Bex wrote:


Sure it's possible. But it's also equally possible that "macroevolution" -- a term coined by the creationist school of thought, incidentally, and not evolutionists themselves -- is accurate.

It's been said by posters on this forum that evolution is the most ridiculous sounding theory they've ever heard of. As a neo-pagan I've been told by a fair few that my beliefs are outlandish, absurd, fantastical and so on (even satanic, which is wildly ironic since I don't believe in the Christian mythos, of which "Satan" is a part of). Yet despite this I refuse to stoop to the level of the accusers and transfer these accusations onto evolution -- or anything else for that matter.

This is a statement to the forum readers at large by the way (those who I've chosen to maintain dialog with) and not any one poster in particular.

So even if evolution is 100% false, as a theory it is by no means a ridiculous notion nor hard to understand why anyone would accept it as a plausible explanation for life. We already know "microevolution" exists. Even the most steadfast creationist does not deny that bacteria change over time to better combat the latest antibiotics. Living creatures are known to change in small doses over short, and sometimes long, periods of time to compete with the ever changing world. This fact cannot be refuted. It's not so unrealistic, then, that someone might take this idea one step further by suggesting that life changes in larger strides over even greater periods of time. Even if it's wrong, even if tomorrow it's completely and irrevocably disproven, it's certainly not outlandish or hard to understand why someone might assume this to be the case.

I'm not arguing for "macroevolution" as a wholly true and utterly factual concept here and this is by no means an invitation to debate the validity thereof. I'm simply stating that, true or false, it's not an unreasonable notion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Blessed be.