Replies

Dataman seems to want me to find a posting where a creationist says exactly "All who accept evolution are atheists", and even the slightest deviation from that wording somehow proves me wrong. He's incapable of admitting an error, so he'll play semantic games for as long as possible and even if I could find a posting with the exact wording that he demands, he'd come up with some excuse to weasel out of an apology. Nonetheless, I've done some digging, and I've found other postings that may not use those exact words, but do imply a belief from the poster than those who accept evolution are atheists.

"Evolutionists resist Creation, since it would presuppose God..."

"And, speaking of materialists, that is the atheist connection, since a fundamental, though illogical, first principle of evolution is naturalism. Naturalism denies the existence of anything besides matter and its motion. Naturalism (also known as materialism) is necessarily atheistic and is the connecting point between evolution and unbelief. (Do note who made that statement)"

"I generally distrust the judgment of evolutionists because they're atheists."

This one is from nmh again, back in July
"Too bad the premise of an evolutionist is that God doesn't exist and if He does He is too stupid to create humans and all we see."

"Evolution theory exists because people don't want to believe they were made by a superior being to whom they are also responsible for their lives."

"According to the evolutionist there will be no final exam."

A classic Pascal's Wager argument...except that it was sparked by a discussion of evolution, not atheism:
"The clincher here is this, if I'm correct in my belief in the book of Genesis, I'll be spending eternity in a field of clover with a cold drink right there whenever I reach for it. Meanwhile, you and your buddies will be stoking a furnace while Asmodeus, Judas Iscariot and Adolf Hitler take turns jabbing you in the glutei with a trident should you stop shoveling for a moment to wipe your brow."

That's all I cared to dig up, and those were just unearthed by digging through MY user posts and looking at posts of mine where I had replied to people making the implication that evolution acceptance=atheism, so in addition to what I overlooked through just my sample size, I could only catch posts where I had responded, meaning that I wouldn't be including any that I have missed over the months nor would I have any that I saw and didn't offer up a response at the time. I even omitted a few that I didn't think were quite so obvious in their implications.. I admit that some of the above are ambigious, and could imply something other than "all who accept evolution are atheists", but there are a few up there that no honest person would argue imply anything but that.

Note also that, unlike some people, I'm actually providing direct links to each of my offerings so that the full context can be examined.

I'm sure that Dataman will find an excuse to dismiss each and everyone one of these statements, and any other that I provide.

As I thought. You said "Feel free to produce even one example.". I provide "one" example, and not only am I not right for not fulfilling retroactively changed requirements,...[non sequitur]

No, you're still wrong. True, you provided one (questionable) example but you failed to back up your claim that creationists often claim all evolutionists are atheists. So no, finding one questionable post doesn't make you right. At this point you've claimed victory before crossing the finish line. I see in your next post you picked several examples that do not support your claim but you link them as if they do.

Why do you find it such a difficult task to be intellectually honest about these things?