Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

[.blank cd]

The video did bring up interesting points. I would also like to make another point that I would like you to address. Darwin was a very smart man for his time and with the available technology, put forth a great movement of intellectual thinking and is considered to be the "father" of evolution.

Darwin was one of the pioneers, but there are newer figures in the study of evolution, and "darwinism" has become a colloquialism. There are newer evolutionary models along the same line scientists refer to as "modern evolutionary synthesis" (this is like what "general relativity" is to its former "laws of gravity"

Yet, he himself said something along the lines that if there was ever discovered a complex organism that could not have formed slowly over time...his theory would be invalid.( not an exact quote but generally what he said. Exact quote can be found in video link)

The cambrian explosion is something i was going to explain as well

Also, science is supposed to be the objective, unbiased, search for explanations of the natural world. Yet these days i would say that all believers in evolution are atheist's. Those that claim religion and evolution are completely wrong. So, if the if these experts are self-proclaimed atheist's....is not their study, hypothesis, and prediction biased and all together invalid?

There was a study done not to long ago in the scientific community. It found that (out of the ENTIRE scientific community, some not in any kind of biological field at all) around 40% believed in creator-guided evolution. That means that a creator (not necessarily a biblical god) laid out all the plans and they're happening as designed. Absolutely plausible. Around 60% did NOT believe in creator-guided evolution. Also absolutely plausible. The rest around 5% did NOT believe in any form of evolution at all. All atheists may understand evolution, but most of faith do as well. we're not saying "oh you believe in god so you don't understand evolution" because that's not the case. They are two separate things.

After all, science claims itself to be fallible and those that seek to find truth regardless of where it might lead. For example, Richard Dawkins, a very big proponent of evolution and in my eyes a (prophet) of the atheism. He to me is not a scientist nor one who seeks truth, but rather a fan boy that uses propaganda to try and mock and defeat the Judeo-Christian faith.

Dawkins has his Masters and PhD in Ethology, the study of animal behavior. He is very much a scientist.

Every video or writing i have seen from him, he claims Faith is "attacking" the scientific community. He then goes to the " Holy Land" and churches and tries to make them look foolish. I am sorry to say, but i see the theory...yes theory...of evolution as a tool used by atheists to defeat faith. It has lost its credibility because it is completely biased.

Its not, because they're not opposites. You can, and people of faith do understand evolution

There is a fact of evidence. Evidence found in cells, nature, the cosmos, ect...Evolution is just one view of interpreting what that evidence means, creationalism is another. Much like evidence in a murder trial. One side presents a theory or arguement on the evidence found, and the other side does the same. The interpretation of that evidence is up to the men/women who observe it. I can say that only ONE FACT is actually true and apparent based on empirical evidence...Some thing did happen to start the universe/life....what that is, is up to how such evidence is observed.

I think you're starting to understand....