My feeble attempt at the explanation of Christianity., You ask questions, and I'll try to answer. Rating Options

[monster]

u should read the article i just posted in the news section today. i don't think there's a gap though. there's a lot of things that shows common ancestry between us, and i don't know why god would just slip them in for fun.

There still is no solid evidence for the gap.

[monster]

Question 2:

Exactly how do you think God did it?
For example, gaps between each day of creation, etc.

I don't know how God did it. I wish I knew, so I could answer this question.

[brooklyneast05]

lol, i don't think solid evidence is really a theme in this thread.
there's a lot more evidence for one than the other though, in my opinion.

[Peanups]

I don't know how God did it. I wish I knew, so I could answer this question.

Gah.
Okay
For me talk about this, I need to know on what you stand.
All I can say is that, the gap theory is proven wrong, and the quote you used earlier in the topic (very beginning for exact) was that some scripture is used metaphors, but how do you metaphorically write Genesis 1;2 without large gaps and contradictions?

[monster]

lol, i don't think solid evidence is really a theme in this thread.
there's a lot more evidence for one than the other though, in my opinion.

To be honest with you, there's a lot that science still has no solid evidence for. Take Evolution.

No scientist in the world just says " evolution. " They add the keyword, " THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. "

[brooklyneast05]

that's pretty false. evolution is 100% true, we can see it happening, u just don't believe in macro evolution. no scientist would deny micro evolution, it's provable because the time scale is shorter so we can observe it. the mechanisms of macro and micro evolution are the same, just different scales, just like macro and micro economics.

pointing out that it's a theory doesn't mean anything to me, because it's a scientific theory, which is drastically different than how we commonly think of theories. in science evolution is regarded as a theory and a fact, just as gravity.

[monster]

that's pretty false. evolution is 100% true, we can see it happening, u just don't believe in macro evolution. no scientist would deny micro evolution, it's provable because the time scale is shorter so we can observe it. the mechanisms of macro and micro evolution are the same, just different scales, just like macro and micro economics.

pointing out that it's a theory doesn't mean anything to me, because it's a scientific theory, which is drastically different than how we commonly think of theories. in science evolution is regarded as a theory and a fact, just as gravity.

We can see evolution happening?

[Peanups]

This is slowly turning into a creationism vs. evolution

-shrugs-

By the way- I fail to see evolution being proven 100%.

-walks off-

[brooklyneast05]

micro evolution is observable

[monster]

micro evolution is observable

Examples, please.

[Peanups]

^ Of course micro-evolution exsists.

Species bone structure changes in different areas of the world, but it is within the species.

BUT

We never see the species that is micro-evolving change species.

[brooklyneast05]

darwins finches alone are an example. u can see it dogs, ect. we see animals change, evolve.

micro evolution isn't disputed.

edit:
by christians either, i've never heard a christian disagree with micro evolution.

^ Of course micro-evolution exsists.
Species bone structure changes in different areas of the world, but it is within the species.
BUT
We never see the species that is micro-evolving change species.

ya think?
that's not what micro evolution is, so why would u

[Peanups]

^

I was simply stating microevolution in broad terms.

"...microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size. "

I still have yet to see something macro-evolve.

[brooklyneast05]

macro evolution takes a long time...u couldn't observe that in ur life time. the earth is old. if u accept micro evolution then i don't know why u would deny macro evolution as if it's a completely different process. it's just micro evolution over a long period of time.

I still have yet to see something macro-evolve.

let's turn that reasoning around and use it on some bible claims and see what happens

[Uronacid]

Because it is THROUGH Jesus Christ that we can submit in humility before God.

Right, the mediator stuff.

macro evolution takes a long time...u couldn't observe that in ur life time. the earth is old. if u accept micro evolution then i don't know why u would deny macro evolution as if it's a completely different process. it's just micro evolution over a long period of time.
let's turn that reasoning around and use it on some bible claims and see what happens

It's not really evolution. They aren't gaining anythign new. Those colors were always in the gene pool. It's evolution it's natural selection.

It would be similar to all the people with a naturally low metabolism dieing off. The world would then be skinny. Humanity wouldn't be evolving, it would just lose that gene because it stopped passing it on when all the fat people died.

[*Steven*]

It would be similar to all the people with a naturally high metabolism dieing off. The world would then be skinny. Humanity wouldn't be evolving, it would just lose that gene because it stopped passing it on when all the fat people died.

Um, Josh, I think you contradicted yourself.

[Uronacid]

Um, Josh, I think you contradicted yourself.

Yeah you're right. I just mixed it up. I meant to say low metabolism.. //edited.

[brooklyneast05]

natural selection + mutation + gene flow + genetic drift + 3 billion years = macro evolution

[monster]

Hopefully this thread doesn't turn into CREATION VS. EVOLUTION debate.

[brooklyneast05]

^yeah i agree, i think that topic already exists anyway. i don't want this to turn into that either.

so hmmmmmm
i can't think of another question at the moment to get this back on track, i'll be back once one comes to me

[Uronacid]

I agree,

All I was saying is that the term "micro-evolution" is just another way to promote evolution. At least that's how I see it. Micro-evolution is just another word for "Natural Selection". It's not evolution at all.

[brooklyneast05]

i think we can't really debate this because we're all confused on terminology. i get what u're saying about natural selection, and yes u are right to an extent. but micro evolution is natural selection and genetic drift. natural selection is responsible for the survival of a beneficial trait, but that alone isn't micro evolution, or yeah we'd just call it natural selection. since gene drift is incorporated, then it's no longer just natural selection alone.

which reminds me. if u believe the creation story, and believe the earth isn't really billions of years old, where do dinosaurs come in? and how come we don't find evidence of human life with evidence of dinosaur life? they'd have to live at the same time if god made everything straight up in 6 days it seems.

[Uronacid]

i think we can't really debate this because we're all confused on terminology. i get what u're saying about natural selection, and yes u are right to an extent. but micro evolution is natural selection and genetic drift. natural selection is responsible for the survival of a beneficial trait, but that alone isn't micro evolution, or yeah we'd just call it natural selection. since gene drift is incorporated, then it's no longer just natural selection alone.

which reminds me. if u believe the creation story, and believe the earth isn't really billions of years old, where do dinosaurs come in? and how come we don't find evidence of human life with evidence of dinosaur life? they'd have to live at the same time if god made everything straight up in 6 days it seems.

I don't know, I wish I had some of this evidence. -__-

[sheridan_whitesi...]

I'm a weird person. I've never had misgivings about the fact of evolution, and I went to a private parochial school for kindergarten. I immediately shrugged off the creation story as just that, story-time, just like Cinderella et al. I just look at the world today, the diversity of organisms, the mechanisms of genetic function, metabolism, and can tell that this whole deal was shaped by natural forces working by chance, in the same way that you can tell that the square root of 81 is 9. I'm not saying I'm smart, just that I never understood why this fact instantly disproves the existence of God, or why the church thinks that it's a threat to 1800 years of theology and epistemology.

[brooklyneast05]

what it may disproves depends on whether or not u take the bible as literally true, and whether u believe genesis is really how it happened. as well as other various things, like the age of the earth, ect.

u could still believe in evolution, and that a god gave it the first push to start things.