Debate God

To add to Shiruken's point:

**** Saipien Saipien, commonly referred to as humans, are members of the animal kingdom and classified as a member of the ape family, a sister clade to Cercopithecidae and basal to the Old World Monkey. The classification of life, however, is not limited to blanket statements such as, humans are not hairy therefore things with excessive body hair are not human. That would eliminate many people around the world from our species and make them their very own, which wouldn't make much sense. We also don't classify snakes as legless Squamata. They are legless Squamata but the glass snake, which is a lizard, also shares the basal form Squamata and would be classified as a snake under this definition of classification, however, Serpentes and Lepidosauria are sister clades, not basal to one another. We rank species through a strict monophyletic hierarchy(extant to ancestor to ancestor, hereby referred to as vertical descent [when it suits me]) not paraphyletically (species to species not within the same vertical line of decent, hereby referred to as horizontal common ancestry [when it suits me]).

Through this classification of life we see that all members of Mamalia share certain distinct characteristics with all their subsequent branchings and these subsequent branchings do not share any characteristics (beyond what Mamalia share with Aves) with Aves. This an odd thing to happen. Why would Aves not experience the same gene, same designer gene flow that humans and monkeys shared or any mammalian to mammalian lineage shares with itself? For instance, mammals are classified as having mammary glands and this is a major distinction between us and Aves but why is it that ALL mammals have mammary glands whereas NO birds have mammary glands? If the same gene, same designer rule were to apply would we not expect to see these same genes expressed within different lines of lineage? If the argument were true we would expect to see birds with mammary glands and mammals that lay eggs but that had all the other distinctive characteristics that made it distinctly mammalian/avian with a mammalian/avian twist. Something that could not have been given to them monophyletically because every other basal form did not have these characteristics and even the species paraphyletic to these would show no signs of genetic harborance of these ancient genes. Instead we see a clear line of vertical descent with no kinks and no special additions by the designer. Why?

The same gene, same designer argument is used to further push ourselves away from the glaringly obvious truth that we are monkeys. No one argues that we are mammals (even though that firmly places you within the animal kingdom) but even mention the idea that monkeys are related to apes and you will instantly turn off the audience to anything you have to say. We constantly make exceptions to the rule but this is a Freudian admission that we know the truth but are unwilling to recognize it. Remember, when I showed that distinctions could be made within kingdoms, genuses, orders, and so on? Well these distinctions can be made even more distinct when defining a species. For instance, species X may contain the characteristics: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, whereas species Y contains characteristics 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Species X and Y share many unique character combinations but there are defining numbers such as 2 and 6 which set them apart.

Monkey is a colloquial term that many people believe refers to a species of monkey or a collection of species, however, this is an erroneous conclusion based on non-up-to-date knowledge of cladistics. Monkeys, referred to as Catarrhini, are actually a Parvorder of Primates and are basal to Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys. Consequently Old World Monkeys are basal to hominoidea, which are commonly referred to as apes, which is a further distinction from monkeys but still is a monkey. We then define humans as members of Hominidae which contains 7 species including Chimpanzee and Orangutan.

Through a vertical line of descent (as described earlier) you are related to monkeys, not in the same way Aves are related to monkeys as a paraphyletic hierarchy but as a direct line of descent.

"It wouldn’t be this way if different “kinds” of life had been magically-created unrelated to anything else; not unless God wanted to trick us into believing everything had evolved. Because the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just as objectively confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically. This is why it is referred to as a “twin-nested hierarchy”. But there’s still more than that because the evident development of physiology and morphology can be confirmed biochemically as well as chronologically in geology and developmentally in embryology. Why should that be? And how do creationists explain why it is that every living thing fits into all of these daughter sets within parent groups, each being derived according to apparently inherited traits? They don’t even try to explain any of that, or anything else. They won’t because they can’t, because evolution is the only explanation that accounts for any of this, and it explains it all."

All this and more at my blog.

Good thing I'm neither. Yay! That means I win right? That my opinion is correct?

 

Congrats. It's a religion to you but not to intelligent people. Acceptance and belief are two different things. In simplicity, belief is a confidence or a trust or a faith in a concept and acceptance is a coming to terms with what is presented.

I don't have faith in evolution, I don't believe something evolution tells me and I don't trust evolution to always have the answers. I accept what it has given me and contest what secrets it divulges until I am overwhelmed by its mastery.

A religion is a set of principles based on a belief with out evidence. A theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Both explain but go about the explanation very differently and that's where we draw the distinction. In terms of trying to understand, religion and science are on level ground but the way they go about understanding is different.

If the reasoning behind evolution being a religion is that it attempts to explain then mathematics is a religion, and language, and astronomy, etc. etc.

Also, calling evolution a religion, while damaging to its scientific credibility, damages your religion even more. Because religion is meant to be divine act of god, whereas evolution was written by men. Essentially you are claiming that Christianity and evolution are on level ground in terms of divinity so the idea that "god said it, I believe it" loses all prospect and the Bible would be considered fallible and considering systematic theology, make it not the true religion.

Good luck on your search for a new religion. Perhaps it won't consider evolution a religion.

 

Well what did you expect? You brought up a semantics argument so I refuted you with a semantics argument.

Due process, appeals court, anything?...

 

How so?

 

That's not what I meant for you to respond to but that's ok

I would disagree and say that being ignorant of something would make me incorrect. Now I may be more honest than one who holds a belief but that doesn't mean I'm right.

What I want to know is how you aren't an atheist or a theist. Just curious, not trying to put you down at all. I just want to know.

 

No it isn't. You just don't understand agnosticism.

Theism and atheism are not the same thing as gnosticism and agnosticism. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist but in both cases you are one or the other you can't simply be an agnostic because its an adjective or a qualifier for the type of belief you hold.

Atheism contends that you don't believe in a higher power, not that you believe that there isn't one. Antitheism holds that you believe that there isn't.

Antitheism and theism are both positive beliefs. Atheism is a neutral disbelief of both sides.

But atheism in and of itself is flawed because of theism, which I could go into detail on but won't.

 

To be an agnostic atheist you must (A). not actively believe in a higher power and (B). believe that the answer to this question can not be ultimately known. Similar to how you can never know unicorns don't exist but that doesn't mean you believe in them.