Evolution

[dcalling]

Addition, I am not saying evolution is not possible or not happening, just the evidence is very strong that we are evolution to the wrong way or might be evoling to shake some of the bad genes that got mutated the wrong way.

 

[Targaryen]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

How do I reconcile it? Following the evolution of the hominid sub-species and judging te DNA changes within each step along the evolutionary track. To me, as a person of faith, I think there was something special about hominid DNA that allowed the process to evolve in a far faster rate for our species then say other species.

 

[Ellwood3]

How can humans be created in the image of God and still have evolved?
How could humans have evolved and still be created in the “Image of God”? | BioLogos


A search for "human evolution" on the BioLogos site gives a wealth of resources to explore:

Search | BioLogos

 

[Lenny3]

The fact that so many people don't accept the natural occurrence of evolution is mind-boggling to me.

I see denying the fact that life evolves on par with denying gravity or atoms exist. In fact, there's WAY more supporting evidence for evolution than there is for either gravitation or atomic structure.

 

[Lenny3]

I've read a few post on this thread where people have stated, "I 'believe' in microevolution, but I don't 'believe' in macroevolution."

I don't understand how they think this makes sense.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is speciation.

To me, if you've already admitted to accepting microevolution, you've already admitted to accepting macroevolution ... You just don't understand speciation.

 

[apogee]

‘Evolution’ is actually irrelevant to this

It would appear that the stock of living creatures, populating this planet has gone through dramatic changes over millennia. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the idea that all creatures were created in a single event, spanning 7 days.

Science = scientia = ‘that which is seen’
Forget evolution, ‘that which is seen’ contradicts YEC

It is perfectly reasonable to assert that just because something appears so, it doesn’t mean that it is so. I mean we all do this especially the more ‘rational’ ‘Penn and Tellers’ at the magic show, no doubt why you admire them so.

My question to you would be if you feel that YEC are the most intellectually honest adherents to the bible, then why on earth are you asking them how they account for your fictional neaderthals?

 

[Lenny3]

Fictional neanderthals?

If this was meant to be profound, I must admit I missed the point.

Do you really think neanderthals are fictional?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've read a few post on this thread where people have stated, "I 'believe' in microevolution, but I don't 'believe' in macroevolution."

I don't understand how they think this makes sense.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is speciation.

To me, if you've already admitted to accepting microevolution, you've already admitted to accepting macroevolution ... You just don't understand speciation.

A combination of ideological opposition and a general lack of understanding of the rudimentary science involved.

The language of "micro" and "macro" offers an ideological distinction that isn't made in the actual science. And because, as I've often heard some say, "macroevolution" is saying that cats become dogs, or some such. Which is nonsense, but that's the sort of deficiency is understanding the basic science leads one toward.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dcalling]

The fact that so many people don't accept the natural occurrence of evolution is mind-boggling to me.

I see denying the fact that life evolves on par with denying gravity or atoms exist. In fact, there's WAY more supporting evidence for evolution than there is for either gravitation or atomic structure.

Evolution might occurring, that is a theory. The problem is we can't find many evidence (we see a lot of natural selection, but not evolution).

There is no fossil evidence (the missing link), all the evidences are natural selection. And how do you explain if chicken or egg comes first? Why people are able to incest in ancient times and produce good offspring (else with the tiny human population initially and the inbreeding, we should have a world full of tards today). Why the Y chromosome becoming shorter over time?

I was brought and for a long time a strong believer of revolution, but the logic just won't add up....

 

[Lenny3]

Evolution might occurring, that is a theory. The problem is we can't find many evidence (we see a lot of natural selection, but not evolution).

There is no fossil evidence (the missing link), all the evidences are natural selection. And how do you explain if chicken or egg comes first? Why people are able to incest in ancient times and produce good offspring (else with the tiny human population initially and the inbreeding, we should have a world full of tards today). Why the Y chromosome becoming shorter over time?

I was brought and for a long time a strong believer of revolution, but the logic just won't add up....

Wow ...

 

[apogee]

Fictional neanderthals?

If this was meant to be profound, I must admit I missed the point.

Do you really think neanderthals are fictional?

clearly you did miss the point, profoundly

 

[apogee]

I simply meant

Why would a young earth creationist that does not struggle with the existence of dinosaur remains, need to account for the existence of Neaderthal remains?

I mean seriously? unless there are neaderthals actively posting to this site?

Which I'm pretty damn sure is not the case, maybe you can attest otherwise.