posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:19 AM
Originally posted by PrudentThinker
Good point! With all things that require questioning the popular belief and common understanding, it is good for one to be wholly unbiased and
rational. One can neither deny nor completely accept an idea until he has accurate, reliable information.
This view makes it impossible to believe much; I have many holes in my knowledge; for example quantum physics. Am I to disregard it until I understand
it, or trust the consensus viewpoint of the major world scientists who are experts in the field?
Evolution is one possible theory of how existing life forms came to be, but that doesn't make it a scientific truth... only a
What more evidence do you need? Everyone is in consensus from phylogenetics, genetics, chemistry, geology, radiometric dating, physiology, molecular
biology, biology, bioinformatics, ecology, anthropology, archaeology etc etc.
Think about it, we've excavated forms of extinct life, but does that honestly prove evolution? How do we know for sure? We've never seen an animal
Your first statement said you cant deny something if you don't understand it. The above statement shows you do not understand evolution. Please, read
We live for so short a time that we can't look back that far. Human kind has only recently kept written record compared with the amount of time
evolution requires to actually make a visible difference between two species.
Even if there was some visual proof, there is always another explanation. On the same hand, it sounds like a very good theory. I think evolution could
be possible, because 'evidence' such as bones and fossils do not disprove the idea.
My point is, though science is correct until disproved, it makes little sense to just believe a common theory without valid physical evidence.
Until you do some more reading, according to you, you should not be able to deny or confirm it. My position is that if you don't know enough to
critique something, then you have to take the position of the experts, because you have to assume that the experiments and data across a huge number
of disciplines gives many scientists confidence that evolution is a scientific fact. Otherwise why would everyone agree?
And yes, speciation has been observed in multiple species. Random mutations leading to positive functional change have been observed. All the normal
claims of the creationists are easily answered, and they resort to more and more philosophical arguments because the data just doesn't support their
favorite fairy tale.