The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by divegeester
Could you show me where it is proved a fact; as in a [b]demonstrable fact. And not a series of evidenced (historical evidences; factual individually) which lead to a theoretical conclusion.[/b]

It is actually demonstrable fact, and been demonstrated a number of times. Like the underground mosquito, experiments with fruit flies, E. Coli, the Galápagos tortoise, etc.

Where evolution has actually been observed in a few generations.

EDIT: The only difference between this and a bird shltting on your car is that most people do not observe it every day. Many people in certain fields do.

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't balk at the meaning of the word "theory"?

No, only the word "balk".

Originally posted by lausey
It is actually demonstrable fact, and been demonstrated a number of times. Like the underground mosquito, experiments with fruit flies, E. Coli, the Galápagos tortoise, etc.

Where evolution has actually been observed in a few generations.

Isn't that natural selection, within a species?

Originally posted by divegeester
Isn't that natural selection, within a species?

Not necessarily. Fruit flies have been demonstrated to be separated and evolved enough to diverge and no longer be attracted to each other. Given enough time, they effectively will become genetically different enough and a different species.

EDIT: Although I need to add that it is very difficult to define a species. It is quite subjective.

Originally posted by divegeester
I believe that evolution being the origin of homo-sapiens remains a theory, not a scientific proven fact.

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.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

let me put it this way.

NONE of modern biology, or medicine, (to name but two) makes ANY sense without
evolution. Both of those fields made huge advances since the advent of evolutionary
theory.
Everything you would expect to find if evolution were true has been found.
And anything you might expect to find if evolution were not true has not been found.
Plus as I say, it is a logical imperative that evolution occur in any system where parents
pass on a blueprint to their children that contains errors/mutations.

Evolution is a FACT. It is the ONLY explanation for the diversity of life. It can be observed,
and has been.

If you want to understand evolution and the evidence for it there are a host of good books that
explain it in detail.

Whatever the media in your country say, or your preacher preaches.

There is NO scientific debate as to whether evolution is True.

There is of course debate over the precise details of how elements of evolution work,
And of the precise course of evolution throughout history,
But the question of if evolution is true has been settled.

(which is akin to asserting that it is a fact that there is a force that keeps you stuck to
the surface of the earth (gravity) but we still debate the precise minutia of how it works.
It says nothing about the existence or otherwise of gravity that we are not totally sure of
how precisely it works.)

Saying otherwise marks you out as dishonest or ignorant.
And in today's world, with the number of good sources of information on the topic, there is
no good excuse for either.

Originally posted by divegeester
.... but no one has conclusively proven that human evolved from apes.

Humans are apes. It is true by definition that we evolved from apes, and continue to evolve as apes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have you ever heard anyone other than a Christian fundamentalist make that error?

Yes.


Roughly the same approximate number of people as who identify Intellegent Design immediately as Theism.

Originally posted by jaywill
Yes.

Can you give a reference, or name, and state what religion they are, because I honestly don't believe you.

Roughly the same approximate number of people as who identify Intellegent Design immediately as Theism.
I have never heard anyone make that error. Who have you heard do so?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you give a reference, or name, and state what religion they are, because I honestly don't believe you.

[b]Roughly the same approximate number of people as who identify Intellegent Design immediately as Theism.
I have never heard anyone make that error. Who have you heard do so?[/b]

Watch me go over to the Science Forum and mention ID ?

Come on over and see what kind of reaction I get.
Better yet, why don't you do it? I mean, since there is a clear distinction between ID and Theism which no science minded young person would ever confuse (Perish the thought).

Should result in a good science discussion with no mention at all of God. Right ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Watch me go over to the Science Forum and mention ID ?

Come on over and see what kind of reaction I get.
Better yet, why don't you do it? I mean since there is a clear distinction between ID and Theism which no science minded young person would ever confuse (Perish the thought).

Intelligent design posits a designer.
This designer is usually supposed to be god (or other insert your favourite deity here).
Indeed many of the ID proponents are Christians who are trying to get creationism into
the classroom by trying to dress it up as science and only talk about a 'designer' without
talking about who that 'designer' is. (and thus try to get around that pesky separation of
church and state)

Seldom is this designer posited to be an advanced alien race going about the galaxy seeding
it with life. Partly because the next response would be, 'right so where do they come from?'

Also given that ID proposes a designer from the outset, and then tries (and fails) to prove it,
rather than following the scientific methodology, it can't be classed as science (with court case
to 'prove' it).

It is clearly a religious idea.

This doesn't mean ID=Theism, ID is not a religion in of itself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you give a reference, or name, and state what religion they are, because I honestly don't believe you.

[b]Roughly the same approximate number of people as who identify Intellegent Design immediately as Theism.
I have never heard anyone make that error. Who have you heard do so?[/b]

Can you give a reference, or name, and state what religion they are, because I honestly don't believe you.

The challenge is that I should demonstrate that someone would make Evolution equal to Atheism.

Whitehead protests. Now WHO would do such a thing ?

Best seller "The Blind Watchmaker" by new atheist Richard Dawkins would make a virtual equivocation between Evolution and Atheism.

And new atheists are working on society to make the equivocation stick.

All too innocent twhitehead would be shocked.

Originally posted by jaywill
Should result in a good science discussion with no mention at all of God. Right ?

responding to the edit.

ID is not science. You can use science to refute it, but it is evidently a theistic
idea.

Coupled with its high profile use in a certain court case trying to get god into the
classroom and yes, god is likely to get mentioned.

Originally posted by divegeester
or a seagull tries to steal my chips it is obviously a demonstrable fact.

they're called 'gulls' not 'seagulls'... and they shouldn't have to steal your chips, you should be giving them them for free. 😛


i've always wanted to add 'them them' in a sentence 😵

Originally posted by jaywill
Watch me go over to the Science Forum and mention ID ?

Maybe I misunderstood you. Would I assume that an ID proponent is a theist? Yes, of course. But I would not equate ID to theism. I consider ID to be an attempt by theists to try and discredit evolution for religious reasons, and yes I would assume all proponents of ID are theists. But I fail to see how that is equivalent to:

If what one means by Evolution is Atheism

Originally posted by jaywill
All too innocent twhitehead would be shocked.

I would be shocked if you had risen to the challenge. Instead, we realise you were lying.