Replies

Wrong. Your definition presume that evolution knows its outcome. It doesn't. It's a mindless process whereby critters adapt to their environment or they die. There is no "perfection" -- merely adaptation. That you assume creatures start out as perfect and "devolve" indicates you are approaching the situation from a non-scientific point of view.

There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator. It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it. There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations. Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful. Yet evolutionist keep on believing that there must have been some great and good mutations in the past we just haven't observed.

Your definition presume that evolution knows its outcome.

That is all that evolutionists can do - play word games. They will say when evidence is given against the theory of evolution that they cannot refute that that is not what the theory says. However, one can go on endlessly through these evolution threads and not see a single evolutionist say 'this is the theory of evolution and here is the proof that all species descended from in accordance to the theory'. Look back since the beginning of FR and such a post will never be found.