No, I would investigate the physics behind how the plane flies, and once I comprehended Bernoulli's Principle, I would understand why the plane flies and it would no longer be a mystery to me.
well you now see the problem here dont you?. comprehend Bernoulli's principle, so now you agree that his principle holds since its been tried and tested right?. so how can you dismiss claims based on just assumptions? do you think you would still hold on to his principles if it failed in test?. NO. In the same way before you bash the claim of the ark being able to hold you have to justify your assumptions in a real world scene and not just on paper.
Similarly, I would investigate the dynamic behind the existence of life, and once I comprehended evolution through natural selection it too would no longer be a mystery to me. With respect, bioflex, you have not done this with your thoughts and beliefs. Evolution through natural selection is incomprehensible to you and you default to creation and intelligent design.
Now i dont really get you, how is evloution comprehensible when in actual facts all the things abound us seem to indicate other wise, i mean since you cant really explaing how life came to be in the first place. Lets consider the video posted above, talking about mistakes in genes over a vely long period of time brought about all the different form of species we have today, i mean how is this ccomprehensible?. Now lets take the case of a computer program, do you think a program with mistakes or random code would function correctly? and what would happen after a very prolonged period of having code with heaps of errror, i am certain the program would be totally buggy or eventually break down. Yet your reason of evolution suggest that these mistakes has rather brought us to this level of intelligence, how is this justifyable?
That the evidence supporting evolution is so overwhelmingly great holds no water with you,
Again may i ask what evidence you speak of? how do you justify the reasoning that not even a single species of the vast mojority of aminals exist today even though they seemed to be pretty much be on top of the food chain. How do you account for the idea that some fishes evolved over time and attained feartures which allowed them so stay on land, when in actual fact nothing is evident of such case as far as we are concerned, i mean with all our technoligical advancements.
Also i dont think it helps your course when you hear statements like these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations
A reconstruction of Homo erectus. Anthropologists believe that H. erectus was the first hominid to control fire.
again before i go, how do you account for gaint humans that existed long ago, you might want to check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8bVEIVUh8
yep, it put evolution to shame. i mean what more can i say?
Oh and well before you come charging in with accusation think about all the stories of dinnosaurs and the rest.
#1. You claim to be learning, but are you? You can't learn if your mind is already made up.
Well i guess my mind is made up of truth until you prove other wise - again how do you deny the facts of inteligent design WHEN WE ALL KNOW THAT EVERY SINGLE INVENTION OF MAN WAS ACHIEVED THROUGH INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
yet you still hold unto the notion that something so sophisticated as life JUST HAPPENED......it really baffles me.
seriously, i think you are in the position of emptying your mind to learn, not me.
How would you feel is someone denies you of your creation ? outragoes right. yep.
Peace out.
