Replies

Do you disagree with this analysis?

No. But what I do disagree with is so many people (including scientists) always talk about the Theory of Evolution as the Law of Evolution. This missing link is the biggest stumbling block to proving evolution from one species to the next species. So we're not talking about 1 missing link, we're talking millions of missing links. Say scientists find a fossil of a fish and they also find another fossil of a fish very similiar except the later find is of a bigger fish. Now they believe that no species rapidly evolves so they look for the missing link that ties the evolution together. The problem is that there has been NO missing link found for any species that shows natural evolution.

"It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe."

My question to you is why do evolutionists delude themselves and try to delude others in their "religious" views on evolution when their beliefs have a gaping hole in them? Why do they propound their beliefs as Law when in reality it is just another Theory?

Interesting you bring up missing links. My problem with that whole idea is like as you say. The idea of taxonomy has conflicting problems. Using the fish example, suppose two fish fossils appear to have evolved one from the other. This would probably be based on the physical appearances. But with living animals sometimes they find that relationships are not based on appearances but by genetic similarities.

It's been said before that some taxonomies and cladistics are contradictory--evolutionary based explanations for animal relationships cannot be used to prove evolution.

More on the subject can be found here: 29 Evidences critique and No Transitionals.

Hope I made sense.

”My question to you is why do evolutionists delude themselves and try to delude others in their "religious" views on evolution when their beliefs have a gaping hole in them? Why do they propound their beliefs as Law when in reality it is just another Theory?”

Many people believe in evolution because that is what has been taught exclusively in public schools and universities. Like bloodletting several hundred years ago, it is taken as an article of faith and accepted as such. It covers the situation for the vast majority of people who accept evolution.

One the other hand, atheists attach themselves fiercely to this theory because it provides them with an explanation for their existence that eliminates the need for a Creator, and fits into their worldview. The absence of a God requires a naturalistic explanation to answer the question: “why am I here?”

It is the reason that atheists cannot even accept the possibility of an “Intelligent Design” theory, since to do so would require them to concede the possibility that a God may exist. And if that is true, their atheism is false. And if God does exist, all sorts of epistemological issues would need to be re-examined.