It's like pounding my head on a wall, but here I go again...
I just think if it's a "proven" theory, that there should be a lot more answers and logical explanations for the theory.
In science, a 'proven' theory is merely one that has stood the test of time without being falsified. Such as the heliocentric theory. The germ theory of disease. The molecular theory. What those theories do, and what evolutionary theory does, is explain how the facts of our world fit together. It can never be 'proven' for 100% certainty, because if we finally go ahead and say that it is 'proven', then we are basically admitting that no evidence could EVER come along and dislodge it. That is not how science works. This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. It's a self-correcting system. No theory will EVER be proven, no matter how many facts come along that fit with it. Not even the heliocentric theory will ever be 'proven', yet you do believe that the earth goes around the sun, right? Even though we still don't call it 'proven'.
Evolution has stood the test of time. It explains how facts fit together perfectly. Here are a few. Fact: Genetic information passes from parent to child. Fact: Random mutations occur sometimes. Fact: These random mutations change how genetic information is formed and expressed. Fact: Geological data points to a very old earth. Fact: Expressed traits can be modified by intentional selective breeding. Fact: There is massive diversity of life on the planet. Fact: We have fossils that show up only in specific geological strata.
If you want to falsify the theory of evolution, then all you have to do is present a single fact that counters it. Here are a few possibilities. Prove that genetic information does not pass from parent to child. Prove that random mutations do not occur. Prove that genetic changes have nothing to do with form and function. Prove that the earth is young. Prove that when we selectively breed for traits (lets say... in dogs), that it doesn't work.
Disproving evolution does not start and end with "I don't see how that could happen; you can't prove that it happens down to the minute detail with video and witnesses, so there's no way it happens!" You actually have to find a fact that counters it.
I pose some questions, and get, "Well, we just don't know everything, we are still learning."
That's not all you've gotten though. What about the people who HAVE given you answers. Are you too stubborn to admit that we could be right about them? When we are asked things like "How could we know a whale came from land?" and we say things like, "It breaths air like a land animal does, it has residual hind limbs, it shares a crap ton of DNA with a Hippo, the tail moves up and down like a land animal runs whereas fish move their tales side to side" these things fit with the theory that this animal evolved from ancient ancestors that walked on land. Evolutionary theory explains very, very well how those facts about whales fit together.
We do not, nor can we ever know the exact evolutionary pressures that were being applied to the first animal that developed the first hint of a wing, but that does NOT disprove evolution rockv. Remember here, we are approaching the crime scene millions of years later. Whatever selective pressures the animal was facing (and all it takes is a little creativity on your part to come up with one of a zillion possible scenarios), if a random mutation in the genetic code gave the animal any sort of statistical survival advantage over others of it's species, then it would have a better chance to mate and therefore pass on it's genes to the next in line. This process happens still today, and there is absolutely no reason to think it did not happen millions of years ago too.
You say that every week, there are new discoveries. Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists?
Yes, that could happen. We also might someday find out that the Tooth Fairy really does exist. I'm not trying to be mean about that; I am just trying to show you the flaw in your argument here, which is the simple fact that we currently have no reason to believe in either of them. Until we do, they are equally as improbable as anything else we could postulate.
Ever think that those un-answered questions about evolution could also be unanswered questions regarding God?
Sure, but only because people believe in lots of fictitious gods and those people force the rest of us to consider their ideas. However, until someone shows a single piece of verifiable evidence that any type of god exists, there is no reason to think that the 'god' theory is of any use in explaining things anymore. A long time ago, it was, because people were ignorant. We stopped being that way a while back now. God is not necessary to explain anything anymore.
You say in one sentence that I'm foolish to believe in something that we can't understand fully, but then turn around and believe in something that we don't fully understand.... Seems like we are a lot alike!
It is foolish to believe in things for which there is no evidence. Do you agree or disagree? Common examples are... Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, etc, etc.
I wish that for 5 minutes you could just remove your emotional attachment to your God belief and really engage in the learning process here. If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works. But it seems like you just aren't capable of doing it. If you could just stop thinking of this whole thing as 'bad' or 'evil' or 'stupid' and approach it as if you are not as well versed in these things as we are, this might actually be a beneficial thing for you. It really might. You won't though. You think you already have the truth in your God theory, and nothing can touch that. It's very sad.
Let me ask you, rockv. How do you think dog breeding works? If a breeder wants dogs with a shorter tail, how would he go about doing it?