[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have - It's easy to imagine lots of things, so what? I am told these beliefs are made with scientific knowledge behind them. These imaginary "light sensitive patches" are only found one place - the imagination. The fossil record, shows the most primitive of animals with fully formed eyes. And even if we found one with "light sensitive patches" that wouldn't explain their origins either - unless we were to imagine one.

But it's cool- really. I can imagine things too, just don't keep telling me it's on based on science. I'd like someone to admit that they have a belief in naturalism and when the evidence isn't there for their belief they have no problem imagining it. We'd save a lot of time that way.

The same is true for Sklansky's original post. Once we find DNA, it's only a logical progression until we find it feasible to believe in common descent? Perhaps, but that's not science - it's philosophy. This equivocation is frustrating. Am I the only one to see that science and evolutionary thought are not the same thing?