Drake

I wanted to address this post. I don't want you to have the impression that I'm being arrogant. I'm being quite the opposite. I'm being humble about what we actually know as opposed to what we claim to know.

Evolutionists will say that I'm willfully being ignorant by ignoring the 'obvious' fact of evolution. Creationists will say that I'm a sinner and that I'm ignoring the 'obvious' fact that God created us. Both will say that I'm arrogant and pretending to be 'better' than them by claiming to know more.

Both the evolutionist's and creationist's view about me is wrong. I contend that one or both of them may be right. However, I require more evidence to convince me of one or the other. I don't put much stock in Creationism obviously because it's seemingly impossible to prove the existence of God. So, I'm more inclined to believe in Evolution. But I cannot set aside my common sense faculty and accept it blindly.

You may say their is a proponderance of evidence in favor of evolution. I've proposed anddefined three "proofs" that would convince me. I'm NOT a person who will reject something if it's right in front of my face. What you consider enormous evidence can be shut down. I can give you alternative explanations for the bones you find. I can say that your premise that all living things share genetic similarities means that they were all related at some point in time is faulty. I know that it's easy to twist logic in favor of a view and discard alternative explanations simply because they don't fit the view. So it doesn't surprise for example that scientists in different fields of research have lots of 'evidence' to suppor the theory. If one was to investigate each field, each of the pieces of the evidence could be discounted one by one by providing alternate explanations, that would support a view that things have not evolved in the way they say they do.

For the record, using the fossil record to say that species evolve is one thing. It's also another to say that cells evolved into organims. Unfortunately we're unable to unearth single cells from millions of years ago. Therefore even if you were to show that species evolved (and this has not been done effectively) you would still need to show further evidence. Their are all kinds of assumptions imbedded within each step of evolutionary thinking that have very little basis. Observing the fossil record to find traces of ancestors is one assumption (the fossils found could be the remains of a similar but distinct species) and using this to project the notion that we evolved from cells is yet another leap.

So, of everybody in this thread, I'm the least arrogant. We've seen people jumping into this thread accusing me of being a Creationist without reading that I'm not. They're arrogant in their perception that the world only conists of two views. We've seen people in this thread that accuse me of not understanding evolution when they themselvs show a clear lack of knowledge on the subject and only regurgitate what they've been told with respect to fish leaving their fins and developing feet and so forth. I'm the only one saying, let's take a step back, re-evaluate exactly what the data tells us. And if we do so, it doesn't lead to one conclusion...that evolution exists.