letter from a skeptic
"dear stephen,
first thanks for your honesty about not knowing all the answers. I respect the fact that you admit your imperfect, I think we all are and for 'leery' to judge you is sad because it sounds like she was more or less condemning and not encouraging. But whatever. Anyway, to be honest I struggle now with the fact that evolution seems so reasonable, I look at darwins "tree of life" and feel it gives a plausible explanation of how we got here. I understand that you don't have all the answers, but please help, im drowning in doubt."
-joseph "the skeptic"
dearest joseph,
I think you speak for alot of us, when you say that you have become a skeptic because of what you have seen in your high school text books. But here is where I stand. I am a micro-evolutionist-intelligent design-"big bang"* theorist. Macro-evolution is the theory that all things evolve slowly "by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations' and that 'no sudden modifications are possible." and that right there is the nail in the coffin to darwins theory. Darwin himself knew that there were sudden "explosions" of phyla (or divisions of animals) appear in fossil record. Darwin says that macro evolution happens slowly over time, so my question is what about the Cambrian explosion??? here is the explanation:
"The Cambrian was a geological period that we think began a little more than 540 million years ago. The Cambrian explosion has been called the "biological big bang" because it gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today as well as some that are now extinct"
Dr. Jonathan Wells
in other words the theory that we evolved slowly over time is not proven true because there are breaks in history where suddenly there appears new animal types, and species. This could be explained by creationism but NOT Darwinism. I encourage you to do your own research on the Cambrian (and other) explosions which basically debunk Darwinism. get back to me on what you discover.
-stephen
*as originally theororized
first thanks for your honesty about not knowing all the answers. I respect the fact that you admit your imperfect, I think we all are and for 'leery' to judge you is sad because it sounds like she was more or less condemning and not encouraging. But whatever. Anyway, to be honest I struggle now with the fact that evolution seems so reasonable, I look at darwins "tree of life" and feel it gives a plausible explanation of how we got here. I understand that you don't have all the answers, but please help, im drowning in doubt."
-joseph "the skeptic"
dearest joseph,
I think you speak for alot of us, when you say that you have become a skeptic because of what you have seen in your high school text books. But here is where I stand. I am a micro-evolutionist-intelligent design-"big bang"* theorist. Macro-evolution is the theory that all things evolve slowly "by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations' and that 'no sudden modifications are possible." and that right there is the nail in the coffin to darwins theory. Darwin himself knew that there were sudden "explosions" of phyla (or divisions of animals) appear in fossil record. Darwin says that macro evolution happens slowly over time, so my question is what about the Cambrian explosion??? here is the explanation:
"The Cambrian was a geological period that we think began a little more than 540 million years ago. The Cambrian explosion has been called the "biological big bang" because it gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today as well as some that are now extinct"
Dr. Jonathan Wells
in other words the theory that we evolved slowly over time is not proven true because there are breaks in history where suddenly there appears new animal types, and species. This could be explained by creationism but NOT Darwinism. I encourage you to do your own research on the Cambrian (and other) explosions which basically debunk Darwinism. get back to me on what you discover.
-stephen
*as originally theororized
Comments