Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Definition of micro evolution
evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
Micro evolution stay within their species "family" in order to reproduce with macro evolution they can not reproduce outside of their species "family".
Definition of micro evolution
I would say that scripture serves as evidence for the ressurection, because it suggests that the ressurection occurred.
Scripture is not evidence cause what is recorded comes from sources who were not witness to the actual event itself and written many years after the event. Therefore what is written is not a first hand account but an account of what happened that has been passed down a few generations. Problem with this that this usually leads to errors as details tend to change as the story is passes down generations.
I am not a geologist or an expert in any of these fields. However, the canyon at Mt St Helen's was formed in hours. The flood lasted a year... I do know how fast water can erode rock and I also know the power of a mud slurry with various sizes and types of rocks and it's ability to grind and pulverize autogenously.
The destruction of a few hours, compared to a year is note worthy.
I have been to Joggins. The tour guide makes it quite clear of the age of each layer of strata... Yet, the trees go right up through these.
Like I said, I'm not an expert...
I do firmly believe that, in the end, all will be revealed and God's Word will be shown to be the solid truth.
Like I said, I am no expert. However, change the nice clean water that flows over Sioux Falls, that runs very close to 1000 g/l, to a slurry of mud and rock at 1500 - 1700 g/l and watch how long they last in their present condition.I don't think you understand the difference between soft ash and hard metamorphic rock. I've been to Mt. St. Helens, and looked at those canyons. They aren't what you were told they are.
Notice the walls slump when they get more than a few meters high. And you don't see these:
Entrenched meanders only happen under certain circumstances. And old, slow river wanders because erosion speeds up on the outside of curves, and soil is deposited on the inside of curves. Over time, the river wanders and snakes into loops. If the land is then uplifted, as the grand canyon area was, the river is "rejuvenated", speed up, and becomes locked into the bed, cutting deeper and deeper into the rock.
This process is being observed today, so we know how it works.
Here's Sioux falls, in South Dakota. The river has been running through here since the last ice age. The rock is quartzite. The "canyon" is a few feet deep.
The condition of the trees is a tip-off. They were actually not woody trees, but lycopods, with a hard outer layer and a pithy center. The trees at Joggins are hollowed out; the pith decayed before being buried. There are often fossils of lizards and other animals in the center, showing that they were dead and rotted before being buried, which would eliminate them from a "flood."
There are similar polystrate fossils being made, not far from my house were decades ago, a dam flooded some woods. Most of the dead trees are still standing, and they are slowly being buried in layers of sediment.
Not knowing what one is talking about is a great disadvantage, yes.
It will. But of course, it's not what the YE creationist is hoping for.
Like I said, I am no expert. However, change the nice clean water that flows over Sioux Falls, that runs very close to 1000 g/l,
to a slurry of mud and rock at 1500 - 1700 g/l and watch how long they last in their present condition.
It's the difference to rubbing your hand over your skin with baby oil...
and then adding some nice beach sand to the baby oil and rubbing that on your skin.
If ever there appears to be a conflict, take God's word over science. Science falsely called (as it is largely the beliefs of popular scientists, rather than science itself that ever disagrees with scripture) contradicts with itself over mere decades, let alone centuries. God's word hasn't changed in millenia. For me, the track record makes the decision easy.I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?
What are your thoughts on this?
If ever there appears to be a conflict, take God's word over science.
Science falsely called (as it is largely the beliefs of popular scientists, rather than science itself that ever disagrees with scripture)
contradicts with itself over mere decades, let alone centuries.
God's word hasn't changed in millenia.
For me, the track record makes the decision easy.
The irony is that true science (rather than the opinions of scientists made famous for their anti-God opinions)
actually support the scriptural truth in all respects.
The Romans recorded that Christ lived and died. Why wouldn't they record His Resurrection?Many Christian writings from the first century are outside of the Bible. Or do you mean that you do not want it to be Christian at all? Well, that would be a strange combination to get from somebody who is not a Christian to say that Christ was rised.
First off, Christians lie just like those of any other faith.On the other hand, Christians do not lie, try to live morally... Romans were still barbarians and animals, liers and murderers. Why do you want their testimony? Christian testimony is much better because of the moral teaching of Christianity. Also, Christians risked persecution and painful death for their testimony. Every good judge would say that Christ was risen, based on this.
By that logic, the fact that Mormon churches exist is historical evidence that Jesus visited what would become America.Not sure what you mean by that. If a roof cannot be in the air without the house under it, then the roof is the evidence/proof of the house under it, even if it is somehow covered from our eyes (by a tree, for example).
If there is Christian church, then its an evidence that in its beginnings (in history), there was the resurrection of Christ...
Obviously the earth is several billion years old and all species descend from a common ancestor.Obviously a dog and a wolf are of the same "kind". The word species is a modern classification. The bible uses "kind" not species.. Animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind.
That is all I know.
Nothing in science claims that a mouse could or would mate with a rabbit.Macro evolution is not biblically acceptable ... extreme example ... a mouse can't, won't mate with a rabbit ... because not after their kind.
What stops one species from evolving so much that it can no longer breed with others?Definition of micro evolution
evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
Micro evolution stay/mate within their species "family" in order to reproduce with macro evolution they do not reproduce/mate outside of their species "family".
Romans were not witnessing the event, Jews were.The Romans recorded that Christ lived and died. Why wouldn't they record His Resurrection?
Today? Maybe. In the first century? No. Why to lie and get killed for it? The situation was very different, it was not an advantage to be a Christian back then like it is today in the USA' politics.First off, Christians lie just like those of any other faith.
How to you imagine an "archeological" evidence of a resurrection?Second, I'm not asking for testimony, I'm asking for historical evidence. I already gave an example of Solomon's temple.
No, because they did not witness it, they just got some "revelation".By that logic, the fact that Mormon churches exist is historical evidence that Jesus visited what would become America.
Bible is as reliable evidence as some pagan roman archive is. Actually, more.Look, I'm not denying the Resurrection happened, I'm simply saying that the Bible is not historical evidence of the event.
Thanks for making my point.Romans were not witnessing the event, Jews were.
I don't. There isn't archeological evidence of Christ living either but there is historical (i.e. non-biased) evidence for it.Today? Maybe. In the first century? No. Why to lie and get killed for it? The situation was very different, it was not an advantage to be a Christian back then like it is today in the USA' politics.
How to you imagine an "archeological" evidence of a resurrection?
Not according to them. According to the book of Mormon, people witnessed Jesus in North America. They passed it down and someone wrote it down.No, because they did not witness it, they just got some "revelation".
For the faith yes. For the history? No.Bible is as reliable evidence as some pagan roman archive is. Actually, more.
Nothing in science claims that a mouse could or would mate with a rabbit.
Really, here's a video...I know that ... everybody knows that ...
What prevents a split off dog population from microevolving so far that it can no longer mate with the descendants of the original population?it was an extreme analogy used as an example of the biblical teaching of "after their kind" verses not "after their kind"
That is ... what we see in nature (naturally) are those reproducing after their kind as biblically stated.
Science and the Bible do not contradict at all. Evolution and the Bible contradict. Science, done properly, is a marvelous means of observing and learning about the glory of God. Science reveals a lot of wonderful things about our Creator beyond His obvious existence.I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?
What are your thoughts on this?
"Special water????" O come on. Seriously??? The Bible makes no such assertions. It says that the flood was global and that it covered the entire earth. Every reference to the flood of Noah in the Bible tells us that it was global with only 8 human survivors and the animals that were on the ark.It's possible that Noahs flood was not even normal water.
Call me a softie, but wouldn't it be kind to use a special water from the fountains of the deep so everyone didn't drown painfully? God has talents.
"Special water?" O come on. Seriously?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?