satrekker writes:
Evolution requires a staggering amount of faith, moreso than creationism in my opinion, and since God alone, or nobody if you are an atheist, was present "in the beginning," neither side will be able to "scientifically" prove their assertion.
Since you seem to be able to put numbers on the amounts of faith needed for evolution and creation, I would ask you to present those figures. Show us how much faith is needed for evolution, and that it is more than is needed for creation.
satrekker writes:
It really is a God issue.
If that is true, then it is also a Krishna issue, and an Allah issue, and an Odin issue, and a Zeus issue, et cetera. Please tell me why the God issue is to be preferred over the others.
satrekker writes:
I imagine that I will be criticized for the following unsupported statements
Correction: "unsupportable" is the word you need.
satrekker writes:
Horizontal variation within a genotype is quite a different thing than vertical evolution.
They would probably be perpendicular, don't you think? That is,
if they were scientific concepts within the theory of evolution. Which, for your information, they aren't.
satrekker writes:
Genetic mutation leading to increasingly complex processes/organizations is illogical and "unscientific."
Time to support this. Please specify where the logic breaks down and how it is unscientific. (Why the scare quotes? Do you not really mean it, or what?)
satrekker writes:
While being overly simplistic, reading about the assertion that taking 200 steps backward (negative result of a mutation/Devolution) and one step forward (some perceived "beneficial" mutation/evolution) has resulted in intelligent life from a primordial soup is outright comical
It sure is comical. Luckily, that isn't evolution you described. It's the creationist way of saying: "I don't understand the concept of evolution".
The buildup of "harmful" mutations is a myth. If a mutation is really harmful, it will probably kill the unfortunate creature possessing it in an early stage, i.e. before it procreates. If the creature procreates before dying, then any mutation it has is not harmful in an evolutionary sense.
satrekker writes:
When you boil evolution down to its quintessence, all you really have is spontaneous generation standing upon some magical amount of time that is "theorized" to overturn everything that current, repeatable, observable, scientific inquiry tells us
No, quintessentially, you would have
random mutation and
selective pressure. Nothing more, nothing less. Ironically, this is supported by "current, repeatable, observable, scientific inquiry".
Having said that, I anticipate a misunderstanding of the words 'repeatable', 'observable', and 'scientific'. Let's hear it.
satrekker writes:
life does not come from non-life
That's funny, I could have sworn I read in the Bible that God created life from dirt. Last time I checked, dirt was not alive. So, apparently, life
can come from non-life.
satrekker writes:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's a bit late, so I'm not going to elaborate. A rudimentary understanding of physics, I hope, will render this citation self-evident.
A better than rudimentary understanding of physics renders it ludicrous. I suggest you do your homework before writing down such a howler.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
™ Version 4.2