Dear athiests and "scientists" [Spirituality & Religion]

@wildbill83 proper use of irony here :) :) because it's true, their best attempts at proving the grandeur of god showed the path to non-godly explanations for the universe otherwise known as 'the truth'

@Benarro a real/true scientist is open minded, isn't swayed by political/social bias.

Modern society would have everyone believe that it must be one of the other (you can either be a scientist or "religious")

But, historically speaking, the greatest scientists have always been both...

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

@wildbill83 That's fine, but that's also the point. To understand the laws of the universe one has to use sense, reason and intellect. Then if you want to believe in God for personal reasons or it gives you a bit of peace or joy then you can turn those things off 'forgo their use' and chill. But the whole point of that quote is that they're incompatible - not in a single person, but definitely in the moment of explaining the universe.

@Benarro "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing."
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

@wildbill83 I have never and would never argue these people weren't religious. But the irony is in this direction. They loved god and were pushed in their love of god to find scientific laws in the universe to show the grandeur of god. But that endevour - the more they understood - showed how Godly explanations only got in the way of actual scientific knowledge. So that religion now remains only as a personal preference for people to feel a little better personally, but definitely not in understand the laws by which the universe works. So they might have started looking for God's grandeur but - ironically - they ended up finding out there wasn't any God when explaining the actual science.

@Benarro actually, just the opposite in most cases; many became more spiritual/developed a greater appreciation for God after their scientific works

@wildbill83 that's not the historical trajectory of the fields in general is it?

@wildbill83 Science reveals God's creation.

@whynottalk so true. God put it all in place

@wildbill83
You got that right, brother.

@wildbill83
Science doesn't care about religion. It's irrelevant to the scientific enterprise, along with all other magical thinking and mythological tales.

@newjaninev2
Religion may not care about science, but Yahweh does being that He's the Author of science.

both require faith; that is to say, belief absent obtainable, unequivocal proof.

Christianity has One God, whereas "atheist science" has three; space, time, and matter.

Now, I don't care how intelligent someone considers themselves nor how many Phd's they possess, that person could not convince a rational person that "macro evolution" and the "big bang" theory are more plausible explanations for the origin on the universe and life than an intelligent designer...

@wildbill83 Isaac Newton was wrong about gravity too. ;)

@wildbill83 What on Earth is 'atheist science'?

There's no atheist science, just as there's no Chinese science, there's no Peruvian science... there's just [i]science[/I].

Like wise with the term 'macro-evolution'. There's no 'micro-evolution' and there's no 'micro-evolution... that's just a distinction without a difference.

What you're trying to call 'macro-evolution' is just so-called 'micro-evolution' plus time.

There's just evolution... change in the frequency and distribution of alleles over time.

I don't see what evolution has to do with the origin of the universe... perhaps you could explain that?

You make a reference to creationism (which used to be disguised behind the term 'intelligent design, before that effort failed and died), but creationism isn't an explanation for anything. It tries to merely explain everything away, and to that end has but a single tool... 'goddit'.

On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection currently provides a complete, consistent, and coherent, explanation of the available [i]evidence[/I].

@newjaninev2 You are right there is no atheist science. Atheists are not scientific. They are way too religious.

@wildbill83 What is "macro evolution" as opposed to just "evolution"?

What is the origin of this "intelligent designer" and why can it not be the origin of the universe? Do you seriously think you can convince a rational person that an unexplained magical man-in-the-sky is a more plausible explanation for the origin of the universe than, for example, a quantum fluctuation?

@suzie1960 define
Macro Evolution = that a specific species can "evolve" from a completely different species; i.e. common ancestry (a dog and a banana having a common ancestor)

@wildbill83 Do you understand that common ancestry mens that one species does not 'evolve from' another species?

As I have already said, there's no 'micro-evolution' and there's no 'micro-evolution... that's just a distinction without a difference.

What you're trying to call 'macro-evolution' is just so-called 'micro-evolution' plus time.

Otherwise it's like saying that seconds exist and minutes exist, but there are no hours.

There's just evolution... change in the frequency and distribution of alleles over time.

Evolution is the process, and Natural Selection is the primary mechanism.

@wildbill83 As @newjaninev2 said, it's just evolution or, if you prefer, micro-evolution plus time. It's a common misunderstanding among those untrained in the sciences.

Presumably you're not well versed in quantum physics either. In simple terms, a quantum fluctuation is a temporary change in the amount of energy. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle explains it.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.

micro-evolution in reality is a misnomer, and is really just a variation within a species (i.e. eye color, skin/fur color, etc.)
were evolution true, "macro-evolution" would have to occur due to the complexities of food sources (predator vs prey), symbiotic relationships between species, etc.


If you're going to use slander and personal attacks as a basis for your argument, you need not bother commenting

@wildbill83 Lots of small changes (micro-evolution) result in big changes (macro-evolution). You're right that micro-evolution is a misnomer (as is macro-evolution) because there is just evolution.

I don't like talking over people's heads. If you are a trained physicist we can discuss quantum physics on a much higher level. My comment was just by way of an explanation of why I was trying to keep my reply at a level the average layman would understand.