posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:28 PM
I don't feel compelled to answer the OP's arguments. You can find them in any introduction to philosophical analysis textbook used in Freshman
classes around the world. It's old stuff.
What is interesting about the theory of Evolution is its OWN evolution since 1859. Darwin, who was NOT a political animal, but a scientist who did not
care for politics, has a wealth of detail in "Origin of Species." (How many here besides myself have actually read it?) He uses contemporary
examples showing evolution in action, such as the white moth evolving to a black moth because of coal dust pollution in the English countryside
turning the bark of white trees black, thus favoring the survival of black moths from predators because they couldn't be seen. Changing conditions
enabled survival of the fittest.
But a serious "flaw" in Evolution in 1859 and in 1871/2 when he published "The Descent of Man" was that no one knew how evolution worked. We could
see the results, but we did not understand the mechanism behind it. Also, in the 19th century there were few, if any, fossils of early hominims that
could show how Homo sapiens evolved. In other words, Darwin had a theory, but he didn't have much evidence other than the end results.
Then the 20th century came along and several things happened. First, we started finding lots of fossils. This has continued for 100 years with every
new find filling in another piece of the puzzle. Yes, it's ever changing as we find newer bones; that's as it should be. But the fact is after a
century of searching anthropologists have it pretty well nailed back to Homo erectus. It gets thinner and thinner the further back you go, of course,
but the point is that nothing in the fossil record contradicts evolution. Everything found supports it; and Homo erectus was NOT Homo sapiens. He was
a little smaller, not quite as intelligent, but could probably easily beat you on the soccer field. We have hundreds of specimens including some
complete skeletons, such as Turkana Boy.
The other big thing that happened was the discovery of the mechanism in the form of DNA. If there was ever a "missing link," this was it. And the
interesting thing was that these discoveries came about by studying genetics. These guys weren't into paleontology. So here we have two completely
different fields and it all comes together. We now understand the science of genetics well enough that we can use gene therapy. We've mapped the
human genome and are beginning to discover which genes cause which traits. Incredible.
So the point is that in the last 150 years science has confirmed evolution from may different angles.
And the sad thing is, this "creator" argument is simply unnecessary. It is not a logical fallacy to say that the Creator used the mechanism of DNA
to create. You can have your God and evolution, too, and there is no real contradiction.
Of couse, OP won't go along with that. He's a man with a cause (see sig below), but I didn't write this for him, but to the reat of you whom I
thought might be interested. I won't be back on this thread. It really isn't worth it. Cheers.
[edit on 7/17/2010 by schuyler]