved.  So dismissing it on account of incredulity is simply laziness.  You are justified in being skeptical, but that's not the same as dismissing it, which is what your OP requires.  In other words, you've pretended to know more than you do.

That assessment seems terribly dishonest.  It's not incredulity that denies tangible-intangible collisions. It's tautology and common sense.

A tangible object is BY DEFINITION a collision-able object. (Just like a square is by definition an example of a rectangle).
Conversely an intangible object is BY DEFINITION a non-collision-object.  Therefore an intangible will never push tangible matter. Period.

Yet you endlessly and dishonestly repeat the accusation that my incredulity alone is driving this conclusion.

Your incredulity about the opposite is the only thing holding you to these principles. And I'm pretty sure those aren't a part of the definitions.

tangible

A.
adjective

1.a.
1589–
Capable of being touched; affecting the sense of touch; touchable.

intangible

A.
adjective

a.
1640–
Not tangible; incapable of being touched; not cognizable by the sense of touch; impalpable.