Theory or fact?

So is gravity.

Evolution is a fact with the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection is the encompassing theory to explain the facts. You can’t act like you have a justified opinion on a set of facts without understanding it.

Speaking of the unevolved...

Going forward isn't progress if you go in the wrong direction. Rather than personal attacks, offer evidence of evolution.

Thank you, OM. I've already read "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and while I'll admit to disliking Dawkins (even for an anti-religious argument, his book "The God Delusion" was trash) I'll look into these two.

ahh, this is the Snappy7 I was asking if he was still about.

What arguments of Dawkins do you think are good? I read his book and it's mostly a collection of "Hitler Ate Sugar" type Ad-homiem attacks, some Strawmanning, some cherry-picking and some of the Fallacy Fallacy.

I did a bit of digging, and Jerry Coyne is the person who claims science and religion are incompatible despite there being many religious scientists, including two of the greatest scientific pioneers - Gregor Mendel who founded the scientific field of genetics and Galileo Galilei who has also been called "father of observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of the scientific method", and the "father of modern science".

I'll still hear what Coyne has to say since I haven't read his book - just heard a couple of his speeches, but I've already read and debunked Dawkins' arguments and can provided my refutations of those if you want.

The idea of the first cause argument that the being who created a universe would need a designer is a naturalistic interpretation. When dealing with only the natural world yes a designers would be required, but the supernatural is involved so that's not the case. Also, a supernatural aspect is required for the natural when this kind of complexity is involved.

On Dawkins' use of logical fallacies we agree.

Answer my questions I asked in the dark blue section above then I'll answer yours. Given our track record of debates, I think you'll know that I won't cop out on this one. On that note, what would you consider acceptable evidence?

Sorry that was poor choice of words on my part. I meant to say what other arguments did Dawkins make that you say are good?

If you don't know what you'd consider acceptable evidence, maybe that's something you should consider. Also, Matt Dillahunty's quote is the cop-out of someone in denial. He (or you, for that matter) can still say what the criteria is.
On that note, Dawkins himself said there is nothing that would convince him that God exists when asked this question; the words of a man in denial, so if Dawkins recognized that it was irrefutably God he'd just go into denial.

Actually going forward IS what progress is.
"Wrong direction" is a matter of perspective, a human one. Although talking about humans, given their weaknesses (curious that the creature modeled after the Gods is the most frail and disease prone of them all), it is understandable how "wrong direction" might be interpreted from the resulting mess.

Evidence of evolution? Neither of us look like Adam or Eve. Nor did their sons, which, according to legend, we are ALL the descendents of only one.

Not always. For example, if your goal is to invent medicine to cure a disease and you instead invent a bioweapon by mistake, is that progress? You went forward but you didn't reach your goal, in fact you went the opposite direction.

Also curious that such "creature" is also the smartest of them all capable of ideas and skills beyond the comprehension of others. Not to mention the corruption (such as entropy) was brought on by people's choices since Adam's and Eve's the Garden of Eden, so those frailties and being prone to disease - and the diseases themselves - doesn't make a case against God.

Apart from the fact that we don't know what Adam and Eve looked like, again there's external forces at work (such as entropy and environmental factors like strong sunlight). Even if I did concede that point, that wouldn't be proof of evolution itself, just that we don't look like Adam and Eve.

We're going by 2 different definitions. And again, matter of perspective comes into play. Bioweapons would hardly be considered a waste in some goverment circles.

Smartest? Subjective much?
Most individuals are barely aware of, let alone have the capacity to develop those ideas and skills on their own which are accumulated over time, recorded and stored to be utilized by those who can't without a book or nowadays, Google to know them. Elephants and Cetaceans have larger brains with more neurons and convolutions than humans. Human vanity is not an indicator of intelligence, but rather, the opposite.

Also, according to your mythology, humans were not created to be intelligent by the GodS. It was later gifted to them by the Serpent God. You know the rest of the story, cast out and damned for acquiring the sin of knowledge.

Entropy? Ahh, Job 4:21 - 25? Sunlight is in there too?
Adam and Eve looked like Middle Easterners. Most people that babble about them like they were real do not. Micro evolution is not evolution evolution, just more in line with a sun tan, yes? Wonder how long till Americans all start looking like Native Americans. It'll sure save a lot of rednecks getting from skin cancer.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Romans 1:22-23

The bioweapon isn't progress if they're trying to make a medicine (it's also a waste of time and resources).

You're right that human vanity isn't an indicator of intelligence, but there is intelligence in people, albeit to varying amounts and some choose not to use it. We are objectively the smartest species (if you want to call us animals). Even if a lot of people don't use their natural capacity to develop those ideas and skills on their own over time, it's still more than animals can accomplish. Humans can read and write, animals can't (at least not without humans teaching them, and even then they don't reach the same levels of comprehension). Have you seen elephants craft tools with moving parts without human influence? Have you seen cetaceans make art? Even animals that use tools (such as chimps) or make complex structures (ant and termite nests or bird nests) pale in comparison to what humans can accomplish.

Once again you deliberately misrepresent my belief. The Bible is clear we were made by one God. God did make us intelligent, He gave Adam and Eve a choice. Also the Serpent wasn't a God (though you probably want to pretend otherwise) and it didn't make them intelligent, it corrupted them. It was acquiring the corruption of sin, which leads to things including learning disabilities and neurological disorders, knowledge was already there.

Once again you show how little you know or understand about Christianity- though I suspect part of it is you not wanting to understand. There is no Job 4:22-25. Job 4 ends at verse 21; "Are not the cords of their tent pulled up, so that they die without wisdom?’" Job 4:21 How do you know Adam and Eve looked like Middle Easterners, especially when you can barely get facts about Christian teachings correct?

Nothing from the bible can be proven. Keep quoting, you just look ignorant by sticking your fingers in your dumb ears. He’s absolutely correct.
Plus; Christian “teachings” are mostly horrific, barbaric SHIT. And every single Christian has their own made up “interpretation” of what the book of wholly fables says.

I know you’re just going to dig your hella in when you’re wrong because that’s ALL theists can ever do.

You're projecting.

Also, which Christian teachings do you find horrific and barbaric? "Love your neighbor as yourself?" (found in Mark 12), or maybe the Ten Commandments, which include "Honor your mother and father", "you shall not murder", "you shall not commit adultery", "you shall not steal". Maybe those would appear barbaric to someone like you.