So, I don't have to worry about what Jesus would say. I am confident that he would welcome a theory that matches God's handiwork with bringing about the Kingdom of God. Incidentally, you are wrong about there being only one meaning for a parable (although, I have no idea where you arrived at this assumption...). For example, Matt.13:33-34:
"He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
Jesus does not explain this parable. Yeast is used by the apostle Paul as an indicator of sin (I Cor.5:6-8 and Gal. 5:9). This analogy has a long history in Israel since it was even based on a holy week of Israel called the Unleavened Bread festival [see Matt.26:17; Lev.23:7). However, it is clear from the context that Jesus can also be using yeast as analogy of the Kingdom of God being an enormous outcome of Jesus' ministry. Which meaning is correct? Actually, there isn't necessarily an incorrect meaning with regards to this parable. The 'yeast is sin' meaning can apply to the 'weeds' that enter the church, and the 'yeast as righteousness' can also apply as the mustard seed parable immediately before seems to indicate. In fact, you can have other meanings as well. Just cite the view you think that this or that parable means, and you will surely find many other Christian views with a different interpretation. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. The great thing about parables is that you can find new nuggets of truth in them if you look. I suggest that if you want to learn more about your faith that you start looking for multiple meanings. You should even look for meaning in your own life, you'd be surprised what you find.
1.Thermodynamics processes tend toward disorder.
That's in closed systems. The biological world is not a closed system. For example, there's visible light and other frequencies and types of radiation coming from the sun, nearby supernovas, and Cosmos in general, there's gravitational pull from the moon, sun, and other bodies (e.g., passing supernovas). There's bombardment of asteroids and comets every now and then. You even get heat from the interior of the earth in the way of ocean vents, volcanos, etc. We live in a virtual sea of particles in terms of quantum mechanics which might also exert an effect in terms of quantum chaos. Lots of stuff that can embower life for billions and billions of years.
2.Survival of the fittest would tend to cause life forms which are not dependent on another life form. This is not what I see in nature.
Natural selection is not exactly survival of the fittest, and there's other drivers of evolutionary processes (e.g., genetic drift and mutation, sexual selection, kin selection, possible group selection, etc, etc). The important point is that evolution has tons and tons of examples, and everyday more is added to the knowledge of evolutionary examples and success stories.
3.The male female relationship in genetic reproduction is a genetic impass to evolution and any life form which requires it should be way behind. We are not behind.
I hardly see why anyone would say that. This mechanism provides a means to diversify the gene pool to provide a better means to adapt, while at the same time providing a means by which to encourage certain adaptations (i.e., preventing those adaptations from being 'washed out' by a flood of genes). A small family can pass on desirable traits to a small extended family and then evolve from that point.
4.The fossil record does not show conversion between life forms. That is why they call the missing link "the missing link" BECAUSE IT IS MISSING. Not for humans only but for all expected life form transisions.
Yeah, and everytime a link is found (which happens every few tens of months), the bar of proof is lifted higher by saying "find a link between this and that"... then "find a link between this and that". It's really just a silly game in the heads of those who don't understand evolution. All you have to do is go back 140 years or so when evolutionary theory was new, and you'd find very little in the way of 'missing links'. Since that time paleontologists and their sister disciplines have produced enormous evidence of fossil evidence from everything from horses to humans. If the challenge is to find a fossil for every million years, then this will take a great deal of time and patience. But, there's really enough fossils that basically the only ones really interested in finding more are paleontologists (for the science of knowing) and those who would like to show-up creationists. Unfortunately creationists will never be satisfied. Heck, you could find a fossil that accounts for every single genetic change, but creationists aren't going to accept evolution.
5.The chromosones do not order logically in that if a monkey was close to a human it should have a number of chromosones close to ours and it does not.
You need to check your facts. The human and chimpanzee genetic makeup is almost identical. Someone is feeding a whole lot of Language Removed and you are paying top dollar for it.
You might not know this, I don't know your commitment to truth, but creationism is not about science, it's about defending their biblical beliefs, which are against the teachings of Jesus and against the teachings of Genesis. So, it's not even about the Bible. What is it about really? I personally think it is about the same thing that held back the Pharisees of Jesus' day from accepting his teachings. The Pharisees saw themselves as above the common people. The scientists of today are like the tax collectors in Jesus' day. Nothing a tax collector could say to a Pharisee would have convinced them of their merit as faithful people. Jesus accepted them and condemned them. Ultimately he paid for that condemnation with his life. But, I have no doubt that Jesus would reject the modern Pharisees who parade themselves as having knowledge about God, but they have rejected the chief cornerstone of truth - which is to be honest and humble with regard to the truth. Today's creationists are basically liars and the truth is not important to them. Jesus would have nothing to do with them. All that matters is the truth, not whatever fantasy one wants to invent to refute truth. Sorry I'm so harsh, but I've seen too much dishonest from the creationist crowd to realize that the truth is not important to them and they try and block the truth so they can hang onto their 'science' which is nothing but false science and false religion. It even turns potential believers away from Christianity because of their dishonest ways.
When I was young my mother didn't believe in evolution (my father did), so I looked into it. I didn't know what was true, I just wanted to know. So, I spent hundreds of hours researching and talking to scientists and universities. I talked to creationists too. Went to their lectures and attended their debates. It was only when I became knowledgeable that I saw what creationists were doing. Since that time I lost all respect for almost all of them. They lie. It isn't any simpler than that. I really think they have no concept of truth and are willing to toss it aside without even a moment's thought. Only their positions as some kind of 'authority' seems to be all that matters. It's Pharisee all the way down.
It has not come and as a matter of fact the opposite has come to pass. Unless a new modificatin to the idea is found quick the hole theory is going to be flushed because of lack of evidence.
This is bordering on delusion. In Darwin's day he didn't have genetics, he didn't have many of the dating methods available today, he didn't even have a vast array of fossils that we have today (which are being collected from all over the world). It's amazing how true to life Darwin's predictions have come.
I read about a theory reciently which stated that life on earth was brought from many different planets and we were sort of a zoo. You may, or may not think that was funny but it shows the difficulty in matching evolutionary theory to the fossil record.
You need to spend your research much more profitably. If you really want to know, then I suggest first that you begin reading academic worthy material. If you want to fool yourself into thinking you are seeking a truthful outlook by reading such ridiculousness, then go ahead. But, I question your commitment to truth. And, just to emphasize the importance of truth, let me remind you of a very important scripture:
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
Take truth very seriously. I do not see how you can take it seriously spending your time listening to creationists. If you really want to see how all this boils down, bottom line look at a debate on-line between a qualified evolutionary scientist and a creationist. I have never seen even one of these debates where a creationist won. They lose everytime. That ought to tell you something, that is, it will if you are committed to truth (along with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that is a different speech of mine ;-)
I am not afraid of evolution because I have based my oponion on the evedence.
If the evedence changes I will change my mind.
How about you?
Hey, I'll be one of the first in a creationist camp if evolutionary science flops. But, all I see is success after success: