Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[Agonaces of Susa]

Are we that different from Cro-Magnon?

No different at all in fact.

Darwinists classify so-called "Cro-Magnon man" as Homo sapiens sapiens, identical to us in every way.

This was already conceded by Darwinists in the 1960s.

"It is somewhat disquieting to speculate on the fact that even 50,000 years ago, in the early Stone Age, the human family contained individuals with innate capacities for reasoning and self-expression approaching those of a Shakespeare, a Beethoven or an Einstein." -- Frederick Seitz, physicist, President of the National Academy of Sciences, The Scientist, 1962

However, actual scientists have pointed out that Cro-Magnon man was actually superior to us in every way, more intelligent, more scientific, and stronger.

"It just intrigues me to think that if I could find one of our 'recent relatives,' Cro-Magnon man for example, he would probably correct me because he would be more familiar with the sky and he would know the constellations just a little bit better than people do today." -- Matthew A. Malkan, astronomer, February 19th 2008

"If you're reading this [book] then you -- or the male you have bought it for -- are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts -- the worst man, period. ... As a class we are in fact the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet." -- Peter McAllister, anthropologist, 2009

 

[Assyrian]

I thought you might be a Cro-mag fan. So given 5 & 6 are Cro Magnon and modern man,
Which one of these things is not like the other?

​

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I thought you might be a Cro-mag fan. So given 5 & 6 are Cro Magnon and modern man,
Which one of these things is not like the other?

​

Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens sapiens so your question is illogical.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you might be a Cro-mag fan. So given 5 & 6 are Cro Magnon and modern man,
Which one of these things is not like the other?

​

The two on the left are simians, the other four are human beings.

 

[MoonLancer]

I thought you might be a Cro-mag fan. So given 5 & 6 are Cro Magnon and modern man,
Which one of these things is not like the other?

​

#5 the ninja or it could be #1 which i think might be a sloth

 

[DDdreamer]

Allright, back. Now lesse what you responed...

Its not about who holds it, but by definition, in light of what is, what it is classified as. And it is atheistic.
Well, it is atheistic in the sense that it makes no claims about gods.


Actually atheism has its beliefs.
Please name them.

You may be too conditioned to realize that now,
Conditioned? Really? Conditioned to not think that atheism has any beliefs? Well, it hasn't! It is by definition the rejection of theistic claims. That's all that it is. I wouldn't call myself an atheist if my worldview was different from the dictionary definition.

but the range of beliefs outlined is not fact, but a belief. Drawn from a materialistic perception, held by the atheist and is atheistic. How nice it would be to escape on the "this is the definition of atheism" train enabling you to preach your world view without resistance.
Preach? Why would I want to preach? Even if I could "preach" to my hearts content, I wouldn't.


It is.
Atheism is as much a religion as bald is a haircolour. Atheism is the rejection/ non-belief in religious concepts like gods etc. How could it be a religion? Explain that to me please?

Man's development is sharply contrasted, having being created as intelligent beings rather than developing from beasts.
How do you know that this happened?

The belief that texts came from ignorant hominids is derived from the belief that bacteria can turn into men.
Er...no. I repeat: one explanation for how life might have originated has nothing to with however primitive homininds can make primitive languages or not. One is not connected to the other. If we find out tomorrow that life came to earth by ,say, panspermia instead of abiogenesis it still wouldn't change wheather or not primitive hominids can create primitive languages.

Thats ok. Your ability to believe and not believe is because you were created by God.
Prove there is a god. I was created by my parents.

There is only rebellion. Darwinism persists as a buy out from this basic clause. Its atheism.
Evolution, Darwin and abiogenesis =/= Atheism. I am an atheist because I have not yet seen any proof or evdidence of gods. Not because an english scientist discovered a method to explain the diversity of life 200 years ago.

Classification of man as beast is based on a materialistic philosophy and looking at life based solely on the physical.
Sure, because the non-physical hasn't been shown to exist. Therefore it's a non-factor.

The relinquishing of the non physical aspect, or God, is atheism.

You are an atheist because you believe them.
Nope. I was an atheist long before I even heard of these. I am an atheist because I have not yet seen any proof or evidence of gods.

There you go.

Marcus

 

[Greg1234]

Allright, back. Now lesse what you responed...
Its not about who holds it, but by definition, in light of what is, what it is classified as. And it is atheistic.
Well, it is atheistic in the sense that it makes no claims about gods.

First of all, you may want to use the quote feature appropriately. Your response disappears when being quoted. I think youre secure enough about your response to not require the bold feature. If this is a distraction due to pattern recognition in a host account, its extra work on the part of the responder.

Now regarding the post, it is atheistic because it subjugates life to a purely materialistic view, when it is not. Classification was made long before human classification. The rejection of this, is on par with the clinging to a purely materialistic philosophy. Hence it is atheism.

Actually atheism has its beliefs.
Please name them.

This was already given.

You may be too conditioned to realize that now,
Conditioned? Really? Conditioned to not think that atheism has any beliefs? Well, it hasn't! It is by definition the rejection of theistic claims. That's all that it is. I wouldn't call myself an atheist if my worldview was different from the dictionary definition.

No, atheism is a belief and has its beliefs. "The definition" is the way you guys attempt to float forward. You attempt to escape the role of defending your position, enabling your position to persist unscathed. The fact is you do have beliefs, and they can either be accepted or not. This is what makes on an atheist.

but the range of beliefs outlined is not fact, but a belief. Drawn from a materialistic perception, held by the atheist and is atheistic. How nice it would be to escape on the "this is the definition of atheism" train enabling you to preach your world view without resistance.
Preach? Why would I want to preach? Even if I could "preach" to my hearts content, I wouldn't.

Thats nice.

It is.
Atheism is as much a religion as bald is a haircolour. Atheism is the rejection/ non-belief in religious concepts like gods etc. How could it be a religion? Explain that to me please?

And amaterialism is as much of a belief as bald is a hair color. Anybody can put the "a" in front of their position. This doesnt negate the beliefs of an amaterialist, neither an atheist.

Man's development is sharply contrasted, having being created as intelligent beings rather than developing from beasts.
How do you know that this happened?

Start with the human body having been created. Work your way up from there. You attempt to jump hurdles. If can't get past Genesis 1 you remain there.

The belief that texts came from ignorant hominids is derived from the belief that bacteria can turn into men.
Er...no. I repeat: one explanation for how life might have originated has nothing to with however primitive homininds can make primitive languages or not. One is not connected to the other. If we find out tomorrow that life came to earth by ,say, panspermia instead of abiogenesis it still wouldn't change wheather or not primitive hominids can create primitive languages.

Because the idea of a language or coding system is not dependent on the information coded. It is irrelevant, in fact. Youre on about panspermia. Note that the human system is created, then we'll talk about the random mutation creating an alien system.

Thats ok. Your ability to believe and not believe is because you were created by God.
Prove there is a god. I was created by my parents.

Start with the human being. And yes, the great pyramid is evidence of the pyramid builders.

There is only rebellion. Darwinism persists as a buy out from this basic clause. Its atheism.
Evolution, Darwin and abiogenesis =/= Atheism. I am an atheist because I have not yet seen any proof or evdidence of gods. Not because an english scientist discovered a method to explain the diversity of life 200 years ago.

And we have discovered alot more. In a nutshell, not because you muscles can get larger and smaller, means that you will turn into a forklift. When you get past the excitement of adaptation and the potential for atheism, have a look.

Classification of man as beast is based on a materialistic philosophy and looking at life based solely on the physical.
Sure, because the non-physical hasn't been shown to exist. Therefore it's a non-factor.

Thats your belief. Random mutation is sterile, and bacteria remains bacteria. Therefore atheism is not required.

You are an atheist because you believe them.
Nope. I was an atheist long before I even heard of these. I am an atheist because I have not yet seen any proof or evidence of gods.

You were a human before you were an atheist. Start there. It is your ability to see. That you have not seen evidence for God is your belief, one you believe in, which governs your adherence to atheism.

There you go.

Marcus

Yep.

 

[MoonLancer]

Now regarding the post, it is atheistic because it subjugates life to a purely materialistic view, when it is not. Classification was made long before human classification. The rejection of this, is on par with the clinging to a purely materialistic philosophy. Hence it is atheism.

This was already given.
No, atheism is a belief and has its beliefs. "The definition" is the way you guys attempt to float forward. You attempt to escape the role of defending your position, enabling your position to persist unscathed. The fact is you do have beliefs, and they can either be accepted or not. This is what makes on an atheist.

You cannot turn a lack of belief into a belief no matter how hard you try. If you lack a belief in a invisible pink unicorn does that mean you somehow have attributed positive beliefs? Wow just think of all the accumulated positive beliefs you must have for all the things you lack a belief in.

And amaterialism is as much of a belief as bald is a hair color.

how so?

Anybody can put the "a" in front of their position. This doesn't negate the beliefs of an amaterialist, neither an atheist.

You must not know what that 'a' standards for. What do you think the 'a' stands for in amoral? It surly does not mean immoral which would be the opposite of moral. In the same way a materialistic and atheist do not mean what you think it does. and did you know that amaterialist is not a word. Not exactly compelling use of language.

Start with the human body having been created. Work your way up from there. You attempt to jump hurdles. If can't get past Genesis 1 you remain there.

science doesn't work that way buddy. You have to show evidence for that kind of thing.

And yes, the great pyramid is evidence of the pyramid builders.

The pyramid itself is not the evidence. Its specific details attiributed to the pyramid which is evidence for a people that created it. What details about the human body do you think show we were created?

Random mutation is sterile, and bacteria remains bacteria.

evidence please. I can show evidence that life changes and that two isolated population can change so dramatically they no longer a sexually compatible. Thus a different species.

Therefore atheism is not required.

your right. atheism is not required in this debate about evolution.

You were a human before you were an atheist.

Everyone is born as a human and atheist. They later become a theist through the will of others.

Start there. It is your ability to see. That you have not seen evidence for God is your belief, one you believe in, which governs your adherence to atheism.

Actually its the lack of eperical evidence. If you had any you would have presented it here. but you dont. none. You utterly lack any evidence. You do however have a 2000 year old book that makes alot of unsupported claims. is that what your talking about?

 

[DDdreamer]

First of all, you may want to use the quote feature appropriately. Your response disappears when being quoted.
Yes, I apologize. Er...how do I use the quote function correctly then? I must have overlooked a button or something... GAH.

I think youre secure enough about your response to not require the bold feature. If this is a distraction due to pattern recognition in a host account, its extra work on the part of the responder.
Well, i bold my text just to make it easier to seperate what you wrote from what i wrote. To avoid confusion.

Now regarding the post, it is atheistic because it subjugates life to a purely materialistic view, when it is not. Classification was made long before human classification. The rejection of this, is on par with the clinging to a purely materialistic philosophy. Hence it is atheism.
Alright, I see your point. It is atheistic, yes. But it is not tied to atheism in general. One might be an atheist and not think that humans are animals.

This was already given.
No, atheism is a belief and has its beliefs. "The definition" is the way you guys attempt to float forward. You attempt to escape the role of defending your position, enabling your position to persist unscathed.
I'm perfectly fine with defending my position. I'm just stating that my position is the dictionary definition of atheism, for easy understanding.

The fact is you do have beliefs, and they can either be accepted or not. This is what makes one an atheist.
What makes one an atheist is that one does not believe that there is a god. That's all. You seem to add more stuff to it that isn't really tied to atheism but that are things not compatible with some theistic viewpoints.


And amaterialism is as much of a belief as bald is a hair color. Anybody can put the "a" in front of their position. This doesnt negate the beliefs of an amaterialist, neither an atheist.
Of course, in that regard you are correct. But you said that atheism was a religion. Which it is not.


Start with the human body having been created. Work your way up from there. You attempt to jump hurdles. If can't get past Genesis 1 you remain there.
Well, here's the thing: how do you know that genesis is accurate?

Because the idea of a language or coding system is not dependent on the information coded. It is irrelevant, in fact. Youre on about panspermia. Don't put too much thought into the panspermia thing. It was just an example from the top of my head. ^^

Note that the human system is created, then we'll talk about the random mutation creating an alien system.
Well, prove that we are created first. If you can do that we can proceed.

When you get past the excitement of adaptation and the potential for atheism, have a look.
Natural selection/ adaption/evolution has nothing to with my atheism. If it was disproved tomorrow I'd still be an atheist becase I have yet to see any evidence of gods. Wheather the ToE is valid or not has no impact on my atheism. They are different matters. Please realise that.



Thats your belief. Random mutation is sterile, and bacteria remains bacteria. Therefore atheism is not required.¨
It seems that you are wrong. Almost all biologists accept that evolution happens. Since these people are more educated in the subject than I am, and since they study the subject daily, I think it's reasonable to assume that evolution is atleast worth considering as an explanation for the diversity of life. If we then add the heaps of evidence in favour of it, I'd say that it is pretty certain that evolution through natural selection happened and still happens.

You were a human before you were an atheist. Start there. It is your ability to see. That you have not seen evidence for God is your belief, one you believe in, which governs your adherence to atheism.
You seem to have it backwards. I'm not an atheist so that I can believe that there are no evidence of gods, I am an atheist because I haven't seen any evidence of a god. There might be some. But I have yet to see it.

Yep.

Yup!

I apologize again for not quoting correctly, long time lurker, newbie poster. Some help please?

Marcus

 

[Febble]

One thing to consider is that categorical labels are much more appropriate to horizontally defined groups - species that co-exist at a given time - than to longitudinal groups. The whole principle of Darwinian evolution is that change over time is gradual - so you won't find clean divisions.

However, populations diverge - and once that divergence has gone beyond the stage of natural hybridisation, it is fairly easy to apply categorical labels to the groups that result.

So it easy to categorise modern fish and modern birds, but simply arbitrary to categorise our very remote ancestors as different from our slightly less remote ancestors.

 

[Greg1234]

You cannot turn a lack of belief into a belief no matter how hard you try. If you lack a belief in a invisible pink unicorn does that mean you somehow have attributed positive beliefs? Wow just think of all the accumulated positive beliefs you must have for all the things you lack a belief in.

Bacteria cannot turn into pink unicorns. The fact is you are here. And you have your beliefs about how you got here, not the pink unicorn. That you have attributed to chance. That is your belief. You may attempt to divert attention but start with the human body.

You must not know what that 'a' standards for. What do you think the 'a' stands for in amoral? It surly does not mean immoral which would be the opposite of moral. In the same way a materialistic and atheist do not mean what you think it does. and did you know that amaterialist is not a word. Not exactly compelling use of language.

I am in fact, an amaterialist.

science doesn't work that way buddy. You have to show evidence for that kind of thing.

Nope, you have to show evidence that chance can build the two story wooden house. Science shows that it is designed.

The pyramid itself is not the evidence. Its specific details attiributed to the pyramid which is evidence for a people that created it. What details about the human body do you think show we were created?

No, chance cannot build the great pyramid. Tests, along with the integrated complexity of said structiure including the languge embedded within is design.

evidence please. I can show evidence that life changes and that two isolated population can change so dramatically they no longer a sexually compatible. Thus a different species.

Another day chief. And no, not because your muscles get larger it will invariably continue. Or that because a horse gets faster it will invariably continue. There is only adaptation. A feature of design. If you need evidence of bacteria remaining bacteria it is readily available.

your right. atheism is not required in this debate about evolution.

Atheism is not required. Science is sufficient. So Darwinism may remain where it is.

Everyone is born as a human and atheist. They later become a theist through the will of others.

Thats your belief.

Actually its the lack of eperical evidence. If you had any you would have presented it here. but you dont. none. You utterly lack any evidence. You do however have a 2000 year old book that makes alot of unsupported claims. is that what your talking about?

I don't have to present anything. But I did tell you to start with the human body. You guys are in utter denial. You think there wasn't a brick wall? This is it. Right where it is supposed to be. You might Darwinism high, atheism low, but you will realize what is in front of you.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Bacteria cannot turn into pink unicorns. The fact is you are here. And you have your beliefs about how you got here, not the pink unicorn. That you have attributed to chance. That is your belief. You may attempt to divert attention but start with the human body.
I am in fact, an amaterialist.

Nope, you have to show evidence that chance can build the two story wooden house. Science shows that it is designed.

No, chance cannot build the great pyramid. Tests, along with the integrated complexity of said structiure including the languge embedded within is design.

Another day chief. And no, not because your muscles get larger it will invariably continue. Or that because a horse gets faster it will invariably continue. There is only adaptation. A feature of design. If you need evidence of bacteria remaining bacteria it is readily available.
Atheism is not required. Science is sufficient. So Darwinism may remain where it is.
Thats your belief.

I don't have to present anything. But I did tell you to start with the human body. You guys are in utter denial. You think there wasn't a brick wall? This is it. Right where it is supposed to be. You might Darwinism high, atheism low, but you will realize what is in front of you.

What about the body? You aren't suggessting it looks designed, are you?

 

[Greg1234]

Yup!

Well, i bold my text just to make it easier to seperate what you wrote from what i wrote. To avoid confusion.

Thats what the quote feature is for.

Alright, I see your point. It is atheistic, yes. But it is not tied to atheism in general. One might be an atheist and not think that humans are animals.

Which is in compliance with a theistic worldview. Heresy in atheism.

This was already given.
No, atheism is a belief and has its beliefs. "The definition" is the way you guys attempt to float forward. You attempt to escape the role of defending your position, enabling your position to persist unscathed.
I'm perfectly fine with defending my position. I'm just stating that my position is the dictionary definition of atheism, for easy understanding.

The dictionary also says that theism is just the belief in God. That doesnt mean that I automatically believe that God is a primitive concept for ex.. Apply the "a" to materialism, and it is one of beliefs I dont hold as an amaterialist. Its your belief.

The fact is you do have beliefs, and they can either be accepted or not. This is what makes one an atheist.
What makes one an atheist is that one does not believe that there is a god. That's all. You seem to add more stuff to it that isn't really tied to atheism but that are things not compatible with some theistic viewpoints.

No, it is atheistic by definition of what theism entails. The belief that ancient texts were written by ignorant hominids for example, is a result of a lack of belief in divine inspiration. Not that it did not, but it cannot. Which is the result of the belief that bacteria became men. By outlining the definition of atheism, every other assertion you make is supposedly fact because this is the definition of atheism. It doesnt work that way. They're all beliefs.

And amaterialism is as much of a belief as bald is a hair color. Anybody can put the "a" in front of their position. This doesnt negate the beliefs of an amaterialist, neither an atheist.
Of course, in that regard you are correct. But you said that atheism was a religion. Which it is not.

Under the broad definition of religion, atheism is a religion.

Start with the human body having been created. Work your way up from there. You attempt to jump hurdles. If can't get past Genesis 1 you remain there.
Well, here's the thing: how do you know that genesis is accurate?

You don't need the bible, to see that the human body is created. Start there.

Note that the human system is created, then we'll talk about the random mutation creating an alien system.
Well, prove that we are created first. If you can do that we can proceed.

Actually you have to prove that chance can build the human body. It is in fact created as with any designed structure, in testing, which shows that chance cannot put it together, and the integrated complexity of said system.

When you get past the excitement of adaptation and the potential for atheism, have a look.
Natural selection/ adaption/evolution has nothing to with my atheism. If it was disproved tomorrow I'd still be an atheist becase I have yet to see any evidence of gods. Wheather the ToE is valid or not has no impact on my atheism. They are different matters. Please realise that.

Adaptation is not Darwinism. Darwinist assertions is not required for adaptation to occur. And it is chance vs design. The great pyramid is evidence of the pyramid designer, no matter how you may choose to rebel. Start there.

Thats your belief. Random mutation is sterile, and bacteria remains bacteria. Therefore atheism is not required.¨
It seems that you are wrong. Almost all biologists accept that evolution happens. Since these people are more educated in the subject than I am, and since they study the subject daily, I think it's reasonable to assume that evolution is atleast worth considering as an explanation for the diversity of life. If we then add the heaps of evidence in favour of it, I'd say that it is pretty certain that evolution through natural selection happened and still happens.

Bacteria turning into men is an atheistic concept. I see no reason why it is not worth considering as a basal doctrine in atheism. But it is not science, and there is nothing to accept outside of atheistic circles.

You were a human before you were an atheist. Start there. It is your ability to see. That you have not seen evidence for God is your belief, one you believe in, which governs your adherence to atheism.
You seem to have it backwards. I'm not an atheist so that I can believe that there are no evidence of gods, I am an atheist because I haven't seen any evidence of a god. There might be some. But I have yet to see it.

I said it was you ability to see. I'm pretty sure that you can see. You attempt to leap over the human body and use Darwinism as a place holder. It doesnt work that way. Start there. This is what youre ready for right now.

I apologize again for not quoting correctly, long time lurker, newbie poster. Some help please?

Marcus

Theres a quote button under posts. Use that. You can highlight a piece of text and use the little yellow quote bubble on the toolbar or you may type it manually.

 

[Greg1234]

What about the body? You aren't suggessting it looks designed, are you?

Tried, tested and proven.

 

[DDdreamer]

Theres a quote button under posts. Use that. You can highlight a piece of text and use the little yellow quote bubble on the toolbar or you may type it manually.

Ok, thanks! I'll try that. I'll get back to the rest of your post tomorrow, it's getting late here. Gotta catch some sleep.

Marcus

 

[Febble]

Tried, tested and proven.

You are right - it is "designed" in a sense - in almost exactly the sense that human artefacts are designed i.e. by a process of trial-error, and incremental selection of what works better, and rejection of what works less well. In other words, a selection process that is biased in favour of what works.

And it's called Darwinian evolution

 

[Assyrian]

Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens sapiens so your question is illogical.

So you have two pictures of homo sapiens in the series yet you said "One of these things is not like the other."

Meanwhile AV is quite happy to include homo erectus and neanderthals among us humans.

The two on the left are simians, the other four are human beings.

I think it is a brilliant illustration of evolution that creationists are so definite there is a clear break between humans and apes (is 1 a sloth or a gibbon?) But they just can't decide where.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it's called Darwinian evolution

Right -- and if you believe that, then we're mutant copy-errors made in the likeness & image of God --

 

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile AV is quite happy to include homo erectus and neanderthals among us humans.

As bone-diseased humans, who were once contributing members of the human race.

In fact, the two middle ones remind me of what King David may have looked like, just before he died.

 

[Febble]

Right -- and if you believe that, then we're mutant copy-errors made in the likeness & image of God --

I'm simply pointing out that Darwinian evolution is a trial-and-error process of design, by which the best is repeated, and the worst discarded.

Living things look designed because they ARE designed - by the trial-and-error process of natural selection.