Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

It doesn't explain it, it assumes it. One can very well state that "God, or Aliens, or an intelligent designer realized humans need better locomotion, and hence adapted our backbones."

Really, it's all faith Mr. Loser.

[loseyourname]

You haven't answered the question. Evolution explains why our backbones are adapted to walking on all fours and great parts of our genome are identical to archaea but not bacteria. How does creation explain this?

[Anonymouse]

You very well know I do not support macroevolution. Within species variation is there, the only alternative for that is creation, i.e. intelligent intervention. But let's stick to free will.

[loseyourname]

So the human spine is anatomically adapted to quadrapedal locomotion and the human genome shows relation to archaea because of microevolution?

[Anonymouse]

Wow loser, I didn't think you'd be this fanatical about evolution. Even I concede microevolution, but I disagree on macro.

[loseyourname]

How is proclaiming intelligent design supreme treating all theories the same? I have already posted numerous examples of evidence against intelligent design. You have failed to address even one of them.

[Anonymouse]

All the "evidences" Darwin produced is essentially the work of intelligence and design. There ya go. Theories are theories, treat them all the same. The root is belief.

[loseyourname]

If a bible-thumper could produce all of the evidence that Darwin did, then I would lend creedence to your statement. Besides, I don't cling to the theory; I use it. There is a huge difference. I don't pray to Darwin and tell people they will go to hell if they don't do the same. I don't even honestly care whether or not he's right. The point is, his theory explains everything observed in the biological sciences, and so it serves as a framework in which all new hypotheses are formulated. It has had a tremendously advantageous impact; arguably more than any other theory in the history of man. Nitpickers like you that are for whatever reason threatened by it can complain 'til the cows come home, and science will keep churning away, making new discoveries that heighten our understanding of the world and improve lives, based on evolutionary theory.

[Anonymouse]

Hahaha he said "fundamentalist". One would argue you are a fundamentalist since you believe in Darwinism like a Bible thumper believes in God.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You are really doing yourself a disservice here. All of these guys are again talking about single-step selection. No evoutionist postulates that a fully living cell spontaneously assembled itself. They are arguing with no one, and so are you. You are making up improbable theories that don't exist and then refuting them.

This is not about single-steps, it is the chance of evolution occuring period. Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon write:

The Origin of Pre-biological Systems, edited by Sidney W. Fox, states:

A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escapeclauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that theprobability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude fromclassical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated (1961).

Further, if, in ultimate terms, there are only two possible answers to the question oforigins, then the disproving of one should logically prove the other. If the chances of evolu-tion occurring are e.g., “one” in 10^1,000,000,000,000, then the chance of creation occurring wouldhave to be its opposite—the odds being 99.9 (followed by one trillion more 9’s). Again,George Wald of Harvard has stated that a 99.995% probability is “almost inevitable.” Then what of 99.999999999999999 (plus one trillion more 9’s)?—the “chance” that creationhas occurred?

For example, the Archaeopteryx dscovery seemed to satisfy many of the believers of Darwin, and from then on it was one discovery after another, with human ancestors, and ancient mammal like reptiles, a good sequence for the horse, etc. That still doesn't make out any evolution. It only shows more perfectly complete species appearing suddenly out of nowhere. If the intermediates are true, and did exist for a long time, why are there very little evidence of intermediates, but much more evidence of fully formed species in the fossil record? I know there are more excuses for this as well. The truth is the fossil record does not convincinglydocument a single transition from one species to another. Moreover, the fossil stasis posed by say, the whale and the bat, poses another problem for evolutionists' gradualism, as those have remained unchanged for more than ten million years.