jojackson
New Member
Cant quite fathom why the creationist part get hung up on the idea of 'macroevolution' (original single cell organism in chemical soup, spawing all known creatures), simply because
its difficult to grasp the exponential adaptions and vast numbers of split lines of direction of evolution on such a vast scale of time.
In fairness the fossil record is like a million piece puzzel with only 965 pieces found so far,
but for example, lizard, to legless lizard, to snake, is surely not too great a leap of faith.
I think many conceive of macro evolution as though a mouse, grew, lost its fur, lost its tail, developed tusk and became an elephant! Or fish grew feathered wings, leapt from the water and became a bird directly.
Such obvious misconceptions will naturally have them asking where is half fish, half bird. It simply didnt work like that, clearly. Even scientist are not that stupid.
The overall theory needs to be better explained and illustrated I think.
Is faith for the sake of it, really just self justified arrogance, an easy way out of a frustrating and unanswerable question?
Is it simply 'making up your mind' so you can feel 'sure' of something, and stop thinking, wondering, learning?
This question equally applies to both parties, even if you base your decision on avail evidence, like me, does deciding 100% still
amount to faith in that?
Id say Im 99.99% convinced that life arose via evolution (adaption) even on a macro scale, But that .1 percent ?
For me personally, that .1 percent is the result of observation of my world, its sheer complexity of interelatedness, perfection in the vast magnitude of symbiosis between flora/fauna/environment, and on the sheer vastness of space within which such awesome life diversity can flourish due our proximity to our sun, by what appears to be sheer coincidence.
its difficult to grasp the exponential adaptions and vast numbers of split lines of direction of evolution on such a vast scale of time.
In fairness the fossil record is like a million piece puzzel with only 965 pieces found so far,
but for example, lizard, to legless lizard, to snake, is surely not too great a leap of faith.
I think many conceive of macro evolution as though a mouse, grew, lost its fur, lost its tail, developed tusk and became an elephant! Or fish grew feathered wings, leapt from the water and became a bird directly.
Such obvious misconceptions will naturally have them asking where is half fish, half bird. It simply didnt work like that, clearly. Even scientist are not that stupid.
The overall theory needs to be better explained and illustrated I think.
Is faith for the sake of it, really just self justified arrogance, an easy way out of a frustrating and unanswerable question?
Is it simply 'making up your mind' so you can feel 'sure' of something, and stop thinking, wondering, learning?
This question equally applies to both parties, even if you base your decision on avail evidence, like me, does deciding 100% still
amount to faith in that?
Id say Im 99.99% convinced that life arose via evolution (adaption) even on a macro scale, But that .1 percent ?
For me personally, that .1 percent is the result of observation of my world, its sheer complexity of interelatedness, perfection in the vast magnitude of symbiosis between flora/fauna/environment, and on the sheer vastness of space within which such awesome life diversity can flourish due our proximity to our sun, by what appears to be sheer coincidence.
Last edited:
