What's wrong with evolution?

[shernren]

• NS = only the strong survive
• GC = when I am weak, then am I strong
• NS = if you make it to the top, you make it
• GC = they that are first, shall be last, and the last shall be first

Now I've really figured out why the charismatics opposite college keep claiming Deuteronomy 28:13. They're evolutionists in disguise!

"NS": If you make it to the top, you make it.
AV1611VET says: they that are first, shall be last, and the last shall be first.
The Bible says: And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
(Deuteronomy 28:13 KJV)

 

[AV1611VET]

*lol* just saw "If it disagrees with the King James Bible - it's wrong."

Wonder what the original Hebrew authors would make of that.

They are the ones that originally wrote:

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

And although, at the time, they didn't know it would eventually lead to the King James Bible --- it did.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

In the old days of debating evolution --- Christians used to say that evolution does not exist.

Scientists would counter that with examples like the Gypsy Moth changing colors on tree trunks.

To which the Christians would point out that that is not "evolution" per se --- that is "adaption".

So scientists 'broke' the term "evolution" into two separate terms: micro- and macro-.

This satisfied the Christians --- to a point.

Microevolution is adaption.
Macroevolution is evolution.

Microevolution, I believe, is also used to show one specific species within a genera giving rise to another species; but don't quote me on that.

I am not trying to be argumentative or condescending, but could you please post the source of where scientists created the terms microevolution and macroevolution?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Doesn't comply with predictions of entropy death...

Thanks for the clarification on micro/macro... but I have to say, if your gypsy moth population MICROevolves enough times, and another gypsy moth poulation stays statis... won't enough MICRO steps equal a MACRO step, that is to say that eventually the populations wont interbreed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you disagree?

yes.
you are searching an ancient document written to a specific people, culture and time and reading modern science back into it. No one reading or hearing these verses for the first time thought, imagined, dreamed anything like your interpretation. In fact, no one reading them for 2 millennium thought this is what they meant.

That is correct.

Same with some of the prophecies made. They made no sense at the time, but as time passed, things became clearer.

The book of Revelation is that way. It is "fuzzy" to us right now; but after the Rapture, and Tribulation starts, these things will become perfectly clear.

Genesis is creation --- in seed form.

 

[Mincus]

Thanks for the clarification on micro/macro... but I have to say, if your gypsy moth population MICROevolves enough times, and another gypsy moth poulation stays statis... won't enough MICRO steps equal a MACRO step, that is to say that eventually the populations wont interbreed?

There's a supernatural force that prevents it, apparently...
In direct conflict with the fossil and genetic evidence of course.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In the old days** of debating evolution --- Christians used to say that evolution does not exist.


The rise of modern fundamentalism and it's challenge to the TofE in the form of YECism is a modern movement. Fundamentalism itself dates no earlier than the 1920's,* even the precurser to modern YECism, the SDA Price is after 1930. From the time of Darwin to roughly 1910 and the rise of the counter-social gospel, counter-higher criticism, counter-TofE in fundamentalism essentially all Christians assented to the TofE. see, for example, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders. There are several good books on the rise of providential creationism and evolutionary creationism in that first and second generation of Christian following the publication of Darwin's Origin and it's near complete acceptance until the rise of fundamentalism. Which is why, outside of the US there is virtually no YECists, essentially are Christians there are TE.

notes:
* although some pieces of it such as dispensationalism and premillennialism date to the mid 19thC

** i suspect by "old days" this author thinks of the 1960's and books such as the Genesis Flood which was instrumental to the rise of modern YECism.

 

[dawiyd]

They are the ones that originally wrote:

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

And although, at the time, they didn't know it would eventually lead to the King James Bible --- it did.

Dont make me explain this verse to you again, and how it doesn't back up what you are claiming it does.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not trying to be argumentative or condescending, but could you please post the source of where scientists created the terms microevolution and macroevolution?

Nope --- don't know where it's at --- sorry.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That is correct.

Same with some of the prophecies made. They made no sense at the time, but as time passed, things became clearer.

The book of Revelation is that way. It is "fuzzy" to us right now; but after the Rapture, and Tribulation starts, these things will become perfectly clear.

Genesis is creation --- in seed form.

like YECism, the rapture and tribulation are the providence of just a fraction of the greater Christian community. Once again the inability of some people to separate their own interpretation of the Scriptures from the text itself and seemingly to believe that all Christians believe that the text teaches their specific group's interpretation.

although fuzzy is the right word to describe Revelation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't comply with predictions of entropy death...

Thanks for the clarification on micro/macro... but I have to say, if your gypsy moth population MICROevolves enough times, and another gypsy moth poulation stays statis... won't enough MICRO steps equal a MACRO step, that is to say that eventually the populations wont interbreed?

That's what someone on here keeps telling me (I can't remember who says it).

No --- I don't believe that.

In the science of taxonomy, plants and animals are recognized usually by two terms each.

For example, I believe the wolf is called Canis latrans, and a panther is called Panthera panthera, etc.

The first word is the GENERA the animal is codified under, and the second word is the SPECIES it is codified under.

(If you know this already - I apologize.)

Anyway, microevolution is a change from one SPECIES into another; whereas macroevolution is a change or branching off from one GENERA into another.

It is the creation of a whole new genera.

Such as an ape into a human.

(Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, please.)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Revelation doesnt specifically mention the rapture, does it?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

re your taxonomy, yep thats all right... but some SPECIES are closer than others within the same Genus, and eventually, the genetic drift goes far enough that new genera are required... off the top of my head, lions and tigers are an example of this happening today... they can still interbreed, so TECHNICALLY, same genus... but the offspring are infertile, so that makes them a SUBgenus apart... like most of biology, it doesnt really confirm to strict delineation, right? and so, to my thinking, another few hundred generations down the track, your lions and tigers might have MICRO evolved sufficiently far apart that they can't interbreed at all...

Or can you not see that happening a decribed?

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a supernatural force that prevents it, apparently...

That is correct --- God said for them to reproduce after their own kind --- and He meant it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Revelation doesnt specifically mention the rapture, does it?

it is a bit off topic, however the idea of the rapture stems from a single verse.

The word "rapture" comes from the same root as rapt: the Latin verb rapere, or the adjective raeptius[1], which means "carried away by force, caught up". The 405 AD Vulgate translation used it in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which is the main biblical reference usually quoted for the Rapture event. The specific form used is rapiemur, "we shall be caught up", translating the original Greek harpagēsometha (ἁρπαγησόμεθ&#945 (passive voice, future tense of harpazō (ἁρπάζ&#969: "snatch away, carry off.")
a nice introduction to the topic on the wiki at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

 

[AV1611VET]

** i suspect by "old days" this author thinks of the 1960's and books such as the Genesis Flood which was instrumental to the rise of modern YECism.

That is correct, but let me reiterate, I am not a YEC.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

minor point... wolves are Canis Lupus, with a number of SUBspecies (thats a third name in the binomial nomenclature, e.g. the Timber Wolf, is Canis lupus lycaon) Canis Latrans is the coyote... hes different.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't comply with predictions of entropy death...

Long before we reach maximum entropy, God is going to intervene.

Paul, speaking of Jesus, says ---

[bible]Colossians 1:16-17[/bible]

When the proper time comes --- Jesus is going to cancel the strong nuclear force and the events of 2 Peter are going to take place.

[bible]2 Peter 3:10[/bible][bible]2 Peter 3:12[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Dont make me explain this verse to you again, and how it doesn't back up what you are claiming it does.

Ya --- I didn't get it the first time --- since it was written in tongues.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

minor point... wolves are Canis Lupus, with a number of SUBspecies (thats a third name in the binomial nomenclature, e.g. the Timber Wolf, is Canis lupus lycaon) Canis Latrans is the coyote... hes different.

actually, as was pointed out recently on another thread, the canids family is undergoing a revision, partly accepted and partly not yet throughout the taxonomic community.

The Domestic Dog is listed by some authorities as Canis familiaris and others (including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists) as a subspecies of the Gray Wolf (i.e., Canis lupus familiaris);
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid

the take home message is that interbreeding with fertile offspring is not the only criteria for a species. both how the family canids interact and how ring species do shows that this simple boundary is not conclusive. As you can see from some of the articles on canids, the fundamental divisions are going to genetic proximity analysis and cladistics to better settle these issues.

see:
http://www.lam.mus.ca.us/expeditions/rrc/wang/Carnivorephylogeny.html