| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
26th November 2006, 03:30 AM
|  | bel esprit
29     
| | Join Date: 28th October 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,802
Blessings: 103,761
Reps: 45,671 (power: 65) | | | Nope. You're reaching. Check out what the article says:
"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data." and it goes into the definition of the term and creationist attempts to misuse it. That's what I'm talking about.
__________________
Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
26th November 2006, 06:49 AM
|  | Contributor
28  
| | Join Date: 12th June 2005
Posts: 6,067
Blessings: 2,074,513
Reps: 1,197,048,778,347,054 (power: 1,197,048,778,360) | | | I find the idea of micro- and macro-evolution laughable. In the same way that I would find the idea of micro- and macro-gravity laughable.
__________________ Now with added Olanzapine
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.-UDHR |
26th November 2006, 10:11 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57    
 | | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,161
Blessings: 2,934,947,627 My Mood 
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | |
Originally Posted by TeddyKGB  2micro = macro
Only in a universe where 2drops = Pacific Ocean.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
26th November 2006, 11:41 AM
| | Like the root of -1
27 
| | Join Date: 27th January 2004
Posts: 5,579
Blessings: 88,595
Reps: 4,366 (power: 18) | | | AV1611VET, would you deny that if I kept adding drops of water to a (very large) bowl, I'd end up with enough water for an ocean?
Because that's what creationists are essentially denying when they say that enough steps of 'micro-evolution' won't lead to 'macro-evolution'.
__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Richard P. Feynman |
26th November 2006, 11:47 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,161
Blessings: 2,934,947,627 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | |
Originally Posted by Dragar AV1611VET, would you deny that if I kept adding drops of water to a (very large) bowl, I'd end up with enough water for an ocean?
Because that's what creationists are essentially denying when they say that enough steps of 'micro-evolution' won't lead to 'macro-evolution'.
Yes I would deny it --- on the grounds that you wouldn't have enough time to create that much volume of water 2 drops at a time.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
26th November 2006, 11:50 AM
| | Like the root of -1
27
| | Join Date: 27th January 2004
Posts: 5,579
Blessings: 88,595
Reps: 4,366 (power: 18) | | Yes I would deny it --- on the grounds that you wouldn't have enough time to create that much volume of water 2 drops at a time.
So your problem is not with the notion of micro-evolution leading to macro-evolution, but only that there is not enough time for one to become the other?
__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Richard P. Feynman |
26th November 2006, 02:59 PM
|  | Soldier of Knowledge
28   
| | Join Date: 18th January 2004 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,720
Blessings: 59,512
Reps: 18,604,695,596,698 (power: 18,604,695,606) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET Because it violates Scripture.
All these small things adding up into big things is not how the Creator of the universe operates.
In fact --- thanks to Adam --- just the opposite occurs.
If this were the only thing God had to say, I wouldn’t have a problem with people believing it. But even if the Bible is divinely inspired, it still wouldn’t be the only way God tells us things—he also tells us a lot via his creation itself. And I think you’d agree that if you wanted to learn about certain topics, such as how many planets there are, you’d be able to learn more about them from the world itself than you could from the Bible.
I explained in my OP why I think the physical world supports the concept of macroevolution, and the only alternative explanation for these fossils is that God has been deliberately deceiving us. If you think I’m misinterpreting this evidence, I’d like to hear how. If your only reason for not accepting the concept of macroevolution is because the Bible seems to say something else, though, why is your interpretation of what God said in the Bible a greater authority than what God did in the physical world?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
26th November 2006, 04:17 PM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,161
Blessings: 2,934,947,627 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | |
Originally Posted by Dragar So your problem is not with the notion of micro-evolution leading to macro-evolution, but only that there is not enough time for one to become the other?
I actually have four problems: - Evolution didn't have enough time to operate.
- God created this universe with no room for improvement.
- No animals died prior to Genesis 3.
- Jesus believed in the Creation - not evolution.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
26th November 2006, 04:35 PM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,161
Blessings: 2,934,947,627 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | 
Originally Posted by Aggie If this were the only thing God had to say, I wouldn’t have a problem with people believing it. But even if the Bible is divinely inspired, it still wouldn’t be the only way God tells us things—he also tells us a lot via his creation itself. And I think you’d agree that if you wanted to learn about certain topics, such as how many planets there are, you’d be able to learn more about them from the world itself than you could from the Bible.
I'm already on record as saying that where the Bible is silent on certain subjects - (such as how many planets in our solar system) - it's up to science to fill in the blanks - as long as science doesn't contradict in areas where the Bible is not silent. I explained in my OP why I think the physical world supports the concept of macroevolution...
I don't know. I'm under the impression that there are some atheistic scientists who disagree. Personally though, I don't know - and even if physical evidence does support evolution - the Manual says otherwise - and disagreeing with Scripture is not an option available to us Christians. Unless we want to take a chance like Nadab and Abihu did. ...and the only alternative explanation for these fossils is that God has been deliberately deceiving us.
And right there is a MAJOR reason I will not believe in evolution. In reality, it calls God a deceiver, and that's the very thing they called Jesus at His trial in Matthew 27:63. Do you think it's just coincidental that you guys call Him the very same thing? I don't. - [bible]Matthew 27:63[/bible]
If you think I’m misinterpreting this evidence, I’d like to hear how.
Like I said, if you are misinterpreting this evidence, I don't know how. All I know about evidence is that God warned us to be careful with it: - [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]
If your only reason for not accepting the concept of macroevolution is because the Bible seems to say something else, though, why is your interpretation of what God said in the Bible a greater authority than what God did in the physical world?
He did no do that in Genesis 1 --- we can only view the universe now from a Genesis 3 perspective.
Those born after Genesis 3 grew up with thorns and thistles. Do you think they believed Adam and Eve when Adam and Eve said there was a time when no thorns and thistles existed?
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
Last edited by AV1611VET; 26th November 2006 at 04:43 PM.
|
26th November 2006, 05:36 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 29th August 2006
Posts: 743
Blessings: 91,410
Reps: 30 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET And right there is a MAJOR reason I will not believe in evolution. In reality, it calls God a deceiver, and that's the very thing they called Jesus at His trial in Matthew 27:63. Do you think it's just coincidental that you guys call Him the very same thing? I don't.
It's not evolution that calls God a deceiver - it's you with your embedded age nonsense. There is nothing whatsoever about evolutionary theory that calls God a deceiver - all that it means is that some parts of scripture should not be interpreted literally. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
