|
The big problem Richard Dawkins is having, is that he can't have a good argument with anyone he's challenging, because he's by far and away smarter, and a better debator, and communicator than any one of his adversaries.
I mean, we could beat people at poker, document it, and then present these people as retards because they can't handle our game. Unfortunately, this is what Dawkins has done here.
I am an atheist, the argument of evolution is NOT that I evolved from a monkey. The argument of evolution is that I evolved from Cro Magnam Man.
Look at that stupid chart of all the guys that look like man, the guy on the far left looks like a cave man, and the guy on the far right looks just like me, only with muscles.
They stand up straighter, and their heads get bigger, and useless bones wither away as you progress to the right.
We've seen skeletal evidence of our own evolution for the last couple million years yet people refuse to believe it, injecting the argument, "Well I look like a monkey, and monkeys look like me, therefore I must have come from the monkey." They then extend the argument: "If I come from monkeys, there must therefore be a "missing link" in the chain that is easily identifiable as a monkey AND man".
Finally they quantify with grace: "If we can't find the missing link, you're wrong, god is right, and you'll burn in hell."
Remember it's the religious that are creating the monkey to man argument in the first place.
|