If belief is the readiness to act as if something is true, it follows that
unbelief, whether chosen consciously or unconsciously, still affects our
behavior. There are consequences to our non-answers in the same way that
there are consequences to our answers. And yet, in our society where
skepticism is almost encouraged, belief and unbelief are treated quite
differently. We do not feel compelled to justify our disbelief in the
same way we feel compelled to justify our belief. We expect a certain
reasonableness about belief that we don’t expect of disbelief, in
part because we’ve been conditioned to see skepticism and disbelief as
logical, and belief as emotional or irrational.

This is largely the case when it comes to belief or disbelief in God. As
Napoleon once quipped, “Religion is excellent for keeping the common
people quiet.” Belief in God is seen as a superstition reserved for
non-thinkers, while disbelief is thought scholarly. On the contrary, Paul
Vitz, a professor who has written extensively on the psychology of
religion, observes that quite often the decision to disbelieve in God is
largely made apart from logic and sound reasoning. He writes,
“The major barriers to belief in God are not rational but–in a general
sense–can be called psychological…. I am quite convinced that for every
person strongly swayed by rational argument, there are many, many more
affected by non-rational psychological factors.”(1) His words are
noteworthy; disbelief in God is more often a decision made by personal
biases and emotions, than it is a decision made by sound reasoning.

In fact, such was often the case in the crowd’s responses to Jesus.
Speaking to the religious leaders of his day, Jesus once observed, “You
diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess
eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me! Yet
you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39). Jesus points to their
irresponsible disbelief, their resolve that under no circumstances
could he be the one they read about, the one to whom Moses pointed and the
prophets announced. Therefore, Jesus concludes, “Your accuser is Moses, on
whom your hopes are set” (5:45). All too often, the question of Jesus’s
identity is answered by a determination not to see the one standing
before us.

Yet Jesus repeatedly voices the subtleties of our hearts, calling out our
false hopes and misguided determinations. He reveals how often our
expectations and biases establish our beliefs and disbeliefs instead of
sound reasoning and honest investigation. His words pierce our faulty
logic and the conclusions we have drawn irresponsibly, and he calls us to
account even as he calls us home. The burden of proof is a burden the
heavens have not overlooked; the God of all wisdom has not asked us to
believe in Him without extraordinary attempts to be known.

Beyond that we just observe when the differences are sufficiently great to our liking and then we nominate a new species — a “macro evolution.”

At the level of the molecule, DNA could care less about our definitions.

From Talk Origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

“At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.”

So, it appears that Talk Origins says you’re wrong.

“[T]here is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime. For this reason, we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.”

Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, Reprinted 1982 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), p12

It appears that one of the fathers of Modern Synthesis also says you’re wrong.

There is no magic wall beyond which a genome can’t change.

You are free to believe whatever floats your boat, but your assertion has not been proven. Granted, the existence of the “magic wall” also hasn’t been proven, but then, I’m not necessarily claiming one exists. I only claim that, all too often, Darwinian evolutionists conflate the two terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution”.

Also, whether true or not, your assertion is irrelevant to whether there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution.

Such stupidity is the norm of creationists and their websites , it appears.

Such “stupidity” is also the norm for Darwinian evolutionists and their websites, as I have just shown.

Ann Coulter should be ashamed of herself for making such stupid ad hominem arguments, if she had a conscience that is. She doesn’t.

Most creationists don’t.

Interesting how you just now engage in sweeping ad hominem yourself. What do you know about “most creationists”? Nothing, as “most creationists” are outside your fields of perception, just quietly living out their lives. Yet you feel justified in claiming that they have no conscience, with no evidence or proof whatsoever.

And, speaking of ad hominem, where is the ad hominem in Coulter’s statements above? Her statements may be factually incorrect, and may simply be inflammatory rhetoric, but I fail to see any ad hominem in her statements above. Perhaps you can point them out for us. The ad hominem I was responding to was everything “Central Archivist” wrote in post #1 above.

You see, you Darwinists keep telling us that there is this “overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence” in support of your fairy tale hypothesis, and here was a golden opportunity for you guys to argue the science in order to refute Ann’s knuckle-dragging creationist ranting, and thereby demonstrate your alleged superiority. But, rather than a rational deconstructing of her statements, the first post simply engaged in juvenile ad hominem. Ironic, no?

No, there is no difference between *micro* and *macro* evolution. There is no magic wall beyond which a genome can’t change. Such stupidity is the norm of creationists and their websites , it appears.

“Ahh, yes, the Sweeping Ad Hominem. Can’t convicingly argue the science? No problem, just call those who disagree with you childish names, (or make bathrooom innuendos about them) but do so cleverly, to show us how smart you are…”

So true. Ann Coulter should be ashamed of herself for making such stupid ad hominem arguments, if she had a conscience that is. She doesn’t.

Most creationists don’t.

And Darwinists happily conflate Darwinism with “evolution” and micro-evolution with macro-evolution, and do so with appalling regularity. Such equivocation is the norm among Darwinists, it appears.

We also refer to Coulter apologists as “Ann-droids.” However, the latter are those (mostly men) who believe that, if they defend Coulter vociferously enough she will deign to notice and/or fall madly in love with them. I guess it’s good for about five minutes in the lavatory…

Ahh, yes, the Sweeping Ad Hominem. Can’t convicingly argue the science? No problem, just call those who disagree with you childish names, (or make bathrooom innuendos about them) but do so cleverly, to show us how smart you are…

This assertion by Darwin does not seem to me to be proposing an origin of whales, but simply proposing how, given a food rich aquatic environment, bears might evolve into a *whale-like* creature. So Darwin is not wrong.

Hotness being relative, good looking guys who weren’t douchebags would end up with UGLY girls, due of course to the fact that among the gene pool up there, UGLY wasn’t all that bad.

Ms. Coulter is a graduate of Cornell, the syndrome seems to have followed her around.

Linked you at CAID btw. Also, a couple of you people need to start helping out over there. lazy bums.