I read your arguments against evolution in one answer. I agree it requires faith, but I strongly disagree with your statement that man is the only species that cares for the sick or unfortunate. That is not true. There is plenty of evidence of social/group animals caring for each other if one is sick or injured. Did you get your answer from the Bible?
I looked back over my answer about evolution to which you referred. I grant that I used the phrase "man's better feelings, such as caring for the sick and unfortunate." I did not intend to imply that certain other social animals did not care for the sick and unfortunate. There may even be rare cases of cross-kind care other than among humans. By that I mean one animal caring for an animal of a different kind, such as wolves raising humans as in the Romulus-Remus story or Kipling's "Jungle Books." As a rule, it is primarily man that tends other species.
Showing that other animals care for the sick and unfortunate does not invalidate the argument, however. Instead it amplifies it. The question was that if evolution (at least one form of it) says that improvements are made at the expense of the weak (natural selection), then how can such a theory account for any animal caring for the weak? How do emotions, particularly compassion and benevolence or even religion itself, develop? This is a question that the theories of evolution don't generally address.
Thank you for closely reading my answers and questioning any particular where you think I erred.