It's always interesting to see discussions where those who take opposite sites interact with each other thankfully in a reasonable and considerate way. It's certainly no secret that I believe in "God Created" and that I don't believe Evolution was the process that He used in doing so even though if that's the way He wished to do it that he could have done so.
I also understand how taking the position I do appears ludicrous and insane to a person that had no belief in a deity or God and therefore I believe that in order to argue against Evolution, as the process or vehicle by which all life got here, the stronger argument is not one which is to promote my own opinion or belief which also cannot be substantiated or proven beyond anyone's doubts. It is for that reason that I have attempted to rather show, in past post, some non-religious reasons that I have problems with Evolutionary theory.
Another of those, non-religious, problems, I have with Evolution, comes from the probability of chance alone. If, as Evolution teaches, life came from one primordial soup, the most basic one cell being and then divided and "evolved" or developed over time then how is it that man, and man alone, developed such intelligence as to invent, create, develop common languages and multi-lingual abilities and no other species has? How is it that the vast diversity of life can be explained and yet such a vast chasm of diversity of species exist? Diversity such as plant life, insects, mammals, reptiles and bacterial life. All this time and yet man seems to be the only one that can and does alter his/her environment and develop such high levels of reasoning, education, and manipulation of that which he/she touches and encounters.
It seems that science accepted Darwin's evolution of the species as the sole, indisputable, truth and the only possible method or vehicle for our existence. I feel that Scientist do a great injustice, to Science and themselves, to ceremonially dismiss the possibility of a realm outside the physical and thereby limiting Science, in general, to requiring to find some physical explanation for that which I believe is intellectually unattainable, at least at this point in time. Maybe by nature Science necessitates a physical or definable quantity be observed before it can be recognized to exist. Still, without verifiable proof Science projects itself and it's views regarding many other things such as our Universe and the "Big Bang" or Black Holes. Why would it be so difficult to project the same with regard to a Spiritual Realm or some other than physical Realm existing simultaneously with our own. A parallel Universe is hypothetically existing just through a Black Hole so why not the overlapping of a Spiritual existence with a physical one? The merging of the two being, not through some black hole but, the birth of a new soul/baby and the passing of a human soul from a physical body into a Spiritual realm. A better example would be the Human Being our self. The acceptance or recognition of a soul/spirit alive, existing, living, within a physical body yet independent of the physical body in that after death of the physical the soul/spirit continues to live on. Is it too far fetched to Scientifically consider such exist without tying it to God or a Deity? It seemingly seems that Science cannot conceive of such out of fear of recognition of God or a Deity or Religion.
If this discovery does necessitate the rewriting of evolutionary theories then when will the next revision come and what would prompt it? Aside for a moment to say Creation by a Deity or God is it, for a atheist, too hard to conceive that some intelligent source has to be behind or is reasonable to assume to be behind the creation of Man and other life? Would it be inconceivable to assume that if an Intelligent being or life created life that they would use similar sources for various species or in a word "of it's own kind". In other words some common points of reference between say apes and man without, by necessity, having to have one come from the other though this process we call evolution and yes common ties between say birds and Dinosaurs?
The other question, I'd also pose is ... Is it too difficult to accept that quite possibly the actual answers and process, by which we got here, is totally beyond the ability of man/woman to understand or conceive even with our own limited abilities and understandings? Even Creationist cannot explain or conceive of the process that God used in Creation, that is for those that believe in God and creation.
What I'm trying to say is it seems that we, as intelligent, thinking, life creatures, are too fast to limit and restrict our understanding to such a simple physical explanation for life in order to avoid confrontation of other, what I believe are more, probable possibilities? I will repeat, once again, that I believe that Evolution, apart from Religion or religious sources, presents us with far more questions than it answers and leaves far too many discrepancies.
Does the disregarding, or disbelief, of Evolution as a life creation process necessitate the belief in God? It is this assumption that I feel too often traps Scientist into blindly accepting Evolution as incontrovertible. My argument then is not for Creation, which I do believe in as far as myself is concerned, but rather against evolution based solely on that which evolution cannot answer and duplicate
Happy New Year to all ... at least you know, by this post, that one of my successful resolutions wasn't to write shorter forum post.