What is Reddit's opinion of God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

>The point is that macro evolution predicts a way to disprove it

No, it doesn't. One particular iteration of evolutionary theory has some wags proposing an idiosyncratic discovery that they'd regard as a refutation of it. Pointing out that they could, and likely would, save the damn theory by throwing out the example, explaining it away, or reformulating the theory isn't an irrelevant tangent - it's central.

At the same time, I pointed out that the 'rabbit in the wrong layer' canard absolutely pivots on microevolution and macroevolution being meaningfully distinct claims. To deny this, you have to argue that a rabbit in the wrong stratum would mean that Lenski's experiments are all irrelevant and things -can't- be evolving in the same. It's absurd, but it's where you have to be to maintain your position. Kicking up dust won't change that.

> Until shortly we thought that all life gains complexity as it evolves. This turns out to not be the case.

That is hardly some recent discovery.

> The fossil record doesn't show an anomaly, let alone a plethora of out of place fossils. Let me say this again: scientists care about fame and money. Proving the truth gives them that.

And THIS is absolutely inane. No, it doesn't. Sometimes telling the truth screws them over, or harms their agenda. You may as well be a communist politburo member insisting that if Lysenkoism is false, Stalin would be the first to admit it, because their state thrives on scientific principles. Nice line - it is bogus, and I've already given links documenting just how often scientists play fast and loose with data for one reason or another, how rarely they check another's work.

Must I do more? Fine: by your logic, scientists like these shouldn't exist. Why, they should be committed. What kind of crazy scientist would ever commit fraud? Apparently fame or advancing an agenda can't be a motivating factor.

'Proving the truth' doesn't give scientists money. 'Being thought of as providing the truth', does. But guess what? Good liars and fibbers in general can achieve that. Shall I provide you another example? Have at it. Show me the legion of scientists who showed up to debunk that book and expose it as a rotten misrepresentation of science.

You can't. You can, however, show me it being listed on the NCSE recommended reading list.

I'm only touching the surface when it comes to your errors here, but let me put some icing on this cake: I accept common descent, evolutionary theory, an old earth, the big bang, and I have since I was a child. I reject YEC, always have, and used to be quite the bastard to YECs. But I finally realized just how rotten both the arguments and the methods 'learned Christians' used on those skeptics across the board. You are demonstrating some of them.

Let me ask you this: Why? Why are you doing this? Why do you make it an important personal mission to attack and denigrate Creationists? Do you think it helps? Do you think the atheists will respect you? Don't you think, perhaps, they deserve a more sympathetic hearing? Or perhaps that this wild-eyed insistence on pounding them is something you've mistakenly taken up as a noble cause?