Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

[geo]

It's frankly amazing that it took this long for you to concede that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, at least not in terms of human evolution

I'll have to check what is making you claim the above because that's not my position at all.

I don't know about you, but i'm seriously mutlitasking this atheist dogpile.
Most of the time I am.

But fine, whatever. I'll check when I have more time that I do now.

Thanks, Geo. I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Some of the things you share I agree with, others I don't.

Please, we're so close. You said: "It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man."

So do you agree or disagree with this statement. Humans evolved from simpler life forms, according to the vast preponderance of scientific evidence.

Just be honest. I'm not going to throw it back in your face.

[Robert Tulip]

not my position

Ant said "it is not an established scientific fact [that] evolution by natural selection is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man."

Now ant says it is "not my position at all" that he doesn't accept the evidence for evolution.

Worth a thank. Makes me laugh.

[ant]

not my position

Ant said "it is not an established scientific fact [that] evolution by natural selection is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man."

Now ant says it is "not my position at all" that he doesn't accept the evidence for evolution.

Worth a thank. Makes me laugh.

As I said before, I mostly multitask you atheists while I work.
For your information, in the States, most of us earn our keep by working 40 hours a week.
This isn't a nanny state (yet).
Perhaps you've got more time to sit around and respond all day.
I don't.

My primary contention here is/was how Dawkins is saying what he's saying and what constitutes "fact" as claimed by science (and Dawkins). It's a point that is not receiving direct response. Instead, my personal belief system is under soft attack.
It's as if you atheists want a mini Scopes trial each time a believer steps in to share his thoughts.

And so what if I were a Creationist? What then?
Do you want creationists to be gathered up and sent to some "rehabilitation" camp?

What planet are you from?

Here in America it is illiberal NOT to value autonomy. It is illiberal NOT to value free conscience. And it is CRIMINAL to persecute someone for their religious beliefs.
True liberals support the exchanging of ideas in the public square. The public square is a forum to even out differences, to find common ground, and to encourage future participation by all citizens, regardless of political and religious persuasions.
We understand that because we are a people of great diversity, including religious diversity, we accept that some people will be influenced by their faith. We support that, and of course, speak out against it when it threatens to do harm to others.

You do not discourage me with your pompous know-it-all, knowledge snobbery, Robert.
Actually, your inability to respect other people's worldviews worries me that one day you will fly your ideological plane into my house.

[sonoman]

Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.

How can you talk about souls as though you know anything about them? Souls have never been demonstrated to exist. There is literally no fact that can be said about a soul, other than that which was said in fiction which is known to be the creation of human imagination.

Please. No more of this irrational atheist bullshit posted again. When you can post a natural physiologically explanation that answers why our human brains have evolved to experience and process spiritual activity when you atheist claim it is nothing but imagination, then you can give your spiel but it's been months now and no answer given that can possibly explain complex religious experiences including one's involving SPIRIT influence and spiritual knowledge about souls. After you've satisfactorily answered that question, and no fudging with atheist approval, got to be OK'd by theistic scrutiny too, you have to answer why there's 40,000+ years of evidence of human beings having such spiritual experiences and building their whole societies around such experiences. After that you have to answer why there are tens of thousands of N.D.E.'s with no sign of stopping. You have to be able to go up to a person who's had an n.d.e. and tell them to their face that it was all in their imagination. No real at all. And do this to hundreds of such people to get a good sampling of actual responses to your crazy atheist in denial idea that such things are purely imagination. DENIAL of Facts= fundamentalist belief system and that's your atheist one that just refuses to look at or seriously consider the ramifications of thousands upon thousands of human reports of spiritual experiences. Just end it. No theist will ever buy into atheist irrationality re spiritual phenomena.

… I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.

This is better. You really do have no idea and that is the honest thing to say. But knowing this, how can you so confidently tell us what is happening with regular people? How would you distinguish somebody with a soul which follows your arbitrarily decided rules, and somebody who consumed their twin in utero who otherwise shows no outward sign?

Seeing as there is no evidentiary footing for your initial claims about the soul to body ratio, how is it more difficult for you to fabricate a rule about conjoined twins? Anything you say about the status of their souls will be equally arbitrary and without reference to the physical world.

Given evolution, how do you distinguish which of our ancestor was the first to acquire a soul? Given that we know that it’s the brain, a physical object, which is responsible for the behavior of humans, what makes you think souls have anything to do with it, other than the fictional stories I mentioned above?

I have experienced spiritual revelation. You haven't. When you talk about spiritual phenomena you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. It's the perennial error in logic of atheists to think they can tell people who are not spiritually disabled what their experiences are. It happened that in my very first religious conversion experience I was given Gnosis, knowledge of God, about n.d.e.s and there's no reason for me not to trust this knowledge over anything any atheist could say since atheists cannot begin to explain any of my spiritual experiences. Logic alone informs the objective observer that something is going on that isn't explainable by ordinary science or psychological theories, when n.d.e.s happen with enough frequency that the idea of Heaven and an afterlife never fades away from human consciousness--despite over a hundred years of science "debunking" religion. As if those without knowledge or experience in spiritual consciousness could ever tell those who do have it anything of value except as marking the general overall ignorance of the atheist and scientific collective to spiritual reality.

And please note: I am fully aware of the cultural influence on n.d.e'. If you read the Gospel of Humanity you'd know why this is, what it means when mentality creates reality.

But I say these things here and know it all goes in one side of the atheist brain and not out the other so nothing is learned except now my posts add to the growing number of Biomystic, Arielmessenger, Sonoman, posted information on the Internet where Google picks up these posts of mine on various discussion forums. Because I've been posting for years now my posts and website info are usually at the top of first page of search without me spending a dime for search engine assistance or publishing a book the usual way. This is why I can withstand the barrage of hostile critics here--it all adds to my outreach program and that's the important thing since I know I won't be turning any atheist fundamentalist mindsets here. But then I don't need to, to get my points across to others following the thread topics.

[geo]

I know what you mean, Ant. I work from home and sometimes I spend too much time on the internet. Occasionally I take internet holidays and I'm due for one coming up here very soon.

My primary contention here is/was how Dawkins is saying what he's saying and what constitutes "fact" as claimed by science (and Dawkins). It's a point that is not receiving direct response. Instead, my personal belief system is under soft attack.
It's as if you atheists want a mini Scopes trial each time a believer steps in to share his thoughts.

I have indeed responded directly to your concerns. Dawkins' assumptions are all well grounded in science.

And so what if I were a Creationist? What then?

It actually matters a great deal if you are a Creationist. A Creationist has a fixed belief system that the Bible is literally true. Anywhere the Bible conflicts with science, the Bible wins. The Bible is always true. As such, there is simply no point in debating the evidence that supports evolution because a Creationist's belief is forever off limits.

So obviously if someone is incredibly resistant to the idea that we evolved from fish, naturally I have to wonder why. And I did ask you directly if you personally accept or reject the evidence that humans evolved from lower life forms, but you didn't respond. I think it's entirely possible that you're not sure what you believe. Maybe you're just trying to keep the Bible-as-literal-truth option open. Maybe there's another reason why you reject the evidence for human evolution.

Regardless, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But neither do I see any point in debating science with anyone whose perspective is forever at odds with science. It's an irreconcilable position. As I said, we would have to just agree to disagree and move on.

So it does matter where you're coming from in order to establish common ground. If you're a Creationist or something like a Creationist, we probably don't have much common ground, but it's nice to be able to figure out where we stand. That's only possible if both sides are up front about their positions.

[ant]

If religion and God are explainable by the evolutionary forces of natural selection, then no doubt religion's strength as a source of moral values can also be explained away as well.

However, we must also say that science too is a product of evolutionary forces that shaped the human brain. As a result, it can be discredited by the same logic. We can attribute your lack of faith as a product of evolutionary forces.

Evolution's role in forming our capacity for both faith and science is strictly undeniable. To spout that either is in some way invalidated does not past the test of logic.

I'm not certain what your objective here is.
Is it to ultimately marginalize people of faith?
Is it to discredited a faith based world view?
Is it to assert that yours is the superior, thus the inferior should be expunged in some manner?

Whatever the case is, it has yet to be determined if your worldview is the one most advantageous to the future survival of the species.
If you'd like to claim that it is, what evidence are you going to present for consideration?

[Dexter]

I'm not certain what your objective here is.
Is it to ultimately marginalize people of faith?
Is it to discredited a faith based world view?
Is it to assert that yours is the superior, thus the inferior should be expunged in some manner?

Goddamn, are you capable of giving a straight answer? First you hurl insults at me and at Dawkins for merely making a claim about evolution. Then you say Dawkins is just giving his opinion about evolution, but you're insulted at the suggestion of being a creationist, then you're playing the martyr as if someone wants to throw you in a concentration camp. But now you say:

Evolution's role in forming our capacity for both faith and science is strictly undeniable

We're just trying to have a discussion about evolution, it's not a persecution. It sounds like you disagree with it, sometimes, or you hope it's not true, or you think it's just speculation on the part of scientists and you prefer another explanation. Or you just don't know anything about it. So which is it?

Forget if Dawkins knows the exact species that occurred 185 million generations ago -- as I said, it should be obvious that this wasn't the point of the thought experiment. I repeat: If he had given a disclaimer about it being a fish-like or similar primitive animal, would that have been OK? Do you disagree with Dawkins that if you lined up your ancestors, they would show a very gradual shift until you've reached a very primitive species?

[geo]

If religion and God are explainable by the evolutionary forces of natural selection, then no doubt religion's strength as a source of moral values can also be explained away as well.

However, we must also say that science too is a product of evolutionary forces that shaped the human brain. As a result, it can be discredited by the same logic. We can attribute your lack of faith as a product of evolutionary forces.

Evolution's role in forming our capacity for both faith and science is strictly undeniable. To spout that either is in some way invalidated does not past the test of logic.

I'm not certain what your objective here is.
Is it to ultimately marginalize people of faith?
Is it to discredited a faith based world view?
Is it to assert that yours is the superior, thus the inferior should be expunged in some manner?

Whatever the case is, it has yet to be determined if your worldview is the one most advantageous to the future survival of the species.
If you'd like to claim that it is, what evidence are you going to present for consideration?

This is all evasion. I'm not trying to discredit religious faith. Whichever worldview is more advantageous to the survival of the species is irrelevant to this conversation. We're not playing dodgeball.

You're the one who said Dawkins was stating his opinion as fact. I'm saying his assertions are all well-grounded in scientific evidence. So you either disagree with my assessment or you disagree with Dawkins. Which is it? Be specific.

[youkrst]

I have experienced spiritual revelation. You haven't.

i think you may need to experience some more spiritual revelation as your omniscience is faltering just a tad

sorry sonoman but when you post stuff like that no matter how hard i try to leave it i just have to point out how absurd it sounds to me

if god were talking to you surely he would say "just get over yourself"

i challenge you to post one single edifying thought, devoid of fruitery, so that i can read it and say, wow that was great, sonoman didn't fruit me up but posted a wonderful clear thought that in isolation was in itself a marvellous help to make my day less confusing.

what i mean is i have read many of your posts and seem less informed about what you are saying than i was before i read them.

please don't say it's because i haven't experienced spiritual revelation

[youkrst]

sorry going briefly OT

We're not playing dodgeball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16US1Y6Ridg

at 1:00 in

"that's what this sack of wrenches is for" "if you can dodge wrenches you can dodge a ball"