Sorry, Stu - I don't see any meaningful violation here. "The universe is everything you call god" allows that the universe may include more than everything he calls god or only what he calls god hence my "..what we call god is included in the universe". The main point is that if what he calls god is actually the universe and the universe exists then what he calls god exists.
If this statement is true, then it can also be said like this... "If God is everything you call the universe, then what you call the universe is actually God." So I guess this means you believe in God now.
Fair enough Hansel, then in answer to your main point: Changing the name of something to something else, doesn't make that something else exist. If what he calls god is actually the universe, why is he being guileful by changing the name universe to god?
It can't be said like that, unless you practice to deceive. Whether you can deal with it or not, the universe exists specifically. God does not. So to call what is ostensibly the universe - god , is at best being merely disingenuous. I have a pencil on my desk that exists specifically more than God has ever managed. You can call my pencil God if you want , but it won't make God exist.
It's more than obvious by now, especially perhaps from that post, how incapable you are of understanding the most basic facts whenever you think they clash with your preconceived religious belief. You think scientists are going to suggest that the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen to make water is chance? It's a chemical reaction which results in an inevitable chemical substance forming called water . Nothing to do with chance. So why would scientists say that when fundamental chemical processes interact between and within inorganic matter as they can, will, and do, resulting in the production of the building blocks of life, it could be anything to do with chance, any more than water is to do with chance? And just wtf has Frankenstein got to do with any of this you crack pot?. Honestly that's so completely off the page it would be hilarious if you weren't so pathetic. Is your argument now to be - the building blocks of life are not what makes things alive? Don't you really understand how vacuous a remark that is? How do you think making desperately absurd statements like that in any way supports your ideas of a God exactly?
Evolution is a scientifically demonstrated fact, as much as any empirically observed phenomenon can be. Just read up any basic book on the subject, the evidence from the fossil record is virtually incontrovertible - species that we used to know nothing about, were predicted by the basic tenets of the theory of evolution, and over the next 100+ years, countless archeological finds confirmed pretty much exactly what evolutionary theory would predict. Just as Newtons laws predict the trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air, so evolution predicted various types of animal development, which were later confirmed time and again by the fossil record. Opposing evolution back in the 19th century, before this overwhelming weight of evidence, could have been a semi-defensible position. In 2011, at this late date, to fly in the face of numerous facts and try to claim evolution is bogus, is the same as claiming the world is flat, or that astrology is valid, or that reading tea leaves helps to forecast the market. It just reveals yourself to any educated person as an undereducated scientifically illiterate sub-normal retard. P.S. there is nothing incompatible between evolution and religious belief. In fact, most religious believers who are scientists, or educated laymen, fully accept evolution as fact.
Not according to these gentlemen, of course they know a lot more about it than I claim to. http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm
Their argument is that there is a lack of transitional fossils; standard fare for creationists. The reality is science has based its study of evolution on genetics NOT FOSSILS for the past 50 years or so. Therefore, if there were no fossils, the theory of evolution would still conclude common descent based on genes not old rocks. Seneca