What atheists fail to understand

[Dorothy Mae]

"Why do magnets attract each other." "That's not part of the theory of gravity, but a totally different field of scientific inq..." "YOU ARE SILENCING QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!1"

The bits in caps is the very typical ad hominem attack by atheists when challenged. The answer is very often "you are..(insert insulting adjective.)" Notice the atheist is also yelling as though that more firmly establishes the sinking ship. Any Christian dealing with atheists needs to realize that this is the main arsenal in their quiver. Do not take it personally. If they had a better response, they would have used it.

Evolution is a random development once it had gotten started, an arbitrary starting point for the theory as the real starting point is unanswerable within that framework. The start of life is not a part of evolution because they have not been able to answer it. Miller tried and was applauded although it has since to be shown to be unable to answer that question. So if they find an answer that fits, it will be part of evolution. Until that time it remains, thankfully the say, outside of the theory. See how that works?

Scientists ask that kind of question all the time. It's simply not addressed by the theory of evolution, because that model only tells us how speciation happens, not where the first biological life originated.

Tell that to Richard Dawkins who said evolution gives him a satisfying intellectual answer to life without God. Evolution addresses a whole lot more than speciation. It addresses the arrival of the fittest for no know reason.

The honest scientific answer to "how did life begin", at this point, is "we don't know, but we're trying to find out". Which is LIGHTYEARS better than "God did it, case closed".

Another example of an atheist who has no idea what Christians believe about creation. It is really not that difficult but so far none of them seem to be able to articulate it. This is an example of that inability.

Had we stopped at that, we still wouldn't know anything about the laws of physics, because instead of looking for answers and explanations, we'd just have stuck to the non-explanation of "God", which is the same as to say "it's supernatural, we cannot know".

OH the ignorance here is glaring. You should not have picked physics because Newton and his generation pursued physics BECAUSE they believed there was a Lawgiver and therefore there were testable and repeatable laws to be discovered. Christianity is the reason science exploded in that century.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The bits in caps is the very typical ad hominem attack by atheists when challenged.

It is a direct response to the faulty argument you used to refute "atheists" (which, in your book, seems to mean anybody who accepts firmly established scientific theories, not just people who do not believe in gods). You are not your argument, so I am not attacking *you*. Notice, however, how you pretend to talk to a different audience instead of replying to me, and how you refuse to address me by name and instead keep on talking about "the atheist". I've got a name. Dehumanizing me by denying my individuality might make things easier for you, but it's not acceptable. Especially not while you yourself insist on being shown proper respect and having an objective discussion.

Notice the atheist is also yelling as though that more firmly establishes the sinking ship.

I wasn't yelling. I was parodying your line of argument. The one I quoted, remember?

Evolution is a random development once it had gotten started, an arbitrary starting point for the theory as the real starting point is unanswerable within that framework.

You repeat your previous fallacious argument.
Evolution does not provide answers to the origin of life because it was never intended to address and answer that question to begin with. The question answered by the theory of evolution is: "Why do we have different species in different ecological niches, and how do they adapt to their environments?"

The start of life is not a part of evolution because they have not been able to answer it.

Miller tried and was applauded although it has since to be shown to be unable to answer that question. So if they find an answer that fits, it will be part of evolution.

Tell that to Richard Dawkins who said evolution gives him a satisfying intellectual answer to life without God. Evolution addresses a whole lot more than speciation. It addresses the arrival of the fittest for no know reason.

"For no known reason"? Oh. Oh my. It's simple, really. Organisms with traits that are more suited to a specific environment are more likely (though not guaranteed) to pass on their genes to the next generation than organisms with less fitting traits. Add the factor of time, and what you get is speciation.
As for Dawkins: I'm not a fan, but I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting him here. The argument against creationism I heard him use repeatedly was to point out that the question "who created the universe" does not make any sense unless you take the existence and necessity of a "creator" for granted to begin with, and that it's as nonsensical as asking "Who made the colour blue taste like a minor key?"

OH the ignorance here is glaring. You should not have picked physics because Newton and his generation pursued physics BECAUSE they believed there was a Lawgiver and therefore there were testable and repeatable laws to be discovered. Christianity is the reason science exploded in that century.

And Newton et.al. would ROTATE in their graves if they knew how contemporary fundamentalists oppose the scientific findings of several CENTURIES worth of research.

 

[dlamberth]

The bits in caps is the very typical ad hominem attack by atheists when challenged.

I did not read Jane's comment as an attack at all. She was making a point that might be worth addressing.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is a direct response to the faulty argument you used to refute "atheists" (which, in your book, seems to mean anybody who accepts firmly established scientific theories, not just people who do not believe in gods).

You can explain WHY you use ad homimen but it just demonstrates my statment. You feel you can apply the ad hominem attack when you have no better argument. If my argument is fautly, point it out and not attack me. Instead you attack me.

And again, that is not what I think an atheist is. Atheists cannot put the position of Christians into words. Wrong so often it is curious.

You are not your argument, so I am not attacking *you*.

When you shouting starts with "you are..." then you are attacking the person.

Notice, however, how you pretend to talk to a different audience instead of replying to me, and how you refuse to address me by name and instead keep on talking about "the atheist". I've got a name. Dehumanizing me by denying my individuality might make things easier for you, but it's not acceptable. Especially not while you yourself insist on being shown proper respect and having an objective discussion.

Jane, I can talk to you personally. No problem But you are like all the rest and behave like all the rest of the atheists, with few exceptions. That being said, I can talk to you if you want. But you need to drop the ad hominem. They start with "you are" and have an insulting adjective at the other end of the are.

I wasn't yelling. I was parodying your line of argument. The one I quoted, remember?

But I wasn't. And you were yelling, not parodying. Better leave parodying to others. You do not understand it well enough to use it.

Evolution does not provide answers to the origin of life because it was never intended to address and answer that question to begin with.

Ah, so evolution needs to stay in its original position centuries ago and not ask any questions not introduced then? Really? Science stuck hundreds of years ago? Who is stopping questions?

The question answered by the theory of evolution is: "Why do we have different species in different ecological niches, and how do they adapt to their environments?"

Well, actually this was know centuries before Darwin. Anyone breeding animals knows. There were those working in breeding animals long ago.

"For no known reason"? Oh. Oh my. It's simple, really. Organisms with traits that are more suited to a specific environment are more likely (though not guaranteed) to pass on their genes to the next generation than organisms with less fitting traits.

You did not read my post carefully. I said no one knows how the ARRIVAL of new species. Once there, the theory is they survive if better fit. There are a whole host of problems with this if one looks at real life, but evolution cannot explain HOW new species came from creatures who are NOT that species/genus/etc.

Add the factor of time, and what you get is speciation.

Time solves all evolutionary problems. Heard that one too.

As for Dawkins: I'm not a fan, but I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting him here. The argument against creationism I heard him use repeatedly was to point out that the question "who created the universe" does not make any sense unless you take the existence and necessity of a "creator" for granted to begin with, and that it's as nonsensical as asking "Who made the colour blue taste like a minor key?"

I have heard him say that a few times. Evolution gave him an intellectualy satisfying position. Do you think evolution is not intellectually satisfying for Dawkins? Why is what I said wrong? Do you think that sentence you wrote is all evolution says?

And Newton et.al. would ROTATE in their graves if they knew how contemporary fundamentalists oppose the scientific findings of several CENTURIES worth of research.

He wrote more on the Bible than on science. He most certainly would not. He would be appauled at what the atheists have done to silence the morals of the Bible in schools in the US. And you are way off as to what Christians say on science. Do you know that some nobel prize winners are Christian? They are believers in God...and won a noble prize. Hummmmm. Doesn't look like Christians are oppose scientific findings of any century. It is the atheists who are silencing anyone but evolutionists.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You can explain WHY you use ad homimen but it just demonstrates my statment. You feel you can apply the ad hominem attack when you have no better argument. If my argument is fautly, point it out and not attack me. Instead you attack me.

I attack your argument ("evolutionists [sic] become defensive when I ask them about the origin of life").

When you shouting starts with "you are..." then you are attacking the person.

Look at the fictional dialogue again. The person speaking in all-caps isn't me, and the "you are..." isn't aimed at you - surely, you can grasp that? It's an exchange between a person trying to explain the theory of gravity, and another one supposedly "refuting" said theory by claiming that it cannot explain magnets, and is therefore a failure.
Come on, surely you understood as much?

Ah, so evolution needs to stay in its original position centuries ago and not ask any questions not introduced then?

Let me try to put it as simply as possible:
The theory of evolution explains speciation and adaptation.
To expect it to explain the origin of life is like expecting the theory of gravity to explain photosynthesis. Or a toaster to produce ice cream.
Science can (and does) inquire into all of these questions, just as there are machines that can create ice cream. But *this* specific theory is not concerned with the origin of life, just as a toaster is not designed to produce ice cream.

He would be appauled at what the atheists have done to silence the morals of the Bible in schools in the US.

Separation of church and state is in the interest of Christians as well as anybody else, since it's the condition that makes religious freedom possible to begin with. Ask yourself: would you feel comfortable having muslim prayers at your kids' school? Or hindu devotions? What about shamanic drumming classes? Or even Satanic book clubs? Because that's what you'd get if you allowed religion in schools AND stuck to freedom of religion, not the privilege and tyranny of a dominant group.

Do you know that some nobel prize winners are Christian? They are believers in God...and won a noble prize. Hummmmm. Doesn't look like Christians are oppose scientific findings of any century. It is the atheists who are silencing anyone but evolutionists.

Do you believe that Christian scientists who won the nobel price reject the theory of evolution? I know there are a lot of scientists who also happen to be Christian. I doubt many of them are creationists or fundamentalists, though.

 

[Noxot]

years ago a Christian tv station in the midland/odessa area had a jewish guy on there that taught that mark was written in a specific jewish literary style. he showed that mark was designed to match with other text of the bible that were written in the same style that mark was.

one example he gave was the description of the Crucifixion and jonas being swallowed by a whale. I really wish I could find that tv show, I don't even remember the name of the jewish literary style.

 

[Not David]

Not a *single* source, no.
Scholarly consensus mostly still relies on the "two sources"-hypothesis, with Mark and an unknown source ("Q") serving as the texts used by Luke and Matthew (in addition to their own connection and material they added individually).

The "Q" source is a hypothesis that scholars created to justify the similarity between those accounts.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I attack your argument ("evolutionists [sic] become defensive when I ask them about the origin of life").

No you didn't. You did not at all.

Look at the fictional dialogue again. The person speaking in all-caps isn't me, and the "you are..." isn't aimed at you - surely, you can grasp that?

Uh, you need to know that in a discussion, "you" means the person you are addressing. If you don't mean that person, try something neutral. When you talk to one person, "you" always means the person being addressed.

It's an exchange between a person trying to explain the theory of gravity, and another one supposedly "refuting" said theory by claiming that it cannot explain magnets, and is therefore a failure.
Come on, surely you understood as much?

YOu mentioned this as though that were an argument. We were not discussing that.

Let me try to put it as simply as possible:
The theory of evolution explains speciation and adaptation.

Actually it does not because there is no known mechanism for the appears of new species. "Enough time" is not a scientific answer. It is the "god of the gaps" theory or this time "time dunnit."

To expect it to explain the origin of life is like expecting the theory of gravity to explain photosynthesis. Or a toaster to produce ice cream.

No, they are not related and I can give you attempts of evolutionists trying to demonstrate how life could have started. Some evolutionists try to address this issue. No cooks try to make a toaster produce ice cream.

Science can (and does) inquire into all of these questions, just as there are machines that can create ice cream.

Now it is a part of evolution and now it is not. Bet no scientists start with toasters to make ice cream. (What an absurd example you use.)

But *this* specific theory is not concerned with the origin of life, just as a toaster is not designed to produce ice cream.

Arbitrary line. The arrival of the fittest has a great deal to do with the survival of the fittest since it has to be there to survive. But no, close your eyes. Insist it does not. I give up.

 

[Zoness]

What's an evolutionist? As far as I know people are only divided into two camps:

1. Those who accept the scientific consensus regarding the origin of species. This group also includes religious people who've adopted their understanding of religion to accommodate science.
2. Those who do not, usually due to it contradicting a literal interpretation of a religious creation myth.

 

[Drought of the Heart]

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how a man could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.”

― Abraham Lincoln

 

[Abraxos]

Independently written eyewitness accounts would describe the same events (with the variations you mentioned) each using their own words. And that's where the synoptic gospels fall short: yes, they each contain material that the others don't, lacking or adding sentences, but there's a body of text that they *share*, and that is where the eyewitness-hypothesis falls apart.

Let's say three students have to write me an essay on Abraham Lincoln, and I receive these three versions:

Student 1. "Abraham Lincoln was a great man. He was called "Honest Abe". He was also very tall. President Lincoln fought against the South and abolished slavery. We can see his statue at the Lincoln Memorial."
Student 2: "Abraham Lincoln was a great man, and very tall. He was called "Honest Abe", because he always told the truth. His son died of pneumonia. President Lincoln fought against the South, uniting the nation, and abolished slavery. We can visit his statue at the Lincoln memorial."
Student 3: "Abraham Lincoln was a good man. He was called "Honest Abe", but his son died of pneumonia. President Lincoln fought against the South, he fought to abolish slavery. We can see his statue at the Lincoln Memorial, although I have never been there."

Now, as a teacher, I'd immediately notice that these three either
a) copied the same source(s), or
b) copied from each other and tried to obfuscate it by slightly changing the sentences or adding bits of their own.

I'm not even saying that the original authors of the gospels were trying to deceive or to plagiarize, unlike these hypothetical students: these books were written at a time when preserving the foundational lore became important, and each was probably read on its own at first, serving as an "anchor point" for different communities.
But independently written, let alone eyewitness accounts, they were not.
In fact, not even the traditionally attributed authorship sustains the eyewitness hypothesis:
Luke the physician only became acquainted with Christianity as a companion of Paul, and hailed from Antioch, so he wasn't present at the events described in his gospel.
Mark supposedly became acquainted with Christianity through Peter, who took him along as an interpreter somewhere on the way from Jerusalem to Rome.
Matthew is commonly credited as being one of the apostles, but "his" gospel shares 600 of Mark's (i.e. the oldest gospel's) 661 verses, making it EXTREMELY unlikely that the author a) was Matthew, and b) wrote this independently.

Conclusion A: Wouldn't actually pose a problem for the students if the source was Abraham Lincoln himself or a friend of his, or documented accounts of Lincoln from eye witnesses, or received by word-of-mouth from any other close associate of Abraham Lincoln.

Conclusion B: Would appear be relevant to your analogy, however, the analogy's purpose doesn't quite work because it strawmans the actual parallels written in the synoptic Gospels, and it also establishes a general conclusion from a tiny sample not taking into account the whole books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Then the question is how exactly does the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke fall apart if conclusion A is valid depending on context, but even if valid why would that be an issue? Whether the source material was through the strong oral traditions of 1st century Judaism, or the supposed Markan priority (which wouldn't be necessary), it doesn't provide an adequate level of dependency with the rest of the content within the books themselves. And conclusion B is a strawman and hasty generalisation. Both conclusions A & B are nonetheless a false dichotomy.

Which leaves the gospel of John, written by the self-identified "beloved disciple". I have already touched upon some of the problems with that traditional attribution, especially the anachronisms and the lack of distinct "Jewishness" in an account supposedly written by a Jewish fisherman. Sure, if John lived that long, he might have picked up a LOT of Greek philosophy etc. in the intervening decades. But so much so as to totally obfuscate his cultural upbringing? I highly doubt it.

You indeed touched on some of your problems with John's Gospel not being "Jewish" enough in the traditional sense, yet that discounts Hellenistic Jews who were likely bilingual or exclusively spoke Greek. Regardless, I don't see how John's Gospel being "unJewish-like" is a valid reason to dismiss it's authenticity.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

John the Apostle was not a Hellenistic Jew. If we argue that the author of that gospel was one , we abandon the assumption that this book was written by John.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What's an evolutionist? As far as I know people are only divided into two camps:

1. Those who accept the scientific consensus regarding the origin of species. This group also includes religious people who've adopted their understanding of religion to accommodate science.
2. Those who do not, usually due to it contradicting a literal interpretation of a religious creation myth.

Oh, I cannot resist pointing out the attitude that appears to exist in all the atheists which is, either one accepts evolution or one is

1. uneducated
2. stupid
3. morally bad

It is important for those who reject the claim of man coming from non-man (the part of evolution that is dubious) to understand this so they are aware that this response will occur and they ought not to be personally insulted. Atheists mean everyone who does not accept their position, not just the person they are talking to.

Now Zoness is going to say that she did not do that. So let us examine how this is sublty said. She describes the position of evolution as the "scientific consensus" which is supposed to mean that people either educated in science or merely blindly believing are agreeing with the information from science, that is, knowledge. In any field, those who accept the information or data are superior to those who do not. She is using the first arsenal I list. (She is unaware of the large and growing scientific consensus that admit (behind closed doors) that man coming from non-man is not possible scientifically. They have now examined enough processes and found time and chance can never have accomplished the complexity.)

The second group are the people who are simply stubborn for religious reasons, clearly inferior to the first group mentioned. We cannot be sure if she means they are stupid or morally bad, but clearly they are not accepting information.

Now Zoness, you can protest that you said "scientific consensus" and not outright information, but if you do, you are losing some ground because all you say is the majority opinion as though the majority of people believing something makes it so. Science has actually advanced because individuals did not accept the majority opinion on questions and explored further. If Galileo had kept with the "scientific consensus" where would we be? There are lots of these in the history of science.

 

[Noxot]

to not believe in evolution and everything pointing to it due to your faith in an interpretation of the bible is to not understand one of the big reasons why some atheist are what they are. creationist have been a big help in me coming to accept evolution.

I know that human science is always learning but imo most creationist have their faith tied too strongly to how they think God is supposed to be in the world.

the idea of evolution seems intuitive to how the world is. the mainstream scientific explanations for the universe makes more sense than the bible creation myth.

if we humans are creatures then we are creatures. I think that it's pretty obvious that i'm a creature. what is so bad about accepting that God used the tool called the universe to shape humanity? is not the universe dirt compared to what a soul made in Gods image is?

so science has added a new revelation that points to how God is. how could anyone hate that? God is so strange a being that he would do this huge process to make creatures? interesting. I wonder what else he is doing with all of this.

here is a PBS space time video:

Our universe is prone to increasing disorder and chaos. So how did it generate the extreme complexity we see in life? Actually, the laws of physics themselves may demand it.

Spoiler: blabla

science can serve other things like philosophy and mysticism. it seems to be pointing out certain ideas such as that we are existing in a state of being and non-being. we are literally existing in some kind of divine potentiality. funny how this verse and an idea in this video (cf. 4:54) seem to be kin.

Matt 23:11 (ESV2011)
The greatest among you shall be your servant.

it's absolutely amazing how God thinks of us! i'm happy to be weak, I really am. God is the greatest and so he feels a need to support all. this gives a different approach as to how to understand God even though plainly being told that "God is love" should have been enough to start to realize a bit of how God is.

this kind of God is far different than the conjuration of the typical creationist that believes in a holy and just God that demands blood and whos wrath is quenched by the blood of his own son, which is true symbolically and true in a heavenly mind-frame. but when taken and confused in a crude and literal way -- warps and distorts the real meaning. and it is Gods grace that makes the weak ones know and believe such things.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

to not believe in evolution and everything pointing to it due to your faith in an interpretation of the bible is to not understand one of the big reasons why some atheist are what they are. creationist have been a big help in me coming to accept evolution.

The people I know who reject evolution do so because the science doesn't work. It has failed. The rest is just excuse or laziness.

I know that human science is always learning but imo most creationist have their faith tied too strongly to how they think God is supposed to be in the world.

That is just your opinion. Most creationists see the science as not demonstrating everything from nothing for no reason.

the idea of evolution seems intuitive to how the world is.

Time and chance never produce anything but devolve what is. The world shows that evolution as in something complex from nothing or the less complex is wrong.

mainstream scientific explanations for the universe makes more sense than the bible creation myth.

That is because you have chosen to believe it. You have faith in some scientists interpretation.

if we humans are creatures then we are creatures. I think that it's pretty obvious that i'm a creature. what is so bad about accepting that God used the tool called the universe to shape humanity? is not the universe dirt compared to what a soul made in Gods image is?

I cannot believe you actually wrote and let stand those two first sentences. It is like saying "water is wet." It is true but not worth saying. God did not use that tool as science clearly shows for those who are not prejudiced to a view that eliminates God altogether.

so science has added a new revelation that points to how God is. how could anyone hate that? God is so strange a being that he would do this huge process to make creatures? interesting. I wonder what else he is doing with all of this.

Science has nothing to say about God. It has nothing worth saying about honor or courage or a great many matters.

Matt 23:11 (ESV2011)
The greatest among you shall be your servant.

it's absolutely amazing how God thinks of us! i'm happy to be weak, I really am. God is the greatest and so he feels a need to support all. this gives a different approach as to how to understand God even though plainly being told that "God is love" should have been enough to start to realize a bit of how God is.

God has no needs. If one thinks God "needs" to support all one will never arrive at understanding God. God has no needs. He is complete.

this kind of God is far different than the conjuration of the typical creationist that believes in a holy and just God that demands blood and whos wrath is quenched by the blood of his own son, which is true symbolically and true in a heavenly mind-frame. but when taken and confused in a crude and literal way -- warps and distorts the real meaning. and it is Gods grace that makes the weak ones know and believe such things.

The above is also not God. I recall no scripture that says God's grace makes the weak ones know and believe anything.

 

[Silmarien]

That is just your opinion. Most creationists see the science as not demonstrating everything from nothing for no reason.

Perhaps because the science does not actually demonstrate everything from nothing for no reason. All of this language is metaphysical, not scientific, which means the actual science is silent on it. Evolution does appear to be the mechanical process through which life has developed on this planet, but this neither rules out any deeper purpose behind the process nor is a form of creatio ex nihilo. To say otherwise is to conflate certain atheistic assumptions with evolutionary theory. (Assumptions that not even all atheists would accept.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Perhaps because the science does not actually demonstrate everything from nothing for no reason. All of this language is metaphysical, not scientific, which means the actual science is silent on it.

This is true in part. Science does not demonstrate nor can it demonstrate actions in the past that are never repeated. But it is more than metaphysical but assumed to be the case. It can be called a philosophy, not science. Many, however, consider it science as long as God is eliminated.

Evolution does appear to be the mechanical process through which life has developed on this planet, but this neither rules out any deeper purpose behind the process nor is a form of creatio ex nihilo.

Evolution actually fails to appear to be t he process through which life has developed. Another evolutionist here recently went to great lengths to tell me that life developing on the earth is not a part of evolution at all. So she would strongly disagree with you. For her, evolution says nothing about the process which life had developed.

Now evolution does not address how new life forms came once life had started, the starting point of evolution. It tried but it has failed. Science has shown that the interdependency of life prevents slow development over time. So it does not seem to be the way God made all life nor an arbitary random process either.

 

[dlamberth]

Oh, I cannot resist pointing out the attitude that appears to exist in all the atheists which is, either one accepts evolution or one is

1. uneducated
2. stupid
3. morally bad

I see your options, but I think I'll stick with the options that Zones gave. I think it's way more accurate.

"2. Those who do not, usually due to it contradicting a literal interpretation of a religious creation myth"

 

[Silmarien]

Evolution actually fails to appear to be t he process through which life has developed. Another evolutionist here recently went to great lengths to tell me that life developing on the earth is not a part of evolution at all. So she would strongly disagree with you. For her, evolution says nothing about the process which life had developed.

I am not using the word "development" to refer to the origin of life, but specifically in relation to the process of adaptation. The human eye is the result of a long process of adaptation or development. This is not a point of disagreement between Jane and myself, just a different word choice.

Though I do lean towards the view that chemical evolution can explain abiogenesis, so if Jane sees this as being unrelated to evolutionary theory, I would disagree with her. (It's certainly not biological evolution, but my metaphysical framework is such that it's still related.)

Now evolution does not address how new life forms came once life had started, the starting point of evolution. It tried but it has failed. Science has shown that the interdependency of life prevents slow development over time. So it does not seem to be the way God made all life nor an arbitary random process either.

Punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary hypothesis as well, so to the extent to which science has shown that slow development over time is impossible (a claim you would have to back up), it's really irrelevant. And I'm not sure what you mean about new life forms coming into being--are you talking about speciation or reproduction?

 

[Zoness]

Oh, I cannot resist pointing out the attitude that appears to exist in all the atheists which is, either one accepts evolution or one is

1. uneducated
2. stupid
3. morally bad

It is important for those who reject the claim of man coming from non-man (the part of evolution that is dubious) to understand this so they are aware that this response will occur and they ought not to be personally insulted. Atheists mean everyone who does not accept their position, not just the person they are talking to.

Now Zoness is going to say that she did not do that. So let us examine how this is sublty said. She describes the position of evolution as the "scientific consensus" which is supposed to mean that people either educated in science or merely blindly believing are agreeing with the information from science, that is, knowledge. In any field, those who accept the information or data are superior to those who do not. She is using the first arsenal I list. (She is unaware of the large and growing scientific consensus that admit (behind closed doors) that man coming from non-man is not possible scientifically. They have now examined enough processes and found time and chance can never have accomplished the complexity.)

The second group are the people who are simply stubborn for religious reasons, clearly inferior to the first group mentioned. We cannot be sure if she means they are stupid or morally bad, but clearly they are not accepting information.

Now Zoness, you can protest that you said "scientific consensus" and not outright information, but if you do, you are losing some ground because all you say is the majority opinion as though the majority of people believing something makes it so. Science has actually advanced because individuals did not accept the majority opinion on questions and explored further. If Galileo had kept with the "scientific consensus" where would we be? There are lots of these in the history of science.

Awful lot of projecting going on here. It seems to still be that the complaint is that if man came from non man, what makes man so special? The answer is, not very much.

Scary isn't it?

You've provided no support for your claims either. There's not a break in thought about the origins of man in the scientific community. Usually when one contests and argument made in science they provide testing, rigorus data and most importantly, a method to replicate the experiment.

Oh I'm male btw. Also I'm a pagan for which science has no particular conflict with my faith. There are loads of religious people for whom science works perfectly for, as it's an explanation of the physical that does not rely on an intervening God. Heck, I was raised Roman Catholic and they believed Evolution. In fact one of their priests proopsed the idea of the Big Bang! Catholicism does get credit for a long tradition of supporting science.