[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by KSig RC
If everything was created whole and complete, why do we have a record of human progression, up until the current homo sapiens sapiens? Why can we see birds moving through different forms, developing feathers and reducing size and bone density, until flight became the exclusive form of motion rather than an exception?

We have assumed a logical progression. On this point, I am not fully convinced that we aren't observing various extinct species (I don't want to argue the terminology because I'm not a practicing scientist - is species correct?) or even groups of humans. The only explanation for our findings does not lie in macroevolution.

Are you just believing in this notion, in spite of evidence to the contrary, because it fits you spiritually? That's completely fine if you are, but you seem to be doing the "I know all the evidence points toward X, and I'm fine with you believing X, but I believe Y" dance, and I genuinely want to understand.

In a sense, I am. My worldview stems from my faith. However, I am not a proponent for completely unfounded belief. With regard to my understanding of origin, there is a genuine possibility that macroevolution is an inaccurate judgment of the data.

Note that almost every (non-evangelical) Christian denomination accepts macroevolution as correct, including the notoriously stodgy Vatican (this point is also geared toward your "plenty of non-Christians believe in intelligent design" comments earlier).

You're getting into territory that is touchy - something I'd rather not get into right here, right now.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that God created the universe in order to set the process of life in motion - this would be akin to God creating the legos with which to build the space station and all that good stuff. However, it is patently incorrect to imply that since there's no other explanation, it must be God - it's a twisting of Occam's Razor to incorrect use.

I don't disagree. My answer to the question is God. Your answer to the question is otherwise. I can't prove my opinion to you, so the question is unanswerable. However, it must be asked as it is the basis for my worldview. I ask it with the knowledge that you disagree, but with the hope that it will serve to further explain me.

For me, there is no other explanation. So, yes, "it must be God."

Where I am coming from the perspective that God is in charge, you are coming from the perspective that science has the answers (or rather potentially has the answers). What you seem to be perceiving as contradiction is my consideration of what you believe...I understand what you're saying and, coming from your starting point, it would make sense. But, I don't agree.