Quote:
Originally posted by Victor-E
Actually, I was saying just the opposite: In evolution, common sense and scientific evidence complement and support each other. I was just suggesting that if the evidence alone can't convince someone, they should also consider their common sense.
For me, both provide overwhelming proof of evolution. It is more than a belief for me. It is enough for me to not waste my time questioning it and to move on to other unexplored territories. What I do believe, is that people who still have a problem with evolution and claim there is not enough evidence, may really have other issues or agendas. Maybe not. Either way, I "believe" they are wasting their time.
|
It's people like this that will find the holes an evolutionist won't and/or offer suggestions for new study because he is able to ask questions the evolutionist would never consider because he is already blindsided by his faith in evolution.
Aside from the Creationist agenda, their is another agenda. That agenda is in the interest of science to discover the truth. It has always taken men who were able to transcend the predominant view of their own time to push progress forward. I'm not at all saying to stop investigating. My three 'proofs' for evolution indicate I would like to push science further in this area so that there is almost no doubt about the authenticity of evolution. The three proofs I outline would be the next step in evolutionary discovery and would fall in line with current evolutionary theory. Not only explaining abiogenesis but applying it and watching it work. Not only explaining evolution but applying it's principles in the lab and observing the reality of it.
When men were ruled by religion they would have argued that their was overwhelming evidence in favor of God(s). They would say look around you, do you think everything you see came from nowhere? They would say everyting around you is an example of God's creation. Therefore they would argue that their are millions of reasons to believe in God. But, they were wrong. Because observing nature in all its glory does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a God exists.