Again, yup. I get it.

And what I'm saying (again) is that there is a certain irony to a statement like:

"One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round."

The writer is convinced of the "scientific" nature of what he "knows" to be true -- all the while merely stating what he philosophically believes.

We all "get it" -- we understand that the creationist come from a philosophical "belief" system (though an interesting discussion for another day is the curious fact that the juggernaut of the academic world is effectively blockading anyone who comes from a creationist point of view from participation in their world).

What we seem to not grasp is that there is an "other" entrant in the debate. It is not the creationist (whom we understand as philosopher), it is not the scientist (whom we understand does not have a horse in the origins race) -- it is the "believer" -- the new disciple of Dawkins, if you will, who has extrapolated (very UNSCIENTIFICALLY) an end conclusion -- that creation could not have happened...

...and who, at their most extreme end is already talking about the extermination of the ignorant religious as "dangerous" (even though they, too, are merely "believers", as you put it).

I too am a disciple of Dawkins. Darryl Dawkins. Chocolate Thunder. And I want to invite everyone to join me on the planet "Lovetron".