hyperion: that's why i don't believe that by some chance life began from a chemical broth. we are far too complex for me to believe that we were just thrown together with no goal or form of order.
We may be very complex, but it does not follow that early life was so complex. Furthermore, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution explains our current biodiversity, how species change over time, why species change over time, and explains how we evolved from a common ancestor or group of ancestors. The actual origin of life is outside of the scope of evolutionary theory. Now, you are correct that all current thinking regarding the origin of life are merely hypotheses, and in fact this is an excellent method for demonstrating the difference between hypothesis and theory. The myriad of explanations for the possible origin of life are hypotheses, they have some evidence to support them, but do not fully explain observed phenomena and have not yet been confirmed. A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation which fully explains observed phenomena and makes predictions that have been tested.
there is no documented proof that evolution occurs cross species,
Yes, yes there is. Aside from observed evolution in laboratory bacteria, the fossil evidence, including "transitional" species, is abundant. Archeopteryx and other archosaurs with feathers have been found, including early toothed seabirds. Whale ancestors bearing vestigial hindlimbs that get progressively more atrophied through several different species across several million years have been found and documented. Synapsid reptiles species with progressively more mammalian skulls have been found and documented.
i do believe that within a species it does occur. like when moths develope spots on their wings.
And when you multiply this process by several billion years, it becomes very obvious how evolution above the species level occurs. If you accept the peppered moth changes, then you understand natural selection and how it works. Actually, humans provide similar evidence, in the form of varied racial characteristics, like when my Jewish nose gets stuffed up in this fucking humid weather that it was never adapted for, or how my black friends can sit out in the sun with me and not get sunburned in five minutes. However, because no human population has been continuously reproductively isolated for more than ten millenia, these variations have not resulted in speciation, as evidenced by the fact that the various races can interbreed. However, it should be noted that certain medical issues like lactose tolerance or liver enzyme polymorphism vary from race to race.
testing products on animals does not proove that they are our ancestors, sorry.
You completely and utterly missed my point on that one, which is a bit frustrating for me. My point was that the FDA tests drugs on animals
because of common descent, not that their testing proves common descent. And by the way, the current species tested on are not our ancestors, but they share a common ancestor with us. Now, the point was that if, as you assert, there is no common descent, then there is no reason to expect that tests of drugs on mammals would be a better prediction of their function in humans than tests on reptiles or amphibians, or even other phyla. If this is the case, then you ought to go down and explain it to the FDA, because you seem to be asserting that they have made their decision based on incorrect assumptions.
you're wrong. it's not Gen ch.2 it's Gen ch.1 , the very first sentence in the Bible that tells us God created the heavens and the earth. it restates in more detail in Gen. ch. 2 the creation of man and God breathing a living souil in to him.
Well, certain things are a bit different. Ch 1 implies the creation of man and women at the same time, Ch 2 says that they occurred separately.
however, i have faith that God enabled His word to be translated perfectly and meaning was not lost through translation.
This faith, no doubt, stems from being unable to read it in the original language, meaning that you have not considered the multiple possible translations involved. It's not a question of whether the people were enabled to translate it perfectly, but that Hebrew simply does not translate to English perfectly. Any translation is by definition an interpretation, and cannot be considered literal.
by allegory, do you mean parable?
Similar, but not quite. "Parable" refers more to an entire story whose point is meant as a lesson. A parable is allegorical, and could be considered a form of allegory, but "allegory" can also refer to details within a story, in which, for instance, the White Whale has an allegorical meaning as unbridled ambition. In fact, Moby Dick is a good way to explain my point: Reading the Bible as having literal meaning is like reading Moby Dick as being a documentary on New England whaling traditions.
because the bible points out when Jesus spoke to the people in parables.
Yes, but the parts to which you are referring were written down at least a half-millenium earlier, and came from oral traditions that may date back several millenia. Just because the New Testament may specifically mention when a particular story is meant to be taken allegorically does not mean that the far more ancient stories will have such a footnote.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with your views, but for a few problems: You seem not to understand the basics of evolutionary theory, you seem not to understand the difference between faith and science, and you seem to have only a rudimentary understanding of the Bible. The last one is not really a problem, I mean, you have the right to interpret the Bible as you see fit, and I'm not going to say which is right and which is wrong, but science is not like that. In science, there often are right and wrong answers.
