It not that I don't understand that it take quite a bit of the right circumstances to create a fossil and its not the fact that I have pre-existing Christian beliefs. I didn't become a Christian till I was in my early 30's. I grew up in an agnostic household where we never learned or talked about God or the bible. About the only religious thing we did was celebrate Christmas. (which a lot of secularists do)
Kudos for answering so honestly and directly, that is at a premium around here, as you have probably noticed.
I learned about evolution and just believed it because thats what I was taught. When I started looking into it, I realized that the scientists didn't have the information to back their claims. The problem I find is the even without the information the claims are still put forth as fact, presumably because you have nothing better to go by.
I would disgree with you here. Scientists do have enough evidence to back up their claims. You are correct to say they have nothing better to go on. I would phrase it slightly differently. The theory of evolution has existed for over 150 years, in that time we have found vast swathes of evidence, every single piece has ultimately supported the the Theory of evolution, no piece of evidence has falsified it. Every single fossil we've found has supported the ToE. When we discovered DNA and realised that every living thing shared the same mechanisms of life that supported the ToE, when we learnt to sequence genes we found that the genetic evidence supports the ToE.
There is no competing scientific theory to explain the diversity of life on Earth, it is the only game in town.
It is not that scientists don't have enough information to state the ToE is proved, no scientific theory will ever have enough information for that. But it has enough supporting information to be accepted as a fact. Mutation is a fact, natural selection is a fact, speciation is a fact, all have been demonstrated scientifically.
I still maintain you reject those facts for religious rather than scientific reasons. The ToE has been considered factually correct by millions of biologists of all faiths and none over 150 years. that is good enough for me.
The alternative would be to believe that they have all been engaged in an all encompassing 150 year conspiracy to undermine Biblical literalists.
And that's barmy
The one thing that would prove your claim (evidence in the fossil record) is not there, but nevermind that because its true and we're supposed to just take your word for it.
The fossil record is there, and it isn't even the strongest evidence for common descent and speciation any more that is now the genetic evidence. The palaeontological evidence is nice, it is pretty, but it has been very much secondary for decades now.
I don't know what you want to fossil record to provide - transitionals, we've gott'em, evolutionary pathways like land mammals to whales and reptiles to mammals, like fish to tetrapods, they're all there.
The fossil record isn't complete and it never will be especially for the sorts of animals you seem to think are important.
Yet everytime some scientist digs up a bone its "proof" of evolution when most of the time its speculation on what that bone even is.
Speculation how? This latest find isn't speculated to be a basal primate, it, by our definition of what a primate is and what seperates it from other mammals and from its age, is a basal primate.
We will never know whether it is a direct ancestor of ours and, frankly, I find that beside the point. It is what a direct ancestor of ours would have been like, that is enough to make it interestung
So on one hand the fossil record isn't needed, but on the other hand everyone gets excited when a new bone is dug up. Which is it?
Both, the fossil evidence is secondary, but new fossils are still incredibly exciting if you are a palaeontologist, and for the general public they are much more interesting than the sequencing of yet another genome that sits exactly where the ToE predicted it would in relation to other life.
The genome sequencing is far more important because it is solid physical evidence of the fact that all life is not only inter-related but it is inter related exactly as we expected it to be before we'd learnt about genomes or even, largely, DNA.
That is the supreme triumph of the ToE and why no serious scientist questions it as the evidence stands.
Your objection to the ToE is, basically, religious and founded on personal incredulity. two paths seem open to you:
Learn about the theory of evolution and accept it as the method god used to create life on Earth, this is what the overwhelming majority of Christians do.
Reject the theory of evolution and withdraw from the debate because you will gain nothing from it
A third option, rejecting the ToE and continuing trying to debate against it will, ultimately I believe, just damage you. You can see the affects that has by looking at some of the posters that have gone down that path. It isn't pretty.
I hope you go for option one and join mainstream scientific and Christian thought on the matter. But if you go for option two a complete withdrawal from the realm of science will probably be necessary.
