Firstly, antibiotic resistence in bacteria is microevolution and has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution. Secondly, the knowledge of antibiotic resistence has not depended one iota on a knowledge of evolutionary theory. We would know no less about it if the ToE were non-existent. If you disagree, tell me specifically what we've learned about antimicrobial resistence that we would not have learned without molecules to man evolution.
Darwin's theory was integral in developing hyoptheses about microevolution.Ã‚Â Research into microevolution has brought scientists insights into the nature of bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics.
Than what explanation for the development of life on Earth should be used?
Certainly not a one-sided indoctrination that proclaims the absence of ID without a shred of proof. That is the antithesis of science. It would be far better and more intelligent to admit that we don't know the origin of life than to preach theories that are totally unproven. This is especially true when those theories have the potential to cause great harm to man's perception of himself.
Not all atheists have a contempt for religion.Ã‚Â This atheist has contempt for the deeds that have been done in the name of an invisible, omnipotent force.Ã‚Â This atheist has contempt for most of the ideas proclaimed in a book which is the basis for your beliefs.Ã‚Â
You are verifying my assertion that atheism is a religion.
This atheist has yet to see any evidence for the existance of any god and that is why this atheist does not accept the existance of one.Ã‚Â
You don't see evidence because you don't want to see it. Your contempt for religion and God is obvious. Have you ever read the Bible? Have you got on your knees and prayed to God to touch your mind and ask if he exists? Have you earnestly tried to follow his commandments as outlined in the scriptures? If you have not done these things, how can you say there is no evidence of his existence when you haven't even looked?
You cannot explain how life on earth began. No one can from a materialism/naturalism perspective. Yet you insist that it had to be without God, even though you haven't the foggiest idea how it could have been possible. This is because you chose to believe this, not because nature proclaims it to be true.