Not exact matches
Difference:
atheists that
accept evolution, or the theory that all life came from a common ancestor, are more often than not willing to discount that acceptance upon evidence to the contrary.
Love your neighbor... unless he is gay or secular or Muslim or lesbian or Hindu or
atheist or Wiccan or Mormon or
accepts the truth of
evolution or
accepts the findings of science or questions the assertians of Christianity or, uh, well, the list is just too long.
Many or all of these hypnosis / problems that you mentioned here and in other posts as objections to flood and / or evolutionism (such as Coconino Sandstone) are not new and are addressed in sites like creation.com Finally, because you mentioned Christians who
accepted evolution, how about some
atheists who oppose Darwin's evolutionism such as Nietzsche or, more recently, Jerry Fodor and Piattelli - Palmarini
Atheists take
evolution and extended it to a world view (belief) akin to perennial naturalism then attempt to pass off non scientific conclusions as if they were
accepted fact.
So how can ANY
atheist who
accepts evolution claim to be more «moral»?!??!?!?!?!? The religion of atheism is seriously messed up beyond belief.
How can
atheist be more «moral» when most
accept evolution as a fact?
A timeline describes the declension from the biblicism of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the thought of Descartes, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Darwin and Charles Hodge (he may be an archconservative to most Presbyterians, but his acceptance of Darwinism lands him in the hall of shame here) to a certain Charles Templeton, who once traveled with Billy Graham but unfortunately
accepted evolution and ended up writing the
atheist tract Farewell to God.
Several prominent religious biologists, including my friends Ken Miller at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and Francis Collins at the US National Institutes of Health, make it quite clear that one doesn't have to be an
atheist to
accept the scientific fact of
evolution.