The essential fundamental of evolution is that things happened without any divine influence.
Evolution says no such thing. Instead, "divine interventions" are merely
not included, for the simple reason that there is no reason or evidence to suggest it plays a role, or that it is even a thing to begin with.
But it doesn't explicitly exclude it. I'm sorry that you can't manage to comprehend the difference.
Period. As if God (or a superior intelligence) were not involved with creating the forms of life.
There is zero rational reason to think otherwise. Or that such a god even exists in the first place.
So why would anyone assume otherwise?
While I don't believe that a rock falling and hitting a man on the head and killing him is from God, nevertheless God endowed life
That is just your religious belief and it has nothing to do with anything scientific.
Why would any scientist include any faith-based religious proposition in any
scientific theory about anything?
Plus I don't "know" the actual transitions as postulated by Darwin and fellow believers. Meaning that I can read their summations, but this does not show or prove that it happened by evolution as such
The reason why you don't "know" about such, is because you are willfully ignorant on the matter and categorically and dogmatically
refuse to learn anything about the topic. Plenty of people how explained to you what a transitional is and how it can be recognized. But it's in one ear and out the other instantly. All you do is dogmatically hold on to your strawmen, which have been pointed out a thousand times over, which you continue to repeat at nauseum.
What do you hope to accomplish with this behavior?
Even in this thread alone, every post you make to argue "against" evolution, you are merely arguing strawmen.
And you completely ignore every post that points it out.
Just like you ignored all my posts where I bring to your attention that "mere similarity" in DNA is not what the conclusion of common ancestry is based on. You avoid it like the plague that it is actually about the
pattern of matches (not mere similarities). And that this is the exact same concept that is used to determine kinship between any 2 individuals using DNA testing.
Insisting on arguing strawmen is not going to make you win the argument. Au contraire. It's just exposing the intellectual dishonesty with which you approach this topic.
Although some could have happened by genetic transference. I do know that various plants and/or animals can have similar characteristics. This, to me, does not prove Darwin's theory.
Well... read up a bit one of these days, from proper sources instead of creationist propaganda. And maybe you'll learn about the errors in your thinking. But that is something you are going to have to do yourself. We can explain it time and again, but unless you break down that religious dogmatic wall you have build around your mind....
It's upto you. Are you willing to learn and actually understand this subject, or do you want to remain ignorant and continue to argue strawmen in an effort to protect your a priori religious beliefs?
