dont believe in evolution but sometimes i wonder

[Bouke285]

The problem with your talk of "micro" vs "macro" evolution is that it's an artificial, arbitrary, and false distinction. All those "micro" changes become pretty "macro" over the course of millions of years.

-CryptoLutheran

That's the assumption of evolutionists. In reality, there is zero evidence to support the idea of one species changing into something else. The faith evolutionists must have in their theory far out ways that one must have to believe there is a God (I'm not saying you can't be an evolutionist and Christian or that you can be Christian by only believing there is a God , just an illustration).

Your pictures did nothing for me. The creatures you chose were far too developed to even make an argument for macro evolution. And there is no reason to believe they were different species. Where are the millions of fossils for the millions of stages between your two pictures?

I would argue, even if macro evolution, as I defined it in the earlier post, was possible. Millions of years wouldn't be enough time for one species to change into another, let alone for a single cell to evolve into a human. One mistake, one accidental death and the chain must start over.

Micro changes may become macro, but your definition of macro is impossible. NEVER has or will one species change into another species, they adapt, they evolve (little e ;D ) they change in appearance, but a bird will always be a bird, there may be one big white bird and one tiny green bird, but they are still birds.

Something no evolutionist can answer with any reasonable explanation. What came first the chicken or the egg?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's the assumption of evolutionists. In reality, there is zero evidence to support the idea of one species changing into something else. The faith evolutionists must have in their theory far out ways that one must have to believe there is a God (I'm not saying you can't be an evolutionist and Christian or that you can be Christian by only believing there is a God , just an illustration).

Your pictures did nothing for me. The creatures you chose were far too developed to even make an argument for macro evolution. And there is no reason to believe they were different species. Where are the millions of fossils for the millions of stages between your two pictures?

I would argue, even if macro evolution, as I defined it in the earlier post, was possible. Millions of years wouldn't be enough time for one species to change into another, let alone for a single cell to evolve into a human. One mistake, one accidental death and the chain must start over.

Micro changes may become macro, but your definition of macro is impossible. NEVER has or will one species change into another species, they adapt, they evolve (little e ;D ) they change in appearance, but a bird will always be a bird, there may be one big white bird and one tiny green bird, but they are still birds.

Something no evolutionist can answer with any reasonable explanation. What came first the chicken or the egg?

Please, before trying to make these arguments, at the very least learn about what it is you're trying to argue against.

Do that, then we can talk.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bouke285]

Please, before trying to make these arguments, at the very least learn about what it is you're trying to argue against.

Do that, then we can talk.

-CryptoLutheran

That type of response does no good for anybody. I am competent in the theories. Nobody has presented evidence that Evolution is possible, let alone the universe being old enough to allow for its possibility. Each theory you present has multiple reasonable explanations in a young earth creation context. If you don't believe me competent, please share some specifics rather then sneaking out the back door with the final word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That type of response does no good for anybody. I am competent in the theories. Nobody has presented evidence that Evolution is possible, let alone the universe being old enough to allow for its possibility. Each theory you present has multiple reasonable explanations in a young earth creation context. If you don't believe me competent, please share some specifics rather then sneaking out the back door with the final word.

I said what I said because it seemed to me that you don't really understand some of the basics of evolutionary thought. You talk about "species becoming other species", working from artificial and arbitrary constructs rather than natural and biological ones.

At what point a "bird" is no longer a "bird" is an arbitrary and artificial construct that is for convenience sake.

If a population of sparrows, through natural selection, became adapted to flightless, terrestrial life, with wings shrinking, longer legs for running on land, beak adaptations better suited to eat new kinds of foods, is it still a sparrow? We can say yes if that makes it easier for us, even though it hardly looks or acts like a sparrow.

This is why we can say that birds are dinosaurs, human beings are apes, dinosaurs are archosaurs, apes are primates, primates are mammals, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[3rdHeaven]

Seems to me that evolution further expounds the Glory and Greatness of GOD!

I can understand how some resit this, look how long it took for every one to accept the world was not flat.

 

[thesunisout]

Seems to me that evolution further expounds the Glory and Greatness of GOD!

I can understand how some resit this, look how long it took for every one to accept the world was not flat.

You know that's a myth, right? People knew the world was round in 3rd century BC, and Christians theologians in the early church (and all throughout the church) knew that.

To compare those who dispute evolution from universal common descent to people who believe in a flat earth is ridiculous. That is something an atheist would say. There are good reasons to believe otherwise, such as that it is bad science, and also that there is real science that confirms a young earth. I don't think belief in evolution brings any glory to God; quite the opposite, in fact. Ask any atheist why he disbelieves the bible and he will certainly tell you evolution is the biggest reason. It's because, unlike some Christians, they know exactly what is at stake:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

 

[thesunisout]

That type of response does no good for anybody. I am competent in the theories. Nobody has presented evidence that Evolution is possible, let alone the universe being old enough to allow for its possibility. Each theory you present has multiple reasonable explanations in a young earth creation context. If you don't believe me competent, please share some specifics rather then sneaking out the back door with the final word.

Isn't it interesting that belief in evolution and mockery always go hand in hand?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't it interesting that belief in evolution and mockery always go hand in hand?

As far as what I've presented here, I haven't mocked anyone. I have been sincere in all my posts thus far.

If someone came to me and insisted that, as a Christian, I believe Jesus was a flesh-eating zombie, and continued to insist that I believe this even after stating contrariwise, it would not be unreasonable that I ask them to legitimately go and research what Christian theology actually states in regards to our doctrine of resurrection.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bouke285]

I said what I said because it seemed to me that you don't really understand some of the basics of evolutionary thought. You talk about "species becoming other species", working from artificial and arbitrary constructs rather than natural and biological ones.

At what point a "bird" is no longer a "bird" is an arbitrary and artificial construct that is for convenience sake.

If a population of sparrows, through natural selection, became adapted to flightless, terrestrial life, with wings shrinking, longer legs for running on land, beak adaptations better suited to eat new kinds of foods, is it still a sparrow? We can say yes if that makes it easier for us, even though it hardly looks or acts like a sparrow.

This is why we can say that birds are dinosaurs, human beings are apes, dinosaurs are archosaurs, apes are primates, primates are mammals, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

I was intending the "arbitrary" bird to be illustrations, obviously misunderstood. There is a reason we systematize creation into different species, it's because they are different species. In the mind of the Evolutionist these species have a common origin, so obviously your going to argue for their arbitrary characterization.

We use language to communicate, and in that sense we have given arbitrary names to different creatures. One is able to understand another when they say "bird". I understand the distinction in the mind of an evolutionist isn't the same as the distinction in the mind of a creationist, but does that give you the right to call someone incompetent? Because they disagree?

You argue I misunderstand the notion of an evolutionist because somehow I don't see the link between a bird and a dinosaur? What kind of logic is this? The reason I don't see the link, hence use language such as "species," is because I don't believe the link exists, not because I don't understand your theories. So please understand my argument before accusing me of misunderstanding yours.

If a population of sparrows, through natural selection, became adapted to flightless, terrestrial life, with wings shrinking, longer legs for running on land, beak adaptations better suited to eat new kinds of foods, is it still a sparrow? We can say yes if that makes it easier for us, even though it hardly looks or acts like a sparrow.

No, again you are confusing different species (not an arbitrary distinction in the mind of a creationist) with adaptation within a species. Macro vs. Micro. You claim there is no distinction between the two, but I claim there is and that is where we divide.

Seems to me that evolution further expounds the Glory and Greatness of GOD!

I can understand how some resit this, look how long it took for every one to accept the world was not flat.

Taking a little bit more of God's sovereign control out of the picture, how does this expound his glory? When you take away the creation account, something with no hint of being symbolic or requiring anything but literal interpretation, we become liberal in our interpretation of scripture. The fall of humanity was a part of God's plan before time began, it was a literal moment in which one man brought unto every man the death of sin. And it is by the one literal God-man we were redeemed from that death. Should the world start viewing the story of Christ's resurrection as symbolic in future generations? This is what's happening with the creation account. Even with the resurrection.