Faulty Logic of Creationists/IDers

[palmera]

While reading The God Delusion, I came upon a passage in which Dawkins aptly describes one of the major flaws of creationist/I.D. attacks against evolutionary theory. It centers on the "unfortunate" strategy of said opponents to point out gaps in scientific knowledge, then claim that Intelligent Design fills those gaps. For example, an IDer might take a particular part of an organism, claim that its irreducibly complex, and when a comprehensive answer is not immediately given, assert that evolutionary theory has been overthrown in favor of "God did it." There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn't follow to argue that because a particular part of theory A fails, then theory B is correct. Furthermore, the driving force behind scientific inquiry is ignorance. Rather than assume B, that God did it through design, a scientist, driven by curiosity will take a critical approach and study said problem. Unfortunately, during the intermediate period, ID pamphlets will proclaim an organism to be IC (irreducibly complex) thus disproving evolution. As Dawkins states, "Intelligent Design -ID- is granted a Get Out of Jail Free card, a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution."

This of course goes without saying that interjecting an intelligent supreme being into the mix is in itself faulty logic because it raises far more questions than it answers!

What do you think?

[achilles12604]

Achillees i have seen that, i never said there is definetly no GOD whatsoever, i said the probability of there being a GOD is tiny, since i cannot disprove he exist the possibility that he does exists is there. But the GOD of abraham does not exist, that's my point.

This is an assumption which evolution/ID can neither prove nor disprove.

I don't deny GOD based on evolution only, the whole bible is not worth the paper it is written on for me. Just the faulty and sadistic logic of the god of abraham does not fit with my sets of ethics. Jesus tries to change the concept of the god of abraham but that doesn't make him divine, he tried to change the concept and make him more loving while still maintaining he is fulfilling his prophecy.

Out of curiosity are you familiar with the full scope of the peoples and nations mentioned in the OT. I am assuming it is the OT you have issues with.

Various people have tried to convince me that the OT view of God was sadistic. However when asked for an example, most of the time it was the people committing the crimes and most of THAT time it was not by order of God. The number of occasions where God directly orders fighting and conflict is very limited as far as I have been able to determine. However there is an entire thread about this so I feel no need to discuss it further here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I having read the whole bible, understand where your view comes from but also realize that when carefully considered along with the various factors and theology, it really doesn't portray God in any dislight.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi achilles12604

Now . . . if I totally missed what you were referring to as "other options" then feel free to ignore everything I wrote about and please elaborate.

I really had in mind arguments from biology that say the probability of such and such occurring are a very large number.

I have previously been involved in a brief debate over this kind of point centred on David Swift I was also specifically thinking of the Stepping Stone Argument which was introduced into another debate by Otseng, and which I gave a critique at Post 64 - Microevolution v macroevolution

The form of the criticism runs the same. ID type arguments say some chemical/biological structure X solves some problem Y. However the possibility of X occurring in nature is astronomically improbable. Thus Nature did not produce X by herself.
Sadly that conclusion fails to divide that astronomically large number by the set Z which contains all the other possible solutions, and partial solutions to the problem Y for which X is the example solution. Admittedly, the contents of Z may be unknown. But invariable it will be large, nay even astronomically large. The pertinent point is that the real probability is unknown until the full calculation is completed. Without completion those astronomically huge improbabilities cited against blind design become meaningless and are a bogus argument. And as arguments for improbability are key to ID, this is pretty much a fatal flaw to their case.

So we are left with ID and its huge numbers which are countered by a multitude of totally unproven and founded hypothesis' any of which could end up supporting God even more depending on what science finds in the future.

Otseng said something similar I recall. But this is not a case of evolutionist think the maths should be done this way, but ID guys think the maths should be done that way. To get the statistics right you have to multiply the astronomically small improbability of X, by set Z. If the contents of Z cannot be quantified then you cannot complete the calculation. Thus the large numbers are bogus.

PS - ID'rs (at least all the ones I read regularly) accept evolution. So I don't understand how your last paragraph is valid.

Well I'm not sure about that. I guess the ID guys might say something like we accept evolution, and are only pointing out it has limits which can only be explained by ID. But I think that is a bit disingenuous. Those limits only arise with bogus math and an unwillingness to accept the logic of arguments of the form of the Blind Watchmaker. Arguments which if you don't accept their full power to explain, means you at least have some reservations about evolution. But reservations based on bogus improbabilities or something else....?

[QED]

As far as I have been able to gather, the fundamental difference between Atheists and ID'rs such as myself, is the application of Ockhams (also spelled occams) Razor.

For the non-theists, God is not allowed to be a possibility in any equations. Therefore, something else must be the simplest answer. For the Theist, God is allowed as a possibility along with the other ideas. The theist therefore compares God's intervention into evolution to guide the process and mold the outcome against the zillion multiverse theory and finds (quite rightly) that God is a far simpler solution than a totally unknown theory with ZERO credible backing to it.

I fail to see how we could be justified in making such bold statements about probabilities. Armed with little more than Einstein's equations we can see the sort of mechanisms by which a sufficiently technologically advanced alien life form could stand in for God by creating universes that could support living things like ourselves -- after a bit of tinkering.

But I think that that particular scenario, while being arguably more plausible than accounting for our existence by being a creative act of God (as conventionally understood by theologians), pales into insignificance probability-wise when contrasted with the Inflation theories of Alan Guth, Andrei Linde etc. These Theories represent the "best-fit" to all the cosmological data currently in hand and actually necessitate an effectively infinite multiverse. Given that they fit the data remarkably well is it at all right to judge them as being any more speculative an explanation for the appearance of design than the explanation which involves a mysteriously intelligent supreme being? I can't see how this can be defended.

The hard data concerning the expansion of our own observable universe coming from WMAP and similar experimental measurements necessitates it as being a subset of some greater space so we already have a greater state-space for the appearance of these remarkable numbers without resorting to an ensemble of parallel universes or Quantum Theory (which when applied to the universe as a whole also forces us to accept that the universe, just like an electron, exist simultaneously in multiple different states.)

So in summary, I'm suggesting here that there are many good reasons to expect to see the appearance of design through the Weak Anthropic Principle given that observational data accessible to us matches well with those theories which involve extensions to our horizons. Imagining God to be sitting just over the horizon seems to me to be much more speculative than the alternative -- which as each year goes by already reveals to us one more light year of previously hidden universe.

[Cathar1950]

The theist therefore compares God's intervention into evolution to guide the process and mold the outcome against the zillion multiverse theory and finds (quite rightly) that God is a far simpler solution than a totally unknown theory with ZERO credible backing to it.

I bolded the preachy stuff. But I don't know how the God solution is far simpler as there is no data or theory just fable and myth. Cosmology and evolution are not totally unknown theories with zero credibility. Your God did it is not simpler , it is just "simple" with nothing to back it up. I can't see from your above statement any theory or credible explanation. Do you mean YHWH or Plato's God?
Granted YHWH is more interesting like a character in a Shakespearian Play but given the things later said about God it hardly seems more then myth. You might as well say God cut Chaos(the Sea monster) in half and created the world with the body parts.

[Cogitoergosum]

.

Various people have tried to convince me that the OT view of God was sadistic. However when asked for an example, most of the time it was the people committing the crimes and most of THAT time it was not by order of God. The number of occasions where God directly orders fighting and conflict is very limited as far as I have been able to determine. However there is an entire thread about this so I feel no need to discuss it further here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I having read the whole bible, understand where your view comes from but also realize that when carefully considered along with the various factors and theology, it really doesn't portray God in any dislight.

Achilles i want an honest answer: Did or did not god himself send plagues on egypt and send angels to kill every egyptian first born? (this is only one example) and how do u justify that?

As for evolution vs ID, there are a lot of theories as explained in the previous postings that might explain why our universe looks so fine tuned. As for the probablity of life existing, every year scientists discover that the probability of it happening is not astronomical as once thought. life on this planet exists even in most inhospitable places, even in places where H2so4 is the only gas available. Rock fossils show signs of life going back to 3.8 billion years ago, when earth was most inhospitable. As condition changes, life adapts easily with time. In my field which is medicine, bacteria adapt and find ways to resist our new antibiotics every 2-3 years only, give a more advanced life forms more time and u'll be amazed what evolution and adaptation can do.

[achilles12604]

.

Various people have tried to convince me that the OT view of God was sadistic. However when asked for an example, most of the time it was the people committing the crimes and most of THAT time it was not by order of God. The number of occasions where God directly orders fighting and conflict is very limited as far as I have been able to determine. However there is an entire thread about this so I feel no need to discuss it further here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I having read the whole bible, understand where your view comes from but also realize that when carefully considered along with the various factors and theology, it really doesn't portray God in any dislight.

Achilles i want an honest answer: Did or did not god himself send plagues on egypt and send angels to kill every egyptian first born? (this is only one example) and how do u justify that?

As for evolution vs ID, there are a lot of theories as explained in the previous postings that might explain why our universe looks so fine tuned. As for the probablity of life existing, every year scientists discover that the probability of it happening is not astronomical as once thought. life on this planet exists even in most inhospitable places, even in places where H2so4 is the only gas available. Rock fossils show signs of life going back to 3.8 billion years ago, when earth was most inhospitable. As condition changes, life adapts easily with time. In my field which is medicine, bacteria adapt and find ways to resist our new antibiotics every 2-3 years only, give a more advanced life forms more time and u'll be amazed what evolution and adaptation can do.

I have no trouble believing in this particular story because of some interesting archeology that I stumbled across while debating something else on this forum. I also have no issues with God intervening directly to free a certain people from slavery since this people was going to be the driving force and origin of the salvation of Mankind.

At the very least I can say that his actions were permissible on a moral level simply to free an entire nation in slavery to another. I don't see you pointing fingers at old Abe. He engaged in a war which killed thousands more than God did so I fail to see your problem. Abe is a national hero for standing up for what was right.

Sometimes you need to fight and yes kill for something much bigger than yourself. Yes killing is still evil and we can wish forever for a better way. But lets face it. People are stupid, stubborn and violent. Sometimes being violent is the best way to resolve a bigger problem.

As for your post on ID/Evolution do you have any sources or solid evidence for the following?

As for the probablity of life existing, every year scientists discover that the probability of it happening is not astronomical as once thought.

Also As I pointed out before . . . .

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION!!!!!

So the rest of your speech has no bearing on my opinions what-so-ever. Now if you wish to discuss the 150 million years between nothing and fully form life and how that isn't mathematically sound using a method of random occurrences, then we may disagree. If you wish to discuss the EVIDENCE behind all these wonderful theories (hint there isn't much behind them), then we may disagree

But in regards to most occurrences of life and evolution, I have little argument.

[Cogitoergosum]

I have no trouble believing in this particular story because of some interesting archeology that I stumbled across while debating something else on this forum. I also have no issues with God intervening directly to free a certain people from slavery since this people was going to be the driving force and origin of the salvation of Mankind.

where are the egyptian texts that corroborate what the bible claims, something of this size cannot be overlooked by the chroniclers of the period.?

At the very least I can say that his actions were permissible on a moral level simply to free an entire nation in slavery to another.

So to free kuwaitis from an iraqi invision u r ok with nuking iraq and all the innocent people there? how is that mrally acceptable?

I don't see you pointing fingers at old Abe. He engaged in a war which killed thousands more than God did so I fail to see your problem. Abe is a national hero for standing up for what was right.

Abe was not GOD, u r a logical person, don't u see what's wrong with ur statement? abe had no other choices available, GOD did.

Sometimes you need to fight and yes kill for something much bigger than yourself. Yes killing is still evil and we can wish forever for a better way. But lets face it. People are stupid, stubborn and violent. Sometimes being violent is the best way to resolve a bigger problem.

true sometimes violence is warranted and u might fight for a cause, but if a cause makes u kill innocent people on purpose then that cause is not worth fighting for. There is a difference between intentionally targeting innocent people and collateral damage in a war where we don't have the smartest weapon to kill only combatants.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION!!!!!

i know that, just trying to make a point that we do not need the concept of ID cause evolution as we know it answers our questions.

Now if you wish to discuss the 150 million years between nothing and fully form life and how that isn't mathematically sound using a method of random occurrences, then we may disagree

i didn't understand that, can u explain? i never said that life jumped from nothing to fully formed it was a process, and it took longer than 150 million years.

If you wish to discuss the EVIDENCE behind all these wonderful theories (hint there isn't much behind them), then we may disagree

they are still theories, no conclusive evidence yet, like ur god is a theory with no conclusive evidence, if u come to conclusive evidence for the existence of god, i will believe and repent, but if we proove our theory of multiverse or whatever would u change ur belief?

[achilles12604]

Achilles wrote:
I have no trouble believing in this particular story because of some interesting archeology that I stumbled across while debating something else on this forum. I also have no issues with God intervening directly to free a certain people from slavery since this people was going to be the driving force and origin of the salvation of Mankind.

Cogitoergosum wrote:
where are the Egyptian texts that corroborate what the bible claims, something of this size cannot be overlooked by the chroniclers of the period.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_papyrus

This is a non-Christian site which explains things fairly well. As I pointed out on another thread of yours there are various levels of "proof". Having compared the symbols myself on another website, I am convinced that this is a decent allusion to events recorded in Exodus. I actually do not think that Exodus occurred exactly as described in the bible. So in short, giving a certain margin of error on both sides, this ancient document is good enough for me.

No I don't expect this to convince you.

Achilles wrote:
At the very least I can say that his actions were permissible on a moral level simply to free an entire nation in slavery to another.

Cogitoergosum wrote: So to free kuwaitis from an iraqi invision u r ok with nuking iraq and all the innocent people there? how is that mrally acceptable?

Your analogy isn't very accurate. This is a good example of a non-thiest exaggerating the "evils" of the bible to suit their own preconceptions.

Nuking all of iraq would have caused millions of deaths and totally destroyed all the major cities and left the country incapable of survival afterwards.

This wasn't the result with Egypt. I doubt that even a thousand individuals died during the passing of the Angels or whatever it was. The cities were not destroyed. The civilization of the Egyptians not only survived but remained as a "superpower" for hundreds of years afterwards.

Achilles wrote:
I don't see you pointing fingers at old Abe. He engaged in a war which killed thousands more than God did so I fail to see your problem. Abe is a national hero for standing up for what was right.

Cogitoergosum wrote: Abe was not GOD, u r a logical person, don't u see what's wrong with ur statement? abe had no other choices available, GOD did.

This is a classic argument from a position of supposition. The non-theists supposes (as you did) that there was in fact a better way to accomplish the end result while not violating any other plans for either of the races directly involved, or anyone else that could possibly become involved. In other words, you think you know better than God.

Well I can think of a couple reasons why it was a good idea to do things this way

1) The Hebrew nation grew stronger and united as a result
2) The Hebrew nation learned from their experience in the desert
3) The Hebrew nation was granted an opportunity to learn about God, his powers and desires for them
4) The Egyptians were not severely harmed by this method.
5) The Hebrew nation was able to make a reputation for themselves among their neighbors as a strong nation, not to be trifled with

There are more but you get the idea.

Now you think you can choose better than God how to do things? Well I offer you a chance to prove this. You present a better method of accomplishing the task at hand and I will sit here and throw hypothetical wrenches into your plans. Since the "what ifs" are limitless for any situation you provide as a "what if" I will be able to provide a counter "what if" until we have wasted numerous pages on what "should" god have done.

Example: You say that God could have simply miracled the Hebrew nation out of Egypt leaving a speechless pharaoh to his laundry.

I now say, God couldn't have done that for several reasons.

1)God has always had a policy of not forcing those who reject him to worship him. God's direct intervention on the level of teleportation of thousands of people, would have been overly convincing to pharaoh that he was in fact real and thus Pharos would have been compelled into submission thus negating his free will to follow God on his own.

2) The area where the Hebrew’s were teleported into would have the same problem as number one.

3) The kings around the area they teleported into would have been so afraid of the Hebrews that they probably would have gotten together to destroy this perceived threat, rather than allowing the Hebrews to fight them one by one as recorded in the bible. With their combined strength and surrounding the Hebrews from whence they were dropped, they would have killed them all.

4) Teleportation may be a logical impossibility so the suggestion may be academic.

5) ETC.

You see, you can play the "im smarter than God because he should have done this" game all you want, but unless you have knowledge of what would have happened in the alternate timeline, you really can't say for sure.

Achilles wrote:
Sometimes you need to fight and yes kill for something much bigger than yourself. Yes killing is still evil and we can wish forever for a better way. But lets face it. People are stupid, stubborn and violent. Sometimes being violent is the best way to resolve a bigger problem.

Cogitoergosum wrote:
true sometimes violence is warranted and u might fight for a cause, but if a cause makes u kill innocent people on purpose then that cause is not worth fighting for. There is a difference between intentionally targeting innocent people and collateral damage in a war where we don't have the smartest weapon to kill only combatants.

This gives me an idea for a thread. look for it.

achilles wrote:
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION!!!!!

Cogitoergosum wrote:
i know that, just trying to make a point that we do not need the concept of ID cause evolution as we know it answers our questions.

ID, at least the ID I subscribe to, explains how evolution was able to make the correct choice seemingly on the first try, every time for 150 million years to give us life. I go into detail on this here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=3678

rather than repeating myself I'll let you read what I wrote there. I have discovered a few additional things since that debate which have altered my view slightly, however I see a great deal of credibility to an intelligent force controlling evolution.

ALSO as I put forth before and I do so yet AGAIN . . . My personal view of ID hinges much much more on the origin of the universe than of evolution. Evolution I could give of take. My view of ID hinges on the origin of the universe.

I have mentioned this before but you seem to be stuck on Evolution. Lets just drop evolution completely for the moment and say that my view of ID is ENTIRELY based on the origin of the universe. Will that help us clear up things a little?

Achilles wrote:
Now if you wish to discuss the 150 million years between nothing and fully form life and how that isn't mathematically sound using a method of random occurrences, then we may disagree

Cogitoergosum wrote:
i didn't understand that, can u explain? i never said that life jumped from nothing to fully formed it was a process, and it took longer than 150 million years.

Please refer to the link above. I went through this for a few pages there (87 I think on word perfect)

Achilles wrote:
If you wish to discuss the EVIDENCE behind all these wonderful theories (hint there isn't much behind them), then we may disagree

Cogitoergosum wrote:
they are still theories, no conclusive evidence yet, like ur god is a theory with no conclusive evidence, if u come to conclusive evidence for the existence of god, i will believe and repent, but if we proove our theory of multiverse or whatever would u change ur belief?

There is at least a little evidence for God's existence. There is zero for a multiverse. QED put forth a thread on "can the multi-verse theory be tested". Having read through that person's document I came to the conclusion that most of science feels this theory to be junk. I read some reviews of his book and my suspicions were confirmed.

Also as I pointed out in the other thread, "proof" and a fair evaluation of the existing evidence are not the same thing.


As for your question of “would I change my beliefs” . . . I think I can fairly say, (someone correct me if I’m wrong) that I have publicly announced when my opponents put forth a good argument which I was unable to debate and thus I changed my beliefs accordingly. I have only seen this happen ONE other time by ONE other individual. So yes I think I can safely say my opinions and beliefs would alter as a result.

I think I can also safely say I have quite an open minded perspective compared to most apologists, (BOTH Christian and SECULAR).

[WelshBoy]

Palmera,

I also read Richard Dawkins' book recently, and have to say that it is a wonderfully enlightening read, and would urge every IDer out there to read it.

One of the central themes of the book is the question as to whether there is a God or not. Of course, it is nearly impossible to prove that something DOESN'T exist, and so Dawkins' soberly acknowledges that - the title of one of the chapters is 'Why God almost certainly does not exist', and as I read it I KNEW that IDers and religious zealots, including my own family, would pounce with glee on such a statement. Let me just say it isn't Richard Dawkins admitting there's a God, he's simply being accurate.

As to the question of God's existence, Dawkins points out that there is NO scientific evidence that God exists. The MAJOR 'proof' religions and their adherents have is their holy scriptures. But to take an example, the Bible cannot even agree on Jesus' lineage. Read the lineage in Matthew, and the one in Luke, and you'll see that the two hardly match. In any case, as Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, his lineage back to David is really of no consequence, and it should be Mary's lineage that is important. That aside, the Bible is claimed to be God's holy word, and INFALLIBLE. Clearly, this is not the case. The same is true of the Koran.

The religious will claim that they have personal experiences of God, and this is proof of God's existence. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is hardly evidence at all, and can be compared to the many many reported 'experiences' of ghosts. Alas, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts, and so one must conclude (quite rightly) that we are easily mistaken creatures when it comes to personal experience.

Dawkins also points out that God is a gap filler. All those thousands of years ago, before the advent of science and scientific reasoning, your average Joe would be mystified by the natural world, weather was personified as various gods, animals were worshipped etc. Now science fills in those gaps, allows us to understand the world and undoes the need for God.


Another major theme is Dawkins' unbearably honourable desire to do away with religion and the religious mindset. Once God is removed from the equation, our morality is shifted away from the pernicious and invidious rules and whims recorded in whichever holy scriptures you care to name (with the possible exception of Buddhism), and allows us to focus on human happiness. Thus, wars and conflicts based on religious beliefs are done away with. 'Arabs' and 'Jews' can co-exist quite happily. 'Catholics' and 'protestants' in Northern Ireland stop trying to bomb each other to 'hell'. The religious right stop hating and persecuting homosexuals. Homosexuality is only immoral in the context of religion. It is a sad fact that 'morality' is skewed in this way to mean 'disobedience to God'. I'm not naiively suggesting these changes are going to happen overnight, but it is a worthy aim!

Oh for a world shorn of belief. Take God away and you realise what a needless enterprise churches are. My family were praying before christmas dinner last week, and I thought "Who are they talking to?". I smiled for the whole meal.


There are plenty of other points in Dawkins' book, go read!



Luke

[achilles12604]

Hi achilles12604

Now . . . if I totally missed what you were referring to as "other options" then feel free to ignore everything I wrote about and please elaborate.

I really had in mind arguments from biology that say the probability of such and such occurring are a very large number.

I have previously been involved in a brief debate over this kind of point centred on David Swift I was also specifically thinking of the Stepping Stone Argument which was introduced into another debate by Otseng, and which I gave a critique at Post 64 - Microevolution v macroevolution

The form of the criticism runs the same. ID type arguments say some chemical/biological structure X solves some problem Y. However the possibility of X occurring in nature is astronomically improbable. Thus Nature did not produce X by herself.
Sadly that conclusion fails to divide that astronomically large number by the set Z which contains all the other possible solutions, and partial solutions to the problem Y for which X is the example solution. Admittedly, the contents of Z may be unknown. But invariable it will be large, nay even astronomically large. The pertinent point is that the real probability is unknown until the full calculation is completed. Without completion those astronomically huge improbabilities cited against blind design become meaningless and are a bogus argument. And as arguments for improbability are key to ID, this is pretty much a fatal flaw to their case.

So we are left with ID and its huge numbers which are countered by a multitude of totally unproven and founded hypothesis' any of which could end up supporting God even more depending on what science finds in the future.

Otseng said something similar I recall. But this is not a case of evolutionist think the maths should be done this way, but ID guys think the maths should be done that way. To get the statistics right you have to multiply the astronomically small improbability of X, by set Z. If the contents of Z cannot be quantified then you cannot complete the calculation. Thus the large numbers are bogus.

PS - ID'rs (at least all the ones I read regularly) accept evolution. So I don't understand how your last paragraph is valid.

Well I'm not sure about that. I guess the ID guys might say something like we accept evolution, and are only pointing out it has limits which can only be explained by ID. But I think that is a bit disingenuous. Those limits only arise with bogus math and an unwillingness to accept the logic of arguments of the form of the Blind Watchmaker. Arguments which if you don't accept their full power to explain, means you at least have some reservations about evolution. But reservations based on bogus improbabilities or something else....?

OOPS. Yet again things have become confused.

Is it me? Really someone tell me if it is me that keeps getting things confused. I was talking with COG about this same thing and the same thing happened.

I was refering to the origin of the universe. NOT evolution.

Check out the excerpt from the debate I posted. Or better yet check out the whole debate.

MOST of my ID arguements concern the origin of the universe. NOT evolution.

I don't know why I start to talk about the origin of the universe and the HUGE numbers (compiled by an atheist Hawkings by the way) and all of a sudden the non-theists are discussion evolution yet again.
*sigh*

Ok one more time . . .


I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MOST OF THE TEACHINGS ABOUT EVOLUTION!!!!

I'm beginning to think that non-theists here don't actually read what I write. I really don't think they do. This is the only reason I can find for me introducing evidence of the origin of the universe and them going off on a tangent about Evolution.

Please, someone just read what I write first. Then respond.