Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on November 29, 1999 at 19:52:39 {DGglKT6Uj2CfsKE9siAI79YAW9JMpc}:
In Reply to: ****Evolution versus creation posted by Smurf on November 29, 1999 at 15:00:36:
The evolution theory, used as an answer to a creationist, can be rejected on the same premises, lack of proof.
I really must disagree. Belief in God is based on faith (as it should be). There is no proof that is acceptable, for saying God created the earth leads to the question 'which God?', since each religion has its own beliefs on that subject.
With evolution, there is plenty of proof. Compelling proof, though you may choose not to accept it.
In fact, not just lack of proof but also because of lack of any credibility.
Science disagrees.
Just to illustrate my point, the "punctuated equilibrium" theory shows that evolution has made major leaps from the simpler to the more complex when something have disrupted the steady state. A large comet hitting earth destroyed the most of the environment and all of the dinosaurs and therefore gave the opportunity for a higher level of complexity to evolve as mammals and humans. If multiple environment catastrophes in the past worked as an engine for evolution should we not then fire of all of our nuclear bombs?
Evolution works regardless of the environment. No, we shouldn't fire nuclear bombs for that would be destructive. The fact that some life would continue is no reason to kill off the rest (shall we ask the dinosaurs if they were glad they died off by environmental disaster?).
So the fact that the evolutionary process has surivived disasters does not mean it depends on disasters. It would get along very well without that, only in different directions perhaps.
I just can't accept this kind of logic.
In my opinion, you need to learn more about evolution. They way you describe it, it doesn't sound very logical. The way scientists describe it, it does.
The pure chance is therefore also a very poor explanation.
Which is why evolution is not dependent on pure chance. Creationists like to make that claim, but it isn't true.
Seeker