The God Delusion-Richard Dawkins

[David88vert]

I know what you're getting at, but personally I believe in evolution and that things did in fact grow and change from tiny insignificant organisms to produce what we are today. I have a big problem with the idea that God is the proverbial kid with a magnifying glass standing over an anthill. I do not think the Earth was created with human beings as a part of it, nothing has been found that points to any evidence of human life ever existing until fairly recently, considering the age of the Earth. If there is in fact, a creator, which I've stated is not impossible and I have not ruled it out, I wouldn't like to view it in the aspect that religion has put forth in that the Earth simply popped up with human life included. I don't believe in the Gods of religions because quite simply the way God is presented makes him/her/it to be a childish and maniacal douchebag with no concerns other than fulfilling self interest and power. It's not about accountability, it is about exclusively cherishing the life that we are given and not wasting it on living it to God's standards in fear of our day of judgement. I would rather value the time I am given here than spend it waiting for a supposed eternal life and being accountable for fulfilling God's wishes.

It's actually easier to disprove evolutionary theory than religion. Evolution involves finite observations, while religion only requires faith. Evolutionary theory as it currently exist is fatally flawed, as many observations poke huge holes in it. Granted, it is still an amazing hypothesis, and was written in a time when we did not have the power to observe and calculate as we do today. I am sure that it will be rewritten again and again as they gather more data. Only with observation and time can they determine if they wish to stick to a theory.

[Maniacc]

It's actually easier to disprove evolutionary theory than religion. Evolution involves finite observations, while religion only requires faith. Evolutionary theory as it currently exist is fatally flawed, as many observations poke huge holes in it. Granted, it is still an amazing hypothesis, and was written in a time when we did not have the power to observe and calculate as we do today. I am sure that it will be rewritten again and again as they gather more data. Only with observation and time can they determine if they wish to stick to a theory.

Theory this theory that.

When it comes to a scientific theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or that it's a theory with no evidence to back it up. Evolution, the big bang, they're all events that 'could've' taken place and just because someone says that it covered in flaws doesn't disprove it. Big bang - http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/bbt.php

Lemme add something else.

A lot of people may say that evolution has yet to be observed. Well, so much for THAT argument, eh? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html

I mean, if you guys want to see a monkey give birth to a human.

Then the type of evolution that you guys are looking for just can not be observed. And asking for it would be idiotic.

[David88vert]

A lot of people may say that evolution has yet to be observed. Well, so much for THAT argument, eh? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html

Your example is that of a bacterium having a mutation, not the creation of a new species - they are still bacterium. There is a huge difference between the two. There are lots of mutations in this world, in fact, plenty of humans have them also. But that does not mean that you suddenly can go form homo sapiens to homo erectus. In fact, they can't even map all the genetic differences between the 2 species yet.

Show me a genetic change from one species to another. That is the core belief that one species can give birth to a new improved species. Show me one species that you can definitively show transformation through natural genetic mutation. Science has yet to find an observable link between 2 species as such. Currently, all "links" are not substantiated by genetics. They have yet to show that a naturally occuring genetic mutation improves a species, and can be passed on to future offspring, to the point of creating a new species.