Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist

[Ronnie87]

Really interesting read MajorTwang, thanks for knowledge.

[mstatefan91]

why does there have to be a point to life?



First of all, I suggest you stop using the word "evolutionists" as if belief in evolution is comparable to a belief in a deity. Evolution is scientific fact. If you want to call people who "believe" in evolution evolutionists, i suggest you begin calling people who believe in gravity gravitationalists. it would be along the same lines.

We try to prove creationists wrong because in many cases their beliefs are holding them back from understanding how the world truly works. Religion promotes anti-scientific and anti-intellectual sentiments and, in the case of the bible, homophobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, and murder; hence the motivation to oppose it.

Sorry but this statement bothered me too much. Since when did a THEORY become scientific fact?

[StylesOfBeyond]

Sorry but this statement bothered me too much. Since when did a THEORY become scientific fact?

No, as far as I know this is correct. Evolution is regarded a scientific fact, but what we call the theory of evolution is us trying to understand how it works.

[mstatefan91]

No, as far as I know this is correct. Evolution is regarded a scientific fact, but what we call the theory of evolution is us trying to understand how it works.

Scientific Theory:
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable."

Falsifiable means it can be verified or falsified, capable of being tested. It is still a theory because scientists can't prove it without a single bit of doubt otherwise they would have made it a law by now.

[Capt-MoonLight]

I make it my personal business to take with a grain of salt anything a scientist has to say on evolution. They have been caught out fabricating evidence many times and have NO answer to explain how the universe created itself, even so, I completely disregard anything religion says as religion is clearly a fraud perpetrated by sadistic narcissists.

I'll just leave you with this thought, if the big bang were true - which it clearly is a lie - then that would mean the universe existed prior to it actually existing so it could then spring out of the big bang. Logic predicts that what ever the truth is there has always been something. At NO time has there ever been nothing.

[StylesOfBeyond]

Scientific Theory:
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable."

Falsifiable means it can be verified or falsified, capable of being tested. It is still a theory because scientists can't prove it without a single bit of doubt otherwise they would have made it a law by now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


Might interest you.

[hooked4life]

Scientific Theory:
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable."

Falsifiable means it can be verified or falsified, capable of being tested. It is still a theory because scientists can't prove it without a single bit of doubt otherwise they would have made it a law by now.

Saying evolution is a fact is like saying gravity is a fact (which they both are).

The theory of both, us trying to explain the why, how, when, etc., are both still somewhat incomplete.

The things and the explanation of the thing are different.

And no, "laws" are just for mathematics. Science, as you're referring to it, has no laws.

[WMcEnaney]

Scientific Theory:
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable."

Falsifiable means it can be verified or falsified, capable of being tested. It is still a theory because scientists can't prove it without a single bit of doubt otherwise they would have made it a law by now.

The theory is falsifiable in principle. A counterexample to it would prove conclusively that the theory was false. A theory is falsifiable in principle when you can think of a way to falsify it, even if technology hasn't advanced far enough for anyone to falsify the theory that way.

As I said, St. Thomas Aquinas thought that, although no philosophical argument could prove that anyone had created the universe, the universe still depended on God to keep in in existence. Thomas believes that the universe did begin to exist, though, because he knows that the Bible says it did.

[MajorTwang]

Sorry but this statement bothered me too much. Since when did a THEORY become scientific fact?

Things become a fact when they are proven beyond even unreasonable doubt. Scientific theories are attempts to explain the facts as we understand them.

Common descent is proven by molecular genetics (see my earlier post).

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the framework for understanding what is going on, given that the lines of descent have been proven to be facts.

Details of the ToE are still the subject of debate. Darwin originally thought that the driver was survial of the fittest, but there is ongoing debate about how much is driven by other factors, such as sexual selection, accidental selection (selection on one feature dragging other features that are not obviously related), genetic drift, behavioral selection etc.

[MajorTwang]

I'll just leave you with this thought, if the big bang were true - which it clearly is a lie - then that would mean the universe existed prior to it actually existing so it could then spring out of the big bang. Logic predicts that what ever the truth is there has always been something. At NO time has there ever been nothing.

The Big Bang "clearly is a lie" ?

1) The universe can be observed to be expanding. Extrapolate the expansion back, and 13.8GYa you have a singularity.

2a) The Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH) predicts an almost-but-not-quite uniform Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation consistent with a black-body at ~4degrees Kelvin. Oh look - there it is.

2b) Analysis of temperature dependant emission lines in highly redshifted gas clouds shows that the CMBR was higher in the past, and the relationship between redshift and calculated CMBR is pretty much as the BBH predicts.

3) The BBH predicts certain ratios between light isotopes. These ratios depend on the Photon:Baryon ratio, which can be worked out from the CMBR. The observed abundances of these isotopes in gas clouds is as predicted.

4) Stellar/Galactic evolution, radiometric dating (using emission line intensities), large scale structure and the distribution of Quasars are all consistent with the BBH.

Please aware us all on how a 'lie' can so accurately predict things that can be observed.

[Tamorlane]

I'll just leave you with this thought, if the big bang were true - which it clearly is a lie - then that would mean the universe existed prior to it actually existing so it could then spring out of the big bang. Logic predicts that what ever the truth is there has always been something. At NO time has there ever been nothing.

How are people so stupid? It honestly baffles my mind....

brb logic predicts that there was always something....

but that logic doesn't extend to the notion that perhaps what existed before the big bang is unfathomable from our intelligence/perspective.

We know time as a beginning, middle and end because we live in those dimensions.

[basement iron]

I'll just leave you with this thought, if the big bang were true - which it clearly is a lie - then that would mean the universe existed prior to it actually existing so it could then spring out of the big bang. Logic predicts that what ever the truth is there has always been something. At NO time has there ever been nothing.

Ahhh it never ends around here....

Nowhere in science has it said, suggested, or implied, that the Universe came from nothing. Or that at first there was nothing which turned into something. etc.,etc.

Those are nothing but layman misconceptions about the BB and Cosmology.

The BB is like evolution. In the way that evolution does not deal with life coming from non life.

The BB deals ONLY with the expansion of the singularity and on. It is not a model of "before" space-time. To put it bluntly like Brian Greene likes to say we don't know what banged, why it banged, or how it banged.

(Ha the first time I ever mention Brian Greene in all the years I've been here and someone posts a video of him above me at the same time. too funny.)

[GoJu]

Scientific Theory:
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable."

Falsifiable means it can be verified or falsified, capable of being tested. It is still a theory because scientists can't prove it without a single bit of doubt otherwise they would have made it a law by now.

Evolution is a fact, the theory describes the mechanisms behind fact; evolution is falsifiable like every other theory such as quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, etc. You're using the word theory incorrectly.

[MajorTwang]

Nowhere in science has it said, suggested, or implied, that the Universe came from nothing. Or that at first there was nothing which turned into something. etc.,etc.

And yet Creationists never tire of propogating this blatant misrepresentation.

You can just hear Hovind can't you..

"Dose crazy evolutionists are telling schoolkids that nothing suddenly exploded into all the stars & planets, then rocks on those planets turned into fish, fish turned into monkeys & monkeys turned into people. Aint that just ridiculous ?"

Yes it is ridiculous - just like all the other crap they make up. Meanwhile, back over here in the real world, theories are evaluated on evidence, the accuracy of their predictions & consistency with other accepted & well supported theories, rather than on whether or not it sounds plausible to someone who stopped doing science in high school & thinks calculus is the Latin name for an adding machine.

[Less Than 3]

im more impressed he can talk to this woman for more than 5 minutes without throwing her out the window

[lee4]

Her: We just want the controversy to be taught.

Dawkins: Okay, science loves to teach critical thinking and controversies. What positive evidence do you or anyone have for creation?

Her: Well, really that's our question... Where is the evidence. There is just no evidence of transitional fossiles, just paintings.

Dawkins: Well actually we have a large and extensive fossil collections...here let me in detail let me name several...X, Y, Z, ect.

Her: Ha ha ha, we know of those, but really why are you people so adamant about making us believe in evolution by shoving all this stuff in our face. We just want our belief, as you have yours. See evolution is a belief and religion just like you say ours is...which is why we want to teach the controversy!

Dawkins: Seriously, b*tch...did you just do that????



















i feel bad for dawkins. he tries to have honest conversations with these people but the last thing they're looking for is an honest discussion. it's as though by winning a debate they think that their ideas are more reputable and scientifically valid, making them willing to sacrifice their integrity and look the fool by contorting facts, outright lying and dodging questions with professional precision.

[semitope]

Saying evolution is a fact is like saying gravity is a fact (which they both are).

The theory of both, us trying to explain the why, how, when, etc., are both still somewhat incomplete.

The things and the explanation of the thing are different.

And no, "laws" are just for mathematics. Science, as you're referring to it, has no laws.

saying evolution is a fact (you know which evolution I mean) is ridiculous and shows just where they come from. They assume its a fact without being able to prove it. The evolution which is a fact is natural selection, mutations etc but none of this proves evolution. When you ask an evolutionist to prove evolution you can bet that 90% of what they will say has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It would all be regular natural processes that then are somehow assumed to support evolution (Don't forget to add a little bit of Time Did It�)

[semitope]

This guy avoids debating people like John Lennox. I can't find many more of these kinds of debates, I guess because he never can present his "fact' the way a fact should. He pretty much just goes about preaching his BS to kids and ignorant people.

[Tamorlane]

saying evolution is a fact (you know which evolution I mean) is ridiculous and shows just where they come from. They assume its a fact without being able to prove it. The evolution which is a fact is natural selection, mutations etc but none of this proves evolution. When you ask an evolutionist to prove evolution you can bet that 90% of what they will say has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It would all be regular natural processes that then are somehow assumed to support evolution (Don't forget to add a little bit of Time Did It�)

Watch this video.


In 100 years, we will look back upon people like you, evolution deniers with the same pity that we look upon people who didn't believe Galileo, Capernicus, Newton, Einstein, Tesla etc.

As time progresses, these theories and laws become better understood.

Do you understand technological evolution, and that it is advancing exponentially? Do you deny that technology is doubling every 18-24 months in terms of price-performance? Because this is TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION in effect. To claim it is false, is to say that companies like I BEE M and Intel, with no motive to say otherwise, are lying and incorrect, even though they are the front runners in this technology.

You would also be saying that Bill Gates, the man who brought you the desktop you are typing on, is wrong. Because Bill Gates 100% acknowledges that technological evolution is advancing exponentially. Soon, biology will be transcended for humans and we will merge with machines.



The funniest part of that entire interview is that the woman claims her agenda is that by believing in a 'God', we respect humans better.

YET, if one were to understand evolution, that alone would provide greater insight into the RARITY AND COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. My guess is that a biologist or physicist will respect life much more than a person who believes we were poofed here and we will be poofed to a kingdom of bliss when we are done. Where is the respect in the complexity and rarity of life in this Universe? There is none from women like these. I tell you, if the God she believes even exists, there is no way he wouldn't be thinking this bitch is retarded. I mean, if the God she's advocating for exists, it would be far more intelligent and powerful than any person on Earth. But as we can see, these are clearly manifestations of a simple mind.

[Capt-MoonLight]

Ahhh it never ends around here....

How are people so stupid? It honestly baffles my mind....

brb logic predicts that there was always something....

The Big Bang "clearly is a lie" ?

1) The universe can be observed to be expanding. Extrapolate the expansion back, and 13.8GYa you have a singularity.

oi oi, I'll have no more of that. I kid you not son, I kid you Fucking not!

nah just kidding, but what the hell, you guise have a hyde. You come in here fresh out of that turkish bath house you frequent sucking, sucking, sucking, suck, suck all those cawks for nothing more than a compliment and a pat on the head.

Your opinions matter little around these parts old chap, we find you quite inconsequential and an all-togther forgettable experience.

Cherio old chap, we shall'nt communicate again. All the best on your endevours.

[MajorTwang]

The evolution which is a fact is natural selection, mutations etc but none of this proves evolution. When you ask an evolutionist to prove evolution you can bet that 90% of what they will say has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

I keep on presenting the facts about molecular genetics which effectively proves the lines of common descent derived from fossil data, but you keep on ignoring it.

When are you going to engage in a discussion about it instead of just dismissing it as 'not important' - which clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of what it it you are chosing to ignore.

(Don't forget to add a little bit of Time Did It�)

And there's another question you just ignore, despite many challenges.

If the cosmos is only 6k years old, how can we see cosmological objects up to 13 billion light years away ?

[MajorTwang]

You come in here fresh out of that turkish bath house you frequent sucking, sucking, sucking, suck, suck all those cawks for nothing more than a compliment and a pat on the head.

Negged and reported.


No need for that at all

[mstatefan91]

Ok well let me just be very clear to all of you since I don't believe I have been. I do believe in evolution to an extent. I believe that micro-evolution is very real. I do not believe in macro-evolution. Example: there are hundreds if not thousands of different kinds of dogs on the earth but at the end of the day they are still dogs. At no point has anyone ever seen a dog produce something other than a dog. I know you are probably going to tell me that macro evolution takes a long time such as millions of years. I just have a hard time believing that. The genes are typically the genes and sure maybe a supressed gene comes out in an animal every once in a while but usually not the the animal's benefit. There has never been an observed mutation that benefited an animal. Now there has been some kinds of mutations that viruses undergo such as the flue and AIDS but every Biology text book in the world will tell you that viruses aren't living organisms. Anyway just thought I would clear that up. I'm not trying to come in here and bust up anybody's beliefs really. The first time I posted on this thread did not attack anyone yet I was attacked. I was just posting that some of her points were valid and that's that. When they show me an example of macro evolution that can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt then I will believe it. Until then, I just choose not to. I hear a lot of people on here saying that religion breeds anger, hate, and violence. What do you think evolution and survival of the fittest does? Did you ever stop and take a look at the Holocaust? When evolution tells certain people groups that they are more advanced than another people group then hatred, anger, and violence usually is the result. That is what happened with Nazism. The true message of most religions is not violence but usually love. Of course you have extremists in every group but to judge an entire people group on that alone is silly. That is why I don't say that atheists are a bunch of violent people that hate others because I know that is not true for the most part. It cuts both ways. Sorry for the wall of text and rambling.

[JasonDB]

Ok well let me just be very clear to all of you since I don't believe I have been. I do believe in evolution to an extent. I believe that micro-evolution is very real. I do not believe in macro-evolution. Example: there are hundreds if not thousands of different kinds of dogs on the earth but at the end of the day they are still dogs. At no point has anyone ever seen a dog produce something other than a dog. I know you are probably going to tell me that macro evolution takes a long time such as millions of years. I just have a hard time believing that. The genes are typically the genes and sure maybe a supressed gene comes out in an animal every once in a while but usually not the the animal's benefit. There has never been an observed mutation that benefited an animal. Now there has been some kinds of mutations that viruses undergo such as the flue and AIDS but every Biology text book in the world will tell you that viruses aren't living organisms. Anyway just thought I would clear that up. I'm not trying to come in here and bust up anybody's beliefs really. The first time I posted on this thread did not attack anyone yet I was attacked. I was just posting that some of her points were valid and that's that. When they show me an example of macro evolution that can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt then I will believe it. Until then, I just choose not to. I hear a lot of people on here saying that religion breeds anger, hate, and violence. What do you think evolution and survival of the fittest does? Did you ever stop and take a look at the Holocaust? When evolution tells certain people groups that they are more advanced than another people group then hatred, anger, and violence usually is the result. That is what happened with Nazism. The true message of most religions is not violence but usually love. Of course you have extremists in every group but to judge an entire people group on that alone is silly. That is why I don't say that atheists are a bunch of violent people that hate others because I know that is not true for the most part. It cuts both ways. Sorry for the wall of text and rambling.

Your latter point is one similar to the point she made in the video to which Dawkins properly addressed. Most atheists, although not all just like with every other group there is variation in thought, and EVERY atheist I personally know, tend towards liberalism which is based on the concept of creating a society of compassion, caring for the sick and the poor, more equality and less social stratification, the protection of the minority from the majority etc. There is no bridge from is to ought. Are you familiar with this philosophical expression? That just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be that way. We could easily extend this to state that because something occurs a certain way in nature does not mean we should structure our society around that. The foundation of civilized society is that we do not live by the law of the jungle.

The most fascinating dichotomy in this is that most creationists and advocates of intelligent design in the US associate themselves with the Republican party which bases it's socio-economic philosophy on social Darwinism ideas presented originally by intellectuals such as John Locke. It is ironic that those who deny Darwinism the most are actually part of a political movement that has implemented it as the philosophy of their socio-economic structure and ideal. Whereas those who promote it as science and the nature of life as we know it, tend towards actually divorcing from it in terms of social and economic philosophy in the same country.

As Dawkins stated denying that it is the nature of the ecosystem and all the evidence points towards it should have no direct relationship to the type of society we chose to build.

[semitope]

Watch this video.


In 100 years, we will look back upon people like you, evolution deniers with the same pity that we look upon people who didn't believe Galileo, Capernicus, Newton, Einstein, Tesla etc.

As time progresses, these theories and laws become better understood.

Do you understand technological evolution, and that it is advancing exponentially? Do you deny that technology is doubling every 18-24 months in terms of price-performance? Because this is TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION in effect. To claim it is false, is to say that companies like I BEE M and Intel, with no motive to say otherwise, are lying and incorrect, even though they are the front runners in this technology.

You would also be saying that Bill Gates, the man who brought you the desktop you are typing on, is wrong. Because Bill Gates 100% acknowledges that technological evolution is advancing exponentially. Soon, biology will be transcended for humans and we will merge with machines.



The funniest part of that entire interview is that the woman claims her agenda is that by believing in a 'God', we respect humans better.

YET, if one were to understand evolution, that alone would provide greater insight into the RARITY AND COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. My guess is that a biologist or physicist will respect life much more than a person who believes we were poofed here and we will be poofed to a kingdom of bliss when we are done. Where is the respect in the complexity and rarity of life in this Universe? There is none from women like these. I tell you, if the God she believes even exists, there is no way he wouldn't be thinking this bitch is retarded. I mean, if the God she's advocating for exists, it would be far more intelligent and powerful than any person on Earth. But as we can see, these are clearly manifestations of a simple mind.

or in a hundred years this will happen

�I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it�s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.�

� Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher�Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. From the Revised Quote Book, containing 130 quotable quotes on creation/evolution by leading authorities. Published by Creation Science Foundation, Australia (no longer in print).

[mstatefan91]

Your latter point is one similar to the point she made in the video to which Dawkins properly addressed. Most atheists, although not all just like with every other group there is variation in thought, and EVERY atheist I personally know, tend towards liberalism which is based on the concept of creating a society of compassion, caring for the sick and the poor, more equality and less social stratification, the protection of the minority from the majority etc. There is no bridge from is to ought. Are you familiar with this philosophical expression? That just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be that way. We could easily extend this to state that because something occurs a certain way in nature does not mean we should structure our society around that. The foundation of civilized society is that we do not live by the law of the jungle.

The most fascinating dichotomy in this is that most creationists and advocates of intelligent design in the US associate themselves with the Republican party which bases it's socio-economic philosophy on social Darwinism ideas presented originally by intellectuals such as John Locke. It is ironic that those who deny Darwinism the most are actually part of a political movement that has implemented it as the philosophy of their socio-economic structure and ideal. Whereas those who promote it as science and the nature of life as we know it, tend towards actually divorcing from it in terms of social and economic philosophy in the same country.

As Dawkins stated denying that it is the nature of the ecosystem and all the evidence points towards it should have no direct relationship to the type of society we chose to build.

Well you said it yourself. Just because something is one way does not mean it should be that way. I do not disagree with this statement. I honestly have problems with both political parties and don't really pledge my allegience to either side. My point wasn't that evolution would create animosity between people so much as my point was that people are naturally that way when it comes to people groups they aren't used to. I think many people today see a group of people treating others wrongly and look at the religion that that people group is supposed to be following and they blame it on that. To me, that is wrong. That was my point. If someone claims to be a Christian but they go and murder someone because they have a different skin color then I would never consider that person to actually be following real Christianity. Same goes with extremist muslims. I just get tired of the whole lumping one group of people into a box labeled "bad" because of what a small number have done.

[drpurple]

or in a hundred years this will happen

�I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it�s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.�

� Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher�Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. From the Revised Quote Book, containing 130 quotable quotes on creation/evolution by leading authorities. Published by Creation Science Foundation, Australia (no longer in print).

malcom muggeridge was not a leading authority on evolution.

try again.

[MajorTwang]

I do not believe in macro-evolution.

What are your thoughts on the molecular genetic stuff I posted earlier that effectively proves common descent, and therefore proves macro evolution ?

Example: there are hundreds if not thousands of different kinds of dogs on the earth but at the end of the day they are still dogs. At no point has anyone ever seen a dog produce something other than a dog.

An individual dog is never going to give birth to anything but a dog.

However, we know for an absolute fact that over the space of a few thousand years, this



has been bred into this

I know you are probably going to tell me that macro evolution takes a long time such as millions of years.

Correct - macro (cross-species) evolution typically takes millions of years, because in the wild it would take hundreds of thousands of generations of seperated populations for enough genetic differences to prevent the two populations from being able to breed.

I just have a hard time believing that.

Creationists typically reject the concept of deep time, thus rejecting the entirety of geology, physics & astronomy.

There has never been an observed mutation that benefited an animal.

False.

Can you drink milk without vomiting ? If so, that's because you have a mutation on your lactase gene which means it doesn't switch off when you are a child. Are you white ? If so, you have a mutation which means you don't produce enough skin pigment to prevent you from getting sunburned in the African sun. The reason you have this mutation is because dark skinned people didn't get enough sunlight in Europe.

Beneficial mutations have been seen over & over again in evolution labs.

When they show me an example of macro evolution that can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt then I will believe it.

You really need to look into the genetic proof of common descent

Did you ever stop and take a look at the Holocaust? When evolution tells certain people groups that they are more advanced than another people group then hatred, anger, and violence usually is the result.

And religion makes people fly buildings into office blocks.

The fact that some people have misused evolutionary theory to justify doing evil things to each other has no bearing on the facts of evolution.

People misuse chemistry to make explosives - that doesn't make chemistry false does it.

Sorry for the wall of text and rambling.

On the left of your keyboard, you'll see a key that says 'Tab'. It's very useful in breaking up walls of text

[mstatefan91]

What are your thoughts on the molecular genetic stuff I posted earlier that effectively proves common descent, and therefore proves macro evolution ?




An individual dog is never going to give birth to anything but a dog.

However, we know for an absolute fact that over the space of a few thousand years, this



has been bred into this





Correct - macro (cross-species) evolution typically takes millions of years, because in the wild it would take hundreds of thousands of generations of seperated populations for enough genetic differences to prevent the two populations from being able to breed.



Creationists typically reject the concept of deep time, thus rejecting the entirety of geology, physics & astronomy.



False.

Can you drink milk without vomiting ? If so, that's because you have a mutation on your lactase gene which means it doesn't switch off when you are a child. Are you white ? If so, you have a mutation which means you don't produce enough skin pigment to prevent you from getting sunburned in the African sun. The reason you have this mutation is because dark skinned people didn't get enough sunlight in Europe.

Beneficial mutations have been seen over & over again in evolution labs.



You really need to look into the genetic proof of common descent



And religion makes people fly buildings into office blocks.

The fact that some people have misused evolutionary theory to justify doing evil things to each other has no bearing on the facts of evolution.

People misuse chemistry to make explosives - that doesn't make chemistry false does it.



On the left of your keyboard, you'll see a key that says 'Tab'. It's very useful in breaking up walls of text

I'm only going to comment on the bold. This is exactly my point. Just because a group of people kill in God's name does not make God real and it doesn't make God savage. It makes those people savage. You essentially agreed with me while trying to disagree with me.

You say "The fact that some people have misused evolutionary theory to justify doing evil things to each other has no bearing on the facts of evolution." That is exactly just like me saying, "The fact that some people have misused religion to justify doing evil things to each other has no bearing on the evidence of intelligent design."

Even if you claim to believe in evolution and do believe it. You still have to account for the creation of all the matter. That still takes intelligent design. It did not all happen at random. If evolution is correct then it did not start randomly. Have a good afternoon. I'm headed to the gym now

[JasonDB]

Even if you claim to believe in evolution and do believe it. You still have to account for the creation of all the matter. That still takes intelligent design. It did not all happen at random. If evolution is correct then it did not start randomly. Have a good afternoon. I'm headed to the gym now

Actually you mean energy and matter. Why do you assume they were created to begin with? This is what baffles me most about the concept of a creator. There is no evidence that suggests the matter and energy in this universe that we attribute to the big bang hypothesis did not exist prior to that hypothetical event. Even if there was a creator who ordered back then I still find the deistic model for a creator to be more probable than the concept of modern western religion (note modern because early Judaism even was henotheistic not monotheistic... the concept of worshiping the creator of all the universe is a more modern idea). However the fact remains we have no evidence for an actual point of creation of all of this matter and energy, and current physics models suggest m-theory as a possibility which would actually preclude any single creation event and an infinite number of universes and dimensions essentially eternal from the perspective of how we classify time. If that theory pans out further, and individuals such as Steven Hawking are betting on it doing so, and all the matter and energy we know of has always existed in other universes/dimensions and everything is completely infinite, the religious concept of a creator would have to be completely rethought and dozens of different possibilities would have to be given serious consideration. If m-theory is true there is no actual creation event thus cannot be a creator. Your creator concept would have to go to some over-reaching intelligent force that may or may not be infinite in reach of influence or time itself, but not a creator in the sense that religion is currently perceiving it.