"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Sam Vimes

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

It's just that being a lay person scientifically all I have to go on in relation to evolution theory is to what I can read for and against online and in books etc. Micro evolution seems apparent to me , but I've read some pretty convincing counter arguments to macro evolution and I don't mean from religious fanatics.

Macro evolution is when the genomes of two separate groups of the same species diverge enough that they can no longer interbreed, e.g. how we can't interbreed with apes. Macro evolution is just the accumulation of micro evolution

An example is ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Each species can inter breed with the one next to it on the ring but the ones at each end can't anymore because they're diverged too much

Shenshen

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

Just a few questions for the atheists & adherents of evolution on the thread , ( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma )

1) For the adherents of macro evolution theory who are not scientifically knowledgable , do you simply believe in the theory based on what you have read and use a 'Common sense' approach?.

2) If you cannot verify the theory based on your own scientific understanding is it not akin to a religious belief?. Would you be willing to even entertain the idea that some day down the line there may be new evidence or discoveries that shatter the current widely accepted paradigm?.

3) Would athesits who have actual deep contempt for people who have spiritual beliefs consider themselves to be truly open minded?.

4) What would you think of the concept of not believing in anything as in the piece from the web link.

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

It's just that being a lay person scientifically all I have to go on in relation to evolution theory is to what I can read for and against online and in books etc. Micro evolution seems apparent to me , but I've read some pretty convincing counter arguments to macro evolution and I don't mean from religious fanatics. Is the theory of macro evolution really that rock solid that it cannot be challenged?. ( I'm not looking for an argument btw I argue for about half of my day on a phone so I don't want to engage in the muck slinging and aggro that a lot of internet forums descend into ).

I am a lay person, but interested in the world around me, hence I've read about and observed evolution a good bit, so I've got some questions of my own:

1) What do you mean by "macro evolution"? I can't say I've come across that term yet.
2) Just accepting what you hear at face-value is as unscientific as you can possibly get. Why would anybody who is interested in science, and be it only in evolution, do such a thing?

To answer your questions :

1) No, I've seen evidence in nature and in experiments.
2) It's a simple enough theory to be verifiable by simple means by everybody. So this questions falls a little flat.
3) Open-minded about what? People generally don't spend their life absolutely open-minded about everything, we follow patterns and work on probabilities.
Would you call someone close-minded for not believing in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Or do you try to be open-minded about absolutely everything, no matter how unlikely, just because it can't be disproven?
4) I'll have to come back on this one, when I get time to view it .

philologos

MingulayJohnny: There's no distinction between macro and micro, they both are describing one thing. Evolution. If mutations can happen on a small level, if one adds time, these incramental small mutations can account for something more substantial over time.

sponsoredwalk

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma ).

You do understand that macroevolution is simply the process of
microevolution occuring over time, right? If so then any problems you
have with macroevolution are really problems with microevolution and
you've got a hell of a lot of work to convince people that the reason
we need to constantly reinvent medicines is not because of the
microevolution taking place inside these organisms but because of X.

Any argument against macroevolution that you've read that
agrees with microevolution but has misgivings about the macro
variety must have been creationist drivel because they appear to
be the main propagators of this farcical argument.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'll tell you what, fill out a list of everything that you know and email it to me so that I can cross reference it lest I make the awful mistake of thinking you might not know something.

Or perhaps you could assume I know everything... and if I need you to clarify something I'll ask. Much simpler.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And how did I not use it effectively exactly? I think I was very effective in showing that you do the very same as Dawkins does when you don't approve of the beliefs being taught..

Except I don't. I think what is being though should be taken on it's merits unlike Dawkins who seems to think all religious instruction is equally abhorrent I am capable of drawing a line.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

.....they do believe that it is a minimum requirement; a bad christian will go to hell but a non-christian will go to hell regardless of how well they live their lives.

Quite wrong. You can have lived your life from birth to death without being a Christian and still avoid 'hell'.

optogirl

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

Just a few questions for the atheists & adherents of evolution on the thread , ( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma )

1) For the adherents of macro evolution theory who are not scientifically knowledgable , do you simply believe in the theory based on what you have read and use a 'Common sense' approach?.

2) If you cannot verify the theory based on your own scientific understanding is it not akin to a religious belief?. Would you be willing to even entertain the idea that some day down the line there may be new evidence or discoveries that shatter the current widely accepted paradigm?.

3) Would athesits who have actual deep contempt for people who have spiritual beliefs consider themselves to be truly open minded?.

4) What would you think of the concept of not believing in anything as in the piece from the web link.

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

It's just that being a lay person scientifically all I have to go on in relation to evolution theory is to what I can read for and against online and in books etc. Micro evolution seems apparent to me , but I've read some pretty convincing counter arguments to macro evolution and I don't mean from religious fanatics. Is the theory of macro evolution really that rock solid that it cannot be challenged?. ( I'm not looking for an argument btw I argue for about half of my day on a phone so I don't want to engage in the muck slinging and aggro that a lot of internet forums descend into ).

The word Theory means different things in science and everyday speak. A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, often the foundation of an entire field of knowledge, and is not to be confused with the sort of "theory" we so easily propose in everyday conversation. (Berra )
To call the theory of relativity or macro/micro evolution just a 'common-sense' theory is like calling the germ theory of disease 'just a theory'.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Quite wrong. You can have lived your life from birth to death without being a Christian and still avoid 'hell'.

we're all going to heaven lads, waheyyyy

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Or perhaps you could assume I know everything... and if I need you to clarify something I'll ask. Much simpler.

Fair enough

prinz wrote: »

Except I don't. I think what is being though should be taken on it's merits unlike Dawkins who seems to think all religious instruction is equally abhorrent I am capable of drawing a line.

Another straw man I'm afraid. Teaching a child about religion is fine and to be encouraged, it's a very important part of history, but teaching a child what to believe is not, especially when the belief contains a tenet as inherently coersive as the view that anyone who doesn't follow the belief will be tortured for eternity.

prinz wrote: »

Quite wrong. You can have lived your life from birth to death without being a Christian and still avoid 'hell'

Then what is the accepted christian teaching on this matter? I personally don't think there is just one, I think that each of the positions I gave represents the views of large numbers of christians.

Are you of the view that the explicit statement in the bible that "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" means something other than what it appears to mean?

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

contrary to popular opinion you don't die and get a 'Christians Only' golden escalator to the pearly gates in Christianity.

prinz wrote: »

Quite wrong. You can have lived your life from birth to death without being a Christian and still avoid 'hell'.

Erm, to ask the obvious question:

How do you know?

marco_polo

Shenshen wrote: »

I am a lay person, but interested in the world around me, hence I've read about and observed evolution a good bit, so I've got some questions of my own:

1) What do you mean by "macro evolution"? I can't say I've come across that term yet.
2) Just accepting what you hear at face-value is as unscientific as you can possibly get. Why would anybody who is interested in science, and be it only in evolution, do such a thing?

To answer your questions :

1) No, I've seen evidence in nature and in experiments.
2) It's a simple enough theory to be verifiable by simple means by everybody. So this questions falls a little flat.
3) Open-minded about what? People generally don't spend their life absolutely open-minded about everything, we follow patterns and work on probabilities.
Would you call someone close-minded for not believing in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Or do you try to be open-minded about absolutely everything, no matter how unlikely, just because it can't be disproven?
4) I'll have to come back on this one, when I get time to view it .

To save you some time, summing up (4) it follows the same basic template that this form of nonsense usually does.

A) Briefly mention quantum physics
Make stuff up.

strobe

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

Just a few questions for the atheists & adherents of evolution on the thread , ( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma )

1) For the adherents of macro evolution theory who are not scientifically knowledgable , do you simply believe in the theory based on what you have read and use a 'Common sense' approach?.

Isn't that why anyone believes in anything? Don't you simply believe the melting point of lead is approx. 327 C or that electrons exist based on what you have read and use a common sense approach?

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

2) If you cannot verify the theory based on your own scientific understanding is it not akin to a religious belief?. Would you be willing to even entertain the idea that some day down the line there may be new evidence or discoveries that shatter the current widely accepted paradigm?.

I wouldn't consider it akin to religious belief, no. I work on the presumption that 99.9999999% of biologists and paleontologists and chemists, including university students studying those subjects in the world aren't secretly all involved in a conspiracy to lie about the validity of the several facets that point towards the theory of evolution being accurate.

Yes of course I would be willing to entertain the idea that evidence may be discovered that would cause the current theory to be thrown out. In fact many of those thousands of biologists and chemists I mention above spend there entire careers trying to find the evidence that would disprove the theory of evolution. This is the basic foundation of how modern science is conducted. Someone suggests a theory. Everyone else in the world tries to prove that theory wrong. If nobody can then it more than likely isn't wrong. That's how it works.

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

3) Would athesits who have actual deep contempt for people who have spiritual beliefs consider themselves to be truly open minded?.

I've never met an atheist that said "I have a deep contempt for people with spiritual beliefs", not once. I certainly don't. I do have contempt for a lot of the spiritual beliefs themselves though. But that's a different thing altogether. Yes I would consider myself very open minded. I have never dismissed anything reasonable completely without having looked into it first.

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

4) What would you think of the concept of not believing in anything as in the piece from the web link.

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

Couldn't read the link, too many fnords. :pac:

But seriously. The idea that one shouldn't have certitude about anything is an ok one. In terms of the question of god, very few atheists claim to be 100% positive that there isn't some type of deity, just that it's pretty unlikely in their opinion. But to refuse to believe anything whatsoever is impractical, you need to work on some assumptions to function in reality.

OutlawPete

liah wrote: »

I'm done with this thread.

As was I, but seen as you went to so much effort to cherry pick some of my comments and post them without context, to make it appear as if I was just speaking that way without provocation, I shall return from my thread retirement and put right a few wrongs, if that's okay with you.

liah wrote: »

I clicked your username and went through your posts in this thread.

Well, that's what it's there for.

liah wrote: »

You contributed basically nothing ..

Why thank you, I thought I made some good points, but there you go.

liah wrote: »

..disappeared whenever we offered to engage in legitimate debate ..

I went out, I didn't disappear .. and there was I thinking you athiests were people of science.

liah wrote: »

Again, more completely unnecessary flippancy. The thread wasn't even heated, they were all making jokes and taking the piss, and yet you STILL can't let your bitterness drop.

The thread had turned in a circle jerk of jokes aimed at poking fun at non-atheist beliefs. You and the few other remaining posters (with the odd exception) were just patting yourselves on the back for being responsible for the thread quietening down. When in actual fact, what had happened, was that all the posters that had an opposing view, had been driven away, due to level of smug, arrogant and condescending comments directed their way.

liah wrote: »

Odd behaviour for someone who claims to be all about respect.

If someone is disrespectful to me in AH, I will be disrespectful in return.

liah wrote: »

More flippancy.. for no apparent reason at all, at that.

Oh, the reasons were quite apparent - well, to those who didn't just see what they wanted to see that is.

liah wrote: »

Condescension belongs to both religion and atheism. Stop pretending like we're the only ones doing it .

When did I pretend that?

See, this is why I accuse you of cherry picking my posts, did you miss this:

OutlawPete wrote: »

I have just as much contempt for people who shove religion down other's throats as I do for the atheists who sneer at people who believe that humans might have a soul.

Start a thread on men of the cloth and I think you'll find I don't have much niceties for their kind either.

Now, here we have yet more misinterpretation or indeed, to be more apt: misrepresentation.

liah wrote: »

Calling someone else "quite sad" is also pretty arrogant.

I didn't call anyone "quite sad".

MrStuffins posted the following in reply to another user:

MrStuffins wrote: »

Oh my Gosh!!!!!!

You haven't read the thread either!

So many circles with people in this bloody thread!

READ THE THREAD!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

In reply, I said that it was "quite sad" that he "among others" were "making the error of thinking that because" they had "stated something on this thread and posters disagreed, then did not return, that this must then mean that" .. (he) was .. "right and that they have somehow accepted what" .. he / they .. "had said as being fact."

I stated very specifically what I found to be 'quite sad', but hey - let's not let the truth get in way of Liah and her wish to play to the gallery.

Fair play though, your post was well thanked, so worth it I guess, only you can decide that - not something I'd be willing to do, but then we are all individuals.

liah wrote: »

Eh, MrStuffins was fine with anyone who was actually respectful.

Eh, no he wasn't "fine" with anyone who was respectful actually.

Even from his first post on the thread, before anyone had said anything to him, he was being needlessly condescending:

MrStuffins wrote: »

Have you ever... i dunno... like...... learned about Evolution?

MrStuffins wrote: »

You can show these people over and over but they remain ignorant.

A user then asked him had what he said was proven 100% and by whom and his reply was:

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yore Ma

Of course, that's "fine" - isn't it Liah?

MrStuffins wrote: »

My beliefs are right and if you don't agree with them, you're a poopy head!

MrStuffins wrote: »

.. (got it this time Stu) that you are wrong, you pig-headedly refuse to take it back.

MrStuffins wrote: »

And you may be insulted by mt pig-headed remark, but it stands!

MrStuffins wrote: »

*awaits more nit-picking*

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry, you have to be trolling! There is no way i'm having THIS conversation hahaha!

Trolls used to be so much better back in the day!

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's ok, God is supposed to forgive us is he not?

Sure he loves me.

AND i have loads of creationists praying for me since they heard i don't believe in God!

All lovely posts indeed.

Also, MrStuffins, while I'm here, you posted the following when someone complained about one of your replies:

MrStuffins wrote: »

.. this is AH after all. The home of "All Africans are this" and "All Polish people are that" and "Let's kill all the Roma Gypsies".

I don't know who told you that AH was about any of the above or that users here want to "kill all the Roma", but if I were you - I'd go and give that person a good kick in the arse, as that's not what the forum is about.

MingulayJohnny

When I referred to the usage of common sense I meant lay people who read scientific documents but do not understand the in-depth information and decide to accept it as being sound. For example a lot of people will accept medication from their doctor believing that they are well trained and knowledgable and take this for granted. Not many people actually dig deeper and research the side effects of the drugs and the healthier alternatives.

I took macro evolution to be the transition from say hominids to Cro Magnon man.

If the atheists on the thread started to experience supernatural phenomena would they accept the subjective experience they were presented with provided they were assured by doctors that they were medically fine?.

Pookah

Pookah wrote: »

Wow, kinda missed this thread over the weekend.

Who's winning?

I didn't read the entire thing, nor am I informed about what has been said for both sides.

But I have a belief that my side is winning, because basing beliefs on absolutely nothing except for a "feeling" makes perfect sense.

Sam Vimes

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

If the atheists on the thread started to experience supernatural phenomena would they accept the subjective experience they were presented with provided they were assured by doctors that they were medically fine?.

You don't have to be mentally ill for your mind to play tricks on you. Have you ever seen a figure in the dark only to realise that it was a shadow on close inspection?

robindch

optogirl wrote: »

prinz wrote:

Quite wrong. You can have lived your life from birth to death without being a Christian and still avoid 'hell'.

we're all going to heaven lads, waheyyyy

Yikes, nooooo!!

Imagine having to spend all eternity avoiding asking difficult questions in case people get offended, not to mention all that worship-giving, looking down on the people in hell (probably having a fun time too )

Marcus.Aurelius

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

If the atheists on the thread started to experience supernatural phenomena would they accept the subjective experience they were presented with provided they were assured by doctors that they were medically fine?.

Accept what? The likely explanation or the more comforting one?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...inherently coersive as the view that anyone who doesn't follow the belief will be tortured for eternity..

That would have to actually be there first.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then what is the accepted christian teaching on this matter? I personally don't think there is just one, I think that each of the positions I gave represents the views of large numbers of christians.

Well as you well know there wouldn't be one. As far as I am aware the view that non-Christians are automatically condemned is not held by the denominations representing the vast majority of Christians worldwide.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you of the view that the explicit statement in the bible that "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" means something other than what it appears to mean?

If you mean am I of the opinion that it means something different to what you are taking it to mean, then yes. Check out Romans 2 and 3 for example. See this from the current Pope..

http://www.zenit.org/article-14695?l=english

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Erm, to ask the obvious question:
How do you know?

If it is that obvious why didn't you ask the same question of Sam when he decided non-Christians were going to hell? Picky choosy....

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

If it is that obvious why didn't you ask the same question of Sam when he decided non-Christians were going to hell? Picky choosy....

I didn't even read his comment on that tbh but to answer your question,
unlike you sidestepping mine,

John 3:15: "...everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life."
John 3:18: "...whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
John 14:6: "Jesus answered: 'No one comes to the Father except through me'"
Acts 3:23: "And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people."
Acts 4:12: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"
Romans 10:9: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
Hebrews 9:28: "...he [Christ] will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him"
John 5:12: "...he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

I believe that is a better answer than anything I could write,
apparently he is correct - according to the bible anyway.
You seem to know something everyone else doesn't however
so please let us know why the bible is wrong.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

That would have to actually be there first.

So it's ok to tell your child that they're going to be tortured after death if they don't believe in christianity....because it won't happen until they die

prinz wrote: »

Well as you well know there wouldn't be one. As far as I am aware the view that non-Christians are automatically condemned is not held by the denominations representing the vast majority of Christians worldwide.

If you mean am I of the opinion that it means something different to what you are taking it to mean, then yes. Check out Romans 2 and 3 for example. See this from the current Pope..

http://www.zenit.org/article-14695?l=english

What exactly do they base this on? As far as I can see the bible is absolutely unequivocal on this matter. I have never seen anything in it to suggest that non-christians will gain salvation and an awful lot to suggest the contrary. The first commandment is "I am the lord your god. You will have to other gods before me". In fact a non-christian cannot keep the first four commandments or at least has no reason to

This sounds an awful lot to me like picking the nice bits of the bible and ignoring the bad bits......no?

That is unless you can show me the part of the bible that suggests that non-christians will be saved?

prinz wrote: »

Picky choosy....

Indeed

prinz

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I didn't even read his comment on that tbh but to answer your question,
unlike you sidestepping mine..

I side-stepped yours as it is a pointless attempt to be contibute a smart-arsed snide remark. In keeping with other contributions I might add.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You seem to know something everyone else doesn't however
so please let us know why the bible is wrong.

None of what you linked says the non-Christians are excluded from God's grace/heaven etc.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

If you mean am I of the opinion that it means something different to what you are taking it to mean, then yes. Check out Romans 2 and 3 for example. See this from the current Pope..

http://www.zenit.org/article-14695?l=english

So can the Pope overrule the bible? Awesome. It's gonna be fierce crowded up there - especially as all those ones in hell that ate meat on a Friday are now being fast tracked back into heaven.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

None of what you linked says the non-Christians are excluded from God's grace/heaven etc.

What? How? Why?

How the fook does "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" not mean that non-christians are excluded from heaven?

Shenshen

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

When I referred to the usage of common sense I meant lay people who read scientific documents but do not understand the in-depth information and decide to accept it as being sound. For example a lot of people will accept medication from their doctor believing that they are well trained and knowledgable and take this for granted. Not many people actually dig deeper and research the side effects of the drugs and the healthier alternatives.

I took macro evolution to be the transition from say hominids to Cro Magnon man.

If the atheists on the thread started to experience supernatural phenomena would they accept the subjective experience they were presented with provided they were assured by doctors that they were medically fine?.

I think what you describe in the doctor-patient example is trust, not belief.
You belief when there is nothing of substance to support that belief.
If you could access the information and find out for yourself but choose to trust somebody else's expertise it's, well, trust.

A Cro Magnon was a hominid... I'm not too sure what you're getting at?

If I was able to experience something supernatural, it couldn't be supernatural, since my natural senses did pick it up. It would have to be natural.

Bruthal

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I didn't even read his comment on that tbh but to answer your question,
unlike you sidestepping mine,

John 3:15: "...everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life."
John 3:18: "...whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
John 14:6: "Jesus answered: 'No one comes to the Father except through me'"
Acts 3:23: "And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people."
Acts 4:12: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"
Romans 10:9: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
Hebrews 9:28: "...he [Christ] will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him"
John 5:12: "...he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

I believe that is a better answer than anything I could write,
apparently he is correct - according to the bible anyway.
You seem to know something everyone else doesn't however
so please let us know why the bible is wrong.

He does not seem as forgiving as we used to be led to believe looking at that, what if you believe all your life but have a doubt at the last minute? Condemned?

Saganist

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

Just a few questions for the atheists & adherents of evolution on the thread , ( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma )

1) For the adherents of macro evolution theory who are not scientifically knowledgable , do you simply believe in the theory based on what you have read and use a 'Common sense' approach?.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

2) If you cannot verify the theory based on your own scientific understanding is it not akin to a religious belief?. Would you be willing to even entertain the idea that some day down the line there may be new evidence or discoveries that shatter the current widely accepted paradigm?.

Of course. Thats how science works. Its self correcting and is its own harshest critic. We accept the facts of evolution because we have now built a rigourious phylongentic tree. Any animal we find that totally goes against that ( say a mouse with tree bark for skin ) then you would have an argument against evolution. To date this has not been the case.

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

3) Would athesits who have actual deep contempt for people who have spiritual beliefs consider themselves to be truly open minded?.

Of course. Open-mindedness is the best thing in the world. Ignorence of certain facts however are the exact oppoiste. And its not contempt, people can believe in what they want, but when they start to tell me that evolution is incorrect and that their fairytale is true, I can get a tad pis*ed I will agree..

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

4) What would you think of the concept of not believing in anything as in the piece from the web link.

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

It's just that being a lay person scientifically all I have to go on in relation to evolution theory is to what I can read for and against online and in books etc. Micro evolution seems apparent to me , but I've read some pretty convincing counter arguments to macro evolution and I don't mean from religious fanatics. Is the theory of macro evolution really that rock solid that it cannot be challenged?. ( I'm not looking for an argument btw I argue for about half of my day on a phone so I don't want to engage in the muck slinging and aggro that a lot of internet forums descend into ).

Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution are the same thing. Only difference is time scale. Its like saying that you would belive that I could walk to the shop, but to walk into town is impossible... It doesn't make sense. IMO you can't have one without the other.

virmilitaris

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

Just a few questions for the atheists & adherents of evolution on the thread , ( I'm not a scientist so I'm undecided when it comes to macro evolution and I do believe in higher realities but only because of my own experience not scripture or dogma )

Macro evolution is enough micro evolution to mean two organisms can no longer interbreed. Macro E is simply a lot of micro E.

I cannot fathom what possible reason you have to deny Macro E but accept Micro E unless you're getting it from some creationist source. It's the same as suggesting that you accept a person can walk 10 feet but deny that they can walk a mile.

The only difference between Micro and Macro Evolution is scale and usually time although even time is not really necessary as 'macro evolution' can occur within one single generation in some organisms.

Macro evolution has been observed many times and it is demonstrably false to suggest otherwise.

2) If you cannot verify the theory based on your own scientific understanding is it not akin to a religious belief?.

Well I'm not a physicist and I haven't taken the time to verify atomic theory, nor the theory of relativity nor .... etc. But I accept them based on the peer review process and the scientific method.

And no, it's just silly to try and suggest that acceptance of a scientific theory is akin to religious belief.

Would you be willing to even entertain the idea that some day down the line there may be new evidence or discoveries that shatter the current widely accepted paradigm?.

Of course. That's what science does everyday. I hope that I would be so lucky as so discover some new evidence to refute some widely held theory.

The likelihood of Evolution being proven false is less likely than the theory of relativity being proven false but of course I'm open to the idea. Science is not dogma.

3) Would athesits who have actual deep contempt for people who have spiritual beliefs consider themselves to be truly open minded?.

Contempt for people just holding spiritual beliefs ? I doubt any such atheist exists.

4) What would you think of the concept of not believing in anything as in the piece from the web link.

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

Too long.

It's just that being a lay person scientifically all I have to go on in relation to evolution theory is to what I can read for and against online and in books etc. Micro evolution seems apparent to me , but I've read some pretty convincing counter arguments to macro evolution and I don't mean from religious fanatics.

Links and name the arguments please ?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the arguments you have read against macro evolution most certainly have come from religious fanatics because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever against macro evolution.

Is the theory of macro evolution really that rock solid that it cannot be challenged?

Well I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you here. There is no 'theory' of macro evolution. Macro Evolution is simply a scale of analysis of Evolution.

Think of it like so;
A millimetre is one thousandth of a metre. A metre is a unit of length of many (1000) millimetres added togeather.
Microevolution is Evolution on a very small scale. Macroevolution is (usually) a lot of microevolution added togeather.

To even state that you accept microevolution but deny macroevolution is nonsensical. It's akin to stating you accept millimetres but deny the existence of metres.

Here's a website on the subject from Berkeley in the States which should explain it to you better. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_47

goingpostal

Translation: When Christians tell you to "respect" their beliefs, what they really mean is to respect the barrier that has existed around their beliefs for centuries, this barrier keeping out any critical evaluation of the wicked, delusional nonsense that positively bursts forth from the pages of their "holy" book. When an atheist, or any other person who likes to use their critical faculties, attempts to criticise this book, they are accused of being "smug", "overbearing", "militant" and "disrespectful".

optogirl

I always start these atheist/christian threads with good intentions but end up getting so frustrated with the fairy land that so many christians are living in. A-la-carte doesn't begin to describe the majority of christians who argue against me on here and when atheists argue they are accused of being smug, snide or closed minded. You cannot belong to the club and pick and choose what parts you are comfortable with and ignore those with which you aren't. I try very hard to be tolerant but why should I respect the bibles teachings or a religion that sees homosexuality, contraceptive use, stem cell research etc as sin. That's not snide, it's just true.

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

I side-stepped yours as it is a pointless attempt to be contibute a smart-arsed snide remark. In keeping with other contributions I might add.



None of what you linked says the non-Christians are excluded from God's grace/heaven etc.

Assumption much? I'm not trying to be smart or contribute anything snide,
I asked you an honest question. How the **** do you know what you're
talking about prinz? In case you hadn't realized nobody in the history of
humanity has offered proof for what you've written so if me pointing out
the logical fallacy in your ridiculous statement is what you consider a
smart arsed remark you'll never learn anything new because it'll all just
threaten you ass opposed to humble you. Isn't that what your religion
is about, after all? So please hold back on the assumptions and answer
the question - if you actually can - and while your at it take your place
as king of humanity for you are the one with ultimate knowledge.

Oh, and was I wrong quoting the bible? Was Vimes wrong? You seem to be
very good at insulting someone, assuming something about them too,
and excellent at avoiding substantial questions that you yourself cause.