Is Darwinism the religion of atheists?

mickrock · 29-12-2011 9:30pm

18AD wrote: »

I hope I'm not misinterpreting your position.

So are you arguing that people shouldn't have faith? By faith, I assume you mean trust.

Or, that people shouldn't have wrong opinions?

That people shouldn't have wrong opinions, if they can help it.

There's a problem when they realise or suspect that their opinion might be wrong yet they can't let it go.

Sonics2k · 29-12-2011 9:32pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Mickrock, what exactly is your religion/belief?

^

dlofnep · 29-12-2011 9:36pm

You know when you hear the buzzwords 'macro-evolution' and 'micro-evolution', that you're dealing with 'one of those people'.

Macro-evolution as you put it, is the result of micro-evolution over very long periods of time.

mickrock · 29-12-2011 9:37pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Mickrock, what exactly is your religion/belief?

Why does it matter?

Sonics2k · 29-12-2011 9:39pm

mickrock wrote: »

Why does it matter?

General curiosity really.

You argue in favour of belief based on evidence, yet you dismiss Atheism quite often. When one of the core aspects of Atheism (imo) is that there is no evidence or proof of a Higher Power (Gods).

Hence my question, I would not think it to be unreasonable.

RichieC · 30-12-2011 12:40am

mickrock wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

Mickrock, what exactly is your religion/belief?

Why does it matter?

Nothing about you matters. however, a large part of the ID movements energy is spent trying to pretend it's not religious. the truth is its a christian fundie movement.

if i was to guess id say youre a homeschooled baptist.

robindch · 30-12-2011 12:51am

mickrock wrote: »

That people shouldn't have wrong opinions, if they can help it.

That sentence has no primary clause.

mickrock wrote: »

There's a problem when they realise or suspect that their opinion might be wrong yet they can't let it go.

Arguably missing a comma or three.

mickrock wrote: »

Try to improve your spelling and punctuation and you might be better understood.

Incorrect use of conjunction. Try using "so that" in place of the second "and".

Let's see if we can get by with less of the grammar Nazism, eh?

Turtwig · 30-12-2011 1:15am

robindch wrote: »

That sentence has no primary clause.Arguably missing a comma or three.Incorrect use of conjunction. Try using "so that" in place of the second "and".

Let's see if we can get by with less of the grammar Nazism, eh?

Pls do that to my posts in future. I seriously need some grammar proof reading.

. I'm dead serious be mean.

passarellaie · 30-12-2011 1:44am

The posts on here remind me of the dialectical arguments of different marxist groups in the seventies.I presume you are all the same people

Turtwig · 30-12-2011 1:55am

passarellaie wrote: »

The posts on here remind me of the dialectical arguments of different marxist groups in the seventies.I presume you are all the same people

Not sure what your religion is but people change over time. It's a bit of karma you known, change, change, change. Everything is in constant flux. (So sorry blue if I bastardised that.:o)

MagicMarker · 30-12-2011 2:08am

passarellaie wrote: »

The posts on here remind me of the dialectical arguments of different marxist groups in the seventies.I presume you are all the same people

Yeah and we'll all be buried in Catholic graveyards blah blah blah.

endacl · 30-12-2011 2:31am

Jernal wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

That sentence has no primary clause.Arguably missing a comma or three.Incorrect use of conjunction. Try using "so that" in place of the second "and".

Let's see if we can get by with less of the grammar Nazism, eh?

Pls do that to my posts in future. I seriously need some grammar proof reading. . I'm dead serious be mean.

Please not pls please.

sponsoredwalk · 30-12-2011 10:41am

mickrock wrote: »

However, the fatal flaw in the theory is that while it adequately explains microevolution, it can't explain macroevolution i.e how species evolve.

Since you accept microevolution it simply follows, by elementary logic,
that you also accept macroevolution:

"Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is
thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[7] Thus, the
distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one
– the only difference between them is of time and scale."
link

Both you & JC are implicitly "Darwinists". If you can't handle that fact
I'm sorry. You're going to have to deny microevolution if you want to
deny macroevolution, otherwise this is a total waste of time.

Also I noticed your last thread was about abiogenesis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

If you have a shred of honesty I think you'll have to be serious when
thinking about these concepts, as a lot of the nonsense you spouted
in your last thread is directly refuted by this video & nothing but honesty
is required to admit that.

robindch · 30-12-2011 11:37am

Jernal wrote: »

Pls do that to my posts in future. I seriously need some grammar proof reading. . I'm dead serious be mean.

As above, "Please" in place of "Pls", en-dash between "proof" and "reading" (or even better, just refer to "grammar checking") and colon or em-dash after "serious".

And now, back to our usual programming

Myrddin · 30-12-2011 11:51am

dlofnep wrote: »

You know when you hear the buzzwords 'macro-evolution' and 'micro-evolution', that you're dealing with 'one of those people'.

Macro-evolution as you put it, is the result of micro-evolution over very long periods of time.

Exactly. I won't embed the image as it's not the most pleasant, but here you can see the vestigial hind leg bones of a hump-back whale. If that's not micro-evolution over a very long period of time, then there's two possibilities:

1) All the whales hind legs just fell off
2) God is a bold boy, chopping off whale legs. Perhaps he's Japanese?

http://museumvictoria.com.au/custom/dialogs/thumbnail.jpg?&i=/pages/30846/webFigure-6.jpg&resizewidth=true&w=475&h=356

sponsoredwalk · 30-12-2011 11:56am

On the grammar nazi issue, who invented the ridiculous rule of putting
quotation marks outside of a full stop?

Example I - "the only difference between them is of time and scale."

Example II - "the only difference between them is of time and scale".

Example I just doesn't sit right with me

I'd even go so far as to write:

Example I - "the only difference between them is of time and scale.". :cool:

dead one · 30-12-2011 12:02pm

my grammar is complete a mystery. It isn't popular, such that every Dades, Robin, Jerry would be able to understand it.

robindch · 30-12-2011 12:06pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

On the grammar nazi issue, who invented the ridiculous rule of putting quotation marks outside of a full stop?

Couldn't be bothered checking just now, but AFAIR, Example II was recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and most other style guides, at least in the past.

I believe the rules have changed slightly since then for text within quotation marks at the ends of sentences. Nowadays, if the original text had a full stop just after the quoted text, then the full stop is included within the quotation marks and the full stop is omitted at the end of the external sentence (ie, Example I). Otherwise, the text is quoted without a full stop, and the main sentence's full stop is placed just after the second quotation mark (ie, Example II).

'"Whew."

amacachi · 30-12-2011 12:16pm

robindch wrote: »

Couldn't be bothered checking just now, but AFAIR, Example II was recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and most other style guides, at least in the past.

I believe the rules have changed slightly since then for text within quotation marks at the ends of sentences. Nowadays, if the original text had a full stop just after the quoted text, then the full stop is included within the quotation marks and the full stop is omitted at the end of the external sentence (ie, Example I). Otherwise, the text is quoted without a full stop, and the main sentence's full stop is placed just after the second quotation mark (ie, Example II).

'"Whew."

That's how I understand it, so it's usually ." or ". but never .".

I wasn't going to put proper grammar in there because it would just screw it up. :pac: What I do love though is quotes within quotes. :pac:

Galvasean · 30-12-2011 2:03pm

I love A&A; Where seemingly useless threads can become a lesson in grammar or a discussion of classical movie adaptations.

RichieC · 30-12-2011 2:19pm

EnterNow wrote: »

dlofnep wrote: »

You know when you hear the buzzwords 'macro-evolution' and 'micro-evolution', that you're dealing with 'one of those people'.

Macro-evolution as you put it, is the result of micro-evolution over very long periods of time.

Exactly. I won't embed the image as it's not the most pleasant, but here you can see the vestigial hind leg bones of a hump-back whale. If that's not micro-evolution over a very long period of time, then there's two possibilities:

1) All the whales hind legs just fell off
2) God is a bold boy, chopping off whale legs. Perhaps he's Japanese?

http://museumvictoria.com.au/custom/dialogs/thumbnail.jpg?&i=/pages/30846/webFigure-6.jpg&resizewidth=true&w=475&h=356

God the sick som'bitch put those there to test our faith. Like Dinosaurs and black people.

Myrddin · 30-12-2011 2:23pm

RichieC wrote: »

God the sick som'bitch put those there to test our faith. Like Dinosaurs and black people.

Ya gotta love those tests. At least those who fail said tests arn't burned alive anymore

Dave! · 30-12-2011 4:02pm

Fúcking hell, most unimaginative and unoriginal OP ever :rolleyes:

Is Darwinism the religion of atheists?

Comments