there are too many logical options to automatically credit a theory that has no divine origin.
Although you ended with this, I felt I should respond to it first. You seem to have created a false dilema where you must choose either the divine or evolution. But that is not the case. Evolution is no more or less divine in origin then any other process we see in the world today. (volcanoes, rain, hurricanes, a flower blooming, etc.)
basically evolution is aprocess, so why would it need to evolve reproductive organs that were not present in the beginning?
It wouldn't need to, but it did. They weren't there and now they are. I don't know what you're getting at.
when did the change take place, from process to reproductive through means we know today?
There's no specific point in time. It was the accumulation of many gradual changes over a long period of time.
basically what i see happening to the theory of evolution, and i have dealt with this for more than 30 years, is that it is changing from darwin's concept to almost exactly like God's creative act. the only thing missing is God and theistic evolutionists have provided that solution.
Darwin's theory is being expanded on by new discoveries in molecular biology, cell biology, and many other fields of science. I don't think you've followed it very closely if that's what you think. In the last 30 years have you read any books on evolution? cause you don't seem to know what it is.
secondly, why is God needed for natural processes? what makes Him "missing" from the theory? why don't you try to include God in other fields of science like physics, meteorology (weather), etc.
a statement of declaration not proof. so does creation science, so does the flood, so does many other options. saying evolution explains the facts does not provide any proof that evolution actually did it.
quit saying "proof". That is something for mathmatics. A theory is a well established explanation of facts. That is what evolution is. Watch this 4 minute video. It's help you understand. He explains "scientific theory" at the 2 minute to 3 minute mark, but it's good to watch the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3g1mRx3LE
first off, 'kinds' is a group of animals in which they cannot reproduce outside of that group.
So 2 different species of frogs that can't mate with each other are different "kinds"?
hybrid experiments have proven this true. even the wild kingdom, without man's interference proves this true as the act happens rarely and all offspring are usually sterile. plus we do not see these animal's offspring mating and startying a whole new kind.
You are correct. That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Showing that hybrids don't survive is favorable to the theory of evolution, because hybrids aren't a driving force of evolution.
secondly, you would have to determine which 'kinds' those fossils belong to and group them accordingly before assuming they are transitional species. what you may have is inter-specie mating and results.
How does mankind mate with other primates? How do reptiles mate with birds? How do whales mate with terrestrial mammals? There are forms that seem to be combinations of these. You say they are not transitional forms. What trait are they missing that would make them transitional forms?
i have defined it, i said there is no such thing.
That doesn't define it. If someone asks me to tell them what Santa Clause is, I don't just say "He doesn't exist, that the definition". I can still define what he is even though he's fictitious. Please explain what characteristics a fossil must have to be transitional.
what you have is a fossil of an animal that lived at one point in time and then died. we do not form the fossils alone see any evidence that evolution was at work nor can we see the 'process' in action to say that is what took place.
Since they are found in a nested hierarchy, then yes, the fossils are evidence of evolution. The theory explains the mechanisms that drive it i.e. natural selection, mutation, etc.
the evolutionists own time frame undermines their argument, as what they state they see now is impossible to prove that evolution exists or is at work. it is all inferrence and declatory statements and no solid evidence.
how does the time frame undermine the arguments?
what is seen today in the modern science lab, can be described as genetic defect, a result from the fall, or man interferred with the process and experimented with said 'mutation' and many other logical solutions.
wow are we ever getting off topic now.
nothing proves evolution true.
true because that's not how science works, that's how mathmatics works, as you will see in the short video clip i linked to earlier.
or the scientists have been fooled by a hybrid who got caught in the fossilization act. this has been an option avoided by evolutionists.
If a "kind" is something that can't mate outside itself, then by your own definition, a hybrid couldn't possibly be made by 2 different "kinds"
