Understanding logic

If I point to a man a say - "he is short" and then point to a women and say "she is tall", but when you look at them you notice the man is taller than the women, you are fully justified to appeal to logic that short things cannot be taller than tall things. 

Your observation renders my comment irrational (misapplication of words), unless I can add logically consist context that rectifies the situation.  I might say "he is short for men, she is tall for women, and men are normally taller then women". At that point, we have a fully logical explanation.

If however I said the man can be short and yet taller than the women at the same time because he is omnipotent, then we are back to an irrational statement and nothing more.

Logic is simply about the proper application of concepts to reality.  Nothing can escape that application because it is merely a way to communicate abstract ideas and nothing more. By definition then logic has to match reality, because that is the only thing that makes it useful - exactly like math (an even more pedantic language).

A person is irrational if they are either unable to recognize reality and thus cannot describe it properly with concepts or if they do not understand the words they are trying to use to describe reality. Either of these two inabilities do not give rise to the possibility that reality changes magically (into gods) simply because someone cannot communicate.

"god" is a gibberish word

"god" is a gibberish word which is why if you add any detail to it, you have to use logical fallacies. Gibberish cannot exist in the real world - it can only be imaginary.

our convoluted fine motor system

how do you explain our convoluted fine motor system?

When you wish to move a single finger it's not all that simple. With the exception of mammals and primarily in primates, there is simply no mechanism or possibility to move a single finger or claw. They can only grasp with their entire hand or paw utilizing their Pyramidal motor system which provides no control at all over the individual digits.

In the few animals that are able to move a single digit there is no direct method available. The pyramidal motor system orders your entire hand to grasp and the extra-pyramidal motor system has developed a new ability. In animals previously identified as immediate ancestors to humans - the extra-pyramidal motor system is able to tell individual fingers to ignore the pyramidal motor system and only through this mechanism can any animal control individual fingers.

To be clear - the pyramidal system orders all of your fingers to move, just like it does in every other animal. In animals previously identified as human ancestors, their extra-pyramidal system is able to tell individual fingers to ignore the the pyramidal system and that is why we can move individual fingers.

Can you explain the behavior behind our fine motor skills without evolution?

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/3/918.long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b13cTA2pOAw

distribution of egg yolk genes

Can you explain the distribution of egg yolk genes in the animal kingdom? Evolution for example would say fish do not have egg yolk genes because they live in a soup of nutrients. Egg yolk was a later development that provides nourishment unnecessary to animals living in the water.

This would also explain why humans do have broken egg yolk genes that could not function. Our egg yolk genes are vestigial structures that point back to ancestors who did not yet have lactation (milk) nor live in a watery soup.

Additionally, it explains why amphibians only have 1 egg yolk gene. Though amphibians live on land they need to remain near water and thus must have a ready supply of water/ nutrient soup for many reasons and only a single egg yolk gene is sufficient. Additionally, we would expect the first animals with egg yolk genes to have fewer genes.

This would explain why reptiles have 3 egg yolk genes. Once they had a more dependable supply of egg yolk, they could live further and further from the nutrient soup of the water that fish and amphibians require. All descendents from reptiles should then have 3 egg yolk genes or remnants thereof, and both mammals and birds do have them.

Furthermore, the most primitive mammals, mammals that don't even have teats do lay eggs and because they lactate they don't rely on their egg yolk genes as much as reptiles. Therefore, 2 of their 3 egg yolk genes are no longer functional - at all, even though they still lay eggs.

The next most primitive mammals, which only have a rudimentary placenta, but do have teats and live birth - the marsupials, do not have any functional egg yolk genes. The genes are still there, but they do not function at all.

Finally, in the most recently developed mammals, we find all the evidence of recent development. Their placenta is more advanced, they have teats, and their egg yolk genes are completely nonfunctional.

If any of these details had occurred in any other order - fish with live births or reptiles with teats, it would not have fit the predictions of Darwin long before genes were even discovered. But in essence, all genetic discoveries ever made -millions of them -have all fit a pattern similar to these few genes mentioned here. Every single one.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060063

irrational concepts do not exist in reality

irrational concepts do not exist in reality by definition, and god claims are predicated on irrational concepts. I reject gods that could have evolved as an equivocation on the word god.

The nature of logic

If I point to a man a say - he is short and then point to a women and say she is tall, but when you look at them you notice the man is taller than the women, you are fully justified to appeal to logic that short things cannot be taller than tall things.  Your observation renders my comment irrational (misapplication of words), unless I can add logically consist context like he is short for men, she is tall for women, and men are normally taller then women.  At that point, we have a fully logical explanation.

If however I said the man can be short and yet taller than the women at the same time because he is omnipotent, then we are back to an irrational statement and nothing more.

Logic is simply about the proper application of concepts to reality.  nothing can escape that application because it is merely a way to communicate abstract ideas and nothing more.  By definition then logic has to match reality, because that is the only thing that makes it useful - exactly like math (an even more pedantic language).

A person is irrational if they are either unable to recognize reality and thus cannot describe it properly with concepts or if they do not understand the words they are trying to use to describe reality.  Either of these two inabilities do not give rise to the possibility that reality changes magically (into gods) simply because someone cannot communicate.

Agnostic vs Atheist

Colloquial use of the word "agnostic"is predicated on the biased idea that there is only one plausible god concept. Its an equivocation on the malformed phrase "do you believe in god" as if there is only one god concept in question. If you realize that you can believe in a few gods but not others, then you will see agnosticism is a case by case bases, but theism and atheism address the universal set of gods in its entirety.

typical, Atypical; moral, Amoral; sexual, Asexual; rythmic, Arythmic; symetric, Asymetric; synchronous Asynchronous; theist, Atheist.  

Typical is anything common

it is Latin - it is very simple and not really up for debate. Typical is anything common - Atypical is everything else. Synchronous is any set that is synchronized, everything else is Asynchronous. Theists believe in a god - every one else is Atheist - that includes people who are undecided.

What happens when a banana dies?

Humans are just a collection of Eukaryote cells not much different then a banana. Asking what happens when a human dies and not asking what happens when a banana dies is profoundly myopic. The entire enterprise of science would have to be wrong for there to be a significant difference between these two deaths.

You can't have "evidence to support gibberish"

There is and never could be a creation hypothesis because it is not falsifiable. This is largely do to the fact that it is predicated on logical fallacies which render it gibberish. You can't have "evidence to support gibberish".

the distribution of egg yolk genes in the animal kingdom

Can you explain the distribution of egg yolk genes in the animal kingdom? Evolution for example would say fish do not have egg yolk genes because they live in a soup of nutrients. Egg yolk was a later development that provides nourishment unnecessary to animals living in the water.

This would also explain why humans do have broken egg yolk genes that could not function. Our egg yolk genes are vestigial structures that point back to ancestors who did not yet have lactation (milk) nor live in a watery soup.

Additionally, it explains why amphibians only have 1 egg yolk gene. Though amphibians live on land they need to remain near water and thus must have a ready supply of water/ nutrient soup for many reasons and only a single egg yolk gene is sufficient. Additionally, we would expect the first animals with egg yolk genes to have fewer genes.

This would explain why reptiles have 3 egg yolk genes. Once they had a more dependable supply of egg yolk, they could live further and further from the nutrient soup of the water that fish and amphibians require. All descendents from reptiles should then have 3 egg yolk genes or remnants thereof, and both mammals and birds do have them.

Furthermore, the most primitive mammals, mammals that don't even have teats do lay eggs and because they lactate they don't rely on their egg yolk genes as much as reptiles. Therefore, 2 of their 3 egg yolk genes are no longer functional - at all, even though they still lay eggs.

The next most primitive mammals, which only have a rudimentary placenta, but do have teats and live birth - the marsupials, do not have any functional egg yolk genes. The genes are still there, but they do not function at all.

Finally, in the most recently developed mammals, we find all the evidence of recent development. Their placenta is more advanced, they have teats, and their egg yolk genes are completely nonfunctional.

If any of these details had occurred in any other order - fish with live births or reptiles with teats, it would not have fit the predictions of Darwin long before genes were even discovered. But in essence, all genetic discoveries ever made -millions of them -have all fit a pattern similar to these few genes mentioned here. Every single one.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060063

why would you promote such perversion?

gods are predicated on logical fallacies and so they cannot exist. Even so - Yahweh is a horrible fictional character that glorifies murdering babies - why would you promote such perversion even if it could be true?

Yahweh is not a murderer

Yahweh is not a murderer for the same reason Darth Vader is not a murder, they are both fictional characters. However, in the Bible Yahweh murders babies for fun. It is a perverse book.

a.k.a. religion

the position and ignorance you are defending and perpetuating (a.k.a.  religion) is the cause of nearly all unnecessary human suffering, pain, and death. If not to insult you and your brethren then who else could possibly deserve it?

"creationism" inculcates the logical fallacy of special pleading

"creationism" inculcates the logical fallacy of special pleading and thus could never be correct.

I would indict the bible for not mentioning germs

I would indict the bible for not mentioning germs or health care. If some knowledgeable person wrote a guide for humans and didn't mention germs and health care in about 80% of the Bible, then the Bible was written by a sadist.

why would anyone care

 the bible says murdering babies will make you happy, so i think we can agree the bible is wrong about that. So now that we agree that the bible is wrong about murdering babies - why would anyone care about whatever is in the bible?

faith is a bad thing

Faith is a bad thing, a terrible thing, the worst thing possible. It is never the correct thing to base any decision on ever. People use evidence to describe why you don't need evidence. They do that because they know faith is crap. The reason to use faith is as an excuse to ignore evidence you don't like. There is no other purpose for it.