As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.
I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?
Boy, where to start.
1) If evolutionists would actually allow something to challenge it. Instead of this protection game that includes character assassination. Because when you have to go out of the bounds of science to prove what you believe, then it also proves that your claims are weak and will not hold up. If not, then why is it done all the time?
2) If science through the theory of evolution was not about conformism. All evidence, all remarks, and everyone has to conform to this theory, If this theory were such a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence, conformism and character assassination would not be needed. In fact a true proven fact would be so convincing that no one could even come up with an argument against it, But that is not what we see is it?
3) If science would not add more to the evidence then what is there (Exaggerate). Example: Saying that Lucy walked up right when Lucy had the hips of an Ape like animal that does not. Also presenting Lucy as having fully formed human feet when there was "zero" evidence showing this.
Doing whatever it takes (conformism) to make evidence like Lucy walk upright as shown in the video below.
4) If science would quit using animation as evidence for processes that cannot be observed to convince people that it actually happened. Like the video below that's named: How evolution happens. It's ironic that it only happens to the point claimed in animation only.
I work with animation (flash animation). Animation is virtual fantasy unless you are animating a real observable process. No one saw that fish in the animation evolve, did they? So the animation is based on imagination.
5) If evolutionists would admit to the problems with the so called fossil record. Ones where "all" living fossils prove that it is wrong. How?
Every living fossil is found in one layer and alive today. Yet not in any layer above that showing that it lived and it did not change. Example: The coelacanth fish is found in the Devonian layer. And there are 7 layers above that, that it does not show up proving that it survived. The Sea Pen is found in the lowest layer and found alive today. Yet no one is found in the layers above that. A actual record of something would keep accurate records, not gaps. And if this were a fluke for a couple of living fossils then they could be a explanation. But it applies to every living fossil known. They are "never" found in any layer above it, proving the the column is not accurate and was not laid over time.
The Bible says that the flood first started by breaking up the fountains of the deep. Which means the sentiments from that would have buried what was on the bottom of the sea first. Then work it's way up to higher swimming animals and then land animals. And if that is the way it was done, then the proof would be that some complex bottom dwellers got buried in the lowest layer, and the sorting would not show how living fossils survived. And guess what? There is evidence of this. The trilobite is very complex for the lower layer.
And there is no evolution tree to it, or from it, showing how it evolved this complexity, or what it should have evolved into. And I already mentioned the problem with living fossils. But as with every evolutionists, this will be ignored, or excused away, because a challenge to evolution means that it would be shown for what it is.
6) That evolution is really a pagan religion more based on a pagan belief that started back in Egyptian times. The pagan Egyptian religions at that time believed that humans can from animals (macro-evolution). This is why they painted humans on their walls that were half animal, and their pagan gods were also part animal. They also believed that all life came from the slime around the Nile River (abiogenesis). And lived in water, then on land. Sound familiar?
Now why would Darwin's idea sound so similar? Because his only degree was in theology, and to get a theology degree you have to learn about other religious beliefs. So Darwin took ideas from a pagan religion and made it sound scientific. Just like he took ideas from his grandfather's book called Zoonomia, and wrote them in his own book and never gave his grandfather credit (plagiarism).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonomia
So if he took ideas from his grandfather's book, why not also take ideas from a pagan religion?
I can make a much longer list if you like, but I figure this is enough for now. What do you think?