I don't really know evolution well enough.
Although I understand a lot of Dawkins fundamental arguments. About the improbability of God, how evolution is not about chance, burden of proof, etc.
I'd be less good at displaying sources for evidence of evolution and the like. I'd be better at saying "the burden of proof is on you, if you want evidence of evolution then go read about it. Even without evolution the burden of proof is 100% on you to give evidence of your creator, etc, etc. The only alternative to design isn't chance. Its evolution - and even without evolution you couldn't just assume God. Its better to leave something unknown until the actual evidence is in than to just "have faith". Faith is belief not based on evidence".
Etc, etc, etc.
Although I understand a lot of Dawkins fundamental arguments. About the improbability of God, how evolution is not about chance, burden of proof, etc.
I'd be less good at displaying sources for evidence of evolution and the like. I'd be better at saying "the burden of proof is on you, if you want evidence of evolution then go read about it. Even without evolution the burden of proof is 100% on you to give evidence of your creator, etc, etc. The only alternative to design isn't chance. Its evolution - and even without evolution you couldn't just assume God. Its better to leave something unknown until the actual evidence is in than to just "have faith". Faith is belief not based on evidence".
Etc, etc, etc.
