Wow, I've never heard this argument before. Oh..wait..the other thing.

bilh123,

Your argument is wrong. It is based on fundamental misinformation and/or misunderstanding.

I have one question for you, the answer to which is likely to set the tone for any subsequent replies:

Are you genuinely interested in learning enough to understand why your argument is wrong?

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:bilh123,

Your argument is wrong. It is based on fundamental misinformation and/or misunderstanding.

I have one question for you, the answer to which is likely to set the tone for any subsequent replies:

Are you genuinely interested in learning enough to understand why your argument is wrong?

Yes, and I also have yet to see this question answered with honesty by any fundite;
"Is there any evidence would you accept which would support evolution?"

RS

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution. Atheists give evolution God like qualities. “Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process. If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.” For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

The atheistic position is indefensible. You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance - and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance. Random chance can NOT create order. Where there is design, there is a designer. The Universe is an incredibly complex design - designed by the Master Designer. God is the only logical explanation for the Universe. The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

Instant fail for equating evolution with atheism. Go educate yourself.

theropod wrote:

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:bilh123,

Your argument is wrong. It is based on fundamental misinformation and/or misunderstanding.

I have one question for you, the answer to which is likely to set the tone for any subsequent replies:

Are you genuinely interested in learning enough to understand why your argument is wrong?

Yes, and I also have yet to see this question answered with honesty by any fundite;
"Is there any evidence would you accept which would support evolution?"

RS

Sometime they say "Seeing a fish give birth to a human" or something like that.

Shrunk wrote:

theropod wrote:

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:bilh123,

Your argument is wrong. It is based on fundamental misinformation and/or misunderstanding.

I have one question for you, the answer to which is likely to set the tone for any subsequent replies:

Are you genuinely interested in learning enough to understand why your argument is wrong?

Yes, and I also have yet to see this question answered with honesty by any fundite;
"Is there any evidence would you accept which would support evolution?"

RS

Sometime they say "Seeing a fish give birth to a human" or something like that.

So while they start accepting evolution, scientists across the world would be starting work on finding a new theory after the current one was so devastatingly falsified.

Ooh. do we have a new chew-toy or will this just be another drive-by?

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution. Atheists give evolution God like qualities.

You will have to explain how a process can replace a mythological entity. I personally don’t see how this is possible.

bilh123 wrote:“Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process.

Ah, well, there you go it can’t replace it then can it.

bilh123 wrote:If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.”

But it does not have intelligence so you can’t do that then, can you?

bilh123 wrote:For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

Well I would argue that atheists don’t have to believe any such thing. All they require is to have lack of belief in gods – nothing else.
I think that you are equivocating the biological theory of evolution with something that it is not meant to be responsible for. Abiogenesis, for a start is not part of evolutionary theory it is a separate scientific discipline. Other parts of this unbelievably complex process of creation (the biblical mythological version I suspect) are explained perfectly well by other scientific disciplines of cosmology, geology etc.

bilh123 wrote:The atheistic position is indefensible.

If you continue to post here or even just browse a bit I think that you will find that assertion to be quite false.

bilh123 wrote: You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance - and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.

What, the chances of that false dilemma being true are non existent? Why yes, I would have to agree.

bilh123 wrote:The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance.

Again, I can only but agree. Chance is not the solution.

bilh123 wrote:Random chance can NOT create order.

Well that depends on what you actually mean by “random chance” and “order”. Would you agree that a crystal is highly ordered, did this order have to be directed in any way? (as, as far as I can tell you will also be equivocating random chance with things being undirected won’t you?)

bilh123 wrote:Where there is design, there is a designer.

Yes, well, that would appear to be a tautology.

bilh123 wrote:The Universe is an incredibly complex design –

That is a bold assertion, can you back that up in any way? How do you propose to distinguish between something that is actually designed and something that might have apparent design but be due to naturally occurring processes?

bilh123 wrote:designed by the Master Designer.

What, if any, evidence have you got for this asserted entity?

bilh123 wrote:God is the only logical explanation for the Universe.

What, if any, evidence have you got that this Master Designer entity is actually the same entity that you call God?

bilh123 wrote:The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

Does it really? Your task, should you chose to accept it, will be to explain in a rational way why this is so.

Welcome bilh123 and looking forward to further discussions with you.

Well the most recent studies I've seen creationists cite are from the 1980's so they will probably be just getting round to reading this stuff in about 30 years or so...

Creationists don't seeming willing or capable of keeping up with modern advances...

Excellent. Thanks for posting that!

Oh look. Another supernaturalist didn't bother reading any of the contents of this thread before posting the usual tired, recycled and repeatedly destroyed canards. But then I've noticed that supernaturalists cultivate a particularly interesting species of indolence, with respect to the matter of checking actual facts before posting their tiresome, assertion-laden proselytising screeds.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution.

Bullshit.

First of all, atheists don't "replace" your magic man with anything, not least because there is zero evidence that there is anything to replace. Supernaturalists have never once provided any real evidence for their invisible magic man, all they have ever presented is nebulous apologetic hot air. This observed fact is merely one reason why atheists regard your magic man as nothing more than a figment of human imagination. A second, and far more compelling observed fact, is this: out of all the scientific papers in every scientific discipline in existence, and a conservative estimate puts the total number of such papers as over a million, NONE of these papers ever says "oops, we can't explain this without a magic man". Every scientific paper in existence provides evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain vast classes of real world observational phenomena. As a direct corollary of doing so, those million or so scientific papers render supernatural entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Second, the people responsible for presenting the evidence for evolution, and there exist vast mountains of evidence for evolution, are scientists. Not all of these scientists are atheists. A celebrated example is the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller, who happens in addition to be a practising Roman Catholic. Francis Collins is another scientist in the field, who possesses religious belief. The existence of these two individuals alone refutes your above inane assertion, which you manifestly posted without checking any actual facts.

Moving on ...

bilh123 wrote:Atheists give evolution God like qualities.

Once again, bullshit.

First of all, atheists simply accept what real world evidence tells them is valid. Since vast mountains of evidence exist testifying to the validity of evolution, they accept evolution as a real world process responsible for shaping biodiversity, a process that doesn't require any magic powers, merely the operation of testable natural processes. Indeed, evolution has not only been observed taking place in populations of real world living organisms (and I emphasise here that evolution is a population phenomenon - see section [26] of my list of creationist canards in that thread I linked to at the start), but evolutionary processes have been harnessed in the laboratory to perform useful work, and demonstrated to work in the real world via such harnessing. Relevant scientific papers in this field include:

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshimari Maeda, Viviana Sanchez-Torres and Thomas K. Wood, Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here and here]

Continuous In Vitro Evolution Of Catalytic Function by Martin C. Wright and Gerald F. Joyce, Science, 276: 614-617 (25th April 1997) [Full paper downloadable from here]

In Vitro Evolution Of A Highly Replicating, Doxycycline-Dependent HIV For Application In Vaccine Studies by Guiseppe Marzio, Koen Verhoef, Monique Vink and Ben Berkhour, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(11): 6342-6347 (22nd May 2001) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Notice that the latter paper uses evolutionary processes in the laboratory to produce a prototype HIV virus serotype suitable for safe use as a potential future vaccine. No magic needed, and no magic man, just well-defined testable natural processes, working in accordance with empirical observation elsewhere.

I present the contents of these papers in more detail in this post, and explain how the various processes work. I suggest you read that post, and the papers in question, before posting yet more vacuous and manifestly false assertions.

Indeed, evolutionary processes work so well, that they are being harnessed in scientific disciplines outside biology. A classic example is taken from NASA's research section devoted to Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems, which lists amongst its research objective the following:

Automated design using evolutionary algorithms

Indeed, one of the papers in question is this one:

Automated Antenna Design With Evolutionary Algorithms by Gregory S. Hornby, Al Globus, Derek S. Linden, and Jason D. Lohn, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 1-8 (2006) [Full paper downloadable from here]

I cover that paper in more detail in this post, and in addition, deal with any specious and duplicitous creationist apologetics about "design" that may be erected to try and hand-wave away the contents of this paper and its implications, not least the fact that the authors demonstrated that using evolutionary algorithms directly was superior to traditional design techniques in this instance.

So, having presented evidence that evolutionary processes work, and that they not only work in the biosphere, but also work when transplanted to other areas of science, I don't need to bother with "god like qualities", all I need to do is accept the hard empirical evidence that evolutionary processes work, and deliver the goods. So that's another inane and false assertion of your flushed down the toilet.

Moving on ...

bilh123 wrote:“Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process.

Congratulations on stating the banally obvious. Want a cookie?

Since those scientific papers I've cited above, and presented in detail in other posts linked to above, demonstrate conclusively that those processes work, and produce the results anticipated (indeed, in some cases, they surprise the scientists by performing better than anticipated), we don't need any "intelligence", other than the intelligence required to produce the experimental setup and let those processes strut their stuff. Oh, by the way, if you're planning on erecting an infamous canard known here amongst the regulars as the Dunsapy Bop, after a particularly duplicitous creationist stormtrtooper for doctrine over at the now-defunct Richard Dawkins forums, see sections [7] and [8] of my creationist canard list I linked to earlier, where I address this rampantly dishonest apologetics head on.

bilh123 wrote:If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.”

No we wouldn't. We'd simply look for the relevant peer reviewed scientific papers, aimed at explaining the source of any "intelligence" present. You really don't understand how people think, when they aren't burdened by magic man fantasies, do you?

bilh123 wrote:For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

Poppycock. See those scientific papers I've cited above? They flush this assertion of yours down the toilet in spectacular fashion.

bilh123 wrote:The atheistic position is indefensible.

Bollocks. First of all, acceptance of evolution isn't' an "atheistic" position (tell that to evolutionary biologist and practising Roman Catholic Ken Miller, among others), it's a scientific position, and one that is not only defensible, but supported by hard empirical evidence from the real world. Go and read those scientific papers, and find out just how far science has progressed whilst you and other supernaturalists were otherwise engaged with apologetic navel gazing.

bilh123 wrote:You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance

Oh dear, it's this tiresome apologetic canard, the false dichotomy between "design" and "chance". Which totally neglects the third option that scientists have been exploring for over 300 years, namely testable natural processes. Which, as I mentioned above, have been demonstrated to be sufficient to explain vast classes of real world observational phenomena. oh, and I've dealt with supernaturalist apologetic dishonesty with respect to the words "random" and "chance", in section [9] of my canard list. Go and read it.

bilh123 wrote:and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.

Oh look, it's that other well-known creationist canard, the appeal to specious "probability" calculations. Which I deal with in section [10] of my list of creationist canards. Go and read it.

bilh123 wrote:The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance.

And once again, it's time for more previously addressed and destroyed canards. First, go to section [4] of my list of creationist canards, and learn from it, namely, learn what scientists actually postulate, instead of assuming you know this because you've uncritically accepted assorted misrepresentations thereof from duplicitous apologetics websites. One of the postulates that scientists erect, and indeed, the postulate upon which the whole of science is based, being that testable natural processes are responsible for observed entities and phenomena.

bilh123 wrote:Random chance can NOT create order.

Oh please, do tell this to Ludwig Boltzmann, the founder of statistical mechanics, and the application thereof to thermodynamics. Which treats the behaviour of gases as exhibiting gross properties arising statistically from normally distributed random variables, in the form of the motion of the atoms. And once again, whilst musing upon this, go back to section [9] of my creationist canard list, and learn what is meant rigorously by the word 'random' in scientific circles.

bilh123 wrote:Where there is design, there is a designer.

And I've just presented scientific papers establishing that evolution is a "designer". Oh, and by the way, don't bother erecting all the usual tired canards about "design", because I've dealt with those at length in previous posts. Not least, the fact that supernaturalists perform dishonest apologetic baits and switches with respect to the word "design", using it to mean two entirely different processes, and I demonstrate why those processes are different by recourse to relevant examples. I bet you thought you were posting startlingly original wisdom when you wrote this tedious little post of yours, didn't you?

bilh123 wrote:The Universe is an incredibly complex design

Blind assertion unsupported by any rigorous evidence. Next?

bilh123 wrote:designed by the Master Designer.

Blind assertion unsupported by any rigorous evidence. Next?

bilh123 wrote:God is the only logical explanation for the Universe.

Oh how little you know.

I refer you to this past post of mine, in which I present two scientific papers by leading physicists, namely Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, which provides not only a naturalistic explanation for the observable universe that doesn't need your magic man, but contains an empirical test that can be performed in order to determine the validity of the authors' hypotheses. The papers in question being:

Colliding Branes In Heterotic M-Theory by Jean-Luc Jehners, Paul McFadden and Neil Turok, arXiv.org (12 February 2007) [Download from here]

Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before The Big Bang by Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul McFadden, Neil Turok & Paul J. Steinhardt, arXiv.org, 19th February 2007 [Download from here]

The post I link to above covers these papers in more detail, and not only demonstrates that a naturalistic explanation exists for the observable universe, but that scientists are now actively contemplating the nature of pre-Big-Bang physics. But once again, this is what happens when you waste time with apologetics instead of real science - you miss out on discoveries such as this.

bilh123 wrote: The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

Poppycock. Tell that to Steinhardt, Turok, and all those scientists who demonstrated that evolutionary processes constitute a "designer".

Come back when you've spent some time digesting that little lot in full. Oh, and in the case of the Steinhardt & Turok papers, this will require you to spend some time learning tensor analysis, which should keep you occupied for about three years if you do it properly.

i have many relatives ( on my wife's side ) that are born again christians - THEY themselves are living examples that humans were not created by an intelligent design

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution. Atheists give evolution God like qualities. “Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process. If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.” For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

The atheistic position is indefensible. You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance - and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance. Random chance can NOT create order. Where there is design, there is a designer. The Universe is an incredibly complex design - designed by the Master Designer. God is the only logical explanation for the Universe. The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

Welcome to the forum bilh123

As mentioned and implied already; We get this kind of stuff all the time - and a few questions arise, which really need answering before I can see any reason to bother replying:

1. Are you being serious? Because you bring up a whole bunch of the most typical of canards, and they are presented equally fatuously.

2. Are you a Hit-and-run, or do you actually intend to stick around a bit?

3. Are you actually interested in having an honest discussion, one in which you are at all willing to learn where you have made errors, and learn from the experience? Or is this just more mindless closed-minded lying-for-Jesus?

If your answer is (honestly) "yes" to all three, then I would be more than happy to discuss this with you.

ADParker wrote:
Welcome to the forum bilh123

As mentioned and implied already; We get this kind of stuff all the time - and a few questions arise, which really need answering before I can see any reason to bother replying:

1. Are you being serious? Because you bring up a whole bunch of the most typical of canards, and they are presented equally fatuously.

2. Are you a Hit-and-run, or do you actually intend to stick around a bit?

3. Are you actually interested in having an honest discussion, one in which you are at all willing to learn where you have made errors, and learn from the experience? Or is this just more mindless closed-minded lying-for-Jesus?

If your answer is (honestly) "yes" to all three, then I would be more than happy to discuss this with you.

I hope you have that somewhere AD, it should probably be dumped on a great many first posters or even be required as part of the fua...

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution. Atheists give evolution God like qualities. “Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process. If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.” For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

The atheistic position is indefensible. You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance - and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance. Random chance can NOT create order. Where there is design, there is a designer. The Universe is an incredibly complex design - designed by the Master Designer. God is the only logical explanation for the Universe. The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

So many canards in so few words.

EPIC FAIL!

Launion wrote:i have many relatives ( on my wife's side ) that are born again christians - THEY themselves are living examples that humans were not created by an intelligent design

Harsh.

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution.

God - especially the one with a capital G - doesn't exist. You can't replace a non-existent thing, which pretty much makes a mess of your argument out of the gate. Of course, when I say argument, I mean random smattering of previously smushed canards.

bilh123 wrote:Atheists give evolution God like qualities.

Nope - atheists don't pretend that Evolution magicks things into existence, nor do they pretend that Evolution gives a damn about who you fuck and how you fuck them. Atheists also don't pretend that Evolution has a gender, and use that patriarchal basis to enact submission onto their society's women.

Atheists are very well aware that evolution knows bugger all, and that even if it did have a consciousness, it clearly doesn't give a fuck about us.

bilh123 wrote:“Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process.

Congratulations, you actually wrote a sentence that makes sense AND is factually correct! That's very unusual for the standard Creationist hogwash. Shame you didn't just leave it there really. Clearly, no atheists actually anthropomorphise evolution, so effectively you are saying that you agree with atheists on the premises - wonder how you fault the conclusions? My guess is you ignore them to stay in your comfort zone.

bilh123 wrote:If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.”

Well, it would also need to have foresight, intent and design before we'd get into being grateful to it. As for calling it God? Actually, evolution doesn't give a fuck about the organisms it moulds, so perhaps that's where you find the likeness? Your God clearly doesn't give a fuck either, not that it exists except in your indoctrinated imagination. I bet your imagination isn't even very good - I bet you couldn't describe your god in any detail, just vacuous platitudes.

bilh123 wrote:For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

Ergo, your argument is one of incredulity: I don't get it, therefore it's wrong. Shame for you that it's been validated repeatedly by hard empirical evidence drawn from the real world, rather than shabby testaments and anecdotes drawn from historical goat-herders, and cowardly modern day believers who don't have the strength of character to face up to the fundamental absurdities of the beliefs they uncritically swallowed.

bilh123 wrote:The atheistic position is indefensible.

Defense: Produce a god please.

No god, no fucking show. We've been waiting several millenia for you believers to pull the rabbit out of the hat, but you're all talk and no fucking cosmos-spawning magic men to be seen for love nor money.

bilh123 wrote:You really have only two choices -

Ahh the good old theist false dilemma. Don't we just love seeing how you guys are still using arguments that weren't considered especially effective even by the credulous goat-herders that first bought into the mythology you support.

bilh123 wrote:either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance -

Quite apart from the utter poverty of imagination you express here in this severely stunted list of possibilities (How about going and finding out about the other millions of beliefs venerated and maintained by other believers over the millenia?), you can't even get your interlocutor's argument right - you're just building a strawman. Who says it's pure chance? Do you see the 'natural selection' part that's frequently linked to Evolution? That's a self-sorting process. Mutations might arise by chance, but they don't survive solely by chance - statistically speaking, of course! But that's a bit beyond where you're at in your understanding of this cornerstone of modern biological and medicinal knowledge.

bilh123 wrote:and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.

Mathematical chances are non-existent? Can you put a bit more effort into making your sentences parse logically?

I take it you are referring to the indomitable serial trials fallacy? Once again, I point you to the natural selection part - you're clearly not going to make much headway arguing against a scientific theory when you clearly know bugger all about it.

bilh123 wrote:The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance.

Ooh repetition really makes it seem like you know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, it's as much a phantom as your skyfairy.

Only your belief system requires THIS COMPLEXITY to be poofed into existence by magick.

Evolution shows a fractional process that builds over generations. No complexity simply springs into existence, complexity is leveraged up, ratcheted. No complexity ever comes from anything other than more simple parts.

Of course, we could also look at the 'mathematical possibility' of there being a god! Oh no, of course - that wouldn't be fair, would it? Especially when your god is conveniently removed from human inquiry whenever people want to check its existence, but suddenly every believer's an expert when asked what their god wants women to do with their bodies, or whether society should allow abortion, or how homosexuals should be treated. Funny that, innit?

bilh123 wrote:Random chance can NOT create order.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. As in, not even wrong. It's terminally pointless arguing with someone who makes up their interlocutor's argument. Again, I reiterate: complexity has precisely bugger all meaning unless it is a conglomeration of more simple parts. You theists love playing fast and loose with language to give your argument a veneer of authority - but it's easily scratched, and there's just a vacuum below!

bilh123 wrote:Where there is design, there is a designer.

Rayfuckingcomfort.

You haven't established design. You've just pretended that mathematics supports you, ergo gods are real, ergo its designed, ergo there's a designer. If you keep on going on with your circular argument, you'll make yourself even dizzier than you already are.

bilh123 wrote:The Universe is an incredibly complex design -

Nope, it aint. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't say such stupid things. It's manifestly apparent that there is no design in the universe.

bilh123 wrote:designed by the Master Designer.

If it is designed, it's fucking awful. What a botch job. The vast majority of the universe is empty and hostile to life and any complexity. This being apparently decided to make a pad for its preferred creation, then plonked them on a tiny speck of dust, orbiting a non-descript sun, somewhere between the arms of a perfectly routine galaxy amidst billions of trillions of other galaxies...

Antoine de Saint-Exupery wrote:A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Design - fail.

Omnipotence or omniscience clearly out the cosmic window too.

bilh123 wrote:God is the only logical explanation for the Universe.

The typical method of building an argument is to provide supporting evidence, or logical support prior to asserting once again that which you believe to be true. Notice how your argument is entirely circular? The asserted existence of this being is not drawn logically from the previous axioms, but rather is the axiom and the conclusion. Your argument is like being in a circle-jerk of one.

bilh123 wrote:The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

The terminal irrationality of the proponents throughout history of this god hypothesis is becoming one of the largest bodies of evidence that it is an intellectually debilitating fantasy and solely a treasured delusion of people who are incapable of maintaining logical thought, ignorant of the hard evidence of empirical reality, and too cowardly to face up to facts and challenge their cherished, childish desires.

bilh123 wrote:Atheists attempt to replace God with Evolution. Atheists give evolution God like qualities. “Evolution” is not an intelligent being, it is a process. If Evolution DID have intelligence, you would call it “God.” For atheists to believe that some chance evolutionary process is responsible for the unbelievably complex process of creation being completed successfully is the ultimate in self-delusion.

The atheistic position is indefensible. You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance - and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance. Random chance can NOT create order. Where there is design, there is a designer. The Universe is an incredibly complex design - designed by the Master Designer. God is the only logical explanation for the Universe. The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.

Evolution is NOT chance based. The mutations that occur are random, however, the selective pressure that decides which of those mutations survives in the gene pool is anything but chance based. Evolution is the NON-RANDOM survival of genes based upon their survival benefits. No reputable biologist would ever claim that the driving force behind evolution is chance. Either you are painfully ignorant, or you're being dishonest in your assertions.

Don't criticise what you can't understand...

Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but........

My momma warnt no monkey. Aint no crocoducks. Dogs don't have kittens. There's still water. Dinosaurs were heavier than mammals so the bones sank first. Bananas. Cosmological constants. The moon is the same size as the sun to the naked eye. A windstorm cant assemble a 747 from a junkyard. Its too complicated. Something cant come from nothing. Eyes are irreducibly complex. If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys. Atheism is a belief. I don't want to go to hell. Teh Babble sez so.

That's all I've got from memory.

I tried to talk sense into this sort of argument in creationist forums before. They don't take it well.

Sense and Creationism are not happy bed-fellows.