Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[MustafaMc]

those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways

... and I find this to be the way of Muhammad (saaws) that we strive to emulate.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, so then asked

Are scientists prepared to accept the theory of whether God exists - and is responsible for Creation? OR is that another un-scientific theory?

and answered

The existence of Allah (swt) is both unprovable and irrefutable. Please, refer to the thread I started 'Is The Scientific Evidence of Allah's Existence?' at http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/comparative-religion/aqeedah/...ml#post1492565 (Is There Evidence of Allah's Existence?) Allah's (swt) existence is in the realm of the ghaib, or unseen, that is outside our realm of the space/time continuum. Therefore, it is impossible to measure, define or even to comprehend Allah's (swt) being and existence in the fullest sense of the words.

God is beyond scientific exploration because God isn't measurable. So you can't then know accept by faith if it is (1) bigger than our minds to perceive and comprehend and measure or (2) just imaginary then eh?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Asslamu Aliakum,

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the first post. It really hurt my head. What's the purpose of this topic exactly? I'm extremely confused.

Okay to simplify all this, just answer the following questions:

1. Define nature

2. What does it mean to support nature

3. Do atheists oppose nature?

4. If the answer to question 3 is yes, well why do atheists oppose nature?

Props to you for addressing the OP. As for what "support nature" means, I have no idea, and I really don't think the original poster does either. The post was clearly just a jumble of misconceptions meant to confuse and attack what the original poster is calling atheism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways, when they fail to respond to that method then the kid gloves come off.

This is refreshingly honest, and a very good demonstration of fundamentalist thought.

You declare that are right, and all must agree with you. If they fail to agree with you, you must try to convince them. If you fail to convince them, then the "kid gloves come off" and you are no longer to tolerate them or treat them nicely. But you don't hate anybody, and you don't obsess over them, even though you respond to everything they write with childish sniping.

 

[جوري]

This is refreshingly honest, and a very good demonstration of fundamentalist thought.

You are right, and all must agree with you. If they fail to agree with you, you must try to convince them. If you fail to convince them, then the "kid gloves come off" and you are no longer to tolerate them or treat them nicely. But you don't hate anybody, and you don't obsess over them, even though you respond to everything they write with childish sniping.

When it comes to fundamentalism, I find you militant & cognitively conservative that even after nearly a decade on here you parrot the same crap and ask the same questions without the slightest interest in an exchange or a response that obviously shakes you often to the core, as your all too frequent outcries can be construed as nothing but a desperate need for validation. It is not a question of whether or not we care to the beliefs you subscribe to, it is a matter of how much we're willing to tolerate the crap you dish out and repeatedly up to and including your overt hatred for religion as you've so professed several times. So again if anyone is bigoted, intolerant, projecting, puerile at best and has a way of constantly incommoding his hosts it is you. And lastly, and for the third or fourth time (which should impress upon us) just how much you read, digest and understand what is written, including what you yourself have so often and frequently professed under enough florid terms, there's no law against hating something or someone. Not forum wise and as far as I am concerned of international laws.

best,

 

[MustafaMc]

bigger than our minds to perceive and comprehend and measure

I am afraid that you completely missed the point I was trying to make. It most definitely was NOT about God being 'bigger than our minds can comprehend'. It is all about God's existence being so completely outside of our frame of reference and being so unlike anything within our realm of existence - space and time - that we cannot comprehend anything about the nature of His existence. As I have indicated before, the realm of the unseen (God, angels, Shaytan, jinn, Paradise, Hellfire, etc) is metaphysical in nature and beyond reduction to the scientific method. Note from Wikipedia, "The scietific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called 'science' to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.[SUP]"[/SUP] Religion addresses these 'non-empirical' questions through the avenue of revelation to an exceedingly minute fraction of human beings known as Prophets and Messengers of God, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all). Note that believers accept this revelation on faith while unbelievers refect it as imaginary. There were many people like this during the time of Muhammad (saaws) as indicated by the Qur'an addressing their ridicule of Muhammad (saaws).

just how much you read, digest and understand what is written

Sadly, I believe, Sister, that there may be a lot of truth in this statement. Another possibility is that some people really just don't try to understand or want to have a meaningful conversation as indicated also by some of our interactions with certain Christian members. In the end all we can say is 'deen ukum wa liya deen' along with the rest of Surah Al-Kafiroon.

 

[Scimitar]

God is beyond scientific exploration because God isn't measurable. So you can't then know accept by faith if it is (1) bigger than our minds to perceive and comprehend and measure or (2) just imaginary then eh?

Hi bro

hah. I can't believe you wrote that, especially point 1)

Coming from an atheist - that kinda made me smirk

To answer though, God is beyond scientific exploration because God is beyond our reality, our space time continuum.

Back to the goldfish bowl.

The point is bro, that you don't need science to prove God. You need logic.

As camel dung in the dessert is evidence that a camel had passed by, and a mans footprints in the mud are evidence that man had passed by, so when we look up into the night sky and see the moon, the stars, the galaxies - this is evidence that God created.

A beautiful plan put in motion, a celestial dance. And this, amongst what scientists believed to be chaos in space? When the Quran clearly tell us that every mass in space is assigned its' own orbit 1400+ years ago? in a book revealed in the first person - God's words... if they were false, the religion of Islam would not have become such a force today.

Many such amazing informations have been revealed in the Quran, and upon contemplation of the verses, one cannot but feel the truth emanating into ones own reality.

Take for example, the USA. A secular nation which pushes a gospel of Godlessness on its people with no relent. Why is it that more blonde haired, blue and green eyed Americans are choosing Islam for their religion despite their classy educations, the media lies against Islam, and the war on this supposed "terror"? especially post 911?

God tells us in the Quran, "And they plot and plan, And I Plan, And I am the best of Planners"

The modern secular world, tries to convince us that Islam is a barbarian religion which subjugates women to 2nd class roles in the home and society but nothing could be further from the truth - I mean, take the USA, official CIA reports conclude that post 911, 4 times as many women chose islam for their religion than men did...

Plot and plan, plot and plan... the proof is in the pudding my good man.

Science may be at odds with religion, but science has become a religion itself - with so many placing their faith in a theory that cannot be proven either?

Yet, in our schools, our children are taught that all religions are fairytales, and ToE is more plausible... how did they arrive at this ridiculous notion?

You know why they did... because the modern secular world is pushing a gospel of Godlessness on the world today. And this year alone, the assault was worse than ever... yet, unofficial reports in the USA also showed a dramatic increase in new Muslims...

There are 1000 ayahs in the Quran which speak of science and nature related revelations. These could not have been known in the lifetime of the Prophet pbuh.

Yet. They are proven today... undoubtedly proven. Even a child has no problem accepting the ayahs as they read them... yet you give a child this whole "ToE" and they just think "daddy is going madd mommy". Because it is not a logical idea that is propagated in the modern secular world.

In stark contrast - the Quran in accessible to both the young and old. And the beauty is, that the more you read it, the more you have those "eureka" moments, as the subtleties take hold of you and teach you knowledge.

Based on logic alone, Islam wins over science - you don't have to ask me to prove it - just look at the results themselves. Check the testaments of those on this forum who "chose" Islam for their faith, and their reasons why...

Then contemplate on the realities between the two.

It seems to me that the atheist is determined to prove their "science" or what I call "pseudo science" because a theory cannot be a fact - it's just not logical. Whereas you don't find Muslims on Atheist sites trolling and calling all atheists morons and idiots because they disagree with Islam

Proof is in the pudding.

I mean, how can a religion stemming from Arabia, which was known at that time as a place full of uneducated barbarians, produce such an eloquent book and religion that conquered more than half the known world in a very short space of time - not by the sword alone, but by the power of ideas...???

A religion, that continues to grow faster than any religion on earth, even today - despite the international war on Islam???

More food for thought. I want to write more man, but for now, I need to cook something.

Scimi

 

[Pygoscelis]

To answer though, God is beyond scientific exploration because God is beyond our reality, our space time continuum.

Sure, and by this you answer your own question (or was it rhetorical?) about if we could accept the theory of God as a scientific one. You agree that we can not, because God is beyond scientific exploration. That could be because God is beyond our reality and space and time as you say, or it could just be because God is imaginary. You have no real way of knowing except by your "faith".

Science may be at odds with religion

Science need not be at odds with religion. Science is only at odds with religion when religion makes concrete claims about what can be investigated scientifically. Keep to the spiritual and science can't touch you. And even then, if God has magic powers, he can violate scientific reality. That is what miracles are, no?

I agree with you that science can't disprove supernatural claims, just as it can not prove them. You are left with faith, which I have no compulsion to share.

but science has become a religion itself - with so many placing their faith in a theory that cannot be proven either?

In so far as science becomes faith based it is bad science. People should not put too much stock in theories that are lacking in evidence. People should not put 100% stock in ANY scientific theory, even the really well established ones. That is the difference between science and religion. Science is supposed to be always open to revision based on new data. That is how it grows.

I look at science classes in gradeschools and even highschools with the same disdain you do. Memorizing the periodic table, learning the names of the bones in the human body, and memorizing physics fomlas, none of that is in itself science. Actual science, the process of skepticism and investigation, should be taught way more in schools than it is.

Whereas you don't find Muslims on Atheist sites trolling and calling all atheists morons and idiots because they disagree with Islam

Sure you do. You find people of all stripes trolling people of all other stripes on the internet. The internet is a big, vast, and crazy place. As for this forum, are you implying that atheists here call muslims morons and idiots for not being atheists? I have yet to see that here.

I mean, how can a religion stemming from Arabia, which was known at that time as a place full of uneducated barbarians, produce such an eloquent book and religion that conquered more than half the known world in a very short space of time - not by the sword alone, but by the power of ideas...???

You could ask the same of the Christian Bible. Both the Bible and the Quran have produced powerful cultural forces, of that there is no doubt. That has absolutely nothing to do with the actual truth of existence of Gods though.

The modern secular world, tries to convince us that Islam is a barbarian religion which...

I agree that there is way too much of that. Too many people in the west characterize and claim to speak as to what Islam is, even though they themselvs are not muslims. I prefer to ask muslims themselves what they believe and stand for. And then I have no reservation commenting on or judging (or praising) their various stances. It would be nice if the OP had done the same with atheists, asking them their views from atheist perspectives and then commenting or judging those views, rather than declaring what atheists are in order to easily attack them. And that brings us full circle and back to the OP.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am afraid that you completely missed the point I was trying to make. It most definitely was NOT about God being 'bigger than our minds can comprehend'. It is all about God's existence being so completely outside of our frame of reference and being so unlike anything within our realm of existence - space and time - that we cannot comprehend anything about the nature of His existence.

Look at what you were replying to. This makes no difference. I was addressing Scimitar's question of whether God can be investigated scienfitically. The answer I think we have all now agreed on is no. And so you are left with your faith, which atheists and non-muslim theists have no compulsion to share.

 

[M.I.A.]

is athiesm, accepting the machine and rejection of the creator?

i mean science is not beyond the scope of investigation.

the laws of the universe seem to fit together quite well.

the odds of it coming about unintentionally are not something to bet on.

the nature of ecological systems and those that inhabit them, seem to suggest specific and interlocking roles.. yes evolution but its evolution through hindsight.. which is questionable.


so the question is that if there was a scientific way to measure god, would you pursue it?

i mean god is not the only imaginary thing that exists in religion.


anyway, believe it or not.. the nature of nature may go to the atomic level and beyond..


its much easier to live at a biological level, accepting god... the imaginary god.


so it much easier to ask what exactly it is you reject?

anything not tangible?

because a lot of research money is spent on quantifying things that dont exist.

or do you reject anything that holds weight in your life that you have no control over?

because asking a psychologist or psychiatrist about subconscious behavior, social interaction and its effects can lead to interesting discussions.

or lastly, do you reject because you already have a degree of control in your life and the people around you?

because that would really make you think twice about your moral character... or should do.


...or do you just not think. because thats not true rejection.


anyway, id say the tightrope is much wider while asleep then it is when your awake. so its all up in the air really.

..or not.

at least freedom of choice exists. and those that are witness to it.

i could go on but it'd become silly. each persons delusions are there own.

 

[Scimitar]

Sure, and by this you answer your own question (or was it rhetorical?) about if we could accept the theory of God as a scientific one. You agree that we can not, because God is beyond scientific exploration. That could be because God is beyond our reality and space and time as you say, or it could just be because God is imaginary. You have no real way of knowing except by your "faith".

And LOGIC... why do you miss the main point of my post? Logic... logic dictates that there is a Creator... I can see you doing facepalms already, but i'm only getting started. Hold the hand back, you might need a spanner instead (joke bro)

Science need not be at odds with religion. Science is only at odds with religion when religion makes concrete claims about what can be investigated scientifically. Keep to the spiritual and science can't touch you. And even then, if God has magic powers, he can violate scientific reality. That is what miracles are, no?

Science isn't at odd with Islam, never was, never will be - where do you think your modern scientific method came from? that's right - Muslims... and who abuses the scientific method today? Secular Scientists... Man, it's like Ptolemy being put in his place by Al Haythm (Alhazen) all over again. What is your point?

And God can be investigated "scientifically" ??? Come on, be realistic, we already affirmed that God is outside the space time continuum.... so why this silly comment Psygocelis?

I think MustafaMC is be the living proof that Science and Spirituality work together perfectly fine, so you are wrong there

Violate scientific reality? ok, I see that your science is so dear to you that you choose words which seem personal. Had you said "manipulate the laws HE set" instead of "violate scientific reality" - you'd have a better chance to reason with yourself, and with others

I agree with you that science can't disprove supernatural claims, just as it can not prove them. You are left with faith, which I have no compulsion to share.

Apparently not. And I'm fine with that.

In so far as science becomes faith based it is bad science.

What? come on mate - pull the other one. I can give you example after example where science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Try me? I'll link you to articles, videos, books, etc, all proving to you that science and religion work well together.

People should not put too much stock in theories that are lacking in evidence. People should not put 100% stock in ANY scientific theory, even the really well established ones. That is the difference between science and religion. Science is supposed to be always open to revision based on new data. That is how it grows.

I agree... and this is something that will probably confuse you. But it's really quite simple. Science is knowledge gained by systematic study - you agree with this, i'm sure. So even studying the Quran can be scientific mate. There is a methodology you know And this is partly the reason why I say science and Islam are not mutually exclusive. They are supportive.

I look at science classes in gradeschools and even highschools with the same disdain you do. Memorizing the periodic table, learning the names of the bones in the human body, and memorizing physics fomlas, none of that is in itself science. Actual science, the process of skepticism and investigation, should be taught way more in schools than it is.

I agree, if we didn't question we wouldn't get answers... as we grow, we learn to ask better questions, and search for better answers. but this applies to anything.

However, to remain overly skeptical, as scientists are today, even after the 2 hypothesis for the same experiment dictate that a conclusion cannot be reached - scientists still prefer ToE over Creationism? makes me laiugh... ofcourse, it's an agenda they are pushing, and it's obvious. Devils advocates anyone?

Sure you do. You find people of all stripes trolling people of all other stripes on the internet. The internet is a big, vast, and crazy place. As for this forum, are you implying that atheists here call muslims morons and idiots for not being atheists? I have yet to see that here.

This forum is the only forum where I have seen atheists on the back foot. And I'm a member of many forums. Thanks to brothers and sisters like MustafaMC and Bluebell, who know their skittles Alhamdulillah.

You could ask the same of the Christian Bible. Both the Bible and the Quran have produced powerful cultural forces, of that there is no doubt. That has absolutely nothing to do with the actual truth of existence of Gods though.

Actually, it does - especially when prophecy is fulfilled Another thing science will never be able to explain

I agree that there is way too much of that. Too many people in the west characterize and claim to speak as to what Islam is, even though they themselvs are not muslims. I prefer to ask muslims themselves what they believe and stand for. And then I have no reservation commenting on or judging (or praising) their various stances. It would be nice if the OP had done the same with atheists, asking them their views from atheist perspectives and then commenting or judging those views, rather than declaring what atheists are in order to easily attack them. And that brings us full circle and back to the OP.

To be quite frank, it's quite amusing to see the shoe on the other foot ok, jokes aside - you are right. We are to argue with those who don't share our faith in the best of ways. By being polite, firm, and intelligent in out presentation - and we should never compromise our morals for the sake of an argument.

The whole point of any argument / debate - is to champion humanity... not ridicule it.

Scimi

 

[MustafaMc]

Science isn't at odd with Islam, never was, never will be

Assalamu alaikumu Brother Scimi, there is the possibility that Creationism is lumped in together with a literal interpretation of Genesis and that some people incorrectly equate udeo/Christian understanding with that of Islam. There is much detail in the creation of the universe that is of course left out of the Qur'an as I don't believe it is important for our faith (yes, Pygo faith) in Allah (swt) and His revelation to us through His messenger, Muhammad (saaws).

I think MustafaMC is be the living proof that Science and Spirituality work together perfectly fine, so you are wrong there

Thank you, brother. Yes, I am an accomplished research scientist, as Allah (swt) has willed, and I am also a Muslim who believes and accepts each letter of the Qur'an is the truth, again as Allah (swt) has willed.

However, to remain overly skeptical, as scientists are today, even after the 2 hypothesis for the same experiment dictate that a conclusion cannot be reached - scientists still prefer ToE over Creationism? makes me laugh... ofcourse, it's an agenda they are pushing, and it's obvious. Devils advocates anyone?

As you mentioned earlier, ToE is a pseudo science because it is neither provable or unprovable. ToE falls in the realm of philosophy, not science. Even though it uses so-called scientific terminology it is not subject to the scientific method, you know just like God isn't - both fall into the metaphysical realm.

This forum is the only forum where I have seen atheists on the back foot. And I'm a member of many forums. Thanks to brothers and sisters like MustafaMC and Bluebell, who know their skittles Alhamdulillah.

Again, brother it is as Allah (swt) has willed - just as it is that you also are so knowledgeable on these matters.:statisfie

We are to argue with those who don't share our faith in the best of ways. By being polite, firm, and intelligent in out presentation - and we should never compromise our morals for the sake of an argument.

The whole point of any argument / debate - is to champion humanity... not ridicule it.

I agree with you on methodology, but we are individuals with our own uniques styles and levels of patience with those who either can't or refuse to see the truth in what we write. In the end there is no compulsion in religion and if one chooses to believe in some deity other in Allah (swt) then they carry the responsibility for doing so. We have our deeds and beliefs and they have theirs.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Science is only at odds with religion when religion makes concrete claims about what can be investigated scientifically.

And God can be investigated "scientifically" ??? Come on, be realistic, we already affirmed that God is outside the space time continuum.... so why this silly comment Psygocelis?

I did not say God can be investigated scientifically.

I said that science is only at odds with religion when religion makes concrete claims about what can be investigated scientifically. When catholics tell me that the cracker becomes the flesh of Christ when they put it in their mouths, science can look into that, and show it to be false. When some yogi claims he can move things wiht the mere power of chi, etc, science can look at that too. The James Randi Educational Foundation has a $1,000,000.00 prize on offer for such things.

I think MustafaMC is be the living proof that Science and Spirituality work together perfectly fine, so you are wrong there

I didn't say otherwise.

In so far as science becomes faith based it is bad science.

What? come on mate - pull the other one. I can give you example after example where science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say science and religion are mutually exclusive. I said that science based on faith is bad science.

I agree, if we didn't question we wouldn't get answers... as we grow, we learn to ask better questions, and search for better answers. but this applies to anything.

Yes, it does apply to everything. We should always ask questions. And we should never claim to know with 100% certainty. Our understanding can be incomplete and should always be open to further evidence and revision.

We are to argue with those who don't share our faith in the best of ways. By being polite, firm, and intelligent in out presentation - and we should never compromise our morals for the sake of an argument.

The whole point of any argument / debate - is to champion humanity... not ridicule it.

I agree. And unlike what Bluebell posted her approach to be a few posts up, I hope you don't then treat those who continue to disagree with you after some time with disdain and spite. Just because we have different views on these things doesn't mean we have to be enemies and hate each other eh?

 

[GuestFellow]

Props to you for addressing the OP. As for what "support nature" means, I have no idea, and I really don't think the original poster does either. The post was clearly just a jumble of misconceptions meant to confuse and attack what the original poster is calling atheism.

Hiya,

For now I have concluded this topic makes absolutely no sense. Until the OP elaborates further, there is nothing to discuss. Bye everyone.

 

[Gator]

It is interesting that to you 'natural processes' are fully adequate, but my knowledge of genetics and molecular biology leads me to believe that they are completely inadequate to explain the origin of life and the species of life. I am quite certain that you can no better explain how these 'natural processes' actually gave rise to life and the species of life than I can explain how Allah (swt) created them from nothing. We both accept what we can't explain on faith.

Well the only difference I would say is that I see natural processes all around and no sign on supernatural intervention, in my opinion. So yes, in that sense, since I don't know every detail of gravitation and nuclear thermodynamics, I have "faith" that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.

That's, I guess, where the whole agnostic/atheist divide comes in.

The other point of the post would be to the correction of your earlier post.

 

[MustafaMc]

since I don't know every detail of gravitation and nuclear thermodynamics, I have "faith" that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.

Actually, I was referring to the 'faith' in macro-evolutionary principles as being necessary because scientifically they are woefully inadequate - in my opinion.

The other point of the post would be to the correction of your earlier post.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[MustafaMc]

I said that science based on faith is bad science.

I don't disagree with you; however, it would be surprisingly refreshing for so-called scientists to admit that ToE does not adequately explain the origin of life or the various species of life. As a theist, I would concede ToE is still the best 'scientific' hypothesis to explain their origin with the qualification that it is still woefully inadequate. I admit that Intelligent Design and God-did-it are not subject to the scientific method, but I equally and adamantly contend that neither is the Theory of Evolution. My contention is that because ToE is neither provable nor disprovable, it falls in the metaphysical world and should no more be presented as a scientific fact than ID or Creation. Let the principles of micro-evolution stand, but leave the macro-evolution question completely unaddressed. If ToE is discussed to explain the origin of the species from a Common Ancestor, then at the very least ID should also be presented as an equally viable alternative.

 

[جوري]

Until the OP elaborates further, there is nothing to discuss

that I see natural processes all around and no sign on supernatural intervention

Perhaps it is prudent to ask atheists, their definition of 'Nature' and/or 'Natural process'- I didn't think the world of the OP's post but I have an idea of what his meaning and intentions were and I think if you look deep enough into the atheist response and another look at the first post it will make some sense to you albeit not eloquent enough to be convincing.
What would be interesting though is if we took 'Natural' down a notch in every biochemical & enzymatic process, anatomical and physiological function or even in the 'Natural world' in terms of seasons and "natural events' would atheists then concede that Natural in and of itself is pretty super since it is all based on an imaginary baseline that takes the middle road but doesn't confer any explanations to the whys or origins.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't disagree with you; however, it would be surprisingly refreshing for so-called scientists to admit that ToE does not adequately explain the origin of life or the various species of life. As a theist, I would concede ToE is still the best 'scientific' hypothesis to explain their origin with the qualification that it is still woefully inadequate. I admit that Intelligent Design and God-did-it are not subject to the scientific method, but I equally and adamantly contend that neither is the Theory of Evolution. My contention is that because ToE is neither provable nor disprovable, it falls in the metaphysical world and should no more be presented as a scientific fact than ID or Creation. Let the principles of micro-evolution stand, but leave the macro-evolution question completely unaddressed. If ToE is discussed to explain the origin of the species from a Common Ancestor, then at the very least ID should also be presented as an equally viable alternative.

I don't pretend to be an expert on evolution. I only took a few biology courses in my undergrad. But I'm pretty sure it is falsifiable, no? You can make predictions based on evolution theory and some findings support and others would work against the theory.

Is creationism falsifiable? If so, how? What finding would work against creationism?

Also, what is this micro-evolution and macro-evolution you speak of? Isn't evolution just evolution?

 

[Hulk]

I'm not really following the thread so forgive me for butting in and I am no expert on evo either but from what I understand Microevolution is evolution within a species whereas Macroevolution is when one species evolves into another altogether.