At 1/27/14 08:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/27/14 07:45 AM, Gario wrote:
So you need to actually watch something happen in order to believe it's true?
You don't understand the point that was made. The point that was made is that while there is mounds of evidence pointing toward evolution, there is no smoking gun. This means that there is a jump needed to make the final conclusion. With all of the evidence that exists, the jump is very small, but a jump exists nonetheless.
Okay, with all due respect since I do know you're not unintelligent, I addressed this point directly earlier in this thread (addressing you specifically, in fact). I acknowledge that there is a possibility that it is flawed or even flat-out wrong. That is true of every scientific field (science must be falsifiable by definition, after all), yet it would be flat out stupid to simply deny any other field of science without a viable alternative. Why is evolution a special case where despite the combination that it both has a mountain of evidence AND there is no viable, scientific alternative (Intelligemt Design was a worthy contender in the 19th century, but it has some severe challenges to it that evolution addresses solidly), one still may simply deny it just because? You need to have evidence against evolution in order to deny it - it's not only wrong to do otherwise, it's harmful to the fields of artificial intelligence, biology and psychology since they rely on the findings of evolution in order to function properly (and in the case of biology and psychology, "macroevolution").
You want to deny evolution? Fine, but unless you have evidence against it be prepared to rightly be called a fool.