Wow awesome, I'm glad they came out with a shortened version seeing as I couldn't acquire a full copy from my local library, thanks. I highly reccomend to anyone that seeks to understand evolution to read this, some people have such a hard time understanding such a consise theory.

The problem with the theory is that it became the religion of the atheists, namely that nothing created everything ie their God is nothing.

Because it is treated as a religion by the scientific atheists it became an unassailable gospel even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

As a consequence other theories such as Biblical creationism, intelligent design, panspermia etc. etc. are not even considered, even though they also offer rational explanations for the same phenomenon.

Most theories throughout science's history have had to change when presented with contradictory evidence. Darwinism stubbornly (and wrongly IMHO) remains.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
The problem with the theory is that it became the religion of the atheists, namely that nothing created everything ie their God is nothing.

This, even if it were true, is not a problem with the theory; it speaks of a defect in popular understanding, one you would appear to share. Darwin's book was on the origin of species--or, to put it another way, the origin of biological variety--not the origins of life. It says little, beyond the famous and confessedly speculative 'warm pond' passage, about the latter.

Your phrase 'nothing created everything' is an emotive and tendentious misuse of language. Atheists don't believe in some abstract entity called Nothing that was the creator of all things. We simply believe that no living thing was created; that, instead, life arose spontaneously from nonliving matter. Nonliving matter is not nothing. Neither is it a creator.

Your claim that 'atheists' God is nothing' is, of course, nonsensical. Atheists don't believe in some abstract entity called Nothing; we simply don't believe in God. We see no need for the concept; there is no vacancy in our universe for the post of deity, no essential job that would remain undone if there was no god around to do it.

Believing in nothing is not the same as believing in Nothing.

Because (Darwinism) is treated as a religion by the scientific atheists it became an unassailable gospel...

Statements like this suggest that the speaker has so thoroughly internalized the religious mindset he is no longer able to form concepts in secular terms. Because faith is central to the religious mindset, the speaker cannot imagine how it is possible for someone to function without it. He insists that atheists must put their faith in something--Evolution, or Materialism, or Mammon, or good old Nothing. But this is a delusion brough on by the speaker's own religious indoctrination. Atheists don't have a 'God-shaped hole' in their conceptual life that needs to be filled up with something. We have no need to make 'an unassailable gospel' out of the theory of evolution or anything else. Nor have we; that is a delusion of the religious mind.

...even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

This is rather sad. You've been a member here for some years, and should by now have seen these creationist claims comprehensively debunked not once but dozens of times over. To keep on mouthing them repeatedly smacks of desperation. A bit pitiful and pathetic, don't you agree?

Most theories throughout science's history have had to change when presented with contradictory evidence. Darwinism stubbornly (and wrongly IMHO) remains.

Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with a subject before advancing your opinion on it, be the opinion never so humble. Anyone with more than a nodding acquaintace with evolutionary theory knows that Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified considerably since he first published them. An early example of such modification was the incorporation of Mendel's gene theories. Much of what Darwin merely hinted at or speculated upon has now been formalized and regularized on the basis of scientific research. The unit of natural selection is now widely recognized as the gene, after a very long period of time when other units (the individual, the social group, the kin group) were considered. We have abandoned Lamarckism--something Darwin himself did not entirely do--and embraced epigenetics. One could go on in this vein at some length, but there is no need; it is clear that any attempt to paint Darwinism as a religious faith or dogmatic orthodoxy is doomed to failure. Its unbroken record of triumph over alternative explanations for the origin of biological variety has nothing to do with the presumed dogmatism of Darwinians; it is due simply to the fact that evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation.

If that conflicts with people's religious views, so much the worse for religion; and attempts by religious conservatives to suppress the truth about evolution must, as always, fail in the long run. Truth will out.

Originally posted by Astyanax

...even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

This is rather sad. You've been a member here for some years, and should by now have seen these creationist claims comprehensively debunked not once but dozens of times over. To keep on mouthing them repeatedly smacks of desperation. A bit pitiful and pathetic, don't you agree?

Nice try Astyanax. The lack of transitional forms has in no way been debunked, on this site or anywhere. I grow tired of repeating myself, so I will say no more.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
The problem with the theory is that it became the religion of the atheists, namely that nothing created everything ie their God is nothing.

Because it is treated as a religion by the scientific atheists it became an unassailable gospel even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

As a consequence other theories such as Biblical creationism, intelligent design, panspermia etc. etc. are not even considered, even though they also offer rational explanations for the same phenomenon.

Most theories throughout science's history have had to change when presented with contradictory evidence. Darwinism stubbornly (and wrongly IMHO) remains.

There is a lot of Evidence to support evolution. Before you gripe at me, you can beleive in Evolution and god at the same time!

I know, I know it sounds crazy but wrap your mind around it. The bible does say to explore and question your environment after all.

You may say that I underestimate god when I say that he did not necessarily create everything there ever was ever in 7 days. I'm actually giving him more credit. All he would have to do is pull the trigger and start up the universe. Sort of "Let there be light" BOOOM! Maybe he created everything to evolve, to adapt, to become something else. Perhaps he arranged for a history so that we may be suited to our new environment. Sure creating an entire perfect universe in 7 days is all fine and good, but doing it the other way would be more spectacular imo.

I know this picture of the universe doesn't fit with some people's closed minded view of god. Never limit what god can do or what he did. God has no limits, and whatever method he used we are here and that is all that matters.

If you look at Genesis and compare it to our current knowledge of evolutionary history they tend to coincide very nicely with each other. Either way, whether we where created, whether we evolve, or both at the same time (which I think is more likely) you should never limit god.