The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
at the very least if disproves your religion of a single creation event.

at the very least if disproves your religion of a single creation event.

I don't know what you mean.

However the words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep ..." (Genesis 1:1,2 Recovery Version) have long implied to many readers going back many centries, that EXHAUSTIVE DETAILS are not being communicated about the very ancient past.

The water was there. The land was covered by water. The dry land seems to rise up out of the water (on the third day). No life is mentioned until the land comes up from underneath the waters - a atrong hint of the resurrection of the Son of God to impart divine life into man.

The symbolism suggests that what is really on the heart of the revelation are things centered on the triumph of Life over chaos, darkness, and death.

Why would the dry land only come up on the Third Day ? Why not the Second or the Fifth day? It is a hint of the resurrection of Christ on the Third Day as so central to God's eternal purpose.

At any rate, Genesis 1 and 2 are not the only portions of the Bible which discuss creation. There are many other places where definite statements are made about God creating the creation.

You have the stars appearing to the seer on the fourth day in Genesis 1.
But in Zechariah 12:1 you have God stretching forth the heavens and then laying the foundation of the earth.

I don't agree that the fossil record proves untrue any statement in the Bible about creation. Maybe it is a problem to a Young Earth Creationist with a hyperliteral interpretation of Genesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its always fun to use as an argument, your own unconformable claims about future events. I can, for example state categorically that you will convert to atheism 5 years from now when you finally see the light. So, in light of this, why don't you just convert now?

Of course, we cannot genuinely predict the future, all we have is trends based on the past ...[text shortened]... the same claim you have for the past 100 years, and all of them have proven to be wrong so far.

Only God knows the end from the beginning.

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]

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

Maybe one day I will. But even a "blind" watchmaker, would have to be an intelligent one.

Have you read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe ?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You can believe in intelligent design and accept evolutionary theory. There are many different interpretations of what intelligent design is.

Flew accepted evolutionary theory, what he rejected was how the first reproducing organism came to be. He believed a designer must be involved (i have added the bold) -

[quote]"It has become inordinately dif ...[text shortened]... about rejecting the whole of evolutionary theory. He converted to deism after all, not theism.

Did you notice his comment on Darwinism? Why would he support
teaching Intelligent Design in schools when all evolutionist claim it
is just creationism repackaged? So can he believe in creationism
and evolution at the same time? If so, I guess that would be an
easy way to get around the whole problem. So let us just believe
in both to what extent we wish and stop our debate on the subject.

Originally posted by Penguin
I started a thread on Francis Collins in 2007

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=77215&page=1

There are a number of other threads on RHP talking about him.

I have also read his book, The Language of God, in which he explains evolution extremely well and very effectively critiques the shortcomings of the Intelligent Design hypoth ...[text shortened]... ular religion for what appears to be entirely emotional and cultural reasons."

--- Penguin.

So I said to Proper Knob why don't we just believe in both creation and
evolution to what extent we wish and stop our debate on the subject.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did you notice his comment on Darwinism? Why would he support
teaching Intelligent Design in schools when all evolutionist claim it
is just creationism repackaged? So can he believe in creationism
and evolution at the same time? If so, I guess that would be an
easy way to get around the whole problem. So let us just believe
in both to what extent we wish and stop our debate on the subject.

Look this is quite simple -

Flew was advocating intelligent design with regards to the first replicating organism, as i have demonstrated by the quote i posted, i don't know how to put that any clearer. He had no qualms with the evolutionary process after that point.

Do you understand what i'm telling you? If not where is the problem?

Originally posted by vistesd
You know, jaywill, over the years of argument, I don’t think I have ever treated you in the same jackass way that you have sometimes treated me when you just didn’t like what I said. Maybe that’s my fault. Maybe that’s what you deserve. I have disagreed with you, and sharply, but never unleashed the kind of disrespectful and uncivil sarcasm toward you th ...[text shortened]... tations or not. But maybe you are just a jackass—and I’m just tired of being nice to jackasses.

Vistesd, let me have it if you think I deserve it. I sometimes do not remember who was complimentary and who was insulting.

I get on a number of forums and I don't always remember names. If you think I deserve jackassculatory treatment, go ahead.

I think you are the chap that knows a lot of church history and history of Christian doctrine ??

Originally posted by jaywill

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

Maybe one day I will. But even a "blind" watchmaker, would have to be an [b]intelligent one.

Have you read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe ?[/b]

But even a "blind" watchmaker, would have to be an [b]intelligent one.[/b]

No, that's the whole point of the book.

Not read Behe's book, but i am aware of it. I will get round to it if i can pick it up from the library.

Originally posted by shavixmir
What?
Evolution doesn't exist?

Really?
How come the average Dutch male is now 30cm taller than in the 1960's?
How come people can be born with the syndrome of Down (different number of chromozones) when both parents don't have the syndrome?
How come a virus becomes immune to drugs?

Surely these are cases of evolution?

These examples are of adaptaton and mutations and not what I would
call evolution, in which a creature developes into a higher form, not just
adjusting to changing conditions. Where is the evidence that the virus
changed into a more advanced and different creature. It is still a virus
after the adaptation. So where is the evolution? I don't see any.

Originally posted by jaywill

at the very least if disproves your religion of a single creation event.

I don't know what you mean.

However the words [b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep ..." (Genesis 1:1,2 Recovery Version) have long impl ...[text shortened]... it is a problem to a Young Earth Creationist with a hyperliteral interpretation of Genesis.[/b]

No problem for this young earth creationist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We, Americans, I believe he is referring to. I don't know why anyone would
be proud of your country. You have a few citizens you could be proud of
like Winston Churchill and some to be ashamed of like Richard Dawkins.

We, Americans, I believe he is referring to. I don't know why anyone would
be proud of your country. You have a few citizens you could be proud of
like Winston Churchill and some to be ashamed of like Richard Dawkins.

When I said we know Knobs is proud of his country, I meant we participants in the forum. Not limited to Americans.

I mean, most peoples are proud of their countries.
I thought "across the pond, they're not as smart" kind of comment was typical of nationalism anywhere.

was not a major point.

Originally posted by RJHinds
These examples are of adaptaton and mutations and not what I would
call evolution, in which a creature developes into a higher form, not just
adjusting to changing conditions. Where is the evidence that the virus
changed into a more advanced and different creature. It is still a virus
after the adaptation. So where is the evolution? I don't see any.

That is evolution.
The creatures which adapt wrongly just don't tend to survive. Meaning the succesful adaptations do.

Considering most changes take a long time, it's hard to pinpoint when one creature sort of becomes another creature.
I did give an example of chromosonic change in the short term.

Bill Hicks once called the human race a virus with shoes on. If that helps.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No problem for this young earth creationist.

i am fed up with tiptoeing near yecs



here is the bottom line: anyone believing in a young earth is either retarded, ignorant or brain-washed. or a combination of these three.

i don't know how much patience proper knob still has with you, twhite seems to be close to blowing his cap off too (noticed his replies to you have begun to be more acid), but i had enough.



this post will probably serve nothing. or perhaps will jolt you back to reality. but most likely will serve nothing as you have proven time and again that you cannot change your view on the world even if the reality is smacking you over the head repeatedly.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Look this is quite simple -

Flew was advocating intelligent design with regards to the [b]first replicating organism, as i have demonstrated by the quote i posted, i don't know how to put that any clearer. He had no qualms with the evolutionary process after that point.

Do you understand what i'm telling you? If not where is the problem?[/b]

So are you saying, He only believed that the very first organism that could
reproduce itself was created by God and then evolution took over and
the remainder of the creatures resulted from random chance and natural
selection? If so, where does it say that?

Originally posted by jaywill

We, Americans, I believe he is referring to. I don't know why anyone would
be proud of your country. You have a few citizens you could be proud of
like Winston Churchill and some to be ashamed of like Richard Dawkins.

When I said we know Knobs is proud of his country, I meant we participants in the forum. Not limited to Americans. ...[text shortened]... ot as smart" kind of comment was typical of nationalism anywhere.

was not a major point.

Excuse me for butting in.