(1) you consider yourself misguided because you have not formally declared a religion. It appears to me that you assume that accepting religion sets you on the path to knowledge. If that is the case, then get off your agnostic arse and pick one.
(2) definitive proof of mans common ancestry with apes isn’t required. The process of evolution is real and is taking place all around us every minute of every day (albeit often too slow to measure). Why are humans different? If every other organism on this Earth evolved from previous species, then what makes human evolution immune to this process? Take, for example, Australopithicus afarensis, which lived approximately 3 million years ago. It shares many phenotypic attributes of the chimpanzee, including body size and skull shape. However, it was also bipedal, and many believe that this was the origin of Homo sapiens. How about Homo erectus? Inhabiting the Earth between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago, it had a large brain, small generalized teeth, modern arm proportions and a modern hand, was fully bipedal and had long legs, equal to those of Homo sapiens. There are so many to choose from – Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo heidelbergensis, each one showing characteristics more and more like modern humans, evolving over a 3 million year period. You require a missing link? Here are several.
(3) In one of Funk-3-Fives previous posts, he stated ‘obviously it's hard to observe things billions of years ago, we can only look at fossils etc. and speculate.’ In reply, you claimed that ‘it is not a science, only a pseudo-scientific faith (i.e. a religion)’. I’m not sure if you’re just really bad at stating your claims, but to me it sounded as though you were saying that looking at fossils (paleontology) is a pseudo-scientific faith, i.e. religion. Ofcourse, you got that wrong too – religion has nothing to do with science – remove the scientific from that statement and you have religion – pseudo.
(4) You obviously failed math because 0+0≠1. Why is it so hard for you to believe in evolution? Are you too good to be part of the animal kingdom? You claim that the chance of the universe being created from nothing and the concept of evolution itself is, as you so eloquently put it, an impossible impossibility. That is rubbish and you know it. All I can gather from that statement is that you are scared of not knowing, you require an explanation for everything, even if you have to resort to ‘God did it’. As DubbC said, “science fills in the gap for the people that care about life, not for people who are so smug who think they know everything”.
(5) your assumption that I do not know the meaning of non-denominational is yet another attempt for you to belittle me. Wow, big words! I bet you sit there and think to yourself (in regards to that statement) ‘wow, that’s deep!’. I stopped smoking marijuana several years ago (and with that most of my philosophical debates), and, although I studied several philosophy topics during my undergrad years, I don’t see how the concepts ‘continual existence’ has any relevance to this argument
(6) I don’t believe God to be a magical figure up in the sky. I am an atheist. Therefore, I do not believe in God at all, regardless of what form you may think ‘HE’ takes. If God is a force to you, then what separates ‘him’ from gravity, electromagnetism or the strong and weak nuclear forces? Why do you impart on him the ability to think, of intelligence beyond that which we have the capacity to understand? This argument of yours makes no sense to me. Please explain, using logic offcourse (and not resorting to religious ramblings)
(7) Finally, I used your phrase, verbatim, because it was ironic. Do you not think that I could have come up with something different if I tried? Is it that, because you are obviously so very wise, that you cannot comprehend someone else utilizing their brain? I admit that I have a lot to learn, but you are certainly not the person to be teaching.
I am unfamiliar with your ‘En serio, fam dog champion’ comment, it sounds funny though. What does it mean, my esteemed colleague? (that ones just for you DS, you laughable little freak). You need to do better than that if you want your petty unintelligible arguments to result in my violation and exposition.
(2) definitive proof of mans common ancestry with apes isn’t required. The process of evolution is real and is taking place all around us every minute of every day (albeit often too slow to measure). Why are humans different? If every other organism on this Earth evolved from previous species, then what makes human evolution immune to this process? Take, for example, Australopithicus afarensis, which lived approximately 3 million years ago. It shares many phenotypic attributes of the chimpanzee, including body size and skull shape. However, it was also bipedal, and many believe that this was the origin of Homo sapiens. How about Homo erectus? Inhabiting the Earth between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago, it had a large brain, small generalized teeth, modern arm proportions and a modern hand, was fully bipedal and had long legs, equal to those of Homo sapiens. There are so many to choose from – Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo heidelbergensis, each one showing characteristics more and more like modern humans, evolving over a 3 million year period. You require a missing link? Here are several.
(3) In one of Funk-3-Fives previous posts, he stated ‘obviously it's hard to observe things billions of years ago, we can only look at fossils etc. and speculate.’ In reply, you claimed that ‘it is not a science, only a pseudo-scientific faith (i.e. a religion)’. I’m not sure if you’re just really bad at stating your claims, but to me it sounded as though you were saying that looking at fossils (paleontology) is a pseudo-scientific faith, i.e. religion. Ofcourse, you got that wrong too – religion has nothing to do with science – remove the scientific from that statement and you have religion – pseudo.
(4) You obviously failed math because 0+0≠1. Why is it so hard for you to believe in evolution? Are you too good to be part of the animal kingdom? You claim that the chance of the universe being created from nothing and the concept of evolution itself is, as you so eloquently put it, an impossible impossibility. That is rubbish and you know it. All I can gather from that statement is that you are scared of not knowing, you require an explanation for everything, even if you have to resort to ‘God did it’. As DubbC said, “science fills in the gap for the people that care about life, not for people who are so smug who think they know everything”.
(5) your assumption that I do not know the meaning of non-denominational is yet another attempt for you to belittle me. Wow, big words! I bet you sit there and think to yourself (in regards to that statement) ‘wow, that’s deep!’. I stopped smoking marijuana several years ago (and with that most of my philosophical debates), and, although I studied several philosophy topics during my undergrad years, I don’t see how the concepts ‘continual existence’ has any relevance to this argument
(6) I don’t believe God to be a magical figure up in the sky. I am an atheist. Therefore, I do not believe in God at all, regardless of what form you may think ‘HE’ takes. If God is a force to you, then what separates ‘him’ from gravity, electromagnetism or the strong and weak nuclear forces? Why do you impart on him the ability to think, of intelligence beyond that which we have the capacity to understand? This argument of yours makes no sense to me. Please explain, using logic offcourse (and not resorting to religious ramblings)
(7) Finally, I used your phrase, verbatim, because it was ironic. Do you not think that I could have come up with something different if I tried? Is it that, because you are obviously so very wise, that you cannot comprehend someone else utilizing their brain? I admit that I have a lot to learn, but you are certainly not the person to be teaching.
I am unfamiliar with your ‘En serio, fam dog champion’ comment, it sounds funny though. What does it mean, my esteemed colleague? (that ones just for you DS, you laughable little freak). You need to do better than that if you want your petty unintelligible arguments to result in my violation and exposition.