"Natural Selection helps preserve a species, not create new kinds."
No, natural selection is EXACTLY what drives the change from one species to another.
Once again, creationists just do not understand how evolution works.
When a population is separated, natural selection drives adaptations in different directions,
and if this keeps up for long enough, they become two different species.
"Premise 5 says that we don't have an alternative to the beginning of the universe,
"but physics is working on it."
Again, let's look at what he REALLY said:
There are a number of such theories competing with each other.
I mentioned M-theory earlier.
Another is Loop Quantum Gravity, which says that the Big Bang was really a Big Bounce,
formed when a previous universe collapsed.
Another theory says that the Big Bang created a multitude
of universes at the same time, each with different properties.
These theories--which are not all mutually exclusive, by the way--
show that you can realistically have a plethora of universes,
some of which are bound to be capable of supporting life.
So, in a sense, your misquote is right: physics IS working on it--
and they've done a LOT of work and made a LOT of progress on it!
In fact, physicists have made far more progress in the last three decades
than your pathetic religion has done in three millennia!
"It's interesting, because he accuses a lot of Christians
"of 'God of the Gaps,' or theists of 'God of the Gaps,'
"but look what he's doing now: he's using, like, Science of the Gaps or something or rather--
"he's saying, well, physics is working on it, even though we don't know."
Either this guy's being completely disingenuous,
or he doesn't understand what the God of the Gaps is.
The God of the Gaps is argument from ignorance:
We don't understand how something happened, therefore God MUST have done it.
What Dawkins is saying is, we don't understand how something happened,
so you have no cause for claiming your God did it.
Science could very well come up with the answer, which has nothing to do with your God,
and given the progress they're making on it, it looks very likely
that they will have the answer sometime in the not too distant future.
Why do you think that YOU get to insist that YOUR God must exist with no evidence,
simply because we don't know everything about how it happened naturally?
That's Special Pleading, and it's intellectual dishonesty.
"His Premise 6 states that we should maintain hope that physics will figure it out
"and it will be--hopefully, be as powerful as Darwinian evolution."
Why don't you quote the rest of what he says?
You don't want to respond to that bit, do you?
"He has a LOT of faith in science."
No, he has a lot of TRUST in science, because science has proven itself well.
While your religion has delivered failure after failure,
such as exorcism to get rid of diseases,
or articles of faith or dogma that resulted in the Yersenia pestis bacteria
wiping out a third of Europe,
whereas science has delivered REAL solutions,
such as antibiotics which will 100% cure the Yersenia pestis bacteria.
In fact, today, thanks to science and the wealth of our economy,
you can get prescription medicine on Wal-Mart's $4 list
that will absolutely 100% cure that which would have killed the richest person,
or the person of greatest religious faith, less than 100 years ago.
That's something you can rely on!
"He really thinks it's going to figure out the beginning of the universe, which it HAS!"
Uh, no. The Big Bang is about the DEVELOPMENT of the universe, NOT the origin.
The Big Bang can only describe the universe back to when it's 10^(-43) seconds old--
pretty young, certainly, but if we go back that tiniest instant to the very origin,
where time = 0, then the model ends up dividing by zero a lot,
all these infinities start showing up, and the whole thing breaks down.
Again, physicists are working on this problem,
but there are no definitive solutions as of yet.
"There's conclusive evidence that the universe began to exist
"sometime in the finite past, and therefore has a beginning.
"Obviously, Richard Dawkins doesn't want to believe that.
"That is willful ignorance."
You know, people keep asking me why I say all creationists are liars.
Gee, maybe it's because, all creationists are liars--including this guy!
Look at what Dawkins has to say on page 145,
a mere twelve pages before this guy starts quoting:
It's in the very same chapter, and yet Pevensie15 states:
"Obviously, Richard Dawkins doesn't want to believe that."
Either he's lying about what Dawkins said, or he's lying about having read the book.
There's just no way around it.
"Then he concludes the six premises with the famous quote from his book:
"therefore we can almost certainly conclude that God does not exist."
Again, let's look at the ACTUAL quote:
So, his conclusion is based on the lack of support for the hypothesis,
much as I detailed in my video, "Atheism and the Null Hypothesis."
Keep that in mind when you watch this next bit.
"Now that statement, in and of itself, posits a logical contradiction,
"because, here he is in the first six premises just utterly denying that God exists,
"and then saying, therefore we almost certainly know.
"It is really a logical contradiction. And he is really dogmatic.
"I watched a video of him on CNN the other day, and he said,
"'There is not one shred of evidence for God,'
"and now he's saying God almost certainly doesn't exist.
"He's really contradicting himself there."
No, he isn't--because he based that conclusion on the FAILURE of the God Hypothesis.
As Dawkins showed, and I as well, "There is not one shred of evidence for x"
can only logically lead to "x almost certainly does not exist."
See my Null Hypothesis video for more details.
"So if you're an atheist and you're watching this,
"don't take everything I said at face value; make sure.
"Pick up The God Delusion and read pages 157-158."
Um, I did. In fact, I read the whole book.
And that's brave words coming from someone who misquoted Dawkins with relish
and lied and misled his viewers about what Dawkins was saying and what his arguments were.
In fact, I sincerely doubt this nimrod even read it himself--
he's probably just regurgitating what he's read from some creationist tract or something.
He didn't get a single point right, he didn't quote a single part of the book correctly,
he lied about reading it or he lied about what Dawkins said,
and he hasn't in any sense behaved in a manner consistent with rational discourse.
It really amazes me how much these religious nutjobs can fail, fail, FAIL,
and how they seem to be blissfully unaware of that fact.