Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Darwin was wrong about quite a few things - similar to Freud, however, he is credited for a pattern of thought that led to innovation in the field.
Why do you dispute macroevolution? Are you saying that dinosaurs did not become birds? Or did monkeys just not become humans?
If we can make it happen on organisms with shorter lifespans . . . why would you think it doesn't happen to those with longer lifespans? Or do you not understand what macro/microevolution refer to?
You cede some points that confuse me, because you seemingly contradict yourself - I'm genuinely curious.
|
I think what might seem contradictory is the difference between 1) my personal opinion and 2) what I consider otherwise logical but do not believe.
Personally: I believe that God created the universe (of course including original flora and fauna) as whole and complete. I also believe that adaptations and mutations occur, but do not support the theory that dinosaurs became birds or monkeys became humans.
Otherwise logical: I
understand how one would come to the conclusion that dinosaurs became birds and monkeys became humans; especially from Darwin's perspective that matter originated with an other creator. My question for those that ascribe to this view (creator or not) is this:
Where did original matter come from?
AKA_Monet posited that scientists are really not concerned with this area of study - instead they are most interested in what is occurring at the time of their research.
Regardless of the origin of the universe, we now have scientific principles by which to understand our world.