Aragorn-
Two points (which may or may not conflict with each other, depending upon how you take them). Let`s start with my bias (since we all come with some sort of bias)...I am a Christian.

Evolution, relating to animal species, is not directly counter to anything in the Bible (that I see). Where it conflicts with the Bible is the assertion that man evolved from some other species.

The problem with evolution, aside from the "Christian" perspective, is that true Darwinian evolution has so many gaps that it becomes less and less credible as we examine it in light of increased scientific enlightenment.

The classic example of how would a wing would get created is a solid question. During the multiple-generational evolutionary process, according to Darwin, these changes would have to confer some sort of advantage upon the species in order to survive (and continue to evolve into their eventual form). But how could losing a fore-limb, while still not having it be usable as a wing, confer an advantage? Just the opposite, it would put the species at a disadvantage. Logically, it just doesn`t follow his model.

Then we move to the fossil record. We have Darwin`s assumed starting species, and today`s assumed ending species, but no meaningful transitional species which would support the incremental gradual changes that Darwinism demands.

My 2 cents worth.

• RE: RE: RE: RE: Evolution - Aragorn - October 12, 2000 - 16:27 UTC
• RE: RE: RE: RE: Evolution - yanniru - October 12, 2000 - 17:46 UTC
  • RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Evolution - Aragorn - October 12, 2000 - 18:12 UTC