
Originally Posted by
sport_122
Dawkins touts evolution as if it even remotely explains human origins (he admits it doesn't) and that human origins have to be a product of something else. Even though he describes evolution as a very intricate and structured process. I don't believe in his evolution version either by the way.
Then you get Christopher Hitchens, who hasn't made a valid argument yet, but gets off of bickering and name calling like a little british school girl. His strongest argument is the expansion of our universe, which only demonstrates that our universe is STILL submissive to the laws of its origin.