<quoted text> Fair enough. I recant the arguing remark. <quoted text> Right. <quoted text> I haven't, God has. <quoted text> Of course He can. And does. Why did He choose Moses, Peter, Paul, etc? I don't know. Moses had a sort if unnatural upbringing by pharaoh. He would've been the only one brave enough to approach him like a regular guy. He was very humble before God & approached Him in that manner. He expressed himself, murdered out of rage & was a slow speaker. The dum-dum answer is "God works in mysterious ways". If you believe in God, you know that to be true.
"I haven't, God has." - you wrote this in response to my question of 'Why do you limit "God"'?
Which leads me to ask you for clarification on your knowledge of what "God" can or cannot do.
How do you know what "God" can or cannot do, if you say "He" can do this?
I'm not sure why you'd object to that, I consider you and myself to have similar views when it comes to deities you don't have a belief in either. I just happen to have went one step further than theists. Yourself included.
Very interesting comment. I hadn't considered that at all, ever.
That an atheist & I would have the same views as, say Buddhism.
Scar, you just taught me something. Intentionally or inadvertently, I don't know.
But I thank you.
I think my eyes just popped open about what an atheist truly is & what really goes on in their minds.
Are you saying your unproven beliefs deserve consideration or hold a special place and should be accepted because - "that's how we've always done it around here" -?
Yes. I'm a "traditional American" I have a 7 mpg truck, I'm a gun owner, a dog lover, a family man and I love God.
I don't want "my America" to change, if that makes any sense.
<quoted text> "I haven't, God has." - you wrote this in response to my question of 'Why do you limit "God"'? Which leads me to ask you for clarification on your knowledge of what "God" can or cannot do. How do you know what "God" can or cannot do, if you say "He" can do this?
What I know of God is was has been written about Him & my personal experience with Him.
<quoted text> No first human? This is your opinion? Wouldn't there need to be a first?
Nope. The idea of "first" is a human construction. Think of species as gene pools rather than rigid species categories. The human genome is about 25 000 genes - archaic Homo species had roughly the same number, but they had slightly different genes and mutations. Add more mutations, subtract out some genes, you get humans - but which one, at what point, produced the "first" human?
At no point did a child look like a different species than their parents.
We do have a "first" human fossil, though. If we had all the fossils, evolution would look relatively smooth, with some jumps due to migration, insertion events and odd genetic events.