Thanks RAZD for your reply. Your correct in saying I'm ignorant in biology and confused.
Accepting religion growing up I then started to hear and learn the opinion of others. By the age of 16 I had rejected religion and just went along with evolution, big bang, all that. I didn't give it much thought again until I was in my 30's when I started to hear and learn the opinions of others. And after watching, listening and reading arguments for and against I'm not at all convinced that the biological theory of evolution is 100% fact. Much of the so called supporting evidence is inconclusive or subject to various assumptions.
This leaves me with a similar feeling I had about religion. The feeling of being lied to. But this is worse because while religion is about faith science is meant to be about facts.
You see I'm in engineering and at university I studied physics where mathematics dictates everything. There is only one correct answer. Any other answer is incorrect. There are no estimates or assumptions. There is no ifs buts or maybes. Everything is observable and measurable. Biology, as I'm learning, is nothing like that. Like the earth is 6.5 to 6.6 billion. Why the 100 million discrepancy? Thats just unheard of in maths and physics. Not only is it acceptable but it is declared to be fact in Biology.
Like your example of Australopiticus being a transitional or intermediate is very convincing. But many conclude that it is just a species of ape and that not enough bones were recovered to conclude it to be human. No hand or feet bones, only tiny fragments of skull and a few other bones. In engineering we cannot make any assumptions for the consequences could be catastrophically fatal to thousands. Nothing is released before being totally confirmed of its safety and functionality. Australopiticus is a guess isn't it? One opinion vs another.
You show me a series of skulls claiming it to show evolution. You are effectively asking me now for the same thing religion asks... Faith. You are asking me to have faith in your word that these specimens are in fact links in the evolution of man. Can you see how that is not acceptable for myself? Why I must question everything and not just go along with it all.
Iv heard many say that no transitional (intermediate or whatever you prefer to call them) fossils have ever been found. Archaeopteryx is apparently the only example of evolution, supposedly showing the transition from reptiles to birds. Only one example. Would you call that conclusive evidence?
You made an interesting statement which I totally agree with
"The theory's purpose is to explain all the evidence as well as can be explained, and the testing of a theory is never complete. They can be falsified but not proven, as each test only validates the theory while the next prediction result may invalidate it"
So by your statement you must agree that the theory cannot be regarded as "Gospel". There may be some supporting evidence but our knowledge of the subject is just not enough to say with 100% certainty that every aspect of our theory is correct. Someone else said that the theory doesn't not even address the beginning of life. So if we cannot explain the beginning of life and our fossils don't really support evolution without an artists impression then why are we claiming it to be unquestionable fact and teaching it to our kids.
I feel I'm going to be totally abused for this post but I challenge anyone to be logical, look at it like Isaac Newton and lay down some decent evidence. Part of your flow chart is "predict something" well what has been predicted?
As for cells... One cell or one cell organism ok my bad. But in the end isn't it still essentially one cell that created everything? One cell that multiplied on its own?
This frustrates me. There are a lot of things that strike me as being religious about the whole thing. Like how offensive people get, unable to have a normal conversation about it, unable to listen to reason or take another perspective on it often resorting to insults to exit the debate. Saying it is "Gospel" when they know that the theory has much speculation and conjecture, it already has many pieces of evidence against it and is subject to further new findings in future studies that could disprove it.. The exaggerations of everything like see how you presented all those skulls to me as if it were 100% fact. Or how you presented Lucy not with the few bones that were found but as a complete skeleton. This is very misleading and is the type of stuff I saw in religion. People modifying fossils, frauds and fakes to trick the average civilian. Why all that? And this automatic assumption that I'm a preacher really makes u guys seem unbelievably bad and untrustworthy. Everyone here has labelled me a preacher. But is religion a part of my argument... Not at all. I see anyone with any religious arguments gets discriminated against, shamed and outcast. Their are so many unanswered questions...
Im not here to take any sides. Rather just to have people admit that their religion, science, doctrine or whatever you like to call it could have some details that are incorrect. That it could actually contain things that are not totally true and/or cannot be explained.
Ok you can all begin your attack on me now...
™ Version 4.2
(1)