Posted on 02/09/2005 7:35:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry
|
These scientists are stretching what little support they have into a theory that doesn't hold water. They're trying too hard, and need to explore other options.
Good Design.
God invented evolution.
> Good Design.
Actaully, inefficient evolution. Left in place all sorts of stuff not strictly needed. However, when things change, having that collection of garbage rattling aroudn int he DNA allows for useful changes.
The most strident group asserting the falsity of that statement is the biblical creationists. Most atheists and agnostics are perfectly relaxed that believers should attribute evolution to God.
They just can't live with the fact that all life came from old pond mud somewhere. Too scary and they can't use their myths to make up rules for everyone anymore. Weak minds, moral prudes in denial.
This whole micro/macro thing is getting dangerous. Evolution is evolution. There is only one process. The micro/macro distinction doesn't have to do with the process, but rather with the results. People are getting it right for the most part at the moment, but I'm starting to get a flavor every once in a while that some people consider these different processes. I know it's easier to say "macro-evolution" instead of saying "evolutionary changes that result in the creation of a new species", but we should stay vigilant that everyone understands what people mean when they use these terms.
Thanks for the ping!
There is no difference. "Macro/micro" used as a modifier to evolution is strictly creationist vocabulary. There is only evolution.
I think there is a fly in the ointment.
You may want to read this post and the links provided as well:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1338459/posts?page=37#37
You don't understand. The ark was huge (1.5 times the length of a football field, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall).
Creationists have explained that the Bible speaks of various "kinds" of creatures (perhaps 8,000 "kinds") that diversified and devolved into the variety of "species" now present. Creationists do believe that genetics mutate over generations, but do not believe that genetic information "increases in complexity or usefulness" over generations (as evolutionists contend).
It would not be all that difficult to include the less than 8,000 "kinds" of air-breathing animals (perhaps babies or young animals) in a ship the size of the ark.
How did Noah get species from other climates? Penguins, for instance?
The "babies" hypothesis makes it seem more probable (otherwise, adult elephants, hippos, bovines, seems like it'd get awfully crowded). Thanks for posting that, I don't know if it ever occurred to me.
That would be macrocreation. The big picture thing.
Those of a more limited vision beliwve in microCreation (and occasionally and reluctantly concede microevolution)
I appreciate the civility of this discussion (so far). It's good to chat about different perspectives/theories/explanations without being attacked.
Scripture suggests that the environment pre-flood was very different from the current environment, largely because of a water canopy encircling the earth high in the atmosphere ("firmament" in Scripture). This canopy may have kept temperatures fairly consistent from location to location, and blocked harmful solar rays (hence people living so long pre-flood).
Pre-flood, the environment at the north pole may not have been much different from that in the Middle East. The ancestors of penguins, then, may have lived anywhere. I'd be interested in seeing fossil evidence of where penguin ancestors lived....
It's interesting to do a google search on "noah ark size" to get a better sense of how large the ark was and how many animals could have fit comfortably on it, as well as to read discussions of how Noah's family could have fed and cared for so many, and so on....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.