David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1118248533.765397.144060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

Everything evolves... nothing is the same today as it was yesterday.  Let's
not confuse the dictionary definition of the word with Charles Darwin's
attrocious concepts that we were all once amoeba and then monkies,
before suddenly popping into homosapiens.

Okay, here we go again.

I will leave aside the fact that you don't even know how to spell the
plural of "monkey."

Please do... the spelling police approach to attacking someone is very passe'.

*We* ...

I'm glad you speak for *everyone*.     :-\

(ie. those of us participating in this ng) ...

And which newsgroup in the crossposted header is it that you speak for?

If you will read the balance of the sentence, you will see that it
doesn't matter.

...are, and always have
been, human beings (in the broadest sense of the word, in some cases).
Our *very* *distant* *ancestors* were also the ancestors of some of the
creatures we now call apes, and more distant ancestors were also the
ancestors of what we now call monkeys.  We didn't "suddenly pop[] into
homosapiens [sic]."  Homo sapiens is a species that evolved from other
species that in turn evolved from other species.

Monkey see....

Non sequitur.

The further back you
go, the less those species look like homo sapiens.  It's really pretty
simple, and nothing makes it "atrocious."]

Only the denial of the definition of infinity makes it atrocious... even stupid.

"Denial of the definition of infinity?" What does that have to do with
anything?

The gaps implied by your statement are totally ridiculous and utterly
unsupported by evidence.

There was no one around writing textbooks that survived.  I have about as
much evidence to support my own perceptions of human presence on
Earth as do you.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  There are other types of evidence than eyewitness
evidence.  There is the fossil record, the record contained in DNA, and
possibly others I don't know about.  These show that the "gaps" you
claim (ie. from amoeba to monkey, and from monkey to human) simply
don't exist.

I only posted because I hate to see close minded people redicule others
who see things differently.  (And before you get started, NO, this has
*nothing* to do with religion).

When you start talking about "external influences" (which I presume to
mean external to natural processes), you are talking about at least the
supernatural, which is religion.

As to a "steerer" (?)...  you got me pal.

You're the one suggesting steering.

No.  You apparently cannot read.  I suggested GAPS in Darwin's Theory.
I also suggested "external influences."  Some other assailant suggested
that I fill those gaps with hokus-pokus about steering.

What is the difference between "external influences" and "steering"?

Apparently, some of you guys just wait  around for the opportunity to confront
someone who doesn't share your belief system.  Crossposted headers are
really bad about causing these little clashes.

People who post to alt.atheism about supernatural belief systems are
inviting confrontation.  Also, I do this to help any impressionable
individuals who might be reading to make decisions based on evidence
and reason, not on hand-waving about non-existent gaps.

It's up to you to explain the steerer.

I have only a vague idea at what might be causing you to think that I ever
implied anything other than "outside influence".... some one else used the
"steer" word

Semantics.

Use a dictionary.  And please, don't claim now that you have a sudden "absence
of belief" in the virtually the same breath you just used to describe your belief in
evolution.  To believe in something is in fact a "faith" in that issue.  Again, see
the Webster's, and do so without being pre-disposed to typical religious terms.

Look at the last sentence of the original quote:  "When new knowledge
arrives, I'm totally open to changing my position, since that's the way
I gained it in the first place."  That is the difference between the
scientific method and the faith-based method.  If you don't understand
that, you're lost to reason forever.

I indeed saw that, recognized that, and entered the discussion based on that.

I don't know what you problem is here that you feel you must attack me for
offering input that is neither Theist or Athiest.  A couple of comments and I
am suddenly on the receiving end of attacks from YOUR belief system.

The problem is that you see belief in anything as faith.  That is a
distortion often used by theists to attack atheists.

As to a definition of faith, here's the first one from the wiktionary,

Oh great... now I'm supposed to take the wiccan beleif system into account
as well(?).   Sorry, I can't play this game of being stuck on earth and caught
up in the multitude of belief systems and faiths for too long today.

You clearly don't know what the wiktionary is.  It's nothing to do with
wicca. It's an open-source online resource that collects human
knowledge.  Actually, that is the entire wiki project.  The wiktionary
is just the dictionary portion of that.

which I think is as good as any in this context:  "Mental acceptance of
and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim."
Note especially the last part:  *without proof supporting the claim.*
Atheists and agnostics generally take the positions they do because
they *refuse* to accept any claim without proof.  So you are wrong to
say that "To believe in something is in fact a "faith" in that issue."
You missed out a very important aspect of the definition.

I'm sorry, JD, but I have to stick with the Webster's in order to play.

The same definition occurs in Merriam-Webster Online.

If you choose to believe that we were once tadpoles and then <this
is for you...> monkees, that's fine.  I only wanted to be certain that
Niels was actually as open as he claimed to be.   ;-)

And perhaps if you presented some evidence you might find out.

Jon.
aa #703