Agnostic about atheism

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

Again, you have understood wrong. I’m not here to tell you who created you and how (that’s not what this thread is about).

This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty that disgusts one.

 

Where is the true religious Norf with the true blue belief in the one and only TRUTH about the Universe?

 

All of a sudden it's neither attarctive nor safe to be the knowledgeable 'Mutawa´', instead one tries hiding behind an existential question " how man originated on earth ?", a question one believes to be un-answerabele by any other way than the 'creationistic' way, as one was indoctrinated in to believe just that.

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

As I’m ‘Agnostic about Atheism’,

You really got me laughing there!

 

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

I would like for you to expand on your following statement;

 

quote:

---

the only plausible answer is Human-beeings evolved to their current state of beeing from another less-fit state of beeing

* what was the less fit state of being?

* how did we evolve?

* how long did it take?

* why is this the only 'plausible' answer? (are you merely opting for this because you have no other 'agreeable' alternative?)

 

ps I'm assuming you can 'rationally' and 'intellectually' explain away the above

 

Don't disappoint now

To judge your questions regarding human evolution , its crystal clear that you were not ( or did not allow yourself to be ) exposed to the Scientific theory of evolution in its Entirety, maybe the disinformation those who did not like it spread( Darwin says man descends from Apes ) was enough to scare one.

Nevertheless, you're in for a crush-course regarding human knowledge about Human origins scientifically, no superstition, mind you.

 

Since i can't turn this thread into Q&A thread,i let you read about the answers to those questions you listed and many more, right there as an introduction ,and get myself ready for more difficult questions after you've acquainted yourself with the alternative answer to your old question, namely, the origins of humanity.

I'm tempted to suggest reading few books that i've in mind , but i guess i wait with that for now.

 

Well, i think lest we find more fuel for this thread we've covered your Article and it's 'nettled' theists at the churchs of Atheism.

 

And you're off the hook.

[N.O.R.F]

Not so fast Johnny. Your urgency to end this is understandable but its time to put Atheism and it’s fallacies under the spotlight.

 

I asked the question to highlight the bankruptcy of the whole atheist argument about creation.

 

You believe that there is no creator with the sorry excuse of there being no evidence (or not enough evidence) but then in the same breath state that you believe in human evolution without being prepared to question it’s short-comings! I’m I missing something here?

 

LoL ‘scientific’ theory, tell me what is ‘scientific’ about it JB

 

It’s well known that there is a severe lack of evidence on human evolution and I’m yet to come across ANY 'evidence' in support of it. It’s the old trick of repeating it over and over again and having it in the school curriculum that got millions thinking along those line. I’m sure JB was ‘enlightened’ in those early days in Sweden. You may want to believe that you’re the descendent of animals if you want to though

 

Why do you ignore the evidence AGAINST evolution JB? Be prepared for more questions

 

In the meantime I'll leave you with the following for you to think about:

 

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

ps the 'introductory presents everything as fact and not theory. Maybe this is hwo they presented to you

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

Not so fast Johnny. Your urgency to end this is understandable but its time to put Atheism and it’s fallacies under the spotlight.

And This is what? the can-you-answer-my-question debate?

 

You've been pulling my legs for too long now, parttaking in a can-you-answer-my-question debate is not that giving, woulden't you say?!

 

Oh,please do put Atheism and it’s fallacies under the spotlight as i've been in total loss finding those fallacies whole my life ( am still trying), please don't hold back.

why am i entertaining the possibility that this is another of your wanting bravados?

 

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

I asked the question to highlight the bankruptcy of the whole atheist argument about creation.

I'd really be slow in the up-take if i thought an unknowable Deity 'created' Human-beeings as is, by blowing life into a piece of mud ( poooooooof ).

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

You believe that there is no creator with the sorry excuse of there being no evidence (or not enough evidence) but then in the same breath state that you believe in human evolution without being prepared to question it’s short-comings! I’m I missing something here?

You're not only missing alot,but displaying a poverity in rational thinking.

 

Since when asking for evidence became an excuse, a 'sorry' one at that?.

Do you accept everything at face-value or you're just making an exception when it comes to all 'creators', Gods, or you just do it for this special God?

 

As for questioning evolution, its about time i let you in on this little secret,

There is no alternative to evolution as history that withstands critical examination.

 

The idea of ( pooooof ) was too frail long before man got enlighted.

 

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

LoL ‘scientific’ theory, tell me what is ‘scientific’ about it JB

Are you implying that evolutionary theory is not scientific? Do you 'know' what a Scientific theory is? Do you understand what 'theory' means in the world Science?

 

To judge your question,i don't think you do.

Normally, laymen think of 'theory' as an imperfect truth, in a line of thinking where 'theory' is part of a hierarchy of confidence that runs down a hill,it goes from 'fact' to 'theory' to 'hypothesis',fact beeing absolute truth,'theory' beeing half-or-less truth and hypothesis beeing least truth.

 

The wonderful thing about Science is it's progressive,the Data in the world is our fact and the Scientific Theories are our structures of ideas that explain and interpret that fact, and most importantly 'fact' in Science means,only confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

 

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

It’s well known that there is a severe lack of evidence on human evolution and I’m yet to come across ANY 'evidence' in support of it. It’s the old trick of repeating it over and over again and having it in the school curriculum that got millions thinking along those line. I’m sure JB was ‘enlightened’ in those early days in Sweden. You may want to believe that you’re the descendent of animals if you want to though

You've yet to see a convincing evolution evidence after exhausting the fossil record but convinced that the 'theory' of mud-blowing (pooooooooof) is robust?.

 

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

Why do you ignore the evidence AGAINST evolution JB? Be prepared for more questions

You've presented one?

 

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

ps the 'introductory presents everything as fact and not theory. Maybe this is hwo they presented to you

Now that we've covered the 'theory', 'fact' in Science, can i savely assume that you got it?

 

 

Now, Again, lest you want to continue with the JB interrogation without putting more wood into the fire, can we call it a day?!

[N.O.R.F]

OK, I suppose I will have to play the one quote at a time game if it makes things easier for you to understand. By now it is obvious you’re pissing against the wind and your only fight back is with the usual reliance on ‘wit’ to get you through.

 

And This is what? the can-you-answer-my-question debate?

Yes

 

I'd really be slow in the up-take if i thought an unknowable Deity 'created' Human-beeings as is, by blowing life into a piece of mud ( poooooooof )

But you’re only too willing to believe that you descended from Apes

 

You're not only missing alot,but displaying a poverity in rational thinking.

 

Since when asking for evidence became an excuse, a 'sorry' one at that?.

Do you accept everything at face-value or you're just making an exception when it comes to all 'creators', Gods, or you just do it for this special God?

 

As for questioning evolution, its about time i let you in on this little secret,

There is no alternative to evolution as history that withstands critical examination.

 

The idea of ( pooooof ) was too frail long before man got enlighted.

An example of running around in circles if ever there was one. You accept the evolution theory because:

 

a) it’s the only plausible theory

b) there is no alternative

c) the man was ‘enlightened’ (lets be honest here, the man just ran out of ideas!)

 

The evolution theory does not withstand critical examination. I would be interested in how it does though Johnny. Can you provide this? Yours seems to be advocating for one thing and then forgets what it was advocating for in the first place!

 

Are you implying that evolutionary theory is not scientific? Do you 'know' what a Scientific theory is? Do you understand what 'theory' means in the world Science?

 

To judge your question,i don't think you do.

Normally, laymen think of 'theory' as an imperfect truth, in a line of thinking where 'theory' is part of a hierarchy of confidence that runs down a hill,it goes from 'fact' to 'theory' to 'hypothesis',fact beeing absolute truth,'theory' beeing half-or-less truth and hypothesis beeing least truth.

 

The wonderful thing about Science is it's progressive,the Data in the world is our fact and the Scientific Theories are our structures of ideas that explain and interpret that fact, and most importantly 'fact' in Science means,only confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

I suppose finding a human skull and an ape’s jaw, putting them together and calling it science makes some people believe such theories. When it comes to science JB, unfortunately for the Atheists, it is AGAINST the evolution theory. An easy question would be why aren’t we still ‘evolving’? Can you answer that?

 

The evidence doesn’t stack up JB. I’m just wondering why you’re prepared to believe it with all the chinks in its armour as blatant as daylight in the Sahara! I’m sure you’re aware of the evidence against it and it shall be interesting how you defend it

 

Now that we've covered the 'theory', 'fact' in Science, can i savely assume that you got it?

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between the two in science? I was always under the impression that once something is ‘proved’ it becomes fact. Darwin’s theory has not been ‘proved’ correct. In fact the opposite has been occurring for the past many years JB.

 

I’ll leave with a bit of homework. Disappoint me not.

 

"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.

Page 19

and this,,,

 

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. Page 46

and this

 

Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process.

Now we know where the merry dance routine came from

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

OK, I suppose I will have to play the one quote at a time game if it makes things easier for you to understand. By now it is obvious you’re pissing against the wind and your only fight back is with the usual reliance on ‘wit’ to get you through.

Firstly, What you consider a 'game of one quote at a time' is but an attempt to hold the discourse within the bounderies of a healthy and reasonable exchange, i woulden't survive a minute if you unleashed all your faith in superstitious beliefs , (from mud-blowing 'poof' creation to placing invisible beeings 'angels' on our shoulders to promisiing us a late feast of sexual romp with young houris in a Garden somewhere, if i just swollowed it hook,line and stinker ) on us at one time.

In another words its an attempt to help you see the validity of our assertions and make you reflect.

 

Your attempt to call it a 'game' is understandable , as it confirms your resolut negligence to comply with or comform to whatever reasonable outcome our exchanges might lead to, hence your belief in me pissing and/or fighting back,...oh if i only was on the mood.

 

Ever since i rebuted the hints in your Article regarding discomfort in Atheism and it's alleged inherent need to 'nettle' the religious, and further answered your 'debate question', you've been displaying a deep ignorance( whatever it maybe based on) about the evolutionary theory.

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

I suppose finding a human skull and an ape’s jaw, putting them together and calling it science makes some people believe such theories. When it comes to science JB, unfortunately for the Atheists, it is AGAINST the evolution theory. An easy question would be why aren’t we still ‘evolving’? Can you answer that?

And this is the what i base my earlier assumption regarding your deep ignorance about the evolutionary theory.

 

Firstly, i can answer that and many other questions regarding avolution satisfactorily, but let me first clarify why my assumption about your ignorance about evolution is suffocating.

 

To do that i'd like to magnify your question and better intensify its interrogative dispostion to such an extent that it becomes clear what is it that it questions.

 

Would i be doing justice to your question if i paraphrased it as following

 

If evolution is right then why are we not still evolving ?, and to strengthen your question add more related querries, like, why don't we see Animals in between evolving stages, a cow with wings or a snake with 112 legs or half-monkey men walking the streets?

 

If i'm doing justice to your question , and i hope i'm doing, then you haven't understood evolution. you may wonder why?, the reason is evolution is a slow biological process, parts of it are observable under the life-span of a human-beeing, we observe it daily, but parts of it can only be studied by stydying the history of the fossils.

 

If you want to see evolution in action simply stand right infront of the mirror,voila, what you're looking at is not only old handsome you, but the intermediate stage between Norf the Senior and Norf Jr, Does this mean Norf senior was a monkey, or more correctly, an Ape?, answer is ofcourse no.

Evolution doesen't turn Apes into men more than it turns them into Donkeys.

That we're not still evolving is your Imam's little white lie to discredit evolutionary fact,which he finds irreconcilable with the 'pooof' creation 'theroy'.

To answer your question i could simply point at your (my) ball-head to point at an evolution in action, as it was once covered with hair.

 

Generically, Evolution is only the adaptation and mutation of living things,so my dear Al Burcaawi, we're still evolving, and with that i hope i've shown your misconceptions about the evolutionary theory.

 

What is intresting here is that neither Atheism nor Agnoticism are based on the Evolutionary theory.

I'm not an Atheist becouse evolution does or does not take place,my Atheism is lack of Belief in Gods, meaning that i still would not be rationally convinced to believe in the mud-blowing creation theory( poooooof ), but irrational brothers like Al Burcaawi like to make it so, for the simple reason that for them belief is a choice.

For me,i'm not an Atheist of choice,it is a dispositon my knowledge of Gods or lack thereof rationally forces me to take.

 

What is even more intresting is the sort of Theism that advocates for the mud-blowing creation 'theory' (poooof) is, rationally speaking, less likely to be the correct answer to brother Al Burcaawi's question of how man originated on earth that than the evolutionary theory, even if evolution did not ( was not ) take place, so " my question is not(or can't be) answered" does not help brother Al Burcaawi's Belief in the 'pooooof' creation 'theory'.

 

If he doesen't mind sharing with us how does it help his stance,or allow us co-examine the 'poooof' creation 'theory', i'd be more than happy to hear him out.

 

This time, i wanna stay on track so please brother add more wood to the fire,be it, you undress Atehism or share the deep thoughts behind taking your position, given that indoctrination haven't had the upper hand of you.

Otherwise, let me do it, let me flex the Atheistic musscle on you.

[N.O.R.F]

[insert paragraphs of references to the ignorance of Atheists in general towards creation and their belief in evolution ‘because there is nothing else left’ in a perceived witty nature]

 

Now that that’s out of the way,,,,,,

 

That was 95% ‘babble’ Johnny. Sadly, for you, this isn’t a thread where you get by with repetitions of what you call ‘pooof’ theory. The gallery can see through all that. But hey we all use a bit of humour when in a tight spot

 

Now, if I’m not mistaken, you stated that you believed evolution to be ‘the only plausible’ explanation to how we came to being. I have challenged this and you’re yet to answer my questions or further explain how evolution created YOU. You have however, back-tracked, side stepped and stayed in the comfortable zone of trying to explain evolution being the same as the ageing process. Sorry to tell you this but that’s wrong! Surely 'evolve' means to ‘develop’ (ie advance). I only wish I could be a spring chicken again but I’m certainly not ‘evolving’! Looks like misconceptions about evolution are are plentiful. Even amongst those who have studied it.

 

For the umpteenth time this thread is calling into question what YOU think is how we came into being. I have no interest in telling you what I believe as this will only prove futile. I was hoping to highlight the fact that you believe in a theory that doesn’t stand up and has been brought into question whilst at the same time shouting off the rooftops at the lack of evidence on creation. That my friend is irrational.

 

Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence? It evolved from some sort of lesser form? I’m sure my house evolved from the rubble and WALLA; there are walls, floors, doors, windows, tiles and a pool! You see how silly that sounds JB? Now, though your footwork has been impressive, its time to bust a new move and actually try to say something conducive to your argument.

 

JB says:

 

If i'm doing justice to your question , and i hope i'm doing, then you haven't understood evolution. you may wonder why?, the reason is evolution is a slow biological process, parts of it are observable under the life-span of a human-beeing, we observe it daily, but parts of it can only be studied by stydying the history of the fossils.

If that's the case, please explain the following:

 

"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.

Page 19

Should I be optimistic about your pending reply?? :confused:

[Johnny B]

[insert paragraphs of references to the ignorance of Atheists in general towards creation and their belief in evolution ‘because there is nothing else left’ in a perceived witty nature]

I knew, and you told me that by asking me an existential question you wanted to or thought you could put Atheism and it’s fallacies under the spotlight, a task you've yet to endeavor, but this, the above that is , is way too wanting sagacity, even for a true superstetious person of your clibre, becouse many Atheists just as many Theists don't even know of or are less acquainted with the evolutionary theory, becouse as i stated earlier Atheism in not another Belief system that is based on Evolution as your Religion is based on creationistic myth, but you wish that , don't you?

 

Maybe the whole point behind asking that question was just to be able to paint Atheism as another Beleif system that instead of creationism relays on Evolution.

Oy vey,could you be more wrong ?

 

And shock and horror,it's exactly this 'percieved witty nature' that got Humanity out of the dark ages of superstitions, sad for you that the super natural mythology can't be entertained today,miracles can't take place as we know that

would be a violation of the natural laws.

women stopped giving birth to babyboys without male sperms, and the earth is not flat anymore.

 

Now, how big is the chance that i'll be making this clear again? i hope for a Zero, as redunduncy is not that funny when we've much ground to cover.

 

It is funyy to see you playing the one who decides what THIS is about and asks the questions,Since your superstitious beliefs are too frail for my questioning, i don't mind answering any questions you raise as long as they don't violate the natural laws.

Don't get disappointed at me reminding the gallery every now and then about your Belief in the ( poooof ) theory, it's a contrast to what you argue against, and it's only fair.

 

 

Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence?

This, so far, is the most intellectually dishonet utterance you've made against the evolution theory. it shows how right i've been all along.

 

To your disappointment all that is the human body including its cababilities has evolved with it to its current state, namely all that you named have gone through different stages of evolving inside the body.

Those people who carried a mental picture of a somehow enlighted Norf might be stunned , but i'm not.

 

 

It evolved from some sort of lesser form? I’m sure my house evolved from the rubble and WALLA; there are walls, floors, doors, windows, tiles and a pool! You see how silly that sounds JB? Now, though your footwork has been impressive, its time to bust a new move and actually try to say something conducive to your argument.

What an evolutionary simile?!, now, even i too am stunned.

 

Thanks for the clean exchanges.

[Johnny B]

Lastly, the following pictures put a full stop on all the brevado of our political theist Al Burcaawi.

 

 

Al Burcaai studying a 'creature' beeing !!

 

 

 

 

Same 'creature' evolved to become another 'creature' that can fly and landed on my finger.

 

so much for a 'pooof' creation.

i'm disappointed.

[N.O.R.F]

You seem to be concentrating on how the human body ‘evolves’ rather than how it was created. Do I detect a reluctance to head into those quarters? Come on JB, I promise to take it easy with you.

 

I see you haven’t answered/commented on what I have quoted to you twice already. Shall I take that as a concession on your part. I hope not as I was looking forward to actually ‘locking horns’ after the initial niceties had been exhausted. Maybe you have more to say or maybe you’re building up your stack before going for the jugular. Which one is it? I hope it’s the latter as this is getting tedious now. Or has the coockie crumbled for you already? Let me know.

 

Again, pardon me for not knowing much about Atheism (I did ask you to spell out for me anything I may have missed), but I based my initial queries on your ‘evolution is the only plausible option left’. To me evolution means humans being the decendents of apes with plenty of Atheists champion Darwin’s cause, are you different? How?

 

[fills remainder of the page with blah blah and a few pics]

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

You seem to be concentrating on how the human body ‘evolves’ rather than how it was created.

It's really sad and a great loss of time and energy ( despite me beeing on vacation ) that after two pages and 19 anserwes you're here asking " how it was 'created'" ?

 

One can't help but wonder if it ever occurred to you that by asking that, we've to assume that it is created first and perferably by way of 'pooof'.

 

You see brother even political Theism won't cut it without flourishing the proof for it's assumptions.

 

One might wonder why are we at square one gain, the reason is our Brother is not debating neither as a Theist scientist or a Theist theologist, he is debating political Theism against evolutionary Theory.

 

Our brother asks only questions (mostly rhetoric) and never answers questions, that is why the 'can-you-answer -my-question-debate' is serious buisiness, the questions of intellectual honesty, cincerity and malleability to comform to eventual rightness or wrongness in one's stance are not entertained, it's situation of a cornered Dragon so nothing but spitting fire is expected.

 

The Brother set himself on a mision to depict what he thinks is Atheism's achile's heel, shot his supposedly deadly but quite evolving question and is desperate to turn any malleability, cincerity or ground-giving move from my part to a victory for his poor creationstic, superstitious stance. It really is sad but truely that desperate.

 

The Brother's bravado is about a percieved hole found in the Evolutionary theory and ala 'Harun Yahya' at that.

 

To me evolution means humans being the decendents of apes with plenty of Atheists champion Darwin’s cause

Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. and this often leads to fruitless debate.

 

When our brother or people of his stance claim that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in say gravity!

 

What is saddening almost heartbreaking in this bravado is our brother believes that one could not 'believe' in evolution and still be religious!,

 

the fact of the matter is,once we realize that evolution is simply 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population individually and collectively spread over many generations' it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion. Q.E.D

 

[ STILL THANKFUL THAT NO VERSES OF A GIVEN TRUTH ARE ROAMING ... ]

[N.O.R.F]

My earlier statemenet.

 

“You seem to be concentrating on how the human body ‘evolves’ rather than how it was created”.

 

Apologies, delete all words after “it” and insert “came into being”.

 

Please answer.

 

JB – “Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind.”

 

I have asked for your definition on numerous occasions. Still no answer.

 

JB - “When our brother or people of his stance claim that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in say gravity!”

 

Go ahead and demonstrate. I have seen nothing yet.

 

JB - “the fact of the matter is,once we realize that evolution is simply 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population individually and collectively spread over many generations' it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion. Q.E.D”

 

I have provided you with statements countering the above. You are yet to write back on those.

 

All in all, it is unfortunate. I was actually hoping for something more fruitful than accusations and a merry go round. Suppose I was wrong and JB hasn’t changed. Until you go ahead and have a go at answering my queries this thread is on it dying legs. One can only be patient for so long.

[Johnny B]

All in all, it is unfortunate. I was actually hoping for something more fruitful than accusations and a merry go round. Suppose I was wrong and JB hasn’t changed. Until you go ahead and have a go at answering my queries this thread is on it dying legs. One can only be patient for so long.

Why sulk off now?

What happened to depicting Atheism and it's fallacies?

A: becouse you thought it was based on Evolution and found out that it's not?!

B: becouse your creationistic myth is no self explanatory enough to wipe it out?!

C: becouse you're doubting the validity of the creation myth and are in search of a better alternative ?!

 

By the way, why just delete that line and not the following?

I have challenged this and you’re yet to answer my questions or further explain how evolution created YOU.

 

Don't answer, this is just patronising you ala Ngonge.

 

 

Now, to enlight you about Evolution and/or the evolutionary theory scientifically that is, i'm all in for it, but becouse it's a huge and controversy-magnet subject i'd like you to read about it from the books of Science.

 

I know , you may already have been subject to the literature of it's opponents,becouse of your religious disposition, but it nevertheless helps you widen the horizons.

 

I'm not going to comment or answer selectively chosen paragraphs or questions that wildly accuse Evoloution or the Evolutionary theory of something that it neither says or stands for, like your earlier comment of "Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence?", as there is no evolutionary theory that claims just that.

 

The fact of the matter is, despite the evolutionary theory's neuteral stand regarding how life begun and it's solid base on only explaining how it evolved, Theists willingly confuse it's neuteral stand and accuse it of plasphemy as it doesen't directly sync with the creation Belif, which doesen't only hold the view that human-beeings are created by GOD but adds the sensitive assumption of them ( human-beeings that is )beeing created as is.

 

But,please, no Atheism/Theism or even politics,

becouse Neither Theism nor Atheism is based on Evolutionay Theory and playing politicians is not good alternative for cincerely exchanging.

 

To do that let us first DEFINE what is Evolution.

 

Fair?

 

If you feel this last post of mine is another ranting then you may let those dying legs of it fall abruptly, as we're sure our ways will croos each other in future threads.

[N.O.R.F]

Johnny, are you seriously suggesting that there is no major link between Atheism and the evolution theory and Darwinism? Does Atheism have a set of written guidelines whereby it states there is no link? Or is this simply your version. We can go down that road if you wish though.

 

Aha! You want me to read and actually try and comprehend the evolution theory JB? Is this Johnny asking someone to go and do a bit of background reading on a subject in order to understand it??? Surely not! Lets be honest here, I have asked you on numerous occasions to substantiate your theory on how humans came to being. You said you would counter any arguments against it as well. All you’ve done so far is hop, skip and jump!

 

JB: “I'm not going to comment or answer selectively chosen paragraphs or questions that wildly accuse Evolution or the Evolutionary theory of something that it neither says or stands for, like your earlier comment of "Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence?", as there is no evolutionary theory that claims just that”

 

If we were to go back to your first answer on how humans were created, we see that your answer was along the lines of evolution being the only plausible answer. This to me (and any other person who clearly understands the English language) means that you believe humans came into being through evolution. Subsequently, one can not be blamed for taking this answer of yours and wringing it around your neck! But you seam to have employed a different tact now. Now it’s a case of the evolution theory merely being ‘neutral’ in how man was formed. Suffice to say that you’re, yet again, running around in circles.

 

JB: “What happened to depicting Atheism and it's fallacies?

A: becouse you thought it was based on Evolution and found out that it's not?!

B: becouse your creationistic myth is no self explanatory enough to wipe it out?!

C: becouse you're doubting the validity of the creation myth and are in search of a better alternative ?”

 

Atheists do not believe that there is a creator, but believe in Darwin’s evolution theory even though that theory has been proven wrong. This, my friend, is where the cookie crumbles so to speak. You have already stated (after some double speak) that the evolution theory is ‘neutral’ when it comes to how we came to being but now you’re advocating for an alternative?? Is the alternative ‘I don’t know’? Or is it whatever the wind brings today?

 

You see JB, one can only put up with such contradictory tones for so long. Your stance changes with each post and you’re mindset has been on the periphery for a tad too long.

 

Nevertheless, I am prepared to do away with all that was said previously on one condition. YOU need to state, very clearly and unambiguously, what YOU think is how we humans came into being. Is that possible JB? If you wish to define evolution then please go ahead. At least we will set the wheels in motion to a more constructive discussion.

 

Either that or we get an arbitrator.

[Johnny B]

Brother, you seem to have a deep need to couple Atheism and the evolutionary theory so bad you're taking an unforgiveable leap to conclude so, a habbit well engraved in the Theistic mentality?.

 

I'm not suggesting,no, i'm possitively claiming it to be a fact that Atheism is a lack of Belief in Gods while the evolutionary theory is a scientific theory and none of them is dependent on or linked to the other.

 

Atheism is old as Theism while the scientific theory of evolution is around two centuries old.

 

Now, how difficult is that realize?

 

Atheists do not believe that there is a creator, but believe in Darwin’s evolution theory even though that theory has been proven wrong. This, my friend, is where the cookie crumbles so to speak.

 

This is exactly what i meant when asked you to read about the evolutionary theory in the Science books.

 

brother to scream that Darwin's evolutionary theory by way of natural selection ,we've had many other great theories regarding the machenisms of evolution, since Darwins by the way, is proven wrong doesen't cost much, i hope that anybody can scream at will diden't scape you, it doesen't take much intellectual effort to do so.

 

The question is, do you understand Darwin's theory? I doubt that you do.

Do yu wish that it diden't hold waters? I doubt NOT.

 

As far as how human-beeings came into beeing is concerned i think i answered glantly by stating the only plausible answer. It then stands to reason, or so i beleive, that you either comply with it or flourish an alternative.

 

It seems that we'll have to look forward to have better exchanges in the future.( my vacation is ticking away ; )

and with that i put my contribution to this thread on halt.

[N.O.R.F]

Is your definition different to Darwin's? If so, please explain how.

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection

While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

 

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6

"allaboutscience"