Atheism and Self-Esteem

[npetreley]

Originally posted by WinAce
*Blink blink*

Did I miss something? Do you also reject plate tectonics, the theory underlying all or most of geology, as 'unscientific'? Or is it just evolution, the theory underlying all of biology, that's fair game?

I guess you did miss something.

Plate tectonics is a theory about something that is happening now, and therefore can be observed, measured, tested, confirmed or refuted.

Evolution -- macroevolution, that is -- is speculation about what happened over millions of years. We don't see it happening today, we can't observe what happened, we can't measure what happened, we can't confirm or refute it by reproducing it. We can only look at what is today (extant species and microevolution) and speculate that macroevolution occurred.

The fact that it requires you to disregard the missing fossil evidence and the absurd just-so stories is what makes it a fascinating study in denial. But outside the psychological aspects, it ain't science.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by npetreley
I guess you did miss something.

Plate tectonics is a theory about something that is happening now, and therefore can be observed, measured, tested, confirmed or refuted.

Evolution -- macroevolution, that is -- is speculation about what happened over millions of years. We don't see it happening today, we can't observe what happened, we can't measure what happened, we can't confirm or refute it by reproducing it. We can only look at what is today (extant species and microevolution) and speculate that macroevolution occurred.

The fact that it requires you to disregard the missing fossil evidence and the absurd just-so stories is what makes it a fascinating study in denial. But outside the psychological aspects, it ain't science.

hmm that is almost true, but you can monitor and study evolution, we can see it in animals and humans everything on earth is evoling and will continue forever. Evolution is something we can even see in our own cells.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Blader, in response to an earlier post of yours (I'm pressed for time right now and can't find it), yes, God is bipolar. The proof is in the religion archives at theOnion.com.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seesaw
hmm that is almost true, but you can monitor and study evolution, we can see it in animals and humans everything on earth is evoling and will continue forever. Evolution is something we can even see in our own cells.

We can see microevolution. We dream up ways to extrapolate macroevolution from that and then say "it could happen this way." Yeah, well, as I've said elsewhere, G~d could have drawn stick figures and made them come to life as extant species, too. Just because one can dream up the possibility that something could have happened some way doesn't mean it did. And you can't make it more true by calling both microevolution and macroevolution "evolution" and then say that because you've given them a common term they're the same thing.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by npetreley
We can see microevolution. We dream up ways to extrapolate macroevolution from that and then say "it could happen this way." Yeah, well, as I've said elsewhere, G~d could have drawn stick figures and made them come to life as extant species, too. Just because one can dream up the possibility that something could have happened some way doesn't mean it did. And you can't make it more true by calling both microevolution and macroevolution "evolution" and then say that because you've given them a common term they're the same thing.

Dreamed up, well there is real evidence of it.

 

[Praxiteles]

Why on earth is an atheism discussion taking place in the science/evolution forum? It certainly is an interesting topic, but only very indirectly related to this forum. (Since when does the purported social impact of a scientific theory have any bearing on it’s veracity?)

Can’t one of the mods move this to a more relevant and appropriate forum, please?

Cheers,
Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Why on earth is an atheism discussion taking place in the science/evolution forum? It certainly is an interesting topic, but only very indirectly related to this forum. (Since when does the purported social impact of a scientific theory have any bearing on it’s veracity?)

Can’t one of the mods move this to a more relevant and appropriate forum, please?

Cheers,
Prax

we are talking about science and evolution

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by seesaw
we are talking about science and evolution

Hi Seesaw,

We aren't really. There isn't any science being discussed.  Rather, the discussion is centreing on the purported impact that an atheist worldview is having on society.  It is an interesting topic (and one that I'm following closely) but it doesn't directly relate to biological sciences.

What Jedi and others seem to be saying is that "Evolution can't be true, because belief in it leads to a society-wide loss of self esteem."  It's an indefensible position logically speaking, and furthermore says absolutely nothing about the evidence supporting the ToE.

Are we to reject Germ theory because it leads to a loss of belief in faith healing?  Crumbs, DM!!

I rather think that this forum exists for the discussions about evidences relating to biological sciences.

 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Hi Seesaw,

We aren't really. There isn't any science being discussed.  Rather, the discussion is centreing on the purported impact that an atheist worldview is having on society.  It is an interesting topic (and one that I'm following closely) but it doesn't directly relate to biological sciences.

What Jedi and others seem to be saying is that "Evolution can't be true, because belief in it leads to a society-wide loss of self esteem."  It's an indefensible position logically speaking, and furthermore says absolutely nothing about the evidence supporting the ToE.

Are we to reject Germ theory because it leads to a loss of belief in faith healing?  Crumbs, DM!!

I rather think that this forum exists for the discussions about evidences relating to biological sciences.

 

Cheers,

Prax

yeah i completey agree with every thing you said.

 

[blader]

What Jedi and others seem to be saying is that "Evolution can't be true, because belief in it leads to a society-wide loss of self esteem." It's an indefensible position logically speaking, and furthermore says absolutely nothing about the evidence supporting the ToE.

That's not true. He's saying "evolution makes me feel bad," not "evolution makes me feel bad so it can't be true."

 

[chickenman]

could someone explain the difference between microevolution and macroevolution as chemical processes, and then explain why one can happen but the other can't?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by chickenman
could someone explain the difference between microevolution and macroevolution as chemical processes, and then explain why one can happen but the other can't?

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. (www.icr.org).


But there isn't any reason why bother can't happen. In fact i do believe it has happened.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Jedi
It should be fairly easy to see. If this is the image someone has of himself (worthless, accidental, meaningless, evolved pond scum), then how much more likely an option is suicide?

You really *are* an amateur psychologist... If you honesty and truly believe that teaching people how life is thought to have originated on this planet is a factor in people committing suicide... wow.

Are you now saying that the Naturalistic doctrines are on equal grounds as the theology of those who committed a terrorist act of suicide (for the sake of Jihad) on September 11 (since both ideas are alike in that they contribute to suicidal thoughts of those who believe in them). Heh, ironic how it’s now Naturalism being compared to terrorists instead of Christianity a few posts ago.

My point there was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Apparently that flew right over your head, however.

I was merely trying to point out that you can't pigeonhole social evils. And if you really want to discuss atrocities, Christianity's got its own share.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by blader
That's not true. He's saying "evolution makes me feel bad," not "evolution makes me feel bad so it can't be true."

Yes, you're quite right.  He hasn't said it outright.  That would expose the fallacy of the position too quickly.

However, the inference is there!

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Stormy]

could someone explain the difference between microevolution and macroevolution as chemical processes, and then explain why one can happen but the other can't?

Chickenman: Do a little research of your own and some thinking, rather than being told the lie of macroevolution.

It is against the word of God. But maybe more convincing to you... there is no proof. Not from the past and not present today. It is not happening and has never happened. Someone must have forgotten to tell Darwin about the "birds and the bees" It is against all logic and principal laws of nature for an animal to give birth to another not of his specie. But this cross over would have had to occur! Not once but thousands maybe millions of times.

So why do evolutionist talk of macroevolution?

Because without it the theory of evolution falls on its face.

Think for yourself! Find the truth!

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Stormy
Chickenman: Do a little research of your own and some thinking, rather than being told the lie of macroevolution.

It is against the word of God. But maybe more convincing to you... there is no proof. Not from the past and not present today. It is not happening and has never happened. Someone must have forgotten to tell Darwin about the "birds and the bees" It is against all logic and principal laws of nature for an animal to give birth to another not of his specie. But this cross over would have had to occur! Not once but thousands maybe millions of times.

So why do evolutionist talk of macroevolution?

Because without it the theory of evolution falls on its face.

Think for yourself! Find the truth!

that is not completely true, there is some evidence that homosapiens and Neanderthals might have had sex and gave birth.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Stormy
It is against all logic and principal laws of nature for an animal to give birth to another not of his specie. But this cross over would have had to occur! Not once but thousands maybe millions of times.

As has been stated many a time, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.

Maybe you should learn a little "truth", yourself.

 

[WinAce]

Originally posted by npetreley
I guess you did miss something.

Plate tectonics is a theory about something that is happening now, and therefore can be observed, measured, tested, confirmed or refuted.

*Blink blink* *More blinking*

...

Evolution is happening now... it can be observed (the same limited observations as the short-term plate tectonic movements, anyway), it can be measured as well as plate tectonics, and it makes predictions that can be confirmed or refuted, much like plate tectonics.

In both sciences, you're dealing with direct observation of only a tiny fraction of the process. However, you can deduce the process is responsible for the phenomena in question because it leaves distinct, predictable patterns in the evidence.

Archaeopteryx alone pretty much points to evolution. Then there are the legged whales... and the series of synapsid mammals with the jawbone being gradually coopted into the 'irreducibly complex' mammalian middle ear bone--that one just kicks booty in demonstrating how nature is smarter than we are at deriving "new" organs from existing structures.

And that's just a tiny subset of the evidence, not including that from comparative anatomy, embryonic homology, genetics, geographic distribution of species, or much else of the evidence.

I have just one last question: would the arguments used by evolution-deniers also be effective for plate tectonics-deniers? That is, could they create an artificial distinction between "micromovement" and "macromovement", for instance, if their particular holy text made them unable to accept it no matter the evidence?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
As has been stated many a time, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.

Maybe you should learn a little "truth", yourself.

i agree with that.

 

[Stormy]

As has been stated many a time, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.

I bet this is something they had you memorize.

Evolution CAN ONLY WORK WITH REPRODUCTION.

Reproduction is between individuals.

I have never seen a population giving birth in the maternity ward. LOL