Religions - Your Opinion

[M16]

Without being a biologist, or any sort of expert on the subject, I'll contend with the site you've provided as best I can.

Point one:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

The explanation the site provided does not offer supplemental proof, but merely restates the above statement in other words several more times. There are no links seen in the modern world because a transitional link would not be understood as such unless we were looking at the specimen after the fact. We can't look at ourselves as a transitional phase to the next step of evolution because we have no idea what the next step of evolution is going to be.

The site states that there have been no direct links that prove that "There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever." However, there are. Notice how that particular argument has no citation, and therefore has no real foundation other than the knowledge that it is the author's opinion. There are links, and the links are quite conceivable. Extremely strong similarities can be found in bone structure between bird skeletons and the skeletons of the dinosaurs. Likewise, many comparisons can be made between fish and amphibians. And again, amphibians to reptiles. The only way not to see these links is to actually refuse the capability.

Point two:

Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Essentially, the 'proof' the site offers is that since there are many different types of dogs, there is no such thing as natural selection because it would result in only one supreme type of dog. This point itself is sort of moot, because different environments would call for a different trait in a 'supreme' animal. Hence different builds, ear lengths, howl tones, etc.

While many different breeds of dogs currently coexist, it is the result of domestication and colonialism and breeding. We are basically either fighting or aiding natural selection, depending on the way you want to argue it.

Point three:

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

First off, evolutionists don't state that life resulted from non-life or that matter resulted from nothing. So that alone is a moot statement. Then the third statement is just a continuation of the second point, which already is lacking in foundation. Then the 'proof' the site offers is just silly, and doesn't strengthen the argument at all. The author seems very unscientific and just seems to want to be believed because he went through the effort of writing all of that material.

Point four:

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

The quotes that the site offers do provide insight to the fact that there is a lot of guesswork in linking the past to the present. But they also show that none of these theories are unfounded, and in fact do result from a lot of thought and effort. You can hardly argue the points any further on that site, because the author tells you that s/he lacks the publisher's approval.

Point five:

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

That's because they're seen as links. Not as 'part-human.' Again, the author comes off as though they simply want credit and validation because they went through the effort of writing the article.

Point six:

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

See above.

Point seven:

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

"Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible." It actually doesn't argue that. It argues that people would actually rely on others to survive because people can't do everything themselves and they realize this. The most advanced would not improve themselves only at the expense of others, because they would require the aid of their fellow people. Anyone should be able to come to this conclusion on their own. The rest of this point only restates the "evidence" above.

Point eight:

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

This would be an interesting statement to indulge in, however the following text throws any of its credibility out the window. Again, it seems as though it is only an opportunity for the author to try to gain validity and recognition without saying anything true.

Point nine:

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Yet that still does not mean that evolution can not explain it. In science, there are always several theories to explain the same phenomenon. One theory does not necessarily disprove or supplement the other. They are simply two ways of skinning the same cat, so to speak. Not that I condone that sort of thing.

----

Before I actually read through that site, it seemed like it would be an interesting and credible read. But once I started reading through it, it was clear that the author juxtaposed his opinion conveniently in spots where one is just prone to accepting it as truth. Not only that, but the quotes that the author takes from his/her sources do not do a particularly fabulous job at supporting his/her arguments. It was not exactly a waste of time to read through that site, but there have to be more credible sources out there to peruse.


As for the Big Bang, there are more scientists these days that refuse to believe it just came from nowhere. One of the most accepted theories is that the Big Bang occurred from a previous reaction, and that the birth/destruction of the universe (as we know it) is all part of a large loop which continues to repeat itself. This is nearly impossible to test or prove, so more faith is required for this belief than a belief in a God.