Evolution & Christiany as one??

Originally posted by alkali
To begin with, if you believe in the Christian God then you believe he is all-powerful and has no limits. Looking at it from that perspective, it's not that hard to understand. If God can do anything, helping evolution along, or miraculously developing a savior inside of Mary, or whatever, isn't that big of a stretch.

To get more into the substance of the creation, 2 Peter 3:8-10 & Psalm 90:1-4 equates 1 day to God as a 1000 years to us. I don't think that 1 day to God is a 1000 years to us, I think those verses just show the grandness of the whole thing. Anyway, so if you assume 1 day to God could be an extremely long amount of time to us, that would give new meaning to Genesis where it speaks about God creating everything in 6 days.

Also, if you believe in micro evolution, you must believe in macro. If you say you only believe in micro evolution, you're faced with and must answer the question of how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro. Having a good grasp of how DNA works, you can see that its all really the same thing. There's no difference between micro and macro evolution.

My 1 cent.


edit: grammar

[edit on 24-7-2008 by alkali]

No! Their is a HUGE difference and I get really angry when Darwinists do this with the current vernacular of Science. They have merged the meanings of Fact and Theory, they have changed the entire definition of Science to a totally materialist construct and some obscure letter by Jefferson to the danbury baptists to change the constitution, installing the separation of church and state to become separation "from" church and state enabling the ACLU and their communist agenda to continue making God irrelevent and have used Darwininian macro evolution to advance their Atheism untill our society will eventually discard the constitution all together and institute a communist style Government.

This has been going on for many years. Now they want to merge the two definitions of macro and micro forcing us to accept the one that has never been proven has ever happened in spite of the mountain of fraudulent hoaxes (missing links and various transitional forms).

They are NOT the same because macro evolution is a fairy tale.

What we really need to do is keep BOTH out of Biology class and don't tell me macro evolution IS biology until you can observe it the old fashioned way. If that takes to long because it takes millions of years, that isn't our fault but it does suggest why Creationist keep making the mistake of trying to harmonize the yec creation with science. Wake up Science is wrong and is the otherway around. The only way evolution could have worked at all is if it took many millions of years and THAT is why they have the current arbitrarily picked fossil dates for carbon dating all set to millions of years. Everything about science these days is to promote Darwinism and the Atheist worldveiw and if you are like me, that is a worldview without you.

I will fight this to the death if I have to

Originally posted by alkali

Originally posted by Reneau
reply to post by alkali

 

what I believe him to be saying is that the two dogs decend from the wolf as the two breads of your squirl decend from a squirl, ergo the two breads could produce offspring as the great dane and chihula dog would be able to.

That makes sense. But assuming you gave them a long time to evolve, you'd get the same deal as a horse and a donkey. If you only gave the species a short time to evolve, as we have domesticated dogs, they'd still be able to produce viable offspring.

Now it's back to my earlier question of how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro. And JPish, before you make the same duface comment you made earlier about this question, this is the same as "how make licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop". Of course, no one actually has a specific number, but it is obviously possible to get to the center of a tootsie pop.



[edit on 26-7-2008 by alkali]

Cute,, lets use the tootsie pop_psychology to substantiate everything we can not prove! Get real guy, when the tootsie pop evolves into an ice creme cone then give me the news otherwise you just sound like a "duface" spewing the latest Darwinist wordsmith slingo

Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by JPhish

 

They're not unable to mate due to genetic reasons, they're unable to mate due to physical reasons. We were talking about genetics. What point were you trying to make?

He KNOWS THAT read his post! Jeez dude, duck next time something is flying over your head. The point is the drastic differences yet they are DOGS and always WILL BE canines, Dogs

[edit on 29-7-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

Originally posted by John_Q_Llama
I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing that made me feel that macro and micro evolution, creation, dinosaurs, ancient civilizations, etc., couldn't fit into the Biblical stance on how things began. Genesis leaves much room for interpretation as far as the details of what types of living things came and went during those early times. When you combine that with the fact that there are so many ancient ruins scattered around the planet, and dinosaur bones and fossils buried under thousands of years of soil, it seems easy to accept the idea that Genesis doesn't tell everything. Who knows what was destroyed and killed by the great flood.

I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing that made me feel that macro and micro evolution, creation, dinosaurs, ancient civilizations, etc., couldn't fit into the Biblical stance on how things began.

Well you'd be wrong, their IS one thing that strongly suggest it wouldn't fit into creation.












the Bible

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by nashdude
Who else could "Me" be? Unless we're considering schizophrenia, me can only mean me.

if Christ was possessed by another force, it makes sense to me.

Ahhhh... but if that other force is Himself---His deity, as opposed to His humanity---then "Me" still means "Me"

And incidentally, He isn't "Jesus Christ, the son of Joseph and Mary Christ". The term "Christ" is an honorific meaning the Promised One, the Anointed One, the Messiah. It is not a name, but a descriptive title declaring WHO HE IS WITHIN.

So when you say "if Christ was possessed by another force", that is a contradiction in terms. If anything, "Christ" would be the possessING force, not the possessED.

Just to clarify

this picture will show you the evidence!




lol

Christianity and evolution do work together. I suggest that everyone read the book The Language of God, written by a Christian named Francis S. Collins; he was the director of the Human Genome Project, and is a former atheist.

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, but rather a map to enlightenment and ultimate happiness. A book that explains who God is, our role, our relationship with God and how we can strengthen that relationship.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by YSM85]