You sound very intelligent here Median but there are flaws in your argument as well. I should be well schooled in evolution by now participating on this forum with all the experts on the subject. You buy right into it because you don't want there to be a God or a Creator. I do.
"Buy right into it" eh? Kinda like "buying right into" the theory of gravity or "buying right into" the germ theory of decease? Whether or not you WANT there to be some "creator god mind thing" behind the universe has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true, and what you've just demonstrated is called WISHFUL THINKING. "I want there to be Santa Claus. So I'll ignore all counter evidence and make irrational arguments and rationalizations to fit my assumption."
It's child's play and should be rejected.
So yes I will question what I know to be so about Evolution.
This is another logical fallacy (called a contradiction). If you "know to be so" the fact (yes I did say FACT) of evolution then you wouldn't need to question it (just like you don't need to question the germ theory of decease or gravity). What you are questioning is FACT vs your FEELING (as you indicated in your prior post). I'm sorry but saying, "I FEEL there's a God
" isn't a valid argument that there is one. Feelings are often extremely mistaken and should be held in check by reason and evidence.
I don't have the time to take a biology class to learn this stuff nor the desire to do so. I catch as much as I can on the Science channel and that's as far as I'm willing to go. I am also very open to anything on the subject you wish to share.
If you want me to believe it I have to comprehend it.
First, there is no "belief" necessary in science. You either accept the evidence and it's implications or you do not. Unlike religion and/or God faith, science does not tell us (or even attempt to tell us) anything about truth. It provides us the best evidence possible and holds it's positions TENTATIVELY (instead of dogmatically and FIXED like sky fairy/god belief does). Luckily, the evidence for common descent (that man shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees) is overwhelming).
Second, if you want to understand what evolution teaches start here: TALK ORIGINSJUST A THEORY?
Thirdly, I appreciate your admitted ignorance of evolutionary biology but sadly this isn't a good reason for doubting what you simply don't know. From what it sounds like you've heard from wrong things from the wrong people. Your doubt of the subject sounds like someone who knows nothing about car engines doubting that pistons actually fire after a gasoline ignited explosion. In short, you really need to do your homework before you decide what you don't think is true b/c ignorance isn't an excuse.
Every version of evolution I have encountered says all life began in the ocean. Decided to grow legs and eventually headed for land. Is this true or false? If true then my question about the process is very legitimate.
What you've just described is NOT the subject of evolution. Evolution deals with questions regarding the diversity of life AFTER it began. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, deals with the question of life's origins (i.e. - life deriving from non-living material). But even if all of the evidence we have failed the honest answer would still be "I DON'T KNOW" not "God did it" because that is a non-answer. Attempting to describe a mystery by another bigger mystery fails. It is a logical fallacy (as noted before - the Argument from Incredulity fallacy).
Yes I have a basic idea of the theory. For me to just accept what other people say is exactly what you condemn people for on this sight. Accepting things w/o asking questions. I won't do that for religion and I won't do it for science.
Did I ever advocate that here? No, I didn't. I'm advocating that you become educated on the science. Why? Because science is DEMONSTRABLE. A "God" creator being thing (that we have no idea about and is invisible) is NOT demonstrable. So, at the very least you should be withholding judgment on the subject, admitting you don't know, and actually doing some research instead of just accepting what makes you feel comfortable.
When I say I feel my spirit, I mean I literally feel it in there. It is not an emotion. I physically feel my spirit. A gentleman doesn't talk about his balls.
So if this were a ballgame you'd be the worse ref ever.
It may come as a shock to you that I simply do not care about other people's opinions regarding what is "gentleman like" and what is not, but I don't. On this forum (and elsewhere) and care about truth and what came be demonstrated to be true (namely b/c I actually care whether or not my beliefs are true and I hold things tentatively instead of fixed, like god belief).
Now, if an invisible "spirit thing" (whatever that means) exists, but this thing
actually 'acts' upon your physical body, then it's detectable by science. But when the rationalization/SPIN begins (in an attempt to save the assumption) saying, "We can't detect it because..."
that is where science ends and CREDULITY begins. Again, mere feelings, self-diagnosis of those feelings, and self-imposed interpretations are not sufficient to establish that such a thing as "spirit" exists (any more than placebos demonstrate healing cancer).
Finally, the idea that a "non-physical spirit" (whatever that means) acts upon a physical 'body', of some kind, is a contradiction. You need something physical to act upon something else that is physical and all evidence points to that fact. So again, reason trumps superstition, assumption, and credulity.