The Case for Macroevolution
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Great summary! Somehow I think that Breezy will not answer...
[copyrighted material removed, Drudger1 is a sock puppet of Scott242, and has been removed--Nyarlathotep]
Drudger, you wrote, “Atheism relies upon proposed natural mechanisms...”
It does no such thing. Atheist is non-theism. That’s all. To say otherwise is utter nonsense.
If an individual, who happens to be identied as atheist, suggests something, then address that person’s idea. You are completely off base to say that atheism does or thinks anything other than to describe someone who does not believe the assertion that god(s) exist.
It's amazing how a few facts can drive the anti-evolutionists away! Those of you who haven't had a chance to read my post on vestigial structures and atavisms (a few posts before this) will find a fascinating topic that makes it really, really hard to believe in some Intelligent Designer.
Is John on holiday? Or can we assume he was being hypocritical by suggestion someone else ideas deserved proper scrutiny?
Come on John we know you're out there somewhere. Maybe he's praying for an answer?
Yeah he is still out here somewhere because he showed up here about a week after your post that ended:
"Let the evasion commence...." or something like that.
Maybe he is tired of being proven wrong and unable to provide the requested evidence?
Re: "Maybe he is tired of being proven wrong and unable to provide the requested evidence?"
I don't think John sees it that way. He doesn't think he's been proven wrong. He doesn't accept the scientific consensus- we know that- and I think he thinks it's only a matter of time before new scientific evidence turns up and overturns the ToE. I don't think he has evidence to present himself- he's waiting for it to appear and vindicate his belief that macroevolution doesn't happen.
If you're out there and I've got that wrong, John- please jump in and correct me.
**tree bows deeply (which is a wondrous sight)**
"I thank thee for the correction Ms. Sushisnake."
John, sorry. I have been corrected. I apologize.
It's a good thing it's Winter, not Fall. I'd have been buried in leaf litter. *plucks another stray leaf from hair* I think we're in for a bit of wait before John shows up with his evidence, Arakish. Godot phoned to say he's on his way. Let's get comfortable. Do you mind if I lean against your trunk? I brought the picnic basket.
or maybe john is in another account.....Tjump perhaps?
don't you think?...hahahah...you know this theists...relentless..
they even switch from theist to atheist...just to sneak up on the hub....
Still nothing on the news about science being rocked to its core by the falsification of evolution?
Whatever can the delay be?
Perhaps he is preparing a dissertation?
Sadly he seemed to genuinely think his creationist propaganda represented genuine scientific objections. It's sad to see what religious dogma can do to a person's reasoning ability without them even being aware of the harm it's caused.
Very early on in the discussion he used certain creationist cliches that were something of a giveaway. His act might have the appearance of a little scientific polish to anyone not familiar with creationist methods or who is not entirely aux fait with scientific methods, sprinkle in some facts that have been distorted just enough to bamboozle anyone who doesn't know enough about evolution and you can see why this is an effective way to indoctrinate young children during their formal education. Most might never realise they've been lied to and tricked, and a very cruel trick it is to ruin a child's education in such a dishonest way.
I felt something .. no, wait, it was just gas.
Ask any accredited scientist, and they will give their job description as "destroying theories". All theories are subject to rigorous scrutiny and criticism, because no theory is perfect or complete. The goal by any scientist is to explore something new, be it an undiscovered territory, to demolishing a theory to replace it by something else.
If the scientific community operated by any one consensus, is that no theory is sacred, they must all undergo continuous scrutiny.
And John, how old is this planet Earth?
Very true, but the fact that all scientists would acknowledge that all scientific ideas must remain tentative, doesn't sit very well with their asinine conspiracy theories.
I doubt you will get John to tell you how old the earth is even if he ever returns to this site, as I have asked (him) several times already.
Am I wrong John? I'd also bet he still reads these threads.
The earth, cosmos, and everything in them are precisely five minutes old as of the writing of this post. I'm also not on holiday, quiet the opposite
Right, but 5 minutes old in which frame?
Once again, elusive and incapable of a direct and honest answer. John, I sincerely hope you do not carry this disingenuous behavior into real life because it will alienate most who come into regular contact with you.
I was a fool to ask a simple question and expect John to give a frank and honest reply.
Bye John, I cannot exchange posts with you because you are not honest. It is not my nature to give up on anything, but I now recognize the folly of expecting anything genuine or honest from John.
Sometimes the best and hardest thing to do is give up, so I commend you on your decision.
Tue, 06/05/2018 - 23:49 (Reply to #285)
Sheldon I doubt you will get John to tell you how old the earth is even if he ever returns to this site, as I have asked (him) several times already.
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ The earth, cosmos, and everything in them are precisely five minutes old as of the writing of this post.
Hate to say I told you so, but...I did.
Since you're obviously back posting John, any chance you can address a few of the outstanding questions put to you in this thread?
Three weeks John,, any answers coming?
1) How many experts on evolution have you shared your creationist ideas with?
2) How many scientific facts do you deny that in no way refute any part of your religious beliefs?
3) How many website with expertise on evolution have you voiced your creationist ideas on?
4) Why are you on an atheist chat room making claims that deny a scientific fact, which just happens to refute your religion's creation myth? There must be cites with experts in evolution after all.
5) Why did you claim the bible denounced slavery but refuse to discuss any texts that actually mentioned slavery?
6) How many of your professors have you shared your creationist denials of evolution with, and what are their qualifications in evolution, and what were their reactions?
7) How many of the scientific texts you have quoted as supporting your claims, don't accept species evolution as a valid scientific theory / fact? Citations please...
Only you recently challenged my claim your posting was dishonest.
Let's see if we can make it to six weeks, keep it up.
The number of weeks is not really salient, as your dishonest evasion spans many other threads over many months. It's good to see that having no answers hasn't dented your sense of humour anyway.
NB fwiw I checked all major news networks before posting this just to reassure myself I wasn't unaware that a genius greater than Darwin and all the collective scientific minds working in the field of biology hadn't found what he claims they have all missed, and falsified an established scientific theory that underpins the whole field of biology.
...and guess what?