Quote:

---

I could just chalk it up to coincidence. If evolution can't happen, but we find fossils proceeding upwards in complexity, millions of years old rock still doesn't change what we can observe today. I know, we can observe 'micro' evolution, so technically we do observe evolution, but these changes are irrelevant.

---

You admit there is evolution on the micro level, as you put it, but you say the changes are irrelevant. How can that be? This sounds like when I would see the hand of God, come out of the sky, that I would simply wave that fact away by saying it might not be God's hand. You are ignoring evidence because it's irrelevant? Hmmmm, for your view maybe irrelevant.

Quote:

---

I think the most intelligent people are truly able to adapt their opinions with new knowledge, but conversely I think the "stupidest" people are those that refuse to be objective.

---

I do doubt this has anything to do with intelligence itself, clever people can be just as stubborn and ignorant as stupid ones. I think regarding this topic it's hardly possible to remain objective, or at least we would claim to be more objective than Christians, Christians would claim to be more objective than we are, don't you think? All because we claim that evolution is based upon scientific facts (evidence supporting the main theory, call it whatever you like), and Christians might claim that we are biased and not open for a more spiritual or religious answer to the same question.

It reminds me though, in my opinion truth is the shared knowledge the most people agree upon, and still such a truth would only be valid, not necessarily true. We all have our opinion about truth, but opinions are off course somewhat tricky, when does it end being just an idea? With enough evidence supporting a theory, that's when it becomes more than just an opinion. Yes, you can have another opinion about that, but that would be just an idea. See what I mean?
For a common idea to become a valid truth, we will always need evidence. That's why creationism and also religion for most part is more questionable than the concept of evolution or most scientific theories for that matter. I'm not lying when I say I would like to believe in a God, but without any evidence I just can't and won't either, but that's secondary. That's the kind of objectivity I have, it's not being biased, but there's simply just more weight shifting towards one side of the balance scale and that's definately towards the side of evolution/no God. Simple lifeforms to very complex does not sound very coincidental to me, not very logical either when those simple forms where created by a God and evolved into more complex ones. (the latter is what the evidence gives away, in my opinion no matter how you twist and turn it.) A God, of which I haven't witnessed anything at all creating all different kinds of creatures with flaws and even construction errors does not sound very logical to me. When looking at life around us I do see it's sheer beauty and interesting character and complexity, yet I don't see why this should require a God to be possible to exist. When looking at ancient texts, mostly religious in nature there are so much patterns to be found which all lead to the same kind of obvious religious/mythical events. Does this mean they all go back to the same event? A possibility, but I doubt it, to much differences in the details of the creation stories. Does any linkable story indicate an event that really happened or does every culture at one point in time simply asked itself the same question 'where do we come from?'. A very very simple experiment can explain why some stories are quite similar (not just because of possible interaction of different cultures, which happened a lot also). Ask a random 100 people one exact same question and the majority would answer different, yet chances are quite high that eventhough in general those answers are different (literal), parts of the answers can have things in common. It's tempting to go further offtopic.

Cheers