The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by CalJust
Such a person as you describe would never hold any position of authority - they would be de-masked sooner rather than later!

Lets see how that stands up to people of authority in politics, or religion. Why do you think science is different?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets see how that stands up to people of authority in politics, or religion. Why do you think science is different?

How about Weiner?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/race-for-weiners-old-seat-could-turn-on-jewish-votes-for-catholic-republican/

Originally posted by twhitehead
What if he is a normal human being who is fairly competent in his work, should be taken seriously, but not necessarily believed on every point and who suffers from delusions, and is not always completely honest?

Isn't it uncomfortable to find yourself in the same camp as RJH for once - attacking the person rather than his case?

Could it be that prejudices are rather more widespread on RHP?

On your other post - yes, we should examine the POSITIONS people take, then judge THOSE, based on their specific expertise.

People can be good artists, engineers, politicians, but fail in many other areas. The issue is whether the areas they fail in are relevant to the isue at stake.

Out of circulation for four days now - take care

Originally posted by CalJust
Isn't it uncomfortable to find yourself in the same camp as RJH for once - attacking the person rather than his case?

I don't understand. Where have I done that?

On your other post - yes, we should examine the POSITIONS people take, then judge THOSE, based on their specific expertise.

People can be good artists, engineers, politicians, but fail in many other areas. The issue is whether the areas they fail in are relevant to the isue at stake.
I don't think that is what I said at all. I am asking whether, if you posed a similar 3 point criteria, to say the pope, the US president, and Billy Graham, would you equally answer "No 3"?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I don't understand. Where have I done that?

You are discounting Francis Collins - probably because he is a theist.

RJH is discounting him - because he is not a YEC

I am asking whether, if you posed a similar 3 point criteria, to say the pope, the US president, and Billy Graham, would you equally answer "No 3"?

Basically, yes.

But to qualify: I agree with you that I may be too black and white - there are shades in between (in humans).

But if either the pope, or Billy Graham, or whoever, propounded a major significant doctrine, then I would evaluate them the same: either the guy is correct, or he is deluded (in a small or a large way) or he is intentionally and knowingly misleading.

This has nothing to do with morality but logic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about Weiner?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/race-for-weiners-old-seat-could-turn-on-jewish-votes-for-catholic-republican/

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/13/nation/la-na-special-elections-20110914

Originally posted by CalJust
You are discounting Francis Collins - probably because he is a theist.

Stop mind reading and answer the question: where did I attack him personally?

This has nothing to do with morality but logic.
Except that your logic, essentially leads to the conclusion that nearly everyone who gets something wrong is deluded or inept. As I say, you go to extremes without allowing people to be partly correct.

As for your Jesus proof, your point 1, essentially states that you have other (unstated) proof that Jesus was telling the truth which is the real proof and not the supposed 'logic'.

Essentially your 'logic' is as follows:
1. I am wrong (but I know I am not because of independent knowledge I wont present here).
2. I am lying (but I cant be because of the independent knowledge not presented in 1).
3. I am correct.
Therefore, logically, I am correct!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Stop mind reading and answer the question: where did I attack him personally?

What if he is a normal human being who is fairly competent in his work, should be taken seriously, but not necessarily believed on every point and who suffers from delusions, and is not always completely honest?

OK, this could have been a "what if" question. I accept that you didn't say "FC is...."

So answer me - do you agree with FC's reasoning and position?

Didn't think so.

Same camp as RJH.

Originally posted by jaywill

No he wouldn't. It doesn't matter if he said he would, he has lied on this subject before, as the Judge pointed out.

I am also willing to bet that you too would not be swayed by such an experiment or even by Behe changing his opinion.

Evolution is not a show stopper to my biblical faith. I said before, that what is problematic to my ...[text shortened]...

It is 8 videos. I think it is worth it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9Sw

I don't think any evolutionary biologist would say Darwin had the last answer on evolution, how could he, given we just discovered DNA in the 20th century?

Here is a new bit about 'epigenitics': Genes are not the full answer to evolution either.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-genes-destiny-hidden-code-dna.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is ...[text shortened]... e general population to accept evolution as ‘fact’, it will be the death of (real) Christianity.

Biological evolution does not exist.

However biological adaptation does exist.

Within biological systems there are mechanisms that allow a species to adapt to its environment over long periods of time.

This adaptation mechanism has been taken by advocates of evolution as evidence of the evolution of the species.

This shows how speculation misinforms us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Essentially your 'logic' is as follows:
1. I am wrong (but I know I am not because of independent knowledge I wont present here).
2. I am lying (but I cant be because of the independent knowledge not presented in 1).
3. I am correct.
Therefore, logically, I am correct!

No, that's not how it works, neither is it what I said.

Typical example:

You believe in Evolution and no god. On THIS topic:

1 Dasa considers you to be maliciously lying
2 RJH considers you to be innocently deceived
3 Several others on RHP consider you to be neither but telling the truth as they also see it.

What could be simpler?

What are the alternative options according to you?

Obviously one can be (and often is!) partially deluded or only partially deceiving. I probably am, (the former, not the latter!) and have confessed so roundly on more than one occasion!

Originally posted by CalJust
So answer me - do you agree with FC's reasoning and position?

Didn't think so.

Same camp as RJH.

I will say it again - stop with the mind reading! Your not very good at it.

I will also say again - people may be partly right and partly wrong.

I think I agree with most of FC's reasoning and position (as put forward in your post). I probably don't agree with him on any points that would require me to be a theist to agree on - but I didn't spot anything after a quick re-read of your post. I also don't believe that you agree with every little thing the man says.

So no, disagreeing with someone doesn't put me in the "same camp" as everyone else who disagrees with that someone, especially if we disagree with different points for different reasons.

Originally posted by CalJust
What could be simpler?

Its when you declare that this is somehow proof that I am correct in every detail that I have a problem. If you do not declare a proof (which incidentally you did, in the case of Jesus), then it becomes a rather meaningless exercise.
I think the biggest flaw is you are lumping too many hidden variables into the options.
I might accept the options as mutually exclusive on single points eg "there is no God", but when you say "evolution" then what if I am partly correct about evolution? Then all 3 might be true. Further, even if you decide which is true for one point (eg "there is no God"😉 you cannot use that to make conclusions about something else. And that final point is the flaw with your FC example. You used the fact that he has a good reputation in science to deduce that this reflects positively on his reputation in religious matters. In fact you were trying to go further and claim that he is either deluded about all his scientific findings, or God exists. Preposterous!

Originally posted by Dasa
Biological evolution does not exist.

However biological adaptation does exist.

Within biological systems there are mechanisms that allow a species to adapt to its environment over long periods of time.

This adaptation mechanism has been taken by advocates of evolution as evidence of the evolution of the species.

This shows how speculation misinforms us.

What is your justification for saying adaptation exists but that is not evolution? If it adapts, it evolves. Pure and simple.

Read this new article about something called 'epigenetics':

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-genes-destiny-hidden-code-dna.html

This new work shows there is more to genes than meets the eye. These 'epigenes' are involved with genetic changes that can pass down from generation to generation and 100,000 times faster than genes themselves can change on their own.

The next step is to see if the same changes they see from Epigenes happens with humans.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What is your justification for saying adaptation exists but that is not evolution? If it adapts, it evolves. Pure and simple.

Read this new article about something called 'epigenetics':

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-genes-destiny-hidden-code-dna.html

This new work shows there is more to genes than meets the eye. These 'epigenes' are involved ...[text shortened]...

The next step is to see if the same changes they see from Epigenes happens with humans.

. Evolution tells us there was a thingo in a puddle and it adapted and adapted and adapted until it was an elephant....this is not how it happens.

Adaptation only allows an already existing species to slightly change due to environmental factors.