Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: WarminIndy

How many in this thread just said that mutations are random? Here the guy is saying that mutations are for adaptation.

No, the authors of that paper are describing adaptive mutations, the very stuff of evolution. Adaptive mutations — that is, mutations that result in an organism better suited to its environment — are, like all mutations, random in their occurrence. It is selection, not mutation, that makes evolution a nonrandom process.

Since you have not replied to my earlier posts, it is evident that my answers to your questions have exploded the basis of whatever claims you think you are making, and you are now arguing a desperate face-saving rearguard action based on semantics — what military propagandists describe as a 'tactical withdrawal', and what others call a retreat.

*

You have demonstrated, yet again, that no creationist actually understands evolution. The day I come across one that does, I shall make a public announcement of the fact. I don't expect it to occur soon, or indeed at all. Once you understand evolution, it is no longer possible to reject it.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Because that Intelligence created. If that Intelligence is so immense, then why would it be impossible for that Intelligence to design life to perpetuate with the vast amount of information required to make a human body so fully functioning?

The intelligence in the design itself shows me that an Intelligence did this.

If we can't know everything the universe holds then how can we dismiss a designer? Because we haven't found a physical entity yet?

And why does this framework preclude evolution from being the mechanism used to achieve those ends?

originally posted by: slip2break

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Tell me, when you hear the words "Creation scientist" do you automatically think that person is not a real scientist? Do you base that on popular accusation or do you base that on their credentials?

They have very good credentials, but how do you respond to "Creation Scientists"?

My reaction to such scientists depends if they are trying to explain to me how every two animal in god's creation could fit on a boat of specific dimensions- or worse, how the shape of a banana was intentional so that it could easily fit into a human hand for consumption. If the creation scientist is approaching things from a rational perspective, I'm willing to entertain any argument.

As to how I respond, are you asking a specific point they have posed?

Well, the bananas were kind of manipulated from the hibiscus flower. People did that.

I don't know that Noah was the guy's real name, because the story is more ancient than that. But the point is that we should learn from the moral tale. I also don't believe in a young earth creation. The Hebrew word used for day is actually eon. We don't know how long an eon is. But I also don't believe in the Gap Theory.

Maybe if you were fishing or hoping that I would be so that could be debunked, those are simply things that I don't find.

originally posted by: slip2break

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Because that Intelligence created. If that Intelligence is so immense, then why would it be impossible for that Intelligence to design life to perpetuate with the vast amount of information required to make a human body so fully functioning?

The intelligence in the design itself shows me that an Intelligence did this.

If we can't know everything the universe holds then how can we dismiss a designer? Because we haven't found a physical entity yet?

And why does this framework preclude evolution from being the mechanism used to achieve those ends?

Because I am unique.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Evolution groupthink denies freedom of thought and those who do not conform lose their jobs and face much persecution. Is that how science should be?



I just responded from your last sentence. "Even if it's true".

How can I take that out of context? And so far, I have been implied as a racist troll, but so far not so many people are agreeing with that, but if you cruise the different forums, you'll come across much of it. Science should not enforce public opinion, but it does. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

Tell me, when you hear the words "Creation scientist" do you automatically think that person is not a real scientist? Do you base that on popular accusation or do you base that on their credentials?

They have very good credentials, but how do you respond to "Creation Scientists"?

First, that "even if its true" part was me, not the other guy. In the post you made before the one in responding to right now. Careful, your slipping. Second, im curious - how do you explain this intelligence beong able to design a universe and over a billion different species, but still has to make them kill each other in order to survive. Why can't we live off of oxygen alone? Or something like that. Seems like it would be an easier and less violent design.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Hey, I am very happy to find that you did not take any of that bait. But you still haven't provided any specific information from creation scientists that you would like considered?

People who believe in evolution aren't trying to strip you of your uniqueness. F*^^, there is a statistical chance greater than zero, that you might have a genetic mutation in your very body which might be passed down to your descendents, providing them some advantage not enjoyed by anyone else on the planet. God could be working through you in this- or cosmic radiation or just randomness. This is evolution. Even if you are not that unique, you are the descendent of such people; which in and of itself makes you very unique.

Evolution is the observation that 1+1=2 and not who set down the laws of this universe so that the math works.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Evolution groupthink denies freedom of thought and those who do not conform lose their jobs and face much persecution. Is that how science should be?



I just responded from your last sentence. "Even if it's true".

How can I take that out of context? And so far, I have been implied as a racist troll, but so far not so many people are agreeing with that, but if you cruise the different forums, you'll come across much of it. Science should not enforce public opinion, but it does. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

Tell me, when you hear the words "Creation scientist" do you automatically think that person is not a real scientist? Do you base that on popular accusation or do you base that on their credentials?

They have very good credentials, but how do you respond to "Creation Scientists"?

First, that "even if its true" part was me, not the other guy. In the post you made before the one in responding to right now. Careful, your slipping. Second, im curious - how do you explain this intelligence beong able to design a universe and over a billion different species, but still has to make them kill each other in order to survive. Why can't we live off of oxygen alone? Or something like that. Seems like it would be an easier and less violent design.

Isn't it intelligent to create a system that has checks and balances?

People can choose whether or not to be violent. I choose non-violence, but I do understand that there may be certain situations where violence is a response to violence.

Sorry if I misplaced reply. I am doing well considering I have had a cold the last three days and haven't slept much today.

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

Hey, I am very happy to find that you did not take any of that bait. But you still haven't provided any specific information from creation scientists that you would like considered?

People who believe in evolution aren't trying to strip you of your uniqueness. F*^^, there is a statistical chance greater than zero, that you might have a genetic mutation in your very body which might be passed down to your descendents, providing them some advantage not enjoyed by anyone else on the planet. God could be working through you in this- or cosmic radiation or just randomness. This is evolution. Even if you are not that unique, you are the descendent of such people; which in and of itself makes you very unique.

Evolution is the observation that 1+1=2 and not who set down the laws of this universe so that the math works.

No, I have no descendants and will not have any in the future, all of this goes extinct with me.

My extinction might be the end of my physical being, but this is not the end of me. Years after I die, people would still access my writing and know that I existed, because my intelligence is expressed in it. As God does not die, God is eternal, then His fingerprints remain in the universe.

Evolution might just be an observation that a rock is a rock, but do people stop and think how awesome all those giant mountains are or how beautiful things are?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: WarminIndy

How many in this thread just said that mutations are random? Here the guy is saying that mutations are for adaptation.

No, the authors of that paper are describing adaptive mutations, the very stuff of evolution. Adaptive mutations — that is, mutations that result in an organism better suited to its environment — are, like all mutations, random in their occurrence. It is selection, not mutation, that makes evolution a nonrandom process.

Since you have not replied to my earlier posts, it is evident that my answers to your questions have exploded the basis of whatever claims you think you are making, and you are now arguing a desperate face-saving rearguard action based on semantics — what military propagandists describe as a 'tactical withdrawal', and what others call a retreat.

*

You have demonstrated, yet again, that no creationist actually understands evolution. The day I come across one that does, I shall make a public announcement of the fact. I don't expect it to occur soon, or indeed at all. Once you understand evolution, it is no longer possible to reject it.

what the hell does that even mean?

i hit you in the face every monday at 10am, how will that make you evolve?

if i kill you the first time, same question.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Evolution might just be an observation that a rock is a rock, but do people stop and think how awesome all those giant mountains are or how beautiful things are?

The optimist in me wants to say yes. The realist in me doubts it.

"Isn't that a beautiful sunset," I observed to her.

Moment of silence.

"You've seen one sunset you've seen them all," she responds dismissively.

This was an exchange I had with my wife a few years ago. She is the self describe "die hard scientific based realist."

Hell a few days ago she was laying on my car hood resting after a bit of gardening. According to her, this was the first time in her life she noticed just how captivating the occasional white fluffy cloud looked against the deep blue of the sky.

I get your "science has taken the wonder out of the universe" thrust here... and that is what your argument is boiling down to. Evolution is the cold hard analysis and god is the wonder of it all. Okay... fine.... point taken. None of this addresses why you would want to even exert any effort discussing this topic or starting this thread in the first place given your avoidance of any direct questions posed.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I would agree with variety among humans, that would be phenotypes.

If different groups of humans remained in geographically isolated populations, in very different environments, for far longer...say millions of years, what do you think might happen?

But have humans become resistant to snake bites? If we are the most highly evolved then we should have become resistant, except an above poster believes it was all randomly. So if it is random, then some people have mutated to not be susceptible to certain diseases.

Our survival doesn't rely on our ability to defend from rattlesnake predation. Think about it...if the squirrel succumbs to the venom it not only stops breeding from that point on, the ones that it has bred are then also food for the rattler. For squirrels that are successful, the opposite happens. Wouldn't it then be obvious that successful squirrels would breed more and for longer, ensuring whatever traits might have made them successful would be passed on more often?

There might be something else entirely going on here (not aware of more recent studies re genetics) but if you can show that it was designed, how this was done and by whom, you could save the current researchers the trouble.

Are you saying humans should have some special adaption that makes us resistant to rattle snake venom, because you think we are "the most highly evolved"? Why should we and why would you think that to begin with?

Nearly every species that has existed is now extinct, with many of them far more successful than us (so far). We have only been around for the blink of an eye. Whether you believe we are "the highest evolved or not, our extinction is also assured, that's a certainty.

Why do SOME people become resistant to disease, but others don't? I don't disagree that bacteria can mutate, but could it be said that bacteria was designed to do that?

There is no reason to think it was designed and no known designer, there's nothing at all to support the idea.

Why some people are more susceptible to disease than others is more complicated than that. It has to do with inherited traits, acquired ones, environment, lifestyle, diet and even psychology. This in itself would point to a process of natural selection, would it not (of course man made, artificial factors also contribute)? It's also a very complicated field, if you really want to know in depth it might be better to seek out a relevant scientist. You seem to have some "black or white" idea that every member of a certain population should be exactly the same this way?

Re genetic explanations, the below might be helpful?

It seems people of African ancestry exhibit a higher "genetic" (inherited) resistance to malaria. This disease is thought to have exerted strong selection pressure for about 10k years in sub Saharan Africa and in that short time it seems to have already had an effect.

The study found that in Burkina Faso, nearly 22 percent of the population carries one copy of the HbC gene. These people are 29 percent less likely to become sick with malaria after they have been infected, compared with people who carry the more common form of the gene, hemoglobin A.

news.nationalgeographic.com.au...

Biologic characteristics present from birth can protect against certain types of malaria. Two genetic factors, both associated with human red blood cells, have been shown to be epidemiologically important.Persons who have the sickle cell trait (heterozygotes for the abnormal hemoglobin gene HbS) are relatively protected against P. falciparum malaria and thus enjoy a biologic advantage. Because P. falciparum malaria has been a leading cause of death in Africa since remote times, the sickle cell trait is now more frequently found in Africa and in persons of African ancestry than in other population groups In general, the prevalence of hemoglobin-related disorders and other blood cell dyscrasias, such as Hemoglobin C, the thalassemias and G6PD deficiency, are more prevalent in malaria endemic areas and are thought to provide protection from malarial disease.

www.cdc.gov...

www.nature.com...

but think of it this way, if the Intelligence did design and account for mutations, then every life form would live forever as an individual without the need to self-replicate, and if we were to live forever and be self-replicating, then where would we put the entire populace?

Not following you here.

A system of checks and balances exists, but is that the result of random mutations? Nature itself ( I mean organic life forms that are not animalistic) is designed for checks and balances. Even in the human body there are checks and balances, but to fit it into the whole encompassing spectrum of all of nature, do the trees mutate to randomly fall on people? No, that would be absurd.

Nor here.

I think that one could say that bacteria and lice simply build up a tolerance, the same way that humans build up tolerances when they drink alcohol or take drugs. But no human yet has been randomly mutated to resist things in nature or what it does to itself.

Agree that acquired resistance as a reaction to being infected (for example) and inherited adaptive/genetic resistance aren't the same thing. Have a look at some of the "malaria" articles where what you call "tolerance" (acquired resistance) and "adaptive resistance" (inherited genetically) are discussed regarding disease. You realise that scientists do understand this point?

In other words, man hasn't yet mutated, randomly or otherwise, to resist random events in nature. Go back the first response in this thread.

This is ignoring facts because of a basic misunderstanding.

This is only one area of science involved in the understanding of evolution. Your personal interpretation of this aspect doesn't discredit it. If there was something incongruent here, it might show us we don't understand how it happens in a genetic sense re "natural selection", but it is still obvious from other things like geology, morphology, fossils and geographic distribution etc. that biological diversification on this planet is the result of a process of evolution. Yet genetics does support it completely.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Whether you believe we are "the highest evolved or not, our extinction is also assured, that's a certainty.

ps. a correction, we might also evolve into a different species, but either way, eventually...extinction.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Evolution might just be an observation that a rock is a rock, but do people stop and think how awesome all those giant mountains are or how beautiful things are?

Absolutely, why wouldn't they?

You seem to overlook the other bits...genetic deformities, diseases, starvation, the predators that could be behind the next shrub and will eat you...because they have no choice, basically survival. Nature is cruel, even if there is beauty in it.

It's easy to overlook at the top of the food chain, from the comfort of suburbia. I really don't see how anyone could look at nature and still believe any sort of "intelligent designer" is behind it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

First, let me just say that evolution has nothing to do with rocks... Unless you want to describe the "evolution" of melts in igneous systems, perhaps... But that is an analogous situation where evolution only describes the change of the melt over time. If you meant this, apologies, but if you meant biological evolution is noting how a rock is a rock, you are misunderstanding evolution.

That said, I do think you are wrong about scientists. It's not like a scientist goes to a university to study for four years in a topic that they don't find interesting, that they do not find beauty in. I certainly look at nature, look at the mountains, and I see the beauty that is there, and the beauty that once was. Understanding how nature works, seeing the complex interactions that must have formed a certain rock or seeing the paleoenvironment suggested by a rock, that is what I find most beautiful about the mountains. There is a profound beauty in knowing your place in the world, no matter how insignificant or great you might think it. There is a greater beauty in understanding the world around you then you might have experienced.

The fact that you think that science is about observing a "rock is just a rock" saddens me deeply. That said, I cannot speak for all people, and I am unwilling to work in absolutes (although of that I cannot be absolutely certain...), so perhaps many scientists types do seem like that.

Now then, more to the point of the thread, I think this might illustrate the true topic... If we were to define evolution merely as "change over time," then it might be possible to have "evolution as the answer to everything." Of course, I think this is a bit too simple and generalized. Plenty of things have not seemingly changed for some time now, like gravitational forces (generally) or radioactive decay rates. Nature is complex, nature is beautiful, but nature is also observable and knowable.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reason that I asked that is because at some point in history the two groups diverged and settled in different habitats, that's all.

If archaic humans inched their way across the Arabian Peninsula and into India and then down into Papua New Guinea, then they did that as tiny groups, in essence they were separated from each other and became different populations in different habitats.

Of course, and had they stayed isolated for a few million years, then maybe they'd be separate species. However, that isn't the case and they are both still humans. Though you can see the effects of evolution already starting since the two groups look differently and have body characteristics that are more adapted to their environment.s

I am not implying racism in any way, just simply saying this is what happened.

How many skulls were found of Australopithecus afarensis? All that means is that 300 individual were found, separated from a large group. We don't know if there are any descendants of those particular individuals. And those skeletons were from a vast amount of time separated from each other. They were in East Africa.

Are there any descendants of Australopithecus afarensis?

Of course there are descendants of AA. Those 300 examples of AA weren't all found in the same location.

Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four times as long as our own species has been around. It is best known from the sites of Hadar, Ethiopia (‘Lucy’, AL 288-1 and the 'First Family', AL 333); Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika ‘child’ skeleton); and Laetoli (fossils of this species plus the oldest documented bipedal footprint trails).

Similar to chimpanzees, Au. afarensis children grew rapidly after birth and reached adulthood earlier than modern humans. This meant A. afarensis had a shorter period of growing up than modern humans have today, leaving them less time for parental guidance and socialization during childhood.

Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright. Their adaptations for living both in the trees and on the ground helped them survive for almost a million years as climate and environments changed.

a reply to: hydeman11


No, that is not how I think all scientists are, but some are and especially there are a lot of people listening to what scientists say, as though science is the authority on life and thought.

How many articles can you go to right now on Yahoo or some other search engine like that who say "scientists think"? People are believing that what the scientist (except Creation scientists) thinks as absolute fact? There is very little questioning from the general populace. They just believe it because the article doesn't mention God, the general populace doesn't want God, doesn't want to hear about God, doesn't want to explore anything, just take it as absolute fact.

Then you hear these same people defending Richard Dawkins after he shoots himself in the foot about rape and pedophilia. But if someone on the other side said something stupid like that, they quickly jump on it.

When I went to college in 1985, the Sociology professor was teaching evolution while the Biology professor was teaching science. The psychology professor was a horse of a different color, in one lecture he told us that drunkenness was a state of mind and the person was not really drunk from the effects of the alcohol. He said this to a class of students from a county that had the second highest alcohol rate in the United States.

There is very little accountability from the scientific community when it comes to what is being taught in universities and how it leads to this outcome. students are told it is absolute fact. That Sociology professor taught nothing about Sociology, so what did we learn?

When you were in high school and in university, how were you told to think about evolution? Were you told it is absolute fact and believe it or else, or were you given the opportunity to think about other ways and explore those other ways?

But I wanted to reiterate something, I do not believe in God in the Hindu sense.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Fair enough, arguments from authority often hold more sway then they should, even if they deserve to hold a lot of sway. I would certainly want more skepticism in the general populace as well. Of course, I'd want true skepticism of all claims. Unfortunately, scientists are authority figures. They do spend many years learning, studying, observing, and experimenting. If the matter of a topic is science, I want a scientist to tell me about it. If the matter is a faulty heart valve, I want a surgeon or doctor to tell me about it. If I'm having problems with money, I want the advice of an accountant. Sure, there are exceptional individuals, but often times authorities who work for what they do are qualified to speak about what they do.

You assert that the populace doesn't want God... With contradicts this study suggesting that about 70% of the populace believes at least in a personal God.
b27.cc.trincoll.edu...

What you see is that more of the populace understands that science is merely observation and explanation of observation. You might be demonstrating a confirmation bias here. I repeat, you cannot play the victim card, though. My group is the minority, yours is the majority. Yet, I do not want to play the victim card either.

A lot has changed in the last 20 years (Sorry, I can't go back much further...). That said, I do believe some universities are better than others, and certainly there are better professors and worse professors at each of these colleges. Science has moved on since 1985, have you kept current?

In high school, I was not taught evolution in my first biology class (perhaps something which might be illegal...). My teacher was a religious man, but one very skilled in anatomy. I cannot speak of biology in university, as I am a geology student. If we speak paleontology, my professor is a Christian, and one who accepts evolution. If we speak of the personal opinion of my structural geology/economic geology professor, he is a Christian who also denies the literal biblical interpretation and accepts evolution.

I don't know what kind of 1984 style brainwashing facilities you believe schools to be nowadays, but I surely wasn't taught the absolutes you seem to think in. We were forced to think critically and encouraged to think about ALL claims.

I do not know what not believing in any other religion has to do with anything, but all right. For what it matters, I don't see evidence to support any god, nor do I see evidence that a god is necessary to create what we see around us. As far as I can see, there exists a possibility that all of nature came about by natural laws, a god being unnecessary. If this is possible, then the assumption of a god is unnecessarily superfluous to understanding the world.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you are a descendant of AA?

Becoming Human

Overall, these traits suggest that Au. africanus may have evolved from Au. afarensis or a similar, as of yet unknown, hominin. The changes in the dentition and buttressing in the face may indicate that Au. africanus was eating a harder or tougher diet than was Au. afarensis.

You don't know, scientists don't know, so that should not be presented as absolute fact. So it may be a completely different hominim.

The relationship of Au. africanus to other hominins is not well understood. Most scientists agree that Au. africanus evolved from Au. afarensis or a similar hominin, but the relationship between it and later hominins is unclear. This cloudiness results in part because A. africanus is old enough to be an ancestor to many different hominins, and in part because it shares some traits with different groups of these hominins but not others

I know the article is about Australo Africanus, but Australopithecus is mentioned in connection. You can't find a line of descent from either group. Therefore there can't be living descendants. It begs the question, if neither line has descendants, then how can we be evolved from those archaic humans?

However, Au. africanus shares some derived traits with all members of the Paranthropus genus, but not with Homo, which indicate it might be an ancestor to the Paranthropus genus.

We do not descend from these groups.

These differences still stand even when considering Au. africanus to be a very sexually dimorphic species (a species with two body forms and/or sizes, one male and one female, a trait that occurs in many primates, including humans). If Au. africanus was actually two species, some of our hypotheses about the relationship of Au. afrricanus to other hominins could be refined.

The assumption was that some people descend from Australopithecus, but there is no evidence to support that claim. And Australo Africanus might be two different species.

But Berkeley University says

Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.

For an example, consider Australopithecus. On the evogram you can see a series of forms, from just after Ardipithecus to just before Homo in the branching order, that are all called Australopithecus. (Even Paranthropus is often considered an australopithecine.) But as these taxa appear on the evogram, "Australopithecus" is not a natural group, because it is not monophyletic: some forms, such as A. africanus, are found to be closer to humans than A. afarensis and others. Beyond afarensis, for example, all other Australopithecus and Homo share "enlarged cheek teeth and jaws," because they have a more recent common ancestor

The previous article stated that there is no clear evidence of descent from Australo Africanus.

In the Origin of Species Darwin noted that the extinct common ancestor of two living forms should not be expected to look like a perfect intermediate between them. Rather, it could look more like one branch or the other branch, or something else entirely.

Nothing is really extinct if it has descendants.

But here is a Group of people who want Humans to extinct

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s “experiments” have done throughout the eons.

How do you counteract these types of people? I can't have children because of physical reasons, but people who think like this group does do not consider that something will replace humans. But I don't think archaic humans stopped breeding if breeding is a biological urge to propitiate the species. But since there are no living descendants of these two archaic groups, then we could not have evolved from them.

a reply to: WarminIndy

All I said is that AA has descendants I never said who or what they were. Stop reading too far into what I'm saying.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you trying to suggest that AA isn't related to humans? Because that is absurd. Though, it reasons, if you believe that AA exist, how do you reconcile that with the bible saying that the earth is 6000 years old? You know since they lived millions of years ago and all.

a reply to: hydeman11

I do not agree with statistics because it is kind of like Family Feud. "We asked 100 people". We don't know the people who were surveyed and 1,000 hardly represents 275,000,000. Neither does an international survey of 1,000 represent 7 Billion.

While surveys might indicate a thought process among the population, what is being said by those performing the survey and the actual expression coming from the general population are two different things.

I might not be a scientist, but I have two brothers who are, they keep me informed. They are not Intelligent Design or Creationist believers and both are agnostics. We have many conversations about life, religion, philosophy and other things. I even have a brother that is Celtic Pagan and doesn't believe in any deity related to Christianity, he rejects it altogether, believing only in the impersonal force of the universe. He's kind of scientific, but not a scientist. He did serve in the medical corp in the Air Force and was trained for anatomy among other things.

So God is unnecessary to you, which I believe is a parroted statement from Stephen Hawking. Why would Stephen Hawking do a flip-flop when it comes to fundamental ideas about God? He first said that you could see the mind of God in creation, then he says it is unnecessary.But that's an argument that will be debated among scientists for many years to come.

As there are things such as String Theory, Quantum Physics, Multiverses, M Theory, and Leonard Susskind, then Hawkings does not become absolute in his ideas of God being unnecessary, but only to him. Susskind presents another view.

But here is an interesting discussion by David Berlinski

I saw the debate between him and Christopher Hitchens, which I have had some Hitchens followers who admire the bulldog style of debate he poses. Somehow, many people think shouting over someone else makes the argument valid. But Hitchens has passed away, no speaking evil of the dead not here to defend themselves, but his influence is great among young atheists today. Richard Dawkins shot himself in the foot recently, so people are losing confidence in him.