Determinism: The Destroyer of Atheism

[Inquisitive_]

You're conflating different things. One can take perfectly defensible position that the God of the Quran or Bible doesn't exist. One can do this by examining evidence for such god along with contradictions, inconsistencies and disconfirming evidence. When this approach is used, one can say Allah doesn't exist in the same way one can say Big Foot or Aliens don't exist.

Don't dance around and delve into other issues, stick to the premise of this topic, as an Atheist, do you believe in free-will? or is it determinism as every other purported atheist physicist, chemist, biologist, nueroscientist espouse ?

Or do you also need to read a few books like your other ignorant charlatan friend, before your able to answer the question?

 

[Inquisitive_]

philosophical debates on free will that you like to determine people's stance on for their based purely on lack of theistic belief, as a part of their 'creed'.

@VixR

Interesting post, I like how you have spun this into a philosophical issue, I do not care about the philosophical arguments on free-will unless you believe in God, otherwise it's useless as pulling the cart before the horse.

In a world without our beloved, Majestic, Supreme, all powerful, all seeing, God, a world with just atoms, molecules, electrons, protons and spec's of dust flying around infinite space among septillion planets, that may even have alien life (everything but God)

How do you explain the conundrum of 'free-will', a concept rightfully rejected by the fast majority of scientific materialists you hold in high esteem?

Which view do you take? Do you go with the fast majority on this that free-will is an illusion? Do you go with Cosmos and claim ignorance and you need time to read a few books? or do you reject all of them and believe there is 'free-will' in your world view?

I am interested to hear your view on this, please don't hesitate.

 

[Raamsade]

Tell me what else I don't know about myself. I think Cosmos will agree that our back and forth has been civil, so I have no idea why you'd brand me a pathological anything.

I have the benefit of more than 15 years of debating/debunking cockamamie ideas of religious nutjobs. Also, nothing I gleaned of my cursory review of your posts in this thread persuades me otherwise.

I personally have no problem with the big bang nor other scientific theories (besides Darwin's pet project). I was using it as a device in my argument.

There you go again! You just can't help yourself, can you? The mental compartmentalization required to accept the scientific method and its fruits and yet reject THE central organizing principle of all life sciences - Evolution - is a pathology. That you lack the self-realization to see it just puts an accent on your pathology.

I found this little gem rather intriguing since I completely disagree with it, The natural state of affairs is that all things came from something, and that nothing can come from nothing. Hence I believe that the natural state of being is the subconscious belief in a higher power. To me, this is the null hypothesis.

You're confused. My point was Atheism is the natural state of affairs. For example, when you were born, you (and everyone) was free of belief (in whatever entity) until such time it was inculcated into us by our environment (parents, relatives, community, etc). In other words, everyone is born an atheist and only become religious through indoctrination. Take yourself as an example - the only reason you're Muslim is because of your parents. Most religious people follow the religion of their parents. So much for free will!

Regarding your point about all things coming from something, true. But that only raises more question like where did "creator" come from?

 

[Raamsade]

Don't dance around and delve into other issues, stick to the premise of this topic, as an Atheist, do you believe in free-will? or is it determinism as every other purported atheist physicist, chemist, biologist, nueroscientist espouse ?

Or do you also need to read a few books like your other ignorant charlatan friend, before your able to answer the question?

You have no idea what determinism means let along have the wherewithal to ruminate on the fine merits of free will. But you want me to waste my pressure time on your silly canards?

 

[Rorschach]

I have the benefit of more than 15 years of debating/debunking cockamamie ideas of religious nutjobs. Also, nothing I gleaned of my cursory review of your posts in this thread persuades me otherwise.

Empty words. I frankly don't care for your previous encounters with 'religious nutjobs'; it's impossible to conclude pathology from a couple of comments so take your ad hominem back saaxib. We should remain civil.

The mental compartmentalization required to accept the scientific method and its fruits and yet reject THE central organizing principle of all life sciences - Evolution - is a pathology.

Please enlighten me, how is the theory of transitioning from primates to humans central to life sciences? Do you mean natural selection by any chance? Separate the two. Whenever I attack Darwins fantasy, I attack the transitioning of primates to humans, not natural selection which is a coherent scientific theory understood for centuries.

You're confused. My point was Atheism is the natural state of affairs

You have no proof for this. Others, like myself, would argue that the belief in a creator is the natural state of affairs. The belief in a creator has been central to almost all ancient and modern civilisations.

Take yourself as an example - the only reason you're Muslim is because of your parents.

Yes, I am fortunate alhamdulIllah, and so were you before you threw it away.

Regarding your point about all things coming from something, true. But that only raises more question like where did "creator" come from?

This is what frustrates me. You are willing to suspend disbelief when the 'scientists' argue the big bang (nothing came from something), but on the other hand you use the same argument to question God? Why not question both? Your mindset should be indifference to both the religious and the 'scientists', since both use intangible theories to argue their points. An atheist chooses to believe the bullshit of the 'scientists' as opposed to the priests. You've picked your team saxiib, so tapping yourself on the back for apparently espousing the position of an uninfluenced person (the position of fitra) is not fooling anyone.

Either suspend your belief for all theories, or scrutinise everything. A true atheist/agnostic/insert-quack-term should keep silent and dismiss everything unless proven to them conclusively. As my brother @Inquisitive_ says, you guys are material worshipers. You've replaced one God with other gods.

 

[Inquisitive_]

You have no idea what determinism means let along have the wherewithal to ruminate on the fine merits of free will. But you want me to waste my pressure time on your silly canards?

Oh Thou that's full of Wisdom, Oh Thee Enlightened one, Heigh-ho Master of 'Determinism' , passeth us that secret knowledge that we and the dictionary are ignorant off.

@Rorschach

You have to love these people, one is claiming he needs to read a few books on this subject before he can take a position our friend Cosmos, the other colour full madame @VixR did the wise thing to run away and ignore the question entirely.

But MR enlightened, the Genius took it a step further, the dictionary definition of 'determinism' posted right at the beginning of this thread is 'wrong' according to him, and correcting it is a 'waste of time', that's his cowardice escape out of taking a stance on this subject when the gun was held to his head.

This is a level of cowardice that I haven't seen before, it's mind boggling. I have been having discussions with mostly white's for a decades and on this topic they delve into partial/soft/hard 'determinism' angles and quantum physics/biology to muddy the waters, then try to change subjects.

I was expecting similar stuff, but it looks like I have grossly overestimated the capabilities of the Somali Europhile community, no wonder I have diagnosed it as a brain parasite.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Empty words. I frankly don't care for your previous encounters with 'religious nutjobs'; it's impossible to conclude pathology from a couple of comments so take your ad hominem back saaxib. We should remain civil.



Please enlighten me, how is the theory of transitioning from primates to humans central to life sciences? Do you mean natural selection by any chance? Separate the two. Whenever I attack Darwins fantasy, I attack the transitioning of primates to humans, not natural selection which is a coherent scientific theory understood for centuries.



You have no proof for this. Others, like myself, would argue that the belief in a creator is the natural state of affairs. The belief in a creator has been central to almost all ancient and modern civilisations.



Yes, I am fortunate alhamdulIllah, and so were you before you threw it away.



This is what frustrates me. You are willing to suspend disbelief when the 'scientists' argue the big bang (nothing came from something), but on the other hand you use the same argument to question God? Why not question both? Your mindset should be indifference to both the religious and the 'scientists', since both use intangible theories to argue their points. An atheist chooses to believe the bullshit of the 'scientists' as opposed to the priests. You've picked your team saxiib, so tapping yourself on the back for apparently espousing the position of an uninfluenced person (the position of fitra) is not fooling anyone.

Either suspend your belief for all theories, or scrutinise everything. A true atheist/agnostic/insert-quack-term should keep silent and dismiss everything unless proven to them conclusively. As my brother @Inquisitive_ says, you guys are material worshipers. You've replaced one God with other gods.

This is very typical from the theists who reject evolution. None of you ever demonstrate a basic understanding of evolution. You cannot separate natural selection from evolution! They are one and the same! It's the driving force of evolution. Here, look at the definition:

natural selection
noun
BIOLOGY

1. the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.

Evolution is better understood in the scientific community as the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The thing that you people tend to do is try and separate aspects of evolution and then try and dismiss evolution as a whole.

I'll link you a GCSE bitesize to help you better understand this. This is some high school shit man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebi...2011/environment/4_survival_of_fittest4.shtml

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Theodosius Dobzhansky

This is what frustrates me. You are willing to suspend disbelief when the 'scientists' argue the big bang (nothing came from something), but on the other hand you use the same argument to question God? Why not question both? Your mindset should be indifference to both the religious and the 'scientists', since both use intangible theories to argue their points. An atheist chooses to believe the bullshit of the 'scientists' as opposed to the priests. You've picked your team saxiib, so tapping yourself on the back for apparently espousing the position of an uninfluenced person (the position of fitra) is not fooling anyone.

Either suspend your belief for all theories, or scrutinise everything. A true atheist/agnostic/insert-quack-term should keep silent and dismiss everything unless proven to them conclusively. As my brother @Inquisitive_ says, you guys are material worshipers. You've replaced one God with other gods.

You're making an utter fool about if yourself like your other brother. The Big Bang does NOT state that the universe arose from nothing, it simply states that there was a 'bang' but it doesn't delve into what caused it. That's another section of human ignorance. Atheists, like me, would simply say 'I don't know' when asked what caused the Big Bang, something that you theists have no intention of saying. Anyways, your understanding of nothingness is not the same as how a scientist may understand it. Nothing to them means no time and no space. There was 'something' before the Big Bang. You'll have to do your science research mate.

You then try to argue that nothing can't come from nothing but in Islam, it is absolutely clear that Allah exists from nothing and created everything from nothing. Scientists use the scientific method to understand the universe whilst you simply 'make up' shit and then demand the science conform to it. You don't even understand the shit you argue against. Don't ask question like 'what caused the Big Bang?' If you don't want people to call out your special pleading (and ignorance) and then the question on your creator. If nothing can never give nothing, where did your god come from? A question that Muhammad claimed was from the devil.

Oh Thou that's full of Wisdom, Oh Thee Enlightened one, Heigh-ho Master of 'Determinism' , passeth us that secret knowledge that we and the dictionary are ignorant off.

@Rorschach

You have to love these people, one is claiming he needs to read a few books on this subject before he can take a position our friend Cosmos, the other colour full madame @VixR did the wise thing to run away and ignore the question entirely.

But MR enlightened, the Genius took it a step further, the dictionary definition of 'determinism' posted right at the beginning of this thread is 'wrong' according to him, and correcting it is a 'waste of time', that's his cowardice escape out of taking a stance on this subject when the gun was held to his head.

This is a level of cowardice that I haven't seen before, it's mind boggling. I have been having discussions with mostly white's for a decades and on this topic they delve into partial/soft/hard 'determinism' angles and quantum physics/biology to muddy the waters, then try to change subjects.

I was expecting similar stuff, but it looks like I have grossly overestimated the capabilities of the Somali Europhile community, no wonder I have diagnosed it as a brain parasite.

I'm sorry mate, but you have shown that you lack any understanding of what you're even arguing against. You try to destroy atheism by claiming determinism without showing any evidence as to why this destroys atheism. You then make the most audaciously moronic statement I have ever come across on this forum.

You cannot espouse evolution and argue for free-will and free-choice, it's absolute lunacy which I am sure you'll come to find out soon, once you study and reflect on it.

You still haven't clarified to me the link between evolution and free will.

I don't think you even read any fucking books. You can't even contemplate the difference between the theological argument of free will and its philosophical equivalent. The philosophical one has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

I think we overestimated the reasoning capabilities of a man who espouses a fly earth model, conspiracies, atheism is polytheism and all the other crazy shit you've espoused. Fam, you're a bloody retard.

You know thing saxib. Go to bed!

 

[Naissur]

But MR enlightened, the Genius took it a step further, the dictionary definition of 'determinism' posted right at the beginning of this thread is 'wrong' according to him, and correcting it is a 'waste of time', that's his cowardice escape out of taking a stance on this subject when the gun was held to his head.

If you read any philosophy book you would know that dictionary definitions of terms are not adequate. Yet you claim to be well read! Lies!

 

[Rorschach]

You cannot separate natural selection from evolution!

As in it is used to explain this quack theory, just as the figure 9.81 m/s/s is used to quantify the force of gravity. In disputing gravity, you wouldn't be also disputing the number 9.

I'll link you a GCSE bitesize to help you better understand this. This is some high school shit man.

Ilahayow save us from atheist arrogance.

My argument is that natural selection is not a strong enough force to cause speciation and the huge biodiversity that we have. There is absolutely no need to be condescending pal.

. Atheists, like me, would simply say 'I don't know' when asked what caused the Big Bang, something that you theists have no intention of saying

HAHAHA. This is absolutely rich. It is you atheist who implode when we answer with Allahu'alam. It is your central argument for disbelief that we don't have the answers you demand. What caused the big bang? Answer me dammit. If you say you don't know then using your principle I also am vindicated in believing it never occurred.

I am comfortable in admitting that I don't hold all the answers. You on the other hand argue that you hold the truth (albeit a fragmented one) in the palm of your hand. So you believe in something, but don't understand it correct? If not then enlighten me. Don't flip it on me, a person who already admits that God and His nature is far above my comprehension. This is why faith is such a central part of religion. I accept this.

Do you have faith in the big bang event?

I await your condescending response.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@The_Cosmos

Are you really that stupid? or is your information retention skills that lacking? Alzheimer's coming early ? I made the point in my opening statement in this topic, go and re-read and stop wasting my time, but I shall repeat it again due to my benevolent nature.

If you affirm 'determinism' which pretty much every scientific materialist quackademic does, everything you said in this thread and everything they ever wrote can be discarded, because it's all 'subjective' and relative to the individual's unique biological make up and the unique reactions taking place

There can't be no 'truth claim' or 'truth statement', which are both 'objective statements' and thus requires free-will and free-choice to make it. The moment you profess that your making a 'truth claim' you rise above the bondage of captivity and violate determinism. This is basic elementary logic your struggling to grasp.

It's what drove Fredrick Nietzsche and many other scientific materialist and philosophers into madness, this very illogical conundrum, today we are starting to see the manifestations of this lunacy taking place with the whole discussions on 'gay gene' and soon 'paedophile gene', 'murder gene' etc.

In a deterministic world view, were our actions, our thoughts, our inclinations, our taste, our colour and our genetic make up are all pre-determined based upon our unique individual biological make up and unique chemical reactions taking place within us, you can no longer blame anybody for any crime, because it's not their fault, they are hard-wired for this, the same way they didn't choose their colour or back-ground.

The moment you profess determinism, everything is relative, subjective and unique to your own biological make-up, there is no 'objective' proof, statement, theory whatsoever.

Hence the very premise of this thread that it destroys atheism, but your probably not smart enough to understand this.

 

[The_Cosmos]

As in it is used to explain this quack theory, just as the figure 9.81 m/s/s is used to quantify the force of gravity. In disputing gravity, you wouldn't be also disputing the number 9.



Ilahayow save us from atheist arrogance.

My argument is that natural selection is not a strong enough force to cause speciation and the huge biodiversity that we have. There is absolutely no need to be condescending pal.



HAHAHA. This is absolutely rich. It is you atheist who implode when we answer with Allahu'alam. It is your central argument for disbelief that we don't have the answers you demand. What caused the big bang? Answer me dammit. If you say you don't know then using your principle I also am vindicated in believing it never occurred.

I am comfortable in admitting that I don't hold all the answers. You on the other hand argue that you hold the truth (albeit a fragmented one) in the palm of your hand. So you believe in something, but don't understand it correct? If not then enlighten me. Don't flip it on me, a person who already admits that God and His nature is far above my comprehension. This is why faith is such a central part of religion. I accept this.

Do you have faith in the big bang event?

I await your condescending response.

As in it is used to explain this quack theory, just as the figure 9.81 m/s/s is used to quantify the force of gravity. In disputing gravity, you wouldn't be also disputing the number 9.



Ilahayow save us from atheist arrogance.

My argument is that natural selection is not a strong enough force to cause speciation and the huge biodiversity that we have. There is absolutely no need to be condescending pal.

I'm sorry on what grounds are you making this claim that it is not strong enough to speciation? I'm not being condescending when I tell you that you don't what you're on about because I can see that from all you other posts. Evolution is a fact of science with overwhelming amount of evidence. It has made predictions which are falsifiable and those predictions have come out to be true. Evolution had 150 years to declassified as a science and dismissed but it only got stronger and the Genome project just confirmed what was already known. The real condescension comes from dismissing the evidence and claiming that all of humanity is a consequence of a single couple whose children had to have mated with each other. Not only is this wrong, it is plain stupidity to hold such a belief in light of science.

HAHAHA. This is absolutely rich. It is you atheist who implode when we answer with Allahu'alam. It is your central argument for disbelief that we don't have the answers you demand. What caused the big bang? Answer me dammit. If you say you don't know then using your principle I also am vindicated in believing it never occurred.

I am comfortable in admitting that I don't hold all the answers. You on the other hand argue that you hold the truth (albeit a fragmented one) in the palm of your hand. So you believe in something, but don't understand it correct? If not then enlighten me. Don't flip it on me, a person who already admits that God and His nature is far above my comprehension. This is why faith is such a central part of religion. I accept this.

Do you have faith in the big bang event?

I await your condescending response.

Allahu'alam, isn't a rational way of admiring your ignorance and I'm sure you know this. It is a way of asserting faith which is essentially blind belief otherwise you wouldn't need to have faith. Muslims will only asset this when someone calls out the clear bullshit in Islam. For example, when someone aks Yasir Qhadi where the wall go Gog and Magog is, he simply asserts 'god knows'. This is asserting blind faith to something that you cannot prove. Now let me show how this is different from me. I don't assert blind faith in that which I don't have evidence for.

You then claim that my assertion of ignorance on the matter of what caused the big bang, is enough for you to dismiss it. This is again the reason as to why as I claim you know nothing. The Big Bang does not address the cause of the event, it only address the event itself. This much like how evolution does not address how life came to be, but how it evolved once it was here.

It's not condescending if you're making an utter fool of yourself with this exquisite example of creationist ignorance.

You then go on claiming that you don't assert I'm having all the answers. Are you serious?! You believe in an unverifiable god, humanity arose as a consequence of a single couple, Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, Moses split the sea and more astonishingly unverified claims. The utter failure in trying to position yourself as a humble individual (in a manner that supersedes the atheist) is beyond laughable. I say let's follow the evidence, you say I have faith and nothing you say will change that as we've already seen.

You are trying so hard to to position atheism in the same realm as a belief system but you keep failing. What caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows. The Big Bang does not address gen cause of the 'bang' but only that it occurred. This is not held on faith, this is held on evidence.

@The_Cosmos

Are you really that stupid? or is your information retention skills that lacking? Alzheimer's coming early ? I made the point in my opening statement in this topic, go and re-read and stop wasting my time, but I shall repeat it again due to my benevolent nature.

If you affirm 'determinism' which pretty much every scientific materialist quackademic does, everything you said in this thread and everything they ever wrote can be discarded, because it's all 'subjective' and relative to the individual's unique biological make up and the unique reactions taking place

There can't be no 'truth claim' or 'truth statement', which are both 'objective statements' and thus requires free-will and free-choice to make it. The moment you profess that your making a 'truth claim' you rise above the bondage of captivity and violate determinism. This is basic elementary logic your struggling to grasp.

It's what drove Fredrick Nietzsche and many other scientific materialist and philosophers into madness, this very illogical conundrum, today we are starting to see the manifestations of this lunacy taking place with the whole discussions on 'gay gene' and soon 'paedophile gene', 'murder gene' etc.

In a deterministic world view, were our actions, our thoughts, our inclinations, our taste, our colour and our genetic make up are all pre-determined based upon our unique individual biological make up and unique chemical reactions taking place within us, you can no longer blame anybody for any crime, because it's not their fault, they are hard-wired for this, the same way they didn't choose their colour or back-ground.

The moment you profess determinism, everything is relative, subjective and unique to your own biological make-up, there is no 'objective' proof, statement, theory whatsoever.

Hence the very premise of this thread that it destroys atheism, but your probably not smart enough to understand this.

This is the retardation that you get as a consequence of the constant cousin marriages among Somalis. You sir have no inclination in being truthful with yourself let alone anybody else. You seem to conflate philosophy with science.

If you affirm 'determinism' which pretty much every scientific materialist quackademic does, everything you said in this thread and everything they ever wrote can be discarded, because it's all 'subjective' and relative to the individual's unique biological make up and the unique reactions taking place

Could you please provide evidence that there is a scientific consensus on determinism? I keep asking for evidence but you don't seem to interested in providing any.

Also, how does it all add up that? If the majority of scientists believe the determinism (no evidence for a consensus) then how is it that the majority of scientists are also proponent of evolution? Surely if there was a contradiction they'd be the first people to figure this shit out.

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."

There can't be no 'truth claim' or 'truth statement', which are both 'objective statements' and thus requires free-will and free-choice to make it. The moment you profess that your making a 'truth claim' you rise above the bondage of captivity and violate determinism. This is basic elementary logic your struggling to grasp.

This is the sort of retardation that is born when you try to conflate science with philosophy. They're two bloody different things mate! Science isn't about making 'truth claims' it is about evidence and nothing more.

Then you talk about frederick neichze. He was a bloody philosopher, and many other things, and not a scientist. Scientists follow the scientific method and most of the time don't conflict themselves in affairs of the open thinking of philosophy. Their is a strict way of doing things.

Reality of that matter is your claim that there is a consensus among scientists that we're controlled via determinism is an utter lie. The problems of philosophy are not the problems of science.

You conflate everything from science to philosophy to atheism and polytheism. You are an utter fraud.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@The_Cosmos

Did you finish reading your book on determinism as you said you would? It's my fault for continuing this discussion without first waiting on you to conclude your 'research' and 'studies' as you had stated before.

Your an expert at muddying the waters and cowardice, also hypocrisy like I haven't seen before, in your own admission you use philosophy to argue against Muslims but then try to make the distinction for yourself.

There is nothing philosophical about determinism, it's purely chemical/biological concept, why you argue it's philosophical is beyond me, because your accusing the scientific materialist community of abandoning their 'empirical evidence' mantra for philosophical unknowns.

Philosophy is nothing more then the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind etc.

The scientific materialist in their quest to explain these very things, regularly delve into philosophy, however your whole arguments fall apart because you either claim

1) All Prominent scientific materialist statements on 'determinism' being our biological make-up is based on empirical evidence and hence it's science and not philosophy, which destroys your entire arguments!

2) Or they were purely making a philosophical statement, in which case it begs the question why would a scientific materialist delve into philosophy running away from the empirical evidence concept they always champion which is their entire foundation of their believe? what is your prove they were making a philosophical statement?

3) Or you continue your cowardice claim and shooting yourself in the foot with the malarky that there is no consensus in the scientific materialist community and everything is 'relative', if this is your believe, then you should shut the f*ck up and never use their materials against others you charlatan hypocrite.

 

[Rorschach]

Evolution is a fact of science with overwhelming amount of evidence. It has made predictions which are falsifiable and those predictions have come out to be true.

Is that what your arguments boil down to? Appeal to authority? A 19th century you would probably classify the negroid as a separate specie.

Speaking of transitional species, can you point to any fossil records of these? Just point me to 10 intermediates of vertebrates transitioning into invertebrates. Point me to the fossil records please. Since that clown Darwin claimed that Evolution is in a continual state of motion, there should be abundant examples in the fossil records.

My guess is that you'll say 'I don't know'.

Let me ask you a question: how do proteins and nucleic acids arise independent of each other? And if you say you refute the 'chemical origins hypothesis', then explain to me what gave rise to the RNA?

The Big Bang does not address the cause of the event, it only address the event itself. This much like how evolution does not address how life came to be, but how it evolved once it was here.

So you don't know what caused the Big Bang, but you know enough to say it wasn't a Deity?

 

[Rorschach]

@The_Cosmos

Did you finish reading your book on determinism as you said you would? It's my fault for continuing this discussion without first waiting on you to conclude your 'research' and 'studies' as you had stated before.

Your an expert at muddying the waters and cowardice, also hypocrisy like I haven't seen before, in your own admission you use philosophy to argue against Muslims but then try to make the distinction for yourself.

There is nothing philosophical about determinism, it's purely chemical/biological concept, why you argue it's philosophical is beyond me, because your accusing the scientific materialist community of abandoning their 'empirical evidence' mantra for philosophical unknowns.

Philosophy is nothing more then the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind etc.

The scientific materialist in their quest to explain these very things, regularly delve into philosophy, however your whole arguments fall apart because you either claim

1) All Prominent scientific materialist statements on 'determinism' being our biological make-up is based on empirical evidence and hence it's science and not philosophy, which destroys your entire arguments!

2) Or they were purely making a philosophical statement, in which case it begs the question why would a scientific materialist delve into philosophy running away from the empirical evidence concept they always champion which is their entire foundation of their believe? what is your prove they were making a philosophical statement?

3) Or you continue your cowardice claim and shooting yourself in the foot with the malarky that there is no consensus in the scientific materialist community and everything is 'relative', if this is your believe, then you should shut the f*ck up and never use their materials against others you charlatan hypocrite.

You will get no response from him besides derision and mockery. Like his brethren he assumes ownership of knowledge.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@The_Cosmos

Did you finish reading your book on determinism as you said you would? It's my fault for continuing this discussion without first waiting on you to conclude your 'research' and 'studies' as you had stated before.

Your an expert at muddying the waters and cowardice, also hypocrisy like I haven't seen before, in your own admission you use philosophy to argue against Muslims but then try to make the distinction for yourself.

There is nothing philosophical about determinism, it's purely chemical/biological concept, why you argue it's philosophical is beyond me, because your accusing the scientific materialist community of abandoning their 'empirical evidence' mantra for philosophical unknowns.

Philosophy is nothing more then the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind etc.

The scientific materialist in their quest to explain these very things, regularly delve into philosophy, however your whole arguments fall apart because you either claim

1) All Prominent scientific materialist statements on 'determinism' being our biological make-up is based on empirical evidence and hence it's science and not philosophy, which destroys your entire arguments!

2) Or they were purely making a philosophical statement, in which case it begs the question why would a scientific materialist delve into philosophy running away from the empirical evidence concept they always champion which is their entire foundation of their believe? what is your prove they were making a philosophical statement?

3) Or you continue your cowardice claim and shooting yourself in the foot with the malarky that there is no consensus in the scientific materialist community and everything is 'relative', if this is your believe, then you should shut the f*ck up and never use their materials against others you charlatan hypocrite.

Your an expert at muddying the waters and cowardice, also hypocrisy like I haven't seen before, in your own admission you use philosophy to argue against Muslims but then try to make the distinction for yourself.

There's a distinction that needs to be made that you refuse to acknowledge. You're trying to use philosophy to argue against scientific facts and theories which of course cannot be done, I use philosophy to show that the theological arguments made by religion doesn't logically add up. This doesn't mean I espouse to any philosophical arguments for or against free will, I am just showing that the position taken by your religion doesn't make any sense. You seem to be conflating things without any shame for intellectual honesty.

There is nothing philosophical about determinism, it's purely chemical/biological concept, why you argue it's philosophical is beyond me, because your accusing the scientific materialist community of abandoning their 'empirical evidence' mantra for philosophical unknowns.

The scientific community cannot take a position on any subject of science without any credible scientific evidence. The determinism argument is absolutely a philosophical question that is in fact one of the oldest philosophical questions ever addressed by philosophers. Come on, you take no shame in parading your ignorance. It is true that scientists have tried to address this problem but there is absolutely no consensus among them in how to address or what position science is to take on this matter. Nonetheless, just like the question of God, scientists usually abstain from these sort of problems because there is no concrete and universal understanding of why free will really means. Just like god, it's too ambiguous.

1) All Prominent scientific materialist statements on 'determinism' being our biological make-up is based on empirical evidence and hence it's science and not philosophy, which destroys your entire arguments!

2) Or they were purely making a philosophical statement, in which case it begs the question why would a scientific materialist delve into philosophy running away from the empirical evidence concept they always champion which is their entire foundation of their believe? what is your prove they were making a philosophical statement?

3) Or you continue your cowardice claim and shooting yourself in the foot with the malarky that there is no consensus in the scientific materialist community and everything is 'relative', if this is your believe, then you should shut the f*ck up and never use their materials against others you charlatan hypocrite.

1) I'm still waiting on your evidence for this claim that there is a consensus among prominent scientists on this issue of determinism. You've quoted a few scientists/atheists and then claim all prominent scientists are for determinism. This must be like the fifth time I'm asking.

2) Scientists occasionally jump into the question the realm of philosophy and try to use empirical evidence to argue against or for many philosophical problems. Many scientists have delved into the question of God, which has mainly been a philosophical for centuries, and tried to argue for or against hid existence. The point is, there is no concrete and conclusive evidence to suggest we have no free will.

3) Loool Listen my pseudo intellectual friend, I have made a bloody philosophical argument against the theological proposition made by religious scholars which has nothing to do with science. I have simply pointed out that the theological arguments they make are not logically sound. I have not taken a position on the matter and neither has science. You're the one who has no intellectual credibility whatsoever and thus muddy the waters to try and argue against atheism. Simply put, I was exposing the contradictions espoused by your religion and that's all. It's called theological fatalism.

"The argument from free will, also called the paradox of free will or theological fatalism, contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible and that any conception of Godthat incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory.[note 1][1][2] The argument may focus on the incoherence of people having free will or on God having free will. These arguments are deeply concerned with the implications of predestination."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

Did you finish reading your book on determinism as you said you would? It's my fault for continuing this discussion without first waiting on you to conclude your 'research' and 'studies' as you had stated before.

I haven't actually but it would be pointless considering that your pseudo intellectual arse hasn't bothered to actually make any logically coherent points. Plus, the claim that you read any of the books is highly doubtful considering you know as much about the world as a 10 year old child. You're pathetic.

You will get no response from him besides derision and mockery. Like his brethren he assumes ownership of knowledge.

I make no claim to knowledge, I simply say abstain from that which isn't supported by evidence and accept that which is.

Now, let's see if my mockery of you is worth anything...

Is that what your arguments boil down to? Appeal to authority? A 19th century you would probably classify the negroid as a separate specie.

Speaking of transitional species, can you point to any fossil records of these? Just point me to 10 intermediates of vertebrates transitioning into invertebrates. Point me to the fossil records please. Since that clown Darwin claimed that Evolution is in a continual state of motion, there should be abundant examples in the fossil records.

My guess is that you'll say 'I don't know'.

Let me ask you a question: how do proteins and nucleic acids arise independent of each other? And if you say you refute the 'chemical origins hypothesis', then explain to me what gave rise to the RNA?




So you don't know what caused the Big Bang, but you know enough to say it wasn't a Deity?

Is that what your arguments boil down to? Appeal to authority? A 19th century you would probably classify the negroid as a separate specie.

Are you accusing me of racism now?! Following the facts doesn't make you a racist saxib? In fact, all human beings are Africans as the Homo sapien species (us) has evolved from south east Africa. Human being are far too similar to discriminate against one another.

Speaking of transitional species, can you point to any fossil records of these? Just point me to 10 intermediates of vertebrates transitioning into invertebrates. Point me to the fossil records please. Since that clown Darwin claimed that Evolution is in a continual state of motion, there should be abundant examples in the fossil records.

Oh yes! There is an abundance of transitional fossils, in fact, the human fossil record is beyond astonishing. We even have the intermediate for this. There is literally an entire list on Wikipedia that I'll link you.

The image is much larger than I expected so apologies.

This is the intermediary transitional fossil of the hominids.

"The hominid Australopithecus afarensisrepresents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors. A number of traits of the A. afarensis skeleton strongly reflect bipedalism, to the extent that some researchers have suggested that bipedality evolved long before A. afarensis.[17] In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors, implying an upright posture."

There's literally an entire list on Wikipedia giving you the transition fossils showing the evolution of humans, birds, insects, spiders and even the evolution of invertebrates to fish.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I've even got a great video detailing the evidence for evolution.

Let me ask you a question: how do proteins and nucleic acids arise independent of each other? And if you say you refute the 'chemical origins hypothesis', then explain to me what gave rise to the RNA?

You have the sheikh Google at your disposal and yet you're asking for evidence from ordinary folks on forums. It shows you have no interest in discovering the scientific evidence. Nonetheless, here does a most likely wasteful effort.

I don't have all day so I'll link you a very respected and credible academic source.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26887/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

Note that this doesn't refute evolution as it only addresses life after it has risen, much like the Big Bang.

So you don't know what caused the Big Bang, but you know enough to say it wasn't a Deity?

Well which deity? There are thousands of different deities but you're so arrogant that you want us only to consider the abrahamic one. Scientists have different hypothesis as to what 'caused' the Big Bang but "God did it" is not a viable option as what a 'god' actually is, is disputed by every religion. There is no universal understanding of what a God actually is, some even say there are many.

Also, this argument is built on the god of the gaps fallacy which has been rebuked for centuries. Positioning your god in the blind spots of science is, in my opinion, very demeaning to your god. Human beings had no idea what caused thunder, they made up gods to explain it (fun fact, Thursday comes from the Norse God Thor who was the god of thunder). If you position your god in that demeaning position, your god practically occupies an ever receding pocket of human ignorance. Good luck with that.

 

[Naissur]

Also, this argument is built on the god of the gaps fallacy which has been rebuked for centuries. Positioning your god in the blind spots of science is, in my opinion, very demeaning to your god. Human beings had no idea what caused thunder, they made up gods to explain it (fun fact, Thursday comes from the Norse God Thor who was the god of thunder). If you position your god in that demeaning position, your god practically occupies an ever receding pocket of human ignorance. Good luck with that.

Couldn't have said it better! I'm shocked by the amount of whipping these two fellows are taking from you!

 

[Rorschach]

Are you accusing me of racism now?! Following the facts doesn't make you a racist saxib? In fact, all human beings are Africans as the Homo sapien species (us) has evolved from south east Africa. Human being are far too similar to discriminate against one another.

Not racist no, but I was mocking your constant appeal to authority. Research what the consensus was during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Oh yes! There is an abundance of transitional fossils, in fact, the human fossil record is beyond astonishing. We even have the intermediate for this. There is literally an entire list on Wikipedia that I'll link you.

Read what you actually linked me pal:

"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms."

Now is that what I asked for?

"The hominid Australopithecus afarensisrepresents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors. A number of traits of the A. afarensis skeleton strongly reflect bipedalism, to the extent that some researchers have suggested that bipedality evolved long before A. afarensis.[17] In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors, implying an upright posture."

Lucy? Why do you think I asked for numerous examples? The Lucy story is full of holes. Look what it's founder, the liar Donald Johanson wrote:

"Separated by 200,000 years, these fossils were almost identical--making a good case for little evolutionary change in this hominid species. From fossils found at a site south of Hadar, the Middle Awash, we know that Australopithecus afarensis existed as far back as 3.8 million years ago, so it seems to have lived for almost a million years, remaining remarkably similar for all that time. 8

All the 1992 Hadar hominids are about 3 million years old; the oldest Hadar hominids come from sediments that are 3.4 million years old. Add on the fossils from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania, most of which date to 3.4 and 3.5 million years ago, and you have a half million years of documented Australopithecus afarensis evolution. Including the Middle Awash site south of Hadar, where hominid fossils are 3.8 or 3.9 million years old, that adds up to almost a million years with afarensis around, evolving very little, from what we could tell after our first look at the new fossils."

How can it not show any signs of evolution for a million years, but morph into Humans within 2.5 million years. How does that even make sense? All you're doing is copying and pasting crap without actually digging into it. My whole reason for not believing in this crap is because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Have you read about the Laetoli Footprints? The supposed perfect cementing evidence for bipedalism? Remember how it was dated 3.5 million old by using the ash composites surrounding it? It was the exact shape as that of a fully formed Homo Sapien's foot. So either the dating method is wrong, or the timeline is completely off. Neither was acceptable to your prophets so they decided to say "Hey look it was Lucy who made those footprints". Now if you look closely at the foot of Lucy...Oh wait... they didn't find any feet, just a toe bone. The nice skeleton above has composite feet drafted from fossils found from the nearby Olduvai Gorge combined with the toe bone and voila! Lucy has new feet. How scientifically honest to use 3.5 million year old fossil and the foot of a upright walking specie that supposedly lived a million years after.

Look into what they did with the pelvis. The Lucy story is complete bollocks. For such an 'intellectual' you sure don't examine the evidence. You just point and say: "hey those professors are saying it at Cambridge uni! Oh golly, it must be all true! Let me copy and past BBC bitesize illustrations, that'll show em!"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26887/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

You link me to detailed Molecular Biology books? I asked you a question, not a recommended reading list. Answer my question or say you don't know. Have you no shame in your pomposity?

Well which deity? There are thousands of different deities but you're so arrogant that you want us only to consider the abrahamic one. Scientists have different hypothesis as to what 'caused' the Big Bang but "God did it" is not a viable option as what a 'god' actually is, is disputed by every religion. There is no universal understanding of what a God actually is, some even say there are many.

Ooh look, another atheist moving the goalposts! I am not arguing on behalf of the Abrahamic God, so please stay on topic. So the several (unprovable) hypothesis that are formulated in the dusty research cubicles (ranging from string theory, to a universe with no beginning) make a lot more sense than saying a Deity created it! So tell us Cosmos, why choose one conclusion over the other? Do arguments presented in numerical form impress you?

If @Inquisitive_ and I threw in a couple of Greek numerals, a couple of symbols here or there, fractions and decimals sprinkled in, would it give our argument a little more stock?

Also, this argument is built on the god of the gaps fallacy which has been rebuked for centuries. Positioning your god in the blind spots of science is, in my opinion, very demeaning to your god.

I don't compute. We operate in the finite revelation our Lord has given us. Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided. Why do I believe a there was a Deity before the Big Bang? Well that's a question you'll need to ask me on a separate thread, this convo is concerns your kind, and the thought process required to reject a Deity all together. DON'T FLIP IT ON ME WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF GRASPING AT STRAWS.

Human beings had no idea what caused thunder, they made up gods to explain it (fun fact, Thursday comes from the Norse God Thor

Nice little pagan story. Pagans are as idiotic as Atheist, so no idea how it's a relevant point of attack. Got any more pagan myths you want to share? We can laugh together, and bond over the little that we agree on.

 

[Rorschach]

Couldn't have said it better! I'm shocked by the amount of whipping these two fellows are taking from you!

He used primitive pagan rituals and beliefs to dispute the concept of a Creator altogether.

It's like looking at an individual with Down Syndrome and labeling all human beings as deficient. He was being dishonest but you fell for it because it tows your line.

Just saying man.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Not racist no, but I was mocking your constant appeal to authority. Research what the consensus was during the 17th and 18th centuries.



Read what you actually linked me pal:

"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms."

Now is that what I asked for?



Lucy? Why do you think I asked for numerous examples? The Lucy story is full of holes. Look what it's founder, the liar Donald Johanson wrote:

"Separated by 200,000 years, these fossils were almost identical--making a good case for little evolutionary change in this hominid species. From fossils found at a site south of Hadar, the Middle Awash, we know that Australopithecus afarensis existed as far back as 3.8 million years ago, so it seems to have lived for almost a million years, remaining remarkably similar for all that time. 8

All the 1992 Hadar hominids are about 3 million years old; the oldest Hadar hominids come from sediments that are 3.4 million years old. Add on the fossils from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania, most of which date to 3.4 and 3.5 million years ago, and you have a half million years of documented Australopithecus afarensis evolution. Including the Middle Awash site south of Hadar, where hominid fossils are 3.8 or 3.9 million years old, that adds up to almost a million years with afarensis around, evolving very little, from what we could tell after our first look at the new fossils."

How can it not show any signs of evolution for a million years, but morph into Humans within 2.5 million years. How does that even make sense? All you're doing is copying and pasting crap without actually digging into it. My whole reason for not believing in this crap is because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Have you read about the Laetoli Footprints? The supposed perfect cementing evidence for bipedalism? Remember how it was dated 3.5 million old by using the ash composites surrounding it? It was the exact shape as that of a fully formed Homo Sapien's foot. So either the dating method is wrong, or the timeline is completely off. Neither was acceptable to your prophets so they decided to say "Hey look it was Lucy who made those footprints". Now if you look closely at the foot of Lucy...Oh wait... they didn't find any feet, just a toe bone. The nice skeleton above has composite feet drafted from fossils found from the nearby Olduvai Gorge combined with the toe bone and voila! Lucy has new feet. How scientifically honest to use 3.5 million year old fossil and the foot of a upright walking specie that supposedly lived a million years after.

Look into what they did with the pelvis. The Lucy story is complete bollocks. For such an 'intellectual' you sure don't examine the evidence. You just point and say: "hey those professors are saying it at Cambridge uni! Oh golly, it must be all true! Let me copy and past BBC bitesize illustrations, that'll show em!"





You link me to detailed Molecular Biology books? I asked you a question, not a recommended reading list. Answer my question or say you don't know. Have you no shame in your pomposity?



Ooh look, another atheist moving the goalposts! I am not arguing on behalf of the Abrahamic God, so please stay on topic. So the several (unprovable) hypothesis that are formulated in the dusty research cubicles (ranging from string theory, to a universe with no beginning) make a lot more sense than saying a Deity created it! So tell us Cosmos, why choose one conclusion over the other? Do arguments presented in numerical form impress you?

If @Inquisitive_ and I threw in a couple of Greek numerals, a couple of symbols here or there, fractions and decimals sprinkled in, would it give our argument a little more stock?





I don't compute. We operate in the finite revelation our Lord has given us. Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided. Why do I believe a there was a Deity before the Big Bang? Well that's a question you'll need to ask me on a separate thread, this convo is concerns your kind, and the thought process required to reject a Deity all together. DON'T FLIP IT ON ME WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF GRASPING AT STRAWS.



Nice little pagan story. Pagans are as idiotic as Atheist, so no idea how it's a relevant point of attack. Got any more pagan myths you want to share? We can laugh together, and bond over the little that we agree on.

Not racist no, but I was mocking your constant appeal to authority. Research what the consensus was during the 17th and 18th centuries.

It's not an appeal to authority as I did not claim that as evidence for evolution being true, I just merely mentioned it against your friend who seemed to he confused.

Read what you actually linked me pal:

"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms."

I'm sure you can comprehend English, this is just saying that the transitional fossils don't necessarily represent the ancestors of any species that live today or other transitional fossils themselves but it's valid nonetheless. You don't get to decide what is evidence and what it isn't.

Lucy? Why do you think I asked for numerous examples? The Lucy story is full of holes. Look what it's founder, the liar Donald Johanson wrote:

"Separated by 200,000 years, these fossils were almost identical--making a good case for little evolutionary change in this hominid species. From fossils found at a site south of Hadar, the Middle Awash, we know that Australopithecus afarensis existed as far back as 3.8 million years ago, so it seems to have lived for almost a million years, remaining remarkably similar for all that time. 8

All the 1992 Hadar hominids are about 3 million years old; the oldest Hadar hominids come from sediments that are 3.4 million years old. Add on the fossils from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania, most of which date to 3.4 and 3.5 million years ago, and you have a half million years of documented Australopithecus afarensis evolution. Including the Middle Awash site south of Hadar, where hominid fossils are 3.8 or 3.9 million years old, that adds up to almost a million years with afarensis around, evolving very little, from what we could tell after our first look at the new fossils."

How can it not show any signs of evolution for a million years, but morph into Humans within 2.5 million years. How does that even make sense? All you're doing is copying and pasting crap without actually digging into it. My whole reason for not believing in this crap is because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You're whole reason for not accepting the evidence is because you blindly follow what mummy and daddy have fed to you from a very young age, you said so yourself:

"Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided."

How the hell are you attempting to put out yourself as being an honest skeptic when you unapologetically state that you reject evolution because it disputes him?

"the liar Donald Johanson wrote"

You are really drenching yourself in intellectual dishonesty. Essentially you are asking me to convince you of something that you have clearly illustrated, will never change your mind. You reject the evolution not because of the science but because it disproves the Adam/Eve nonsense you so love yo espouse.

It's also quite interesting how you received you info from http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm#footnote8.

That should dispels any intellectual honesty that you thought you had. Where is the academic site?

Anyways, there's a logical and scientific reasoning behind why they changed very little for a million years. Australopithecus Afarensis, just going to call them AA, have survived for around 900,000 with very little evolution because they were adapted to living on both trees and on land meaning that this has allowed them to survive climate and environmental changes. Note that evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum. For example, human beings didn't develop different skin tones because Noah had three children of different races, it occurred because the environment in which they lived required them to adapt. White people have white skin because they have a reduced quantity of melanin in their skins, eyes and hair which allows them to absorb the sunlight might better. Black people on the other hand developed a high quantity of melanin giving them darker skin, eyes and hair, because it enabled them to deflect much of the sunlight which contained UV (ultraviolet radiation) which can cause skin cancer. Point is, evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum and the reason why it evolved so little was because it didn't really have to as it lived in both land and tree which meant it can survive the sudden environmental changes that bring about a necessity to evolve. Human beings have undergone that. Nonetheless, it has evolved features which we hold today. "They had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright."

To read more, check out my academic site:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis

Have you read about the Laetoli Footprints? The supposed perfect cementing evidence for bipedalism? Remember how it was dated 3.5 million old by using the ash composites surrounding it? It was the exact shape as that of a fully formed Homo Sapien's foot. So either the dating method is wrong, or the timeline is completely off. Neither was acceptable to your prophets so they decided to say "Hey look it was Lucy who made those footprints". Now if you look closely at the foot of Lucy...Oh wait... they didn't find any feet, just a toe bone. The nice skeleton above has composite feet drafted from fossils found from the nearby Olduvai Gorge combined with the toe bone and voila! Lucy has new feet. How scientifically honest to use 3.5 million year old fossil and the foot of a upright walking specie that supposedly lived a million years after.

The irony of a creationist, who knows f*ck all about evolution, to question the scientific integrity of actual scientists. Let me break things down so you can understand better. This the sort of bullshit that comes up when you start getting your sources from non academic sources.

Like usual, theists misconstrued the findings to fit their own creationist agenda. The footprints were not exactly the same as a fully formed Homo sapien, the footprints, as indicated by the scientific research, is most like that of Australopithecus afarensis. So I think you need to refer to actual academic websites before you push around garbage from scienceagainstevolution.com, crap. It's not an academic source and so you shouldn't be publishing its BS points as evidence of anything. You then go on to make an audacious claim that entails scientists purposely merging a 3.6 million year old fossil to the feet of modern humans!! Dude, are you fucking kidding me?!



"The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk.

The close spacing of the footprints is evidence that the people who left them had a short stride, and therefore probably had short legs. It is not until much later that early humans evolved longer legs, enabling them to walk farther, faster, and cover more territory each day."

"How do we know these are early human footprints?

The shape of the feet, along with the length and configuration of the toes, show that the Laetoli Footprints were made by an early human, and the only known early human in the region at that time was Au. afarensis. In fact, fossils of Au. afarensis were found nearby to the footprints and in the same sediment layer, telling scientists that Au. afarensis was in the area at the same time the footprints were left."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/footprints/laetoli-footprint-trails

More L L L L L L L L Ls

Look into what they did with the pelvis. The Lucy story is complete bollocks. For such an 'intellectual' you sure don't examine the evidence. You just point and say: "hey those professors are saying it at Cambridge uni! Oh golly, it must be all true! Let me copy and past BBC bitesize illustrations, that'll show em!"

Mate, the bitesize was because you had no fucking idea what natural selection is. You thought it was separate to evolution when they're one and the same.


I don't examine the evidence?! You just threw garbage from creationist websites! You even copied and pasted by are you seriously trying to blast me for not only doing the same, but providing the source from where I got from?! Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you're also a hypocrite.



You have no interest in critical thinking as you have clearly stated that you don't accept evolution because it contradicts your faith. You're a blind follower trying to question others on examining evidence when you have shown yourself to not care for such things.

As for the pelvic issue, this is clearly more evidence that you're a plain fraud. Creationist have long been making the claim that the pelvis of Lucy was purposely reconstructed so as to make it look as if she walked upright. This is beyond nonsensical and is a desperate attempt to try and dismiss the monumental piece of discovery that Lucy actually is. You're probably a conspiracy theorist so you may think that some dodgy business occurred with the reconstruction but frankly... there's no evidence for such things. Unless of course this wasn't what you were talking about?

You link me to detailed Molecular Biology books? I asked you a question, not a recommended reading list. Answer my question or say you don't know. Have you no shame in your pomposity?

I did answer your question, it's in the links I provided. I'm sorry, if you're too damn lazy to actually fucking read then don't fucking read it but what you're looking for is in those links.

Ooh look, another atheist moving the goalposts! I am not arguing on behalf of the Abrahamic God, so please stay on topic. So the several (unprovable) hypothesis that are formulated in the dusty research cubicles (ranging from string theory, to a universe with no beginning) make a lot more sense than saying a Deity created it! So tell us Cosmos, why choose one conclusion over the other? Do arguments presented in numerical form impress you?

If @Inquisitive_ and I threw in a couple of Greek numerals, a couple of symbols here or there, fractions and decimals sprinkled in, would it give our argument a little more stock?

Look at this retarded garbage this guy is spewing!!


If you're going to present a deity as some kind of alternative to science, you need to fucking define that deity instead of just shoving things up in the air and expecting people to accept it. Deities are not well defined are have different understandings depending on where your from and what religion you follow. It's also built on a logical fallacy called the god of the gaps whoops a part of the larger logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You're asserting that since scientists have no real answer as to what caused the universe, you can then position your god there. It's s logical fallacy that cannot be accepted by logically sound people.

I never accepted any conclusion, stop with your straw man!! I simply said "I don't know what caused the universe, if there even is a cause!" Scientists have made educated guesses but they're nothing beyond that and unlike religion, they wish to actually find out what really happened instead of just claiming to hold the ultimate truth with zero evidence!

My argument is built on, 'let's have more evidence,' whilst yours is built on 'I already know what caused the universe to exist.' One is intellectually sound and the other is just baseless and primitive.

I don't compute. We operate in the finite revelation our Lord has given us. Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided. Why do I believe a there was a Deity before the Big Bang? Well that's a question you'll need to ask me on a separate thread, this convo is concerns your kind, and the thought process required to reject a Deity all together. DON'T FLIP IT ON ME WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF GRASPING AT STRAWS.

Nice little pagan story. Pagans are as idiotic as Atheist, so no idea how it's a relevant point of attack. Got any more pagan myths you want to share? We can laugh together, and bond over the little that we agree on.

You reject evolution because it contradicts your religion, got it!

You have no evidence to believe there is a deity before the Big Bang but thanks to your childhood indoctrination, you now do.

The thought process that enables me to reject it a deity is very simple... where is the evidence?

Pagans are as idiotic as atheists? Well I've got bad news for you! If you came here thinking you can get away with retardation, you're utterly mistaken.

Islam is monotheism with paganism all around it. The Hajj, Safa and Marwa, The dawaf, Jinn/black magic/evil eye, the prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse, salah and many other things as well, are all either Arab paganism, Zoroastrian or whatever.


So yeah... let us laugh at all the primitive paganism that Islam has incorporated into its faith.

 

[Inquisitive_]

@Rorschach

Sxb give up on this coward, I have never seen a combination of such stupidness and cowardice combined together like this, he is nothing more then a cheap charlatan , doesn't even know what he is ranting about.

The question was very simple, every prominent quickademic atheists from the biologist, to the physicists, to the chemist all the way to expert nueroscientist that even used the latest apparatus around today to study the brain, have come to the conclusion that free-will and free-choice is an illusion.

I have quoted a handful of each and his rebuttal is semantics, philosophy, even at first countering them all from his mothers basement that 'free-will' does exist

Then do a 180 shift position and argue that these are philosophical concepts with no empirical evidence, then when they are presented, he needs to do more research on the topic

Then like the bipolar kid that he is, instead of shutting up and reading on the topic as he said he needed to, starts of on a bizarre never seen before tirade that 'atheism' is independent from everything and there is no common scientific view.

When pressed on this, the brain parasite kicks in and he goes into a fit. I honestly believe he is mentally sick and feel sorry for him, ignorance is a curse of God, go easy on him.

There is no doubting that it feels like we have free will. Neurologists have often wondered - as the neurones in the brain fire, caused by cascades of previous firings, and themselves causing other to fire in accordance with the laws of biochemistry, do some neurones fire because of free will? Every technological breakthrough in apparatus that can be used to study the brain has found itself being used to attempt to study free will and deliberation. But now "it is safe to say that more and more neuroscientists are gradually coming to the conclusion that free will does not exist"7, writes Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics based in New York

@simulacrum

Don't hide from this discussion pal, and I hope you won't take a page out the Cosmo's bipolar play book to counter and make yourself look like another laughing stock to all the silent readers.

Take a position, tell us your views! do you agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists or not?


@VixR

This is the second time I have mentioned you, don't go hiding on such a critical subject, make your points, do you agree with the overwhelming atheist scientists that everything is hard-wired and determined or not?