We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
Micro evolution (adaptation) is true.
Macro evolution (we all came from single celled organisms that poofed into existence) is a lie.
Welcome to read many accounts of reasons why. One of the best well known in recent years is https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/.
Correct.
Micro is observable. Different breeds of dogs. White boy getting a tan from being in the sun. etc....
Macro has never been observed. Speciation (a new species evolving from an existing species) is a myth.
We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Nothing created everything
Something created everything
My money is on #2
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.