AJ
From what you're saying, it seems that time is the magic ingredient.

So if the claim being made is that one animal gradually changed into a completely different form of animal over time, over generations, then there is no need to apply scepticism towards this claim. Is that it?

That's close, Dan

<<From what you're saying, it seems that time is the magic ingredient.>>

That and variation. It's not "magic" though. Don't make the same mistake Don did with his use of the word "miracles". We're talking established, rational scientific explanations here.

<<So if the claim being made is that one animal gradually changed into a completely different form of animal over time, over generations, then there is no need to apply scepticism towards this claim. Is that it?>>

Again, close. It would be fine for someone ignorant of the science to be sceptical at first. But given all that has been established over the last 150 years or so, scepticism would not only be absurd after honest inquiry, but you would probably find that it actually denialism the whole time, since the individual likely had their position staked out in advance.

Again, remembering the distinction between scepticism and denialism will save a lot of confusion.

Staking out a position in advance'. This would imply adherence or commitment to an Idea or concept regardless of the empirical evidence.

Interesting.

Close enough, Dan.

<<[Staking out a position in advance] would imply adherence or commitment to an Idea or concept regardless of the empirical evidence.>>

More specifically, it is the commitment to an idea that one will likely show themselves (at a later date) to be unwilling to move from when then evidence is assessed, and that - when the evidence is assessed - it will be done so with a confirmation bias that leads to the cherry-picking of data.

A confirmation bias. - Fascinating!

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Dan.

I can see why the implications of staking out a position in advance would be 'interesting'. But I'm at a loss as to why a confirmation bias (when sorting through, and cherry-picking data) would be 'fascinating'.

I can only guess that you are, once again, failing to understand that atheism, as starting point, is as a default position and not a staked-out one. And that you are therefore implying that the problems inherent in a commitment to an idea, and confirmation bias, can equally apply to atheism.

Well, they don't.

This kind of flawed thinking is based on two incorrect assumptions:

1. That God's existence is obvious and that atheists require faith to deny it ("I didn't have enough faith to be an atheist!"), and;
2. That atheists have a reason to be emotionally invested in the non-existence of a god, despite the fact that it carries no rewards such as an eternity of bliss.

Christians try to get around the second by claiming that atheists just want to sin, but no-one in their right minds would choose a few decades of debauchery over and eternity of bliss. So this argument fails.

Yes, Dan. I was once a Christian creationist too. I know how all the thinking goes.