- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,219
- 3,838
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
The way the jaw-less tubes became what you would recognise as fish is just through many, many tiny steps. We don't have actual fossils of all the inbetweens, but we have the method and enough time for it to be possible.
You keep bringing up the scientists who disagree, but you never engage that they don't ever have actual evidence to present. If a mechanic tells you he could modify a car to run on tap water that would be great... but if he can't show you a working model or even explain how , just stick with the rest of the mechanics telling you to use fuel.
The problem is that there isn't any real barrier between micro and macro evolution. It's just the tiny changes of micro evolution, that only in retrospect are macro evolution.
It's like saying you believe in hills, but not mountains.
That's one way of looking at it.
That's all fine, but many Christians agree with both. You are happy with life changing and adapting on a small scale, why couldn't an all-powerful designer made a universe that would bring forth life that could keep adapting on its own?
Where do you draw the line?
You accept that geologically not that long ago polar bears and grizzly bears were the same animals. Surely you can stretch that a little further and see all bears as more and more little changes on a basic animal structure.
Meanwhile, I'm sure you could imagine all wolves, dogs, jackals and coyotes as also being variations on a theme.
Now you just have to look at these two families and see that a "dog" and a "bear" are pretty similar in structure. If you look closer at their skeletons and even their DNA you can see the pattern of similarities.
But it goes even further, we've even found fossils of bear-dogs from before these two groups of animals were as distinct as they are today.
Now it's an explanation to say that an Intelligent Designer just tired of his bear-dogs and made up dogs and bears as replacements... but isn't it more reasonable to apply the explanation that works on a small timeline to just more varieties over a longer period?
Remember we're not talking about a bear-dog suddenly giving birth to a bear or a dog... we're talking about the populations separating and over a very long period of time with many almost invisible steps.
It's a matter of rational reasons.
If you can't actually point out the flaws in a scientific theory... you aren't presenting an oposing theory or hypothesis, you're just saying you don't like the answers.
They don't and for, I suspect, the same kind of reasons.
Take a look at electric universe proponents who don't believe in relativity. Look for people who believe that it is density, not gravity that keeps things down. Look at flat Earthers, moon landing deniers.
(And those are just examples that are promoted on this website).
If someone has an emotional or religious investment in a certain answer, that is a motivation to be bias against something, regardless of evidence.
Okay, but the approximately 14 billion year or infinite age of the universe doesn't really effect the timeline of life on Earth. We still have the 4 or 5 billion years for the Solar system's beginning, then the hundreds of millions of years for the Earth to settle down and life to get going.
We haven't been able to do something doesn't mean it's impossible... it's also 100% irrelevant the theory of evolution.
An Intellgent Designer could have crafted the Cambrian Life from the void and evolution would still be the best explanation for the modern diversity of life.
If a thing doesn't leave evidence then they can't be proven. They also can't be disproven.
BUT if there is evidence it is reasonable to accept the demonstrable explanation.
If I come back from the shops to discover that somehow a steak has moved from the bench and only a chewed on bone is sitting on the kitchen floor, I could assume that it is a miracle and I should now become a vegetarian... or I can be very suspicious of Abby the LabX looking very guilty near the stairs.
Upvote
0
