Creationism is a primitive way of thought as accepted by the majority of the scientific community (people who believe evidence not hearsay). If you were given the opportunity to be around an evidential scientific community, as Dawkins has, then you surely would have a different opinion. But, I would presume that if Dawkins grew up in a environment that created a habit out of negating evidence (as you do), than perhaps he would be just like you.

That being said, your rationalism and quotes that attempt to defend Christianity or any other religion for that matter, has been done more fully and valiantly by known philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, John Locke, etc.

The sad thing is that those intelligent philosophers did not have the opportunity to see the scientific facts/evidence as you do today. Yet you choose to believe primitive myth over cutting edge evidence and fact.

I got a question for you …Why would you watch a film about evidence/facts that you would dismiss anyway? Your current beliefs/superstitions render any opportunity useless in allowing you to understand that there are alternative possibilities of how the world came to be.

My recommendation is join atheists, because we’ll love you regardless of whether God commanded it or not. And if God exists and decides to appear from the sky, then I will happily change my position to align myself with the “new” evidence.

In this video all he proves all he “can” prove and focus on are processes, proves that there is a linear process to development (evolution) where the species adapts to its invironment, but that is all science an do! Show what is, the patterns, not their source of origin, their begining point! In other words, he is showing how the design adapts itself to its environment, becomes upgraded, refined–the pattern adaptation “expression,” when it is “expressed,” but how does it achieve its coherency to “begin” with? How does the game “begin”? Simple observation can tell us what Dawkin has told us here, that is a no-brainer, a simple show and tell, but how is it that the cell came to being? what is the originating factor? That is what he miserably fails to point to, to prove, to support!

I close by something that Alan Watts once said, as it again, analogyzes Dawkins position. “A man who believes that he can capture ‘running’ water in a bucket does not understand they dynamics of ‘running’ water, for in a bucket water cannot run.”

Dawkins does not understand what what ‘creation’ is, for he thinks he can explain it by focusing on “adaptation.”

Very good comment, enjoyed reading it.

Apes have invented tools, as have several birds. There are mollusks that will occasionally use tools to reach a goal. Culture and use of tools elsewhere in the animal kingdom has not progressed to our level because we are the first species on this planet to make the evolutionary jump to true collective learning – we are able to share our experiences and ideas with others.

There are plenty of mistakes. Your retina is in backwards, with a bundle of nerves blocking part of the light that would, in a perfectly designed visual system, reach your eye. The brain has evolved to cope with that defect – we call it the blind spot. Our backs, necks and feet hurt because we haven’t been walking upright long enough to evolve the kinks out of a quadrupedal skeletomuscular system.

There is life on this planet that has done all the things you ask about. There are whole systems of life that don’t require oxygen. Hoofed mammals (re)took to the sea, and over time evolved into whales and dolphins. And some fish did evolve to leave the water. They’re called tetrapods – all land vertebrates are descended from them.

Death can’t be conquered because natural selection works by selective gene replication. It doesn’t have anything to do with life after reproduction. That is why we start accumulating biological errors at the end of our reproductive years.

Have I answered everything?