Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Is micorevolution congruent with a Biblical Worldview?

Is micorevolution congruent with a Biblical Worldview?

  • Yes, there is massive amounts of evidence of microevolution that could have occured after the Flood.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
S

Soma-Sight

Guest
Is micorevolution congruent with a Biblical Worldview?

There is massive amounts of "micro" evolution all around us in the world today. For those familiar with this principle, I am curious if you believe it to be congruent with a Biblical Worldview?
 
Yeah, microevolution is congruent with a biblical worldview.
 
Saying that in the past 4-5000 years there has been enough microevolution to create the variety of life we see today is not in line with science. 5000 years is a geological blink. Far too little could have possibly happened in that time.
 
The small number of animals off the ark would make the mechanisms of natural selection more viable due to a decreased genetic variance.

It does not take long for these things to happen.

Just look at the deep sea. After a major underwater landslide took out a bunch of life under deep sea vents......Scientists figured it would be 100,000 years before it became repopulated.

When they checked it out 20 years later through deep sea techiniques.....

The population of animals around the vents was jammed packed full of life!
 
SyntaxVorlon [i said:
emphasis added[/i]]Saying that in the past 4-5000 years there has been enough microevolution to create the variety of life we see today is not in line with science. 5000 years is a geological blink. Far too little could have possibly happened in that time.

This is the problem I see with how a lot of evolutionists argue. If you want to discuss differing views on origin theory then you can not just say dismiss the other side as not being 'in line' with science. The fact is that we just interpret the facts differently.

Evolution =/= Science

Just because I have a view outside of evolution does not make it unscientific. For more information please read the article

"It’s not science"
Dr Donald James Batten
 
This is the problem I see with how a lot of evolutionists argue. If you want to discuss differing views on origin theory then you can not just say dismiss the other side as not being 'in line' with science. The fact is that we just interpret the facts differently.

Think about it, for a moment. Suppose the creationists are right, and all species of cats came from a single pair "cat kind" and canids from "dog kind" and so on.

That would mean that, in a few thousand years, entire new species of large mammals would appear monthly. And yet no one seems to have noticed it happening.

Do you see why reasonable people don't buy the story?
 
The Barbarian said:
That would mean that, in a few thousand years, entire new species of large mammals would appear monthly. And yet no one seems to have noticed it happening.

Actually you can see exactly what you are talking about cats and dogs have been bread by humans for a long time to give them traits that are desirable for the humans. They have been so speciated that some can no longer interbreed. This can still be seen happening today with dog breeders.

The Barbarian emphasis added said:
Do you see why reasonable people don't buy the story?

Here you go again. You assume that someone could not be intelligent, reasonable, if they don't agree with your point of view. How can this lead to any kind of understanding or growth in knowledge. If you are not willing to be open to other ideas and at treat those who follow those ideas with a little respect then there is no point to a discusion. Please treat those with differing opinions with the respect they deserve. Even if you don't agree with them.
 
Darth Rave said:
[quote="The Barbarian":63fe3]That would mean that, in a few thousand years, entire new species of large mammals would appear monthly. And yet no one seems to have noticed it happening.

Actually you can see exactly what you are talking about cats and dogs have been bread by humans for a long time to give them traits that are desirable for the humans. They have been so speciated that some can no longer interbreed. This can still be seen happening today with dog breeders.
[/quote:63fe3]And cats and dogs are the only animals for which this is true, because humans have been purposefully breeding them. For YEC to be true, we would have to see the same thing in wild animals, and we don't.
 
The Barbarian wrote:
That would mean that, in a few thousand years, entire new species of large mammals would appear monthly. And yet no one seems to have noticed it happening.

Actually you can see exactly what you are talking about cats and dogs have been bread by humans for a long time to give them traits that are desirable for the humans.

No, we're talking about 1-3 new species appearing every month, not one or two every 20,000 years or so. For creationism to be right, there would have been hyperevolution of a kind never observed. And no one ever thought it was worth mentioning that new species of mammal popped up week after week.

The Barbarian observes:
Do you see why reasonable people don't buy the story?

Here you go again.

You know, I've never heard that phrase, without taffy being distributed right afterwards.

You assume that someone could not be intelligent, reasonable, if they don't agree with your point of view.

Explain to us how it would be reasonable for new species of mammal to evolve every month, for thousands of years, and no one thought it was worth mentioning.

How can this lead to any kind of understanding or growth in knowledge.

Well, I would certainly be willing to listen to your explanation how that happened.

If you are not willing to be open to other ideas and at treat those who follow those ideas with a little respect then there is no point to a discusion.

Well, maybe I'm missing something. Tell us how you think people didn't notice.
 
And no one ever thought it was worth mentioning that new species of mammal popped up week after week.

Do you mean like the way apes popped out about 100 years ago? And the Panda bear popped out also?

Your theory needs some proof to go with it.
 
"Observed Instances of Speciation
Joseph Boxhorn"

Speedy Micro does not equate to macro evolution. These writers are very liberal in their interpretation of a "new species". Give evidence of a fish turning into a bear, by natural means without human intervention. That's what I would call evidence of a new species by way of macro evolution.

------------------------

"Brisk biters
Dr Carl Wieland"

thus suggesting that they have become a new species1 (or almost so).

---------------------------

"Genetic engineers unwind species barrier
Philip Bell"

Has this ever been observed in nature to happen naturally?
 
Given the amount of DNA that needs to be changed, several percent typically, and the rate at which population genetics drift, depends on the creature, it's obvious that the week after week speciation that would have to occur in the YEC Evolution model would be ludicrously beyond the error bars.
Examples of speciation happening in the lab occur because of intense breeding regimes.
 
Back
Top