QnA Evolution

[Blitz]

Ask me please questions about evolution for I realize it is an untouched subject most places.

[Knight Fisher]

This topic has been slaughtered countless times on here...

[The Top Crusader]

Why hasn't my Pokemon evolved into its next form yet?

[Blitz]

No answer

[Buzz]

Do you believe in Evolution?

[Blitz]

No way

[John Chrysostom]

So why are you doing a question and answer thread about Evolution?

[Blitz]

No if there is a question you don't know what the answer is for because we took a course on it in school about how to prove it false.

[John Chrysostom]

That seems like a very specific course, if I may ask which texts did you use for that?

[Christian A.]

Do you believe in micro-evolution-- that lions and tigers and the like all "evolved"/adapted from an original cat kind that God created?

[Blitz]

Abeka Academy produce their own and I learn from Answers in Genesis
Yes I do believe in 'macro evolution' but that is not evolution it is mutations and natural selection. Natural selection is really all about no evolving but that like us we get accustomed to our environment and mutation which actually make us lose DNA information, occur limiting a certain function for enable one to work better. Natural selection is the true name for Macroevolution.

[John Chrysostom]

Those seem like rather biased sources. We've had several discussions about both Abeka and Answers in Genesis and what I came away with was that both seem to be rather thin on backing, now the pro-evolution side is even weaker but both sides seem rather shaky. Could it just be that maybe we just don't have a good answer yet?

I mean both sides are pretty recent schools of thoughts; recent meaning over the last couple hundred years, maybe we should give it some more time to look into the issue before making it a matter of dogma?

[Christian A.]

Yes I do believe in 'macro evolution' but that is not evolution it is mutations and natural selection. Natural selection is really all about no evolving but that like us we get accustomed to our environment and mutation which actually make us lose DNA information, occur limiting a certain function for enable one to work better. Natural selection is the true name for Macroevolution.

I think you mean micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is when an organism changes into a different kind of organism. Like... a whale evolving "legs" so that it can walk on the land. Micro-evolution is what you described--animals adapting to their environments with the information that's already in their DNA.

[Blitz]

Answers in Genesis is not thin on backing at least in the scientific sense for they employ many scientist with PH.D. and in spiritually have lead thousands. And being biased an evolutionist has his world view which says, "Wow look at the galapogas lizard a interesting variation."
and a creationist, "Wow God's handy work."
Each piece of evidence both sides can view differently. But then Evolution is proven to be false by blood cells found in a T-rex and other such things like a plant supposedly extinct yet found. And each race has been proven to be only .02 percent different.

Oh and Christian sorry for using wrong terms I meant 'Micro evolution'(natural selection) but I do not believe in Macro evolution for even if it were possible it would take even longer than what the evolutionistic scales predict.

[John Chrysostom]

Why can't both of those statements be true? Why can't the Galapagos lizard be an interesting variation on God's handy work?

Could you maybe explain which tenets of evolution clash with a Christian worldview?

[Blitz]

Each world view reads something differently. One world view read, "Okay this thing has evolved billions of years ago how do I prove it did," and nothing will change their view. But Christians well the good ones, "Wow that is Gods hands let learn about it."
And the evolution time scale clashes always like with the galapogas lizards their test show that they supposedly appeared 4000 years ahead of lizards.

[John Chrysostom]

I don't think most Christian world views are that broad, to me most start with a young earth view and try to fit the evidence from there and nothing will change their view.

Okay it seems like the big clash is time, why do you think the earth is only 6,000 years old?

[Blitz]

Because to fit in evolution you would have to fit in death and suffering before sin making it an impossible mix. The world was perfect until Adam ate the fruit.

[John Chrysostom]

Okay no dispute there but why does the time from Adam eating the fruit to now have to be 6,000 years?

[Blitz]

The genelogies record about that amount of time but we can give and take a few years here and there.