The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by googlefudge
The word you are looking for is hypothesis, but you are wrong.

Theory and fact are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Saying evolution is a theory is saying that evolution is an explanation for how
the diversity of life came about. And that it has been experimentally verified.

Calling it a verified Fact is saying that it has been proven true.
...[text shortened]... th the number of good sources of information on the topic, there is
no good excuse for either.

More lies.

Originally posted by vistesd
It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all). I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, is really a poor philosopher whose arguments against theism are not strong (can’t recall the details). Some of us have never read Dawkins, ...[text shortened]... f punching bag for theists; I doubt that many atheists on here really feel the vicarious blows.

I am glad to hear you do not pay any attention to Dawkins for he is
not worth the effort.

Originally posted by vistesd
You're likely right: maybe a glancing blow at most, that's all. 🙂 And my ego is not so bad that I took you as emphasizing "my contributions".

EDIT: You know, I think I have The Blind Watchmaker around somewhere; and I've never read it (maybe started it, and set it aside for something else, I don't recall really). I probably ought to read it before assuming that Dawkins' critics, from either side, are right...

Don't read it. It's not worth the time. If you spent money to buy it,
then that was a waste of money.

Originally posted by jaywill
And if you hedge on that one , then I'll call you the liar .

Do you honestly believe that everyone, or even most people promoting evolution is an atheist?

Do you honestly believe that all biologists studying evolution (and in so doing promoting it) are doing so in order to promote atheism?

If your answer is yes to the above as implied by your post:

" I consider EVOLUTION to be an attempt by ATHEISTS to try and discredit THEISM ."

Then you seriously need a wake up call and need to actually talk to some theist biologists. But I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are still lying.

Originally posted by jaywill
Twhitehead, open mouth, change feet.

Evolution virtually equivalent to Atheism per New Atheism's pop best selling author Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Even if you are correct that Dawkins uses evolution to argue for atheism, it in no way makes them equivalent. I have heard theists argue that the existence of the universe 'prooves' the existence of God. But it is stupid to claim that 'the universe' is equivalent to 'theism'.

Originally posted by vistesd
It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all). I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, is really a poor philosopher whose arguments against theism are not strong (can’t recall the details). Some of us have never read Dawkins, ...[text shortened]... f punching bag for theists; I doubt that many atheists on here really feel the vicarious blows.

I had never heard of Dawkins before coming to this forum. However, having heard about him hear and about his book 'The God Delusion', I went and bought it and read it. I don't agree with everything he says, but I do think he makes some good points and gave me some ideas I had not thought of. I credit him with convincing me that mild theism is not neutral - but can be both beneficial and harmful to society.

Originally posted by jaywill

I consider ID to be an attempt by theists to try and discredit evolution

Now take that sentence you wrote and substitute these words and you get a realistic picture of the matter.

" I consider [b]EVOLUTION to be an attempt by ATHEISTS to try and discredit THEISM ."

Enter best selling author Dr. Richard Dawkins.

And if you hedge on that one , then I'll call you the liar .[/b]

It's already been spelled out above but, how do you account for theist biologists?!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am glad to hear you do not pay any attention to Dawkins for he is
not worth the effort.

why not? he is a good enough scientist. evolutionist.

do i for example like him? not really he comes off as an arrogant jerk. i won't invite him to dinner. but on evolution he has some very nice ideas. one might say he is an expert even.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Don't read it. It's not worth the time. If you spent money to buy it,
then that was a waste of money.

What exactly do you base this view on Ron?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What exactly do you base this view on Ron?

anything that his pastor or the one doing the thinking for rjhinds tells him that it contradicts the lord's word is not worth reading.

Originally posted by RJHinds
More lies.

Actually no.
While I do, like anyone make mistakes, which I try to correct if I spot them.
I have not yet lied on these forums.
I very rarely lie, and only ever for a good reason.
I see no reason to lie about anything on these forums other than perhaps my personal
life (as its none of your business) but then I simply don't talk about it.

In short, I have never, and almost certainly Will never, lie on these forums.

You can accuse me of being wrong.
But accusing me of lying is both wrong and deeply insulting.

The arrogance you demonstrate in accusing me of lying after I put forward a position
that is supported by more evidence than almost any idea in the history of man,
and is supported by almost every single scientist alive.
And is the bedrock of all modern biology and medicine, as well as palaeontology and
numerous other fields.
Is simply staggering.

Your position is of almost complete ignorance and stupidity, augmented with spectacular
arrogance and self righteousness. You espouse positions more suitable to the middle ages
and present yourself as an almost perfect caricature of the stupidity and ignorance of
Christian fundamentalism.

You would be funny, if you weren't so tragic.

You are of course free to continue to speak your ignorant disbelief of sciences achievements.
But if you accuse me of lying you damn well better be able to prove it.

As I have and will never lie on these forums, this will not be possible.


Now try again and try to come up with a reasoned argument against my last post.
I dare you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you honestly believe that everyone, or even most people promoting evolution is an atheist?

Do you honestly believe that all biologists studying evolution (and in so doing promoting it) are doing so in order to promote atheism?

If your answer is yes to the above as implied by your post:
[quote]" I consider [b]EVOLUTION to be an attempt by o some theist biologists. But I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are still lying.

Do you honestly believe that everyone, or even most people promoting evolution is an atheist?

[/b]

Do you honestly believe that that is what I wrote ?

Do you honestly believe that all biologists studying evolution (and in so doing promoting it) are doing so in order to promote atheism?

Do you honestly believe that that is what I wrote?
If I did, then you wrote that same thing concerning IDers.

Substitute "some" in both cases.

And while you call me a liar I think your whole posture of innocence and "objectivity" is a lie.

I know you try to be a gentleman. Good. But your "objective," "above all the fray" posture is a facade.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's already been spelled out above but, how do you account for theist biologists?!

I not only know that there are theist biologists (duh!). There are theists evolutionists too.

I know this, I was raised in the liberal branch of the Presbyterian denomination.

You don't think I know that there are some Christians with Darwinism in their vest jacket? Come on !


My original post in this conversation was that Evolution was a nuisance to Pauline theology and not a death knell to the Gospel. Or to be specific I said Evo was a nuisance to Christian theology.

I would not have said it if I believed Evolution = Atheism.
At the same time, let's not kid ourselves. The aggressive form of New Atheism IS trying hard to make that connection.

twhitehead's halo of innocence not withstanding.

Originally posted by jaywill
Do you honestly believe that that is what I wrote?

No. Hence the question marks. I was asking for clarification on your position - which you seem reluctant to give, because it would highlight the fact that you lied. You did not make an error or 'slip of the tongue'. You knowingly, and deliberately told an untruth.

And while you call me a liar I think your whole posture of innocence and "objectivity" is a lie.
I did not call you a liar, I accused you of lying (not quite the same thing). And the only defense you seem to have, is to attack me instead. All you needed to do was show that you did not knowingly say something untrue, but instead, you have danced around and around like someone standing on hot coals. You lied. Admit it and move on. You'll sleep better at night.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. Hence the question marks. I was asking for clarification on your position - which you seem reluctant to give, because it would highlight the fact that you lied. You did not make an error or 'slip of the tongue'. You knowingly, and deliberately told an untruth.

[b]And while you call me a liar I think your whole posture of innocence and "objectivity" ...[text shortened]... omeone standing on hot coals. You lied. Admit it and move on. You'll sleep better at night.

I did not call you a liar, I accused you of lying

[/b]

As I have always said, one of the chief characteristics of an Atheist is that he thinks he is very clever.

Ie. Not a liar but I lied. It is no wonder that you really have difficulty understanding the Bible.

For the record, When I put up the evaluation of The Blind Watchmaker I proved that I was not lying in stating that some have made Evolution virtually equivalent to Atheism.

I think you conceded. And then forces came in to distance forum participants from Dawkins (from other quarters).