SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Wait a minute here, I see some contradiction.My dear shunyadragon, if I thought you could prove your statements with valid proof, I would take it seriously in that sense. Also, as a person without credentials in the scientific realm, I must say that the explanations presented here and elsewhere are beyond my ken. And so, as far as what was said, I see nothing other than conjecture that proves evolution. Thank you for trying, though. When I say beyond my ken, I am a novice in the scientific realm of conjecture. For instance, I learned that water is H2O, 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. But then I learned that water splitting isn't so easy. A whole subject by itself.
On the one hand you say that the scientific evidence is too complex and difficult for you to wrap your mind around and understand.
Then in the next sentence you say that it's all just conjecture anyway and doesn't demonstrate the veracity of evolution. (Evolution is a fact of life by the way. It happens.)
Do you see the contradiction in your statements?
I'm wondering how you've determined that the science involved in evolution is based on conjecture, if you have no real understanding of it in the first place? Perhaps you'd be better off stating that you don't know and just leave it at that. It's really the only honest answer, in such a situation.