http://www.evoanth.net/2015/10/05/homo-naledi-disproves-creationism/
QuoteHomo naledi is an important new fossil from Africa that is a huge boon to our understanding of human evolution. It helps provide solid evidence for many hypotheses about our ancestors.
Creationism has a lot of flaws. It’s kind of racist, deceptive, and sometimes downright ignorant. But at it’s core the main problem is that it just isn’t science. Science is the most reliable way we have to test ideas and figure out if they’re accurate. Without this tool, creationists can’t determine if one of their ideas is more accurate than another. Which is where Homo naledi comes in. Without any way to actually figure out which of their ideas about the fossil is right a creationist civil war has erupted on the subject.
And the results are hilarious.
The two basic sides are whether this find is just a human, or just an ape. After all, there’s no way it could be some transition between the two. Creation Ministries International espouses the most common view: that since Homo naledi is part of the Homo family; it’s just human and nothing special.
But why label the remains Homo naledi if there is so much indication that these may have been ordinary humans with some unique anatomical variations just as there are variations today between different people groups but all descended from the first two people created by Godâ€"Adam and Eve?
. . .
Indeed, H. naledi has been described as having features “similar to early Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis†. . . Scientists such as Wolpoff as far back as 2001 argued that these should really all be included under H. sapiens, human beings.
Of course; they’re not ignorant of the fact that this idea disagrees with some creationists. As such they’re careful to not close the door completely on the interpretation that it’s actually an ape; promising to re-evaluate their position at a later date. And by re-evaluate, I strongly suspect they just mean “copy whatever other creationists say.†Which is something the Institute for Creation Research has already done.
They also started out claiming that Homo naledi was just another human.
Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo nalediâ€"if this name stands the test of timeâ€"was likely just another human variety.
But 5 days later a little footnote was posted at the bottom of the page
Update: Upon closer examination, the skeletal remains given the name Homo naledi show a host of primate characteristics, and evolutionists have pointed out shortcomings with the ritualistic burial interpretation.
What’s particularly interesting is that there’s no citation for this new information. No specific evolutionary criticism of the ritual burial, or which primate traits convinced them. Which is a shame, because the timing coincides with the publication of an Answers in Genesis piece on the subject â€" after the ICRs initial post but before their update. This takes the opposite position, arguing that Homo naledi was actually just an ape.
the extremely small braincaseâ€"assuming the composite reconstruction is accurateâ€"and the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis all are consistent with an australopithecine variant
Clearly, the creationist narrative is in disarray. Some can’t even agree that all the fossils found belong to the same species, let alone decide if it was ape or human. At the end of the day this is because all they have is a narrative; not science. If they problems they were finding with this fossil were real, surely they would all be arriving at the same conclusion? But they aren’t so they won’t.
This sort of disagreement undermines any scrap of credibility creationists might have left. As such, it can’t be allowed to continue. Over the next few weeks I suspect we’ll see creationists falling into lockstep as one narrative becomes dominant. After all, we’ve already seen the ICR do a complete 180 on the subject. But hopefully, dear reader, you’ll agree. By then the damage will have been done.
The term transitional fossil has been used to death, but Homo Naledi is significant because of the completeness of the find- some 15 total fossils. And it cannot clearly be considered human and more than likely has to be considered an interim phase in evolution. I love science, I truly do.
BY THE WAY- I think someone posted an article on Homo Naledi earlier, but I didn't see it. Apologies if that is the case.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/
Quote from: stromboli on October 05, 2015, 12:40:17 PM
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/10/05/homo-naledi-disproves-creationism/
The term transitional fossil has been used to death, but Homo Naledi is significant because of the completeness of the find- some 15 total fossils. And it cannot clearly be considered human and more than likely has to be considered an interim phase in evolution. I love science, I truly do.
BY THE WAY- I think someone posted an article on Homo Naledi earlier, but I didn't see it. Apologies if that is the case.
How many bones...15?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:08:06 PM
How many bones...15?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
You did not even bother to look at the link and the first image in it let alone read it!
(http://i1.wp.com/www.evoanth.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/F1.medium.gif?resize=578%2C264)
Are you so stupid that you think the picture only shows 15 bones, because you can't count that many or is it that your intention to post was that you wanted to prove that creationists do not study the evidence?
Either way you have proved any arguments that come from you are coming from an evidently witless pillock.
(The fossils of probably 15 individuals)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:08:06 PM
How many bones...15?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Are you a Young earth creationist by any chance ?
Please say yes :)
Quote from: Termin on October 09, 2015, 11:37:18 PM
Are you a Young earth creationist by any chance ?
Please say yes :)
Termin; I think this particular christard threw himself into the ring for the entertainment of the crowd. He's already half dead anyway, at least mentally, it would be a mercy to finish it off.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/76748-Gladiator-thumbs-down-gif-b5MO.gif)
Quote from: Termin on October 09, 2015, 11:37:18 PM
Are you a Young earth creationist by any chance ?
Please say yes :)
That was funny. Please don't think I'm dense. Strong? Yes. Dumb? No.
You could say their is and always was a "watchmaker", sometimes he steps in big time to adjust the time.
Evolution and creation are one and the same if you observe everything as being started at one point by the will of God the creator.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: jonb on October 09, 2015, 11:49:59 PM
Termin; I think this particular christard threw himself into the ring for the entertainment of the crowd. He's already half dead anyway, at least mentally, it would be a mercy to finish it off.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/76748-Gladiator-thumbs-down-gif-b5MO.gif)
I assure you I have but just begun.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2015, 11:51:28 PM
I assure you I have but just begun.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
No we have already seen that you fell on your own sword, its just a question of how long you take staggering about.
Quote from: jonb on October 09, 2015, 11:54:17 PM
No we have already seen that you fell on your own sword, its just a question of how long you take staggering about.
Not even bleeding, when did I stab myself?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
When you proved that either you could not count fifteen or that you do not look at the evidence, that's terminal for anybody that even wants to pretend they have a credible argument.
I wonder how long it will be before the moderators throw this one into purgatory. :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
He seems to have the map of how to get there, the big question is-
can he read it?
Quote from: jonb on October 09, 2015, 11:59:59 PM
When you proved that either you could not count fifteen or that you do not look at the evidence, that's terminal for anybody that even wants to pretend they have a credible argument.
Nope. I agree with evolution to an extent and creation to an extent. They work quite well together if one actually looks at the ramifications of the cohesion of the two. Why can't you agree that some form of creation is plausible as everything can not start from nothing in itself.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
If you can't count and/or you don't even look at the evidence placed in front of you before you spout off about it what credibility have you?
It does not matter what your views are for or against you have rendered them worthless.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 01:28:02 AM
Nope. I agree with evolution to an extent and creation to an extent. They work quite well together if one actually looks at the ramifications of the cohesion of the two. Why can't you agree that some form of creation is plausible as everything can not start from nothing in itself.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
"Ramifications of the cohesion of the two" ..........of course, why didn't I think of that? And what would I be looking for specifically that will allow me to determine that they work quite well together? Lead me to your evidence please, because it's evidently not so evident.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 02:51:31 AM
"Ramifications of the cohesion of the two" ..........of course, why didn't I think of that? And what would I be looking for specifically that will allow me to determine that they work quite well together? Lead me to your evidence please, because it's evidently not so evident.
It's not that I necessarily have evidence for creation but what I know that had been shown to me. The chicken was before the egg, though. Again, why do you say they don't work together.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Is there evidence that they don't work together?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:02:45 AM
It's not that I necessarily have evidence for creation but........
This is when I stopped reading, can you guess why? Come on back when you do mate!
Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 03:07:14 AM
This is when I stopped reading, can you guess why? Come on back when you do mate!
Evolutionists don't have evidence to refute the big bang do they? So what is your point. You can in no way refute that everything can indeed come from nothing alone which in itself is an oxymoron. I don't have a problem with evolution. You know why? Because it works with creation. You know what evolution doesn't work with? Absolute nothing. Utter vacuum. Void. Nothing can start from nothing, but nothing else can. Do you understand that? Something was added to void to create everything. What put that something in to the vacuum is God. This has taken roughly 6 eons.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
So let me get this straight, nothing can come from nothing, so god? And it would appear that we're now on to infinite regress! If you say nothing, I'm going to be required by your own rule to include your god. Checkmate!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:03:13 AM
Is there evidence that they don't work together?
Good Grief! You can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist, so he probably does. Right?
Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 03:24:55 AM
So let me get this straight, nothing can come from nothing, so god? And it would appear that we're now on to infinite regress! If you say nothing, I'm going to be required by your own rule to include your god. Checkmate!
I'm sorry, I can't understand what it is you were trying to say. Could you word it differently? Thanks.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: SGOS on October 10, 2015, 05:53:48 AM
Good Grief! You can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist, so he probably does. Right?
Big foot doesn't really connect all partial functioning hypotheses into a single, coherent, all encompassing theory that can benefit all existence for sake of existence as we know it.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 01:28:02 AM
Nope. I agree with evolution to an extent and creation to an extent. They work quite well together if one actually looks at the ramifications of the cohesion of the two. Why can't you agree that some form of creation is plausible as everything can not start from nothing in itself.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
What language are you typing in? Is that supposed to be English? What the fuck does it mean? How can you have a discussion when you can even write coherently? You are strong? What a laugh. You may not be dumb, buy you are truly ignorant and willfully so. And I am beginning to think you are stupid, as well--willfully so.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:18:39 AM
Evolutionists don't have evidence to refute the big bang do they?
My guess is that you never pass a course in physics, nor in biology, otherwise you would never have made a fucking asshole ignorant statement like this one. Get yourself an education, I mean, outside of reading the idiotic bible.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 10, 2015, 09:45:28 AM
My guess is that you never pass a course in physics, nor in biology, otherwise you would never have made a fucking asshole ignorant statement like this one. Get yourself an education, I mean, outside of reading the idiotic bible.
Answer the question instead of dancing around it.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Answer the question instead of dancing around it.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Good advice. Why don't you take it? Oh, I keep forgetting--you can't think.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 09:37:40 AM
Big foot doesn't really connect all partial functioning hypotheses into a single, coherent, all encompassing theory that can benefit all existence for sake of existence as we know it.
Since you bring that up, if that's the criteria at stake, Bigfoot, as answer to a unifying theory, is no worse than any god did it claim. And even if creation was not controlled by Bigfoot, doesn't translate into, "Therefore, God." It's called the argument from ignorance, and it's a well known fallacy used by Christians and creationists. It follows the basic format of, "You can't explain that, therefore God did it," or even better, "No one knows everything, therefore the things we don't understand, must be God." Theists love this argument because they don't understand the logic that makes it invalid. Stupid people also like it, because well, they're stupid. Arguments from ignorance are being constantly invalidated. It was once thought thunder had to be caused by Thor. Well, we didn't know the real reason, so it seemed like a good argument, but then one day we did know the cause of thunder, and we could no longer fall back on our ignorance to explain Thor, and illogical people are still using the argument from ignorance today. You would think that after 4000 years of watching arguments from ignorance get invalidated, people would stop using them, but they are drawn to that fallacy like bees to pollen. Use it in this forum and people will simply disregard you. We don't care about what you don't know. It doesn't explain anything.
Quote from: SGOS on October 10, 2015, 10:57:03 AM
Since you bring that up, if that's the criteria at stake, Bigfoot, as answer to a unifying theory, is no worse than any god did it claim. And even if creation was not controlled by Bigfoot, doesn't translate into, "Therefore, God." It's called the argument from ignorance, and it's a well known fallacy used by Christians and creationists. It follows the basic format of, "You can't explain that, therefore God did it," or even better, "No one knows everything, therefore the things we don't understand, must be God." Theists love this argument because they don't understand the logic that makes it invalid. Stupid people also like it, because well, they're stupid. Arguments from ignorance are being constantly invalidated. It was once thought thunder had to be caused by Thor. Well, we didn't know the real reason, so it seemed like a good argument, but then one day we did know the cause of thunder, and we could no longer fall back on our ignorance to explain Thor, and illogical people are still using the argument from ignorance today. You would think that after 4000 years of watching arguments from ignorance get invalidated, people would stop using them, but they are drawn to that fallacy like bees to pollen. Use it in this forum and people will simply disregard you. We don't care about what you don't know. It doesn't explain anything.
Likewise. What I know has been taught for over four thousand years. I never said we don't know so God. That would be you assuming things. By the way it seems that you are stating "we don't know so not God" the biggest difference is that your claims are wholly unfounded where as mine are backed by history even before written word, and recently backed by science as well. So maybe it wouldn't hurt if everyone could be a little more opened minded about things they aren't certain of. Just a suggestion.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 11:23:15 AM
the biggest difference is that your claims are wholly unfounded where as mine are backed by history even before written word, and recently backed by science as well. So maybe it wouldn't hurt if everyone could be a little more opened minded about things they aren't certain of. Just a suggestion.
If that is so, why not give us some facts? Okay, one fact? Do you know any?
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2015, 03:38:58 PM
If that is so, why not give us some facts? Okay, one fact? Do you know any?
The fact that everything isn't strictly observable and henceforth not only comprised of the physical alone.
How bout the fact that all material of the physical at a subatomic level isn't technically stationary or constant. Oh yeah, let's not forget that it's all the same "substance" that's all connected.
Definitely doesn't seem like life and existence aren't simply the sum of there physical parts which aren't physical in the traditional sense anyway.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 11:23:15 AM
it seems that you are stating "we don't know so not God"
Not at all. I don't make a claim either way.
Quote
the biggest difference is that your claims are wholly unfounded where as mine are backed by history even before written word, and recently backed by science as well. So maybe it wouldn't hurt if everyone could be a little more opened minded about things they aren't certain of. Just a suggestion.
See above.
Quote from: SGOS on October 10, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
Not at all. I don't make a claim either way.
See above.
Oh, you're agnostic?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 04:18:35 PM
Oh, you're agnostic?
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Most in the forum are.
Quote from: SGOS on October 10, 2015, 04:27:53 PM
Most in the forum are.
Kinda feel like a dick now. Agnosticism is a good thing if your trying to learn. But to claim agnosticism after attaining knowledge otherwise would not be too smart. Not implying anything, just sayin. To be of good is close to being of God. Good as in outwardly good without wanting anything in return from this part of reality or existence.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Kinda feel like a dick now. Agnosticism is a good thing if your trying to learn. But to claim agnosticism after attaining knowledge otherwise would not be too smart. Not implying anything, just sayin. To be of good is close to being of God. Good as in outwardly good without wanting anything in return from this part of reality or existence.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Depends on what you think agnosticism is ?
Quote from: Termin on October 10, 2015, 10:34:07 PM
Depends on what you think agnosticism is ?
Neither confirmation or denial or a deity.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 11:13:09 PM
Neither confirmation or denial or a deity.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
You're close. It means you don't know. And really, if you're honest, and consider the absence of evidence, there isn't a person on the planet that can know. This means every human is agnostic - whether they are willing to admit it or not. But while you're willing to entertain the possibility of a god, most on here are not so inclined to do so without evidence. Therefore atheism is a more apt description of us. So don't start believing we have very much in common with regard to whichever god it is you worship.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 11:13:09 PM
Neither confirmation or denial or a deity.
Actually, the definition as it was originally coined is "the belief that you cannot know that God exists." This allows agnosticism and atheism to exist side by side. So I'm also an atheist. In recent years, theists have corrupted the definition to mean a point between belief and atheism, but few atheists, those who recognize the nature of knowledge and its difference from mere belief, do not use the term that way.
It's convenient that God be constructed so that no one can know that God does or doesn't exist. And this appears to be a comfort for believers because they can take the liberty to bypass actual knowledge and substitute it with belief in their search for truth. Then they seem to elevate belief to an even higher status than knowledge, and claim that belief can actually reveal truth. Now I can be an arrogant prick, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can know the unknowable. Leave that to the Pope, and the guys who evangelize over the airwaves through their tin foil head gear.
Since I cannot know the truth, or to make it more palatable to believers,... SINCE I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH, there is an unfilled hole in my knowledge base. So if a theist asks me to look into my own heart and know the truth of God, I find that literally impossible to do (I can actually only look in my knowledge base).
There is no knowledge in my heart, only muscle, nerves, and blood, so the only honest answer is that I have no such truth, and that leads me to a neutral position where I just don't have a belief in God. Not that it automatically leads me to denial. It just leaves me right there where I started. I lack what I need to believe in that which I cannot know. Or to put it in other words, I don't believe in a god.
This appears to be unfathomable to theists. It's not because they don't like my lack of belief (although most don't like it at all). They just get caught up in a non-existent "for us or against us mentality; You can only believe he exists or believe he doesn't exist." They don't understand what not believing means. It seems to be beyond their grasp, and I'm quite sure this is why they misuse the definition of agnostic and atheist to a point where the two words have actually become corrupted in common usage.
This guy still around?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 04:02:43 PM
How bout the fact that all material of the physical at a subatomic level isn't technically stationary or constant. Oh yeah, let's not forget that it's all the same "substance" that's all connected.
Yeah, I suppose you could call this a fact, although there are still enough unknowns existing at the sub atomic level to warrant some caution about assuming too much. But fact or not, I'm not sure how this supports any of your (what I call mystical) beliefs.
Quote
Definitely doesn't seem like life and existence aren't simply the sum of there physical parts which aren't physical in the traditional sense anyway.
There is nothing I can see that disqualifies life as being either physical or traditional, no matter what is happening at the sub atomic level. It's physical. It has mass, and can be observed. it is composed of matter. That's the definition of "physical". I'm not ready to make the kind of leap of faith into the metaphysical discussion of why the physical isn't really physical. I'm sure philosophers could have a hey day talking about such unknowns, but none of their conclusions lead to anything of substance.
Life appears to be very traditional. There doesn't seem to be anything spectacularly special about it either. Given the right conditions, the right materials, temperature, etc., it seems to be inevitable. It starts to show up in the fossil record during the pre-Cambrian period, which in geologic terms could be thought of as early, if not simply "as soon as possible." Elements begin to mix and combine forming minerals and organic compounds, and life just seems like the natural continuation of mixing and combining, given even less than ideal conditions.
Humans tend to make a big deal about life and give it special status, probably because we happen to be a part of that category, and our self-absorption leads us to see ourselves occupying a special place in a really not so special, but quite imaginary hierarchy of matter and it's behavior. I think a better way to think of life is that it's natural, rather than special. We are just bags of chemicals, one of which twitched billions of years ago, and took a natural progression to the next inevitable step. I don't know why this happened or how it happened, but it certainly did happen.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 11, 2015, 06:26:56 AM
This guy still around?
For whatever reason, I just discovered him, so he seems like a totally new person to me. He advocates keeping an open mind, and I like that. If he applies that advice to himself, rather than just others, he might even gain some insight into how atheists think and how we process information. But like I said, I only ran into him a day or two ago.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 04:02:43 PM
The fact that everything isn't strictly observable and henceforth not only comprised of the physical alone.
That's a fact? Okay, name one thing that exists and is not observable.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2015, 09:33:51 AM
That's a fact? Okay, name one thing that exists and is not observable.
Antimatter
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2015, 10:00:00 AM
Antimatter
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
We make antimatter in labs, genius.
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 04:02:43 PM
The fact that everything isn't strictly observable and henceforth not only comprised of the physical alone.
Supernaturalism of the gaps in a nutshell.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2015, 09:33:51 AM
That's a fact? Okay, name one thing that exists and is not observable.
Thursday.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 11, 2015, 01:07:31 PMThursday.
Well, you could observe the day in question - a timelapse video of the entirety of last thursday, for example. True, "thursday" (and the week in general) is a human construct, but what that term designates is very real.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 11:46:01 PM
You're close. It means you don't know. And really, if you're honest, and consider the absence of evidence, there isn't a person on the planet that can know. This means every human is agnostic - whether they are willing to admit it or not. But while you're willing to entertain the possibility of a god, most on here are not so inclined to do so without evidence. Therefore atheism is a more apt description of us. So don't start believing we have very much in common with regard to whichever god it is you worship.
I don't appreciate you or anyone else assuming what I do or do not know. I was an atheist for over twenty years. I know without a doubt that there is a God. I was saved directly by said God. I is all the evidence I will ever need ebb though I get more and more confirmation daily.
And don't worry I don't want or expect any type of camaraderie from any man.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
SGOS
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Up say som to Hong is convinuent or coincidence. I do not believe in coincidence.
Any who "bypass" any sort of knowledge, be it physical, spiritual, or a combination of the two, is foolish.
Do not generalize all religion with those that are in it for greedy reasons. There is a thing known as true Faith. It is usually a product of a direct connection one has at one time or another with God. This connection usually leads the individual to a completely different way of being and yes, it can bring about knowledge.
Taking everything in a literal sense will stifle your ability to learn.
You seem to be talking about things you don't really know about. Granted, I suppose some religious individuals do that too.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2015, 06:38:51 PM
I don't appreciate you or anyone else assuming what I do or do not know. I was an atheist for over twenty years. I know without a doubt that there is a God. I was saved directly by said God. I is all the evidence I will ever need ebb though I get more and more confirmation daily.
And don't worry I don't want or expect any type of camaraderie from any man.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
That's ok, your appreciation isn't required for me to assume what you don't know. Which, from your posts it is very apparent there's a lot you don't know, and for those things that you don't know, you choose instead to invent.
Atheist for 20 years eh? Do you have any idea just how many theists come in here making a similar claim thinking it will somehow give your new position more sway? I call bullshit - aka liar! And your god frowns on that!
Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 11, 2015, 08:55:18 PM
That's ok, your appreciation isn't required for me to assume what you don't know. Which, from your posts it is very apparent there's a lot you don't know, and for those things that you don't know, you choose instead to invent.
Atheist for 20 years eh? Do you have any idea just how many theists come in here making a similar claim thinking it will somehow give your new position more sway? I call bullshit - aka liar! And your god frowns on that!
You mm...!...
I am not lying at all. I remember vaguely in pieces not understanding how dinosaurs where older than man yet man was made at the same time with the animals.
I remember not understanding how there could be so much pain in life if some thing made us and loved us. As I grew older I just assumed that evolution was right based on the observable facts. I remember repeatedly tempting God to prove to myself and "it" that I knew it wasn't real. At one point I made a conclusion that the sun was physical proof of some "higher power". This is still atheism though. All through childhood and adolescence I had this anger. Anger grew into usable tools. I was in a bad spot. Let's just say that by the time is was about 28 I was really trying to change my negative life. I had started praying sporadically out of desperation for change, even strength for death. I didn't put "Faith" into these pleads, but I did put hope. Perhaps a year went by. Saw glimpses of peace a couple of times in states of complete loss. Another year of ups downs and fights. Little more hope. Little more direction. Then at shortly after my family(and sons family) was saved by God because God saved me from literally destroying it by relieving me of my anger. So technically it may have taken me two or three years to go from full blown adamant atheist to literally truly faithful(not belief/ or hope technically).
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
ok, so you think you've found god. What are you looking for here? Shouldn't you be hanging with like minded people like most theists prefer? The conversion of anyone on here is about as likely as you ever showing us any proof of your god. You here for laughs? (Our laughs)
Tempting God? Sun as the proof of a higher power? These do not define atheism. You appeared to be a theist, a theist who was angry at God.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 11, 2015, 01:32:32 PM
Well, you could observe the day in question - a timelapse video of the entirety of last thursday, for example. True, "thursday" (and the week in general) is a human construct, but what that term designates is very real.
How much time would the video cover?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Answer the question instead of dancing around it.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I'm not in the business of giving a 5-year course. But there's plenty of university that do. But talking to an ignoramus like you is a waste of time. Have a nice life, asshole.
One for the people who can read:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/
Hey pops,
If you create a signature, it automatically appends it to your post and so you don't have to write it out each time.
Also:
Big Bang is physics. Evolution is Biology. The two theories are not connected in any way other than "creationists oppose them both."
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2015, 09:33:51 AM
That's a fact? Okay, name one thing that exists and is not observable.
A McDonald's restaurant being built, seriously, have you ever seen one ? they just appear, it's spooky.
Quote from: Termin on October 12, 2015, 08:50:59 PM
A McDonald's restaurant being built, seriously, have you ever seen one ? they just appear, it's spooky.
Damn.............now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing one built. That is spooky.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 12, 2015, 11:04:29 AM
Hey pops,
If you create a signature, it automatically appends it to your post and so you don't have to write it out each time.
He could be using Tapatalk. On PCs, a Tapatalk signature appears as part of the person's post. That's why some of my posts have "Secretly a Warsie" at the end of them.