A question on Young Earth Creationism and knowledge.

[JudaicChristian]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

Carbon dating fraud. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Did anyone bother to read this link?

 

[Evointrinsic]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

Yes, I believe there is a topic in the Christianity & Science forum that deals with dating methods I'm not too sure if this specific link is in the topic, perhaps you'd like to present it as an argument? :yes

(Just took a look for the link for that topic but it was on "Radioisotope" dating, a new topic is in order then!)

 

[Pard]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

On the fact that you still cannot fathom the idea of macro-evolution, I suggest you call up Berkley and inform their Bio. department that they are teaching everything all wrong... good luck explaining to a proffessor how he is wrong because he is teaching something doesn't exist (though I'd have to agree with you to an extent... macro-evolution exists, but it isn't a real science, its a pseudo-science...)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

Would you like some more colleges to call?

The same way that people who accept that Dinosaurs existed aren't Palaeontologists.

The fail on your part here is the fact that a palaeontologist is an actual job, and it is the correct name for someone who studies old dino bones and such... As in "When Timmy was four, he wanted to be a palaeontologist."

pa·le·on·tol·o·gy (pl-n-tl-j)
n.
The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms.

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

And... uh-oh, Evo, after you are done correcting the professors at Berkley, you better call Merriam-Webster and tell them that their dictionary is wrong! Cause guess what?!?! Evolutionist!

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \?e-v?-?lü-sh?n, ??-v?-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

— evo·lu·tion·ari·ly \-sh?-?ner-?-l?\ adverb

— evo·lu·tion·ary \-sh?-?ner-?\ adjective

— evo·lu·tion·ism \-sh?-?ni-z?m\ noun

— evo·lu·tion·ist \-sh(?-)nist\ noun or adjective

"evolution." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.

Merriam-Webster Online. 24 June 2010
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution>

---

As for your description of Macroevolution, you'd be wrong with that. You see, it's not the "study of evolution beyond species", evolution has the same functions regardless of when it occurs. Macroevolution revers to speciation and beyond.

And, I think you need to call up those stupid dictionary people again... because!

macroevolution (mkr-v-lshn)
Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species

You can't honestly be serious with this statement? Right? You are joking... right?

Do I look like I'm joking? :mad2

I accept evolution, If you accept evolution, you accept both micro and macro evolution as they both have the same properties.

Except... I don't except macroevolution, because it is not real...

Indoctrinated in my atheism? Could you explain how that is even possible?

[qupte]So your calling Nick and handy pagans?[/quote]

You said "theist". Notice how I did put "theist" in quotes int he previous post? I was quoting you, because you said "Not only that, but there have already been Theists on this topic that agree with me."

A "theist" is any person who can reasonably interpret the world around them and draw the conclusion that there must be a god. Please, be specific when you are referring to god believing people, I know you probably lump them together as nut-jobs, but the rest of us don't, so make the distinction next time, k? thanks.

Now, You've stated "yes" to my original question three times, however you don't explain how. How does a young earth creationist accept any of those fields I listed in my original post? hmm? they all directly contradict Young Earth Creationism. You can say "yes" all you want, but it's not going to do you any good if you can't explain how it is possible.

Now, you see, I never even read your first post, and I also never agreed that they accept or otherwise any fields. I gave you the answer you needed. Science will always fall into place and show the Bible to be true. Now, for me to explain why it would require you to suck up your pride and then bow your knees to the King of kings, but since you are not gonna do that... I'm not gonna waste my time, nothing personal, but one of my rules is I never try go in depth with an atheist, its useless.

Pard, I'd like to thank you for proving my point in the original post.

Which is?

And frankly, I have no care in the world for any of this junk. I know for a fact the Lord has created this world. Do I even hesitate to grasp how He did it? No, its futile. Do I even consider drawing a solid conclusion on creation from two chapters in the Bible? No, it's wasted time. I come to you with what I know to be the truth, that is things from the Bible. I have never, not even once, declared myself a YEC or a YAK or a YOKE or any other acronym starting with "Y".

Though, I must say, if you had even a shred of honest you would admit there are holes in evolution. I have heard these very words from some of the biggest atheists and evolution-people (is that better for you?). Whether you want to think it or not, macro-evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and it smells ten times as bad.

To make a statement like "Which is why I always say that Christianity and Evolution have no quarrel. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Evolution do," is ridiculous, and shows how little you know about these YECs. I have never heard a YEC (of recent times) declare evolution is false. We see evolution EVERY day. The problem is when you take evolution and try to describe the whole dang world and all the life on it, which you DO, we clarified this in a PM. Even these "theists" of yours would have to agree that macro-evolution is a load of malarkey.

Lastly, I use the term "evolutionist" for a few reasons. A) its easier than saying all the atheists on this forum, plus Barb (and the jury is still out on his true beliefs). B) way I see it, you guys are believing in something that is not a fact. You are gonna say, we don't "believe", but given it is NOT a fact, and given that you take it as a fact, one would draw the conclusion you are believing...

 

[jasoncran]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

are we here to judge others that claim to know christ and accept evolution.

or are we here to learn about the lord and edify.

how does one really know if one is saved or not via this site?

unless the person says it or is also soo blatantly anti-christian. an honestly i cant be sure on those that we have doubts, whether yay or nay. so lets just pray for them, and let us not judge them but love them anyway.

 

[Nick]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

are we here to judge others that claim to know christ and accept evolution.

or are we here to learn about the lord and edify.

how does one really know if one is saved or not via this site?

unless the person says it or is also soo blatantly anti-christian. an honestly i cant be sure on those that we have doubts, whether yay or nay. so lets just pray for them, and let us not judge them but love them anyway.

Let's keep it civil people :yes

 

[Evointrinsic]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

are we here to judge others that claim to know christ and accept evolution.

or are we here to learn about the lord and edify.

how does one really know if one is saved or not via this site?

unless the person says it or is also soo blatantly anti-christian. an honestly i cant be sure on those that we have doubts, whether yay or nay. so lets just pray for them, and let us not judge them but love them anyway.

Neither actually. This is more so directed to "If you have this belief system, can you accept information from these areas (unaltered)"

 

[Vic C.]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

On to my question however :D

Can Christianity (in the view of Young Earth Creationism) coexist with clear, unaltered Knowledge of the natural world?

I only read a couple of posts on page one, but I want to state my beliefs nonetheless.

I agree with Dora; this is a specific question addressing one branch of belief and study within Christiandom. I am certainly not tied to YEC to the point that evidence of the contrary would ever, ever shake my faith. I am not commanded to believe YEC hook, line and sinker; a believer's commandments go much deeper and higher than that!

I've been leaning on this particular passage a lot lately:

Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is only one possible piece of "knowledge" that could ever destroy my faith and it MUST be without any shadow of a doubt, proof that can't be denied and guess what?

IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! :amen Therefore, I can and will co-exist.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

On the fact that you still cannot fathom the idea of macro-evolution, I suggest you call up Berkley and inform their Bio. department that they are teaching everything all wrong... good luck explaining to a proffessor how he is wrong because he is teaching something doesn't exist (though I'd have to agree with you to an extent... macro-evolution exists, but it isn't a real science, its a pseudo-science...)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

Would you like some more colleges to call?

I'm not quite sure if you read my description of macro-evolution, as it applies exactly to the link you sent...

The same way that people who accept that Dinosaurs existed aren't Palaeontologists.

The fail on your part here is the fact that a palaeontologist is an actual job, and it is the correct name for someone who studies old dino bones and such... As in "When Timmy was four, he wanted to be a palaeontologist."

...No, Pard, that was the point I was getting across. The word is an actual job, where as there isn't anything to describe a person who accepts paleontology (but doesn't particularly study it).

And... uh-oh, Evo, after you are done correcting the professors at Berkley, you better call Merriam-Webster and tell them that their dictionary is wrong! Cause guess what?!?! Evolutionist!

creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

It is so widely used now that it may have been able to creep its way into a dictionary, unfortunately it still doesn't accurately represent what really is.

Although it may have a scientific background (which is no longer used), when "Anthropologists and biologists refer[ed] to "evolutionists" in the 19th century as those who believed that the cultures or life forms being studied are evolving to a particular form." It has yet been hijacked to portray the study in a negative form.

So in all technicalities, "Evolutionist" doesn't really exist. In fact, since your so keen on gathering information from credible sources all of a sudden (e.g: universities) why not email one of the biologists at the school? Ask this question:

Does the term "Evolutionist" describe a person who believes in evolution? or is it a term that was designed to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion?

As for your description of Macroevolution, you'd be wrong with that. You see, it's not the "study of evolution beyond species", evolution has the same functions regardless of when it occurs. Macroevolution revers to speciation and beyond.

And, I think you need to call up those stupid dictionary people again... because!

macroevolution (mkr-v-lshn)
Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species

Actually, i think you need to look at that description again. It's the result of evolutionary changes that go beyond a single species. I agree upon this, entirely, the part of my quote that says "Macroevolution revers to speciation and beyond" already shows this. However, it is not it's own individual study, which you said earlier. You were very close though.

You can't honestly be serious with this statement? Right? You are joking... right?

Do I look like I'm joking? :mad2

Lol, don't be mad, I just find it surprising how in every topic where evolution and macroevolution comes up, I explain how it is true and why? Actually, I'm not quite sure how it is possible to even say that I reject Macroevolution, could you show me where I've stated this?

I accept evolution, If you accept evolution, you accept both micro and macro evolution as they both have the same properties.

Except... I don't except macroevolution, because it is not real...

I've already shown on countless threads that speciation occurs, I'm having difficulty understanding why you don't think this to be true actually? Could you explain?

So your calling Nick and handy pagans?

You said "theist". Notice how I did put "theist" in quotes int he previous post? I was quoting you, because you said "Not only that, but there have already been Theists on this topic that agree with me."

A "theist" is any person who can reasonably interpret the world around them and draw the conclusion that there must be a god. Please, be specific when you are referring to god believing people, I know you probably lump them together as nut-jobs, but the rest of us don't, so make the distinction next time, k? thanks.

I said theists because Nick and Handy are theists... Your assumptions that I think of theists as "nut-jobs" is not only insulting, but incredibly incorrect. If you haven't noticed, over my existence on this forum for the past year, I have never once broke out in rage or discrimination towards any theists on these boards, which is quite surprising to some people seeing how I'm an Atheist and all. Not only that, but I've withheld my frustration over people on this board who do directly and indirectly insult me and my point of views, as well as the overwhelming amount of sarcastic and accusative remarks from some of these same theists. So perhaps you are the one who needs to show a little respect around here. After all, you claim to follow Jesus, but this type of tone and attitude does not appear to be Christ-like at all.

Now, You've stated "yes" to my original question three times, however you don't explain how. How does a young earth creationist accept any of those fields I listed in my original post? hmm? they all directly contradict Young Earth Creationism. You can say "yes" all you want, but it's not going to do you any good if you can't explain how it is possible.

Now, you see, I never even read your first post, and I also never agreed that they accept or otherwise any fields. I gave you the answer you needed. Science will always fall into place and show the Bible to be true. Now, for me to explain why it would require you to suck up your pride and then bow your knees to the King of kings, but since you are not gonna do that... I'm not gonna waste my time, nothing personal, but one of my rules is I never try go in depth with an atheist, its useless.

It seems rather odd that you would even respond to a topic that you didn't even have the courtesy to read the first post of. Perhaps if you re-read the question:

Can Christianity (in the view of Young Earth Creationism) coexist with clear, unaltered Knowledge of the natural world?

An answer of "Yes" is an agreement that YEC's can coexist with clear, unaltered knowledge of the natural world. If the answer is "Yes" and you had the decency and respect to take the time and read the first post (the one of discussion, really), then you will understand that saying "Yes' is an agreement that YEC's can accept any of those fields.

Lastly, Why do you even bother posting on any of my topics (or any atheist's topics) if you "know" it's "useless".

Pard, I'd like to thank you for proving my point in the original post.

Which is?

That your unable to accept anything natural without altering the evidence unless it already abides by the bible.

No, it's wasted time. I come to you with what I know to be the truth, that is things from the Bible.

Well if you know this, why are you unable/unwilling to share this information that you know with people who are unsaved?

Though, I must say, if you had even a shred of honest you would admit there are holes in evolution. I have heard these very words from some of the biggest atheists and evolution-people (is that better for you?). Whether you want to think it or not, macro-evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and it smells ten times as bad.

Here you go Pard: I, Evointrinsic, believe that there is much needed study to more accurately describe evolution. There are unanswered questions within The Theory of Evolution that need to be fixed and examined for The Theory of Evolution to accurately describe Evolution.

Why would I say this? It doesn't make any sense!?!

Wait, I know way, it's because all scientists believe that additional examination of scientific theories is a good thing. If we can constantly attempt to perfect a scientific theory then that only makes that scientific theory more accurate. It's actually a very good thing to know that there is a flaw or unanswered question in a theory, that's because we can then work on the theory to make it better than it was previously. The only reason why so many accusations are (usually) quickly diminished when it comes to The Theory Of Evolution, is because there is a lot of ignorance within people when it comes to The Theory of Evolution. The accusations being made are nearly all quick "no, that's not what Evolution is about" answers, or simply not about evolution at all. There are of course a few discoveries that make us ask more questions, but there hasn't been any evidence to show that any part of evolution is absolutely incorrect as of yet.

If you'd like to discuss that, feel free to go to my What Is The Theory Of Evolution? Topic.

To make a statement like "Which is why I always say that Christianity and Evolution have no quarrel. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Evolution do," is ridiculous, and shows how little you know about these YECs. I have never heard a YEC (of recent times) declare evolution is false. We see evolution EVERY day. The problem is when you take evolution and try to describe the whole dang world and all the life on it, which you DO, we clarified this in a PM. Even these "theists" of yours would have to agree that macro-evolution is a load of malarkey.

Evolution, in what we understand it today, could not exist properly with a young earth view. If the earth is 6000-12,000 years old, then what we know of evolution is false. Fortunately we have other evidence that shows the earth is quite a bit older than that, and all the evidence we have in numerous fields help to confirm that evolution is actually out there in the long run (as in for about 3.5 billion years things have been evolving). I've never stated that Evolution describes the whole world, I do, however, constantly state that Evolution describes how life diversified on it (not how it came about on it, though). I'm sure The Barbarian would agree with me on this as well (He's a theist too you know). The very existence of Theistic evolution is proof that Theists can accept evolution entirely.

Lastly, I use the term "evolutionist" for a few reasons. A) its easier than saying all the atheists on this forum, plus Barb (and the jury is still out on his true beliefs). B) way I see it, you guys are believing in something that is not a fact. You are gonna say, we don't "believe", but given it is NOT a fact, and given that you take it as a fact, one would draw the conclusion you are believing...

The only issue with that is that not all Atheists accept evolution, so it wouldn't entirely be proper to use the term as such. I've been having deep conversations with Barb through PM's and it seems pretty clear to me (and him) that he is indeed a Theist (A christian one for that matter).

As for your "B" answer, I would gladly like to go into more detail on evolution with you through PM's or even better on that What Is The Theory Of Evolution? topic.

Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution isn't. I take the Theory of Evolution as a theory, not a fact. So your half correct :yes

 

[Evointrinsic]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

There is only one possible piece of "knowledge" that could ever destroy my faith and it MUST be without any shadow of a doubt, proof that can't be denied and guess what?

IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! :amen Therefore, I can and will co-exist.

Thanks for your comment Vic :D Although I wouldn't say that any of those fields I listed earlier would destroy ones faith in Christianity. After all, there is Theistic Evolution. The only big controversy, it would seem, is the "Young Earth" part. There are Christians on this board who do believe in an "Old Earth" view, and if they do, then none of those fields are at all detrimental to their faith. But when a claim is made that the earth is 6000-12,000 years old, that's when the conflict seems to happen.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe earth is young?

 

[Vic C.]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

Me thinks you missed the point of my post. :D

First off, I said I wasn't tied to YEC. Secondly, the only thing that could destroy my faith is if it were proven that God does not exist, hence this statement:

it MUST be without any shadow of a doubt, proof that can't be denied

I didn't see any "fields" in your OP. I commented on your one and only question.

On to my question however :D

Can Christianity (in the view of Young Earth Creationism) coexist with clear, unaltered Knowledge of the natural world?

But since I'm not bound to YEC, I assume your question doesn't apply to me.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood :dunno

In that case then, would you be able to present your opinion on the original question then?

 

[Vic C.]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood :dunno

In that case then, would you be able to present your opinion on the original question then?

Heh? LOL, that's what I did! I interpreted it in a way that allowed me to give a opinion that showed my faith is grounded despite empirical evidence that may disprove YEC.

Here, I will answer your question according to a literal reading, LOL.

Can Christianity (in the view of Young Earth Creationism) coexist with clear, unaltered Knowledge of the natural world?

The question as presented assumes YEC is a prerequisite to becoming a Christian. It isn't at all. Plus, more information is needed to appropriately answer said question. What is this clear unaltered knowledge on the natural world and who determines if it is clear and unaltered?

:D Your move... lol

 

[Pard]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

I'm not quite sure if you read my description of macro-evolution, as it applies exactly to the link you sent...

Doesn't matter. The single point I was making is that there is such a thing as MACRO evolution. You are always going around declaring there is NO SUCH THING as macro-evolution, but... there is, that's the single point I was trying to make.

Gonna say it again, because maybe it will sink in this time... I am not someone from that creation institute, nor would I ever want to be. I am going to continue to call you evolutionist because it is a title to give you and others. It's not some creationist ploy, its not a trick, its a word that I will continue to use, so... give it up.

Actually, i think you need to look at that description again. It's the result of evolutionary changes that go beyond a single species. I agree upon this, entirely, the part of my quote that says "Macroevolution revers to speciation and beyond" already shows this. However, it is not it's own individual study, which you said earlier. You were very close though.

Again... the sole purpose of that was to show that there is such a thing as macro evolution. It's taught in college and is in a dictionary. I am well aware what the word macro-evolution means, and I am well aware that you think micro and macro evolution are one and the same, but I don't. And it's ridiculous for you, and others, to make these sweeping statements about how if you believe in one you MUST believe in the other. That's not true. It's like how a square is a rectangle and a rectangle is NOT a square. Accepting micro-evolution doesn't mean you have to accept macro-evolution.

The ridiculous statement, just for redundancy...

I accept evolution, If you accept evolution, you accept both micro and macro evolution as they both have the same properties.

It seems rather odd that you would even respond to a topic that you didn't even have the courtesy to read the first post of. Perhaps if you re-read the question:

Can Christianity (in the view of Young Earth Creationism) coexist with clear, unaltered Knowledge of the natural world?

That's the only thing I read of the original post, after it said I didn't need to read anything else...

An answer of "Yes" is an agreement that YEC's can coexist with clear, unaltered knowledge of the natural world. If the answer is "Yes" and you had the decency and respect to take the time and read the first post (the one of discussion, really), then you will understand that saying "Yes' is an agreement that YEC's can accept any of those fields.

Please, fix your question or title please. They are misleading when paired together. The title suggest Christianity and science/knowledge can X (where X is co-exist or not)The question is entirely different and asks if YECs can co-exist with science/knowledge. Now, I am well aware of the question you asked, but I did answer a broader answer, the one the title implied, since I am not even sure what YES is...

Lastly, Why do you even bother posting on any of my topics (or any atheist's topics) if you "know" it's "useless".

Where did I say "know"? I didn't... Please, don't put words in my mouth. Of course I cannot know if it is useless, that's probably not the best word to use.

That your unable to accept anything natural without altering the evidence unless it already abides by the bible.

Really? Really, evo? Going to have to remember that line there when I need to make a HUGE generalization about you...

Well if you know this, why are you unable/unwilling to share this information that you know with people who are unsaved?

Here, let me share it with you... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=NASB

Evolution, in what we understand it today, could not exist properly with a young earth view. If the earth is 6000-12,000 years old, then what we know of evolution is false. Fortunately we have other evidence that shows the earth is quite a bit older than that, and all the evidence we have in numerous fields help to confirm that evolution is actually out there in the long run (as in for about 3.5 billion years things have been evolving). I've never stated that Evolution describes the whole world, I do, however, constantly state that Evolution describes how life diversified on it (not how it came about on it, though). I'm sure The Barbarian would agree with me on this as well (He's a theist too you know). The very existence of Theistic evolution is proof that Theists can accept evolution entirely.

No, evolution as YOU understand it today... Thought, you would find that it makes more sense if you accepted the Bible.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Re: A question on Christianity and knowledge.

Can Christianity (in the view of Young Earth Creationism) coexist with clear, unaltered Knowledge of the natural world?

The question as presented assumes YEC is a prerequisite to becoming a Christian. It isn't at all. Plus, more information is needed to appropriately answer said question. What is this clear unaltered knowledge on the natural world and who determines if it is clear and unaltered?

:D Your move... lol

I think this is where I got confused at. I never meant to imply that YEC is an intrinsic property of Christianity. Although now I see how it may be interpreted that way oops :D

Let's take Gravity as "Natural Knowledge". We know that gravity exists and why it exists. The evidence we have of gravity and the cosmos shows that it couldn't have come about within the past 6000-12000 years.

The same thing can be applied to any of the subjects that the fields I listed in the first post study.

Not only that, but a lot of those subjects cross confirm some of the other subjects.

When I talk of "altered knowledge" I mean information that was made to fit to prove something else, which is technically not honest.

I'm not quite sure if you read my description of macro-evolution, as it applies exactly to the link you sent...

Doesn't matter. The single point I was making is that there is such a thing as MACRO evolution. You are always going around declaring there is NO SUCH THING as macro-evolution, but... there is, that's the single point I was trying to make.

Gonna say it again, because maybe it will sink in this time... I am not someone from that creation institute, nor would I ever want to be. I am going to continue to call you evolutionist because it is a title to give you and others. It's not some creationist ploy, its not a trick, its a word that I will continue to use, so... give it up.

Of course it matters, you just said that my definition is not equal to that of the one you sited. Which it does.

No, I say that there isn't a study of Macro-evolution. I also say that Micro and Macro evolution both have the exact same properties, the only difference is scale. Although if you have a link in which I said that, then please present it instead of just claiming it.

I completely understand that you don't want to stop using the word "Evolutionist", I'm merely saying that the term "evolutionist" is as accurate as calling someone a "Gravitationalist" or an "Erosionist", and the foundation of the word has a hidden and dishonest tactic behind it.

Actually, i think you need to look at that description again. It's the result of evolutionary changes that go beyond a single species. I agree upon this, entirely, the part of my quote that says "Macroevolution revers to speciation and beyond" already shows this. However, it is not it's own individual study, which you said earlier. You were very close though.

Again... the sole purpose of that was to show that there is such a thing as macro evolution. It's taught in college and is in a dictionary. I am well aware what the word macro-evolution means, and I am well aware that you think micro and macro evolution are one and the same, but I don't. And it's ridiculous for you, and others, to make these sweeping statements about how if you believe in one you MUST believe in the other. That's not true. It's like how a square is a rectangle and a rectangle is NOT a square. Accepting micro-evolution doesn't mean you have to accept macro-evolution.

Your analogy doesn't fit with this at all. I've explained it this way before to you, but i'll do it again.

Let's say a second is a change in allele frequencies (Micro evolution), over 59 generations the changes add up and we see small physical changes because of them, we now have a minute (still micro evolution). Now, lets continue to look at the generations in the future, all the properties are the same in changing of allele frequencies. More and more and more changes are adding up, and presto! we have an hour, So many changes added up that the original species cannot breed with this current species because of all the changes (Speciation/Macroevolution). Lets continue though, small changes in allele frequencies continue to accumulate and we now have a whole new family in the works. and so on and so forth.

There we go. As you can see, Macro evolution has the exact same properties as Micro evolution does, The only difference is scale. Any evolutionary change at the species level or higher described as Macro evolution (hours). It still consists of all the changes in allele frequencies, just as micro evolution shows us (seconds), but the accumulation of these changes lead to speciation. An hour still consists of a bunch of seconds, but once a certain spot is hit, it can be described as something different, even though it consists of exactly the same thing.

Please, fix your question or title please. They are misleading when paired together. The title suggest Christianity and science/knowledge can X (where X is co-exist or not)The question is entirely different and asks if YECs can co-exist with science/knowledge. Now, I am well aware of the question you asked, but I did answer a broader answer, the one the title implied, since I am not even sure what YES is...

The title isn't a question, it's saying the topic is about a question. Why would you answer the title of a page if the title is a statement of the posters meaning to the topic? But to prevent any more confusion on the matter, I'll change it.

]

Lastly, Why do you even bother posting on any of my topics (or any atheist's topics) if you "know" it's "useless".

Where did I say "know"? I didn't... Please, don't put words in my mouth. Of course I cannot know if it is useless, that's probably not the best word to use.

My mistake, however...

I'm not gonna waste my time, nothing personal, but one of my rules is I never try go in depth with an atheist, its useless.

Certainly makes it look like you already know it's going to be useless. I'd also ask that you not make assumptions on my account either.

[quot="Pard"]

Evolution, in what we understand it today, could not exist properly with a young earth view. If the earth is 6000-12,000 years old, then what we know of evolution is false. Fortunately we have other evidence that shows the earth is quite a bit older than that, and all the evidence we have in numerous fields help to confirm that evolution is actually out there in the long run (as in for about 3.5 billion years things have been evolving). I've never stated that Evolution describes the whole world, I do, however, constantly state that Evolution describes how life diversified on it (not how it came about on it, though). I'm sure The Barbarian would agree with me on this as well (He's a theist too you know). The very existence of Theistic evolution is proof that Theists can accept evolution entirely.

No, evolution as YOU understand it today... Thought, you would find that it makes more sense if you accepted the Bible.[/quote]

Seeing how (virtually) any biologist that accepts and studies evolution accepts also that the earth is older than 6000-12000 old, I doubt that I'm the one misunderstanding it. Not only that, but if you actually read "On the Origin Of Species" you'll notice that Darwin constantly sites that some planetary features (cliffs for instance) show that it took millions of year to form. Same goes for evolution.