Reply #89: Of course evolution doesn't explain the source of matter and energy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

Neither does it explain nuclear fission. Why the hell would a a theory underpinning biology explain phenomena dictated by the laws of physics? What a silly argument.

Just curious: do you deny the existence of early hominids (neanderthals, Homo Habilis, etc)? Do you deny that human beings - and aforementioned hominid progenitors - are a member of the same order of mammals as apes?

If so, then you might as well admit that you don't believe in reality.

If not, have you ever considered the possibility that those early hominids were precursors to homo sapiens - that is to say, that desirable traits from such species were reproduced and the offspring thus eventually evolved into homo sapiens, while undesirable traits eventually led to the extinction of said species? If you have considered that possibility, is it such a stretch to imagine that, millenia before that, humans and apes had a common ancestor, the offspring of which produced traits that are observable in today's humans and chimpanzees? If you can wrap your mind around that, is it such a stretch to believe that all life on earth evolved in such a manner?

The fact is that this planet is approximately four billion years old, and for a good amount of that time, life on earth remained single-celled. The fact is that life slowly - yes - evolved, becoming more and more complex. The fact is that primordial life forms passed certain key traits onto future generations, which can be observed through fossil records. That process is known as evolution and it resulted in the diversity of life on earth we see today.

You drastically misuse the term "theory." As scientists use the word, "theory" refers to a coherent body of principle that explains a certain discipline. It does NOT mean a "guess" or a "conjecture" as it does in informal vernacular. The definition of scientific theory is one of the basic foundations of understanding the scientific method and when you spectacularly misstate such a basic foundational principle of science you cripple your argument and prove that you have no real business trying to argue science with anyone.

Faith, by definition, is something that must be believed in absence of evidence. You assert that there is "no scientific validity" to evolution, but you are, once again, astonishingly wrong; it would not be a scientific THEORY if it had not passed muster through the scientific method.

I don't mean to be rude but did you take elementary school science? My childhood science education didn't dwell on evolutionary biology but I did learn what the scientific method was, and the means by which scientists test hypotheses and arrive at theories. You appear to lack even that basic knowledge. Please, educate yourself before you opine about such things in public - you are NOT doing "religion" any favors with your argument.

FTR, I am not an atheist. But I don't have to be to look at the evidence and understand the reality of evolution.