I still find it sad that so many people still believe in something, base their lives upon something that quite clearly isn’t real.

A problem with your stance is that nothing is clear, without exception, no matter which side one is on.
The alternative to a creator, is that all that is, is an accident which, at face value, is simply absurd.

The odd thing is, is that those who simple cannot believe in a God that simple has always been, will accept that the material that forms the universe simply has always been, or, in some cases, that something came from nothing.

I thought that for believers their god created everything……….no?

That is an idea that too many christians do not think through or turns their brains off and play follow the leader.

It is illogical that God, (God being a triune unit with god being a title is another reason christians have split into factions as the authority Jesus gives God the Father in the Bible, over him, screws with their, God is God, ain’t no difference narrow minds), once was all by itself with nothing else and suddenly decided it needed more.

Because that is illogical and for those who believe God created everything, God created logic, it would be a catch 22.

The creation of the Bible is the creation of the physical world not the universe or God’s realm .

Umm no. Let me introduce you to science. Much of which is the quest to find out the what, why and how. Not knowing any of those at a particular point in time does not default to “nothing.” It simply means that at that point in time we do not know.

Why is an accident absurd? The only way it can be absurb is if you must have something, which simply becomes a weak argument for there being a creator.

What, why, how has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, it merely is trying to figure out what it was done with, why it was done and how it was done but then that means there is an organized plan behind it.

Atheists, for the most part, scoff at the fact that for people of religions, God and the energy God used to build with, has simply always been yet they they that that energy has always been while at the same time saying that it some how organized itself, by chance, into matter and living beings with emotions.
Some say that the universe popped out of nothing and then by chance created it as we know it.

The former is simply absurd using logic, the latter is asininely moronic.

Why does it have to be a major change or be on an instantaneous scale? — One creature with an oddity cannot change how that species continues on; a portion of that species, larger than the norm must at the same period of time suddenly change from the norm. Evolution pretty much has to be magic.

Luck aside, a cheetah will catch the slowest gazelle; all other things being equal the fastest gazelle will always get away. And the fastest gazelle will get to breed and the one that the cheetah ate will not. Likewise a slow cheetah will likely starve, or not produce offspring as successfully as a fast, well-fed, cheetah.

Given enough time this naturally selective breeding could, quite by accident, produce all sorts of variations without any divine intervention or ‘magical theories’.

Look at all the varieties of dog man has managed to breed in just a few centuries; nature could surely have achieved much more in many millennia.

That is all topical adaptation or calculated adaptation. Each one is hard wired to produce the result depending on who survives or how they are crossed.

That is not evolution.

‘Scientific dogma’? Science doesn’t go in for dogma…..you are thinking of religion. —

DOGMA

a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

tenet

: a belief or idea that is very important to a group

Science is making enormous strides in understanding DNA; perhaps even revealing the complete mechanism by which evolution takes place.

And what is the response of those that deny that evolution exists? State that DNA does not mutate when the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that it does mutate.

Demonstrates, when, where, how

It has to be replicated at will to be a proof. Of course if the same thing happens repeatedly that is merely topical adaptation caused by artificially created scenarios.

Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Well let us see, all that is was either created by a supreme being or it was not.
Ask the scientific community to include God in their theories and one is on a good day, merely scoffed at, all the rest condemned as a ignorant fool following a fable; therefore, their scientific opinions and theories are uncontrovertibly true to them.
That is a dogma as the Oxford English prefers to define it.

At the same time a theory from the Oxford is:

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

and supposition is:

an uncertain belief.

Yet they ridicule those who consider their theory to be nothing more that a poorly educated guess without proof.
The main scientific communities attitudes is why evolution is as much a dogma to them as the Bible is a dogma to Christians.

Rubbish.

You are making up fantasy to suit your position and beliefs. — No more than scientists are doing the same to support their position and beliefs.

Science by it’s very nature questions and continues to question. — Mocking anyone who challenges an unproven theory is not questioning, it is taking an uncontrovertilbe stance.

Commonly accepted scientific understanding has been, and will continue to be, challenged and where new discoveries point to differing conclusions those will become the new norm, until new evidence brings challenge to those too. — That is bs. An article in Scientific American in the eighties exposed what happens to scientists who challenge the majority accepted dogma even if they are eventually proven correct.
They are ostracized and driven out of the community.
Those in the article had that happen and they never practiced their chosen field again.

Religon does not accept challenge. — Neither does the majority science community.
A woman from the article mentioned above, had her theory found to be true years later by a man; he was given credit for the NEW discovery, she was not mentioned in any papers about the idea she said was true years earlier.
To proper scientists, she did not exist.

Science does not “scoff” (emotive language there, i wonder do you have a reason for it?) at religion.

Yeah right.
If you say that often enough you might convince your self.

This is from JConline:

The scientific community, including the one at Purdue University, might scoff at what’s going on at Ball State University these days, as a handful of Indiana legislators circle the Muncie campus, questioning whether a physics professor has been unduly stifled from exploring the topic of intelligent design in a science class.

But this is some potent stuff, as reported by Seth Slabaugh of the Muncie Star Press. And the implied threat by the lawmakers, including state Sen. Dennis Kruse, shouldn’t be taken lightly.