The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
luckily, what you believe is irrelevant to the facts.

Do you mean lucky for the atheists?
Do you know of any reference that proves for a fact that there have been
at least 5 mass extinctions of animals?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Again, what exactly does Anthony Flews 'conversion' to deism have to do with evolution?! That's what we're discussing here isn't it?

This scientist flew the coop of evolution when he saw that the gate was
wide open. This is more than a play on words with Anthony Flews name.
When Anthony Flew was confronted with the real evidence, He realized
that evolution did not make sense anymore for him. You are simply
being dishonest by ignoring this evidence and arrogant in insisting that
you have more knowledge than Anthony Flews and choose to believe
the younger and less knowledgeable liar Richard Dawkins.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Thinking for myself, I think there is the appearance that these organisms have been made for a purpose because they indeed have been.

Why don't you read the rest of The Blind Watchmaker to find out how complicated biological organisms can come about without a designer?![/b]

How long will you continue to believe a lie?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
From the wiki page you linked:

"Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, common chimpanzees, bonobos and [b]humans.[1][2] Either the first four[3][4][5] or all five[6] are collectively called the great apes."

Humans are apes.[/b]

Scientists have grouped humans with the great apes because of the
characterists of the body are very similiar. This in no way means that
one type of ape was the ancestor of humans. Humans should have
their own category of classification which these scientist have yet to
recognize because they have not accepted, as fact, that the mind of
man has been created in the image of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientists have grouped humans with the great apes because of the
characterists of the body are very similiar. This in no way means that
one type of ape was the ancestor of humans. Humans should have
their own category of classification which these scientist have yet to
recognize because they have not accepted, as fact, that the mind of
man has been created in the image of God.

This is a scientific definition. Your rejection of it does not change it's validity, and any or all scientist's acceptance of your or any other religion would also leave it unchanged. And no religion can, by definition, be considered factual. Only if something is proven to be true can it be considered a fact. This is in no way a criticism of religion; it is, as I say, simply a matter of definition.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How long will you continue to believe a lie?

Go read the book i suggested, until then your talking out your arse. As per usual.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
This is a scientific definition. Your rejection of it does not change it's validity, and any or all scientist's acceptance of your or any other religion would also leave it unchanged. And no religion can, by definition, be considered factual. Only if something is proven to be true can it be considered a fact. This is in no way a criticism of religion; it is, as I say, simply a matter of definition.

Since it hasn't been proven for a fact that humans are apes, then to
categorize humans as apes is suspect and is likely to change with
further advances in the knowledge of science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This scientist flew the coop of evolution when he saw that the gate was
wide open. This is more than a play on words with Anthony Flews name.
When Anthony Flew was confronted with the real evidence, He realized
that evolution did not make sense anymore for him. You are simply
being dishonest by ignoring this evidence and arrogant in insisting that
you ...[text shortened]... an Anthony Flews and choose to believe
the younger and less knowledgeable liar Richard Dawkins.

What are you babbling on about!?! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about yet here you are spouting your utterly incorrect crap across the forum.

This scientist flew the coop of evolution when he saw that the gate was wide open.

Antony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. This is your first mistake.

When Anthony Flew was confronted with the real evidence, He realized
that evolution did not make sense anymore for him.

No he didn't, what are you talking about?! He didn't reject evolutionary theory. You are making it up.

You are simply being dishonest by ignoring this evidence and arrogant in insisting that you have more knowledge than Anthony Flews and choose to believe the younger and less knowledgeable liar Richard Dawkins.

I'm being arrogant and dishonest?! Goodness grief, you enter into a debate in which you have no knowledge of the topic, you then proceed to demonstrate zero understanding of who is being discussed and their views, and then you have the audacity to label me dishonest and arrogant.

As Robbie would say, i'm feeling my bum to make sure i'm not dreaming!!!! What a tosser you are.

Hilarious.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since it hasn't been proven for a fact that humans are apes, then to
categorize humans as apes is suspect and is likely to change with
further advances in the knowledge of science.

A definition is simply that; a definition. It doesn't require proof.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Go read the book i suggested, until then your talking out your arse. As per usual.

My first impression I received from reading "Why Evolution Is True", by Jerry
Coyne is from his Preface indicating his anxiety over an evolution case in
Pennsylvania. If evolution is a proven fact why would Jerry Coyne be worried
about whether or not a statement was read to students that referred them to
another source for a different opinion. It sounds to me as if Jerry Coyne doubts
that the evidence for evolution is sufficient to convince students when
confronted with information to the contrary.

He also admits he is not a master of evolutionary biology and apologizes for
any errors. This makes me wonder what will be true and what will be error of
what I will be reading.

He goes on to explain Why we need a book that gives the evidence for a
theory that long ago became part of mainstream science, since nobody
writes books explaining the evidence for atoms, or for the germ theory of
disease. He says that evolution is a solidly established scientific fact
(more than “just a theory&rdquo😉, and scientists need no more convincing. This
is one of those errors he apologized for in advance. There are many
scientist, as I have pointed out, that do not believe in the "theory of Evolution"
as being a fact. Then he says the reason for his book is to convince those
outside scientific circles. He says evolution gnaws at their sense of self
because it means we are related to other creatures; and we also are the
product of blind and impersonal evolutionary forces. So then we must ask the
question: Does our existence have any purpose or meaning that distinguishes
us from other creatures? Evolution is also thought to erode morality, for if, we
are simply beasts, then why not behave like beasts? At least he understands
one point of the creationist.

He says Only 12 percent—one in eight people—think that evolution should be
taught without mentioning a creationist alternative. He says he is sad that
anti-evolutionism, which is often thought to be a peculiarly American problem,
is now spreading to other countries, including Germany and the United
Kingdom. I wonder if Antony Flew might have been an influence there in the
UK. He says the problem is more widespread than this since many of his
fellow biologists are unacquainted with the many lines of evidence for
evolution. Yet He said previously that scientist need no convincing of the fact
of evolution.

This is my honest review so far and I have only gotten through the
Introduction. It doesn't seem promising at all that I will be convinced by
somebody who admits he is not a master of evolutionary biology and
apologizes in advance for any errors.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My first impression I received from reading "Why Evolution Is True", by Jerry
Coyne is from his Preface indicating his anxiety over an evolution case in
Pennsylvania. If evolution is a proven fact why would Jerry Coyne be worried
about whether or not a statement was read to students that referred them to
another source for a different opinion. It sounds ...[text shortened]... dmits he is not a master of evolutionary biology and
apologizes in advance for any errors.

I don't think anybody is arguing that creationism shouldn't be taught. It is simply the case that the nature of the creationist explanation of origins is not a scientific explanation, and therefore should not be taught as science. The evolutionary explanation is taught as science because it fulfils the criteria of a scientific theory, moreover one which has stood up to considerable and vigorous argument.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What are you babbling on about!?! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about yet here you are spouting your utterly incorrect crap across the forum.

[b]This scientist flew the coop of evolution when he saw that the gate was wide open.

Antony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. This is your first mistake.

When Anthony ...[text shortened]... , i'm feeling my bum to make sure i'm not dreaming!!!! What a tosser you are.

Hilarious.

Yes, I did make the mistake of identifying him as a scientist but the video
pointed out that many scientist are in agreement with him. If he did not
reject the evolutionary theory why would He state he now believes in God
and support the teaching of Intelligent Design in the British schools?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I don't think anybody is arguing that creationism shouldn't be taught. It is simply the case that the nature of the creationist explanation of origins is not a scientific explanation, and therefore should not be taught as science. The evolutionary explanation is taught as science because it fulfils the criteria of a scientific theory, moreover one which has stood up to considerable and vigorous argument.

It is Intelligent Design not creation by the God of the Holy Bible that was to
be taught. God and creationism was never to be mentioned only the idea that
a designer may be required for the design in nature and to question the
possiblility of the random chance idea associated with the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I did make the mistake of identifying him as a scientist but the video
pointed out that many scientist are in agreement with him. If he did not
reject the evolutionary theory why would He state he now believes in God
and support the teaching of Intelligent Design in the British schools?

Why don't you go and read what he actually says?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is Intelligent Design not creation by the God of the Holy Bible that was to
be taught. God and creationism was never to be mentioned only the idea that
a designer may be required for the design in nature and to question the
possiblility of the random chance idea associated with the theory of evolution.

Nevertheless the point remains, as a theory to explain the diversity of life on earth it lacks scientific foundation.

edit - Incidentally, I note that you persist in using the phrase 'random chance' in conjunction with the theory of evolution. This misrepresents the position and will rightfully draw accusations of 'scarecrow argument'.