I did not make an error. I've delt with many evolutionists before. Micro =/= macro evolution. There is ZERO scientific evidence that micro automatically leads to macro. You just have to assume that it does, and just assume that it happened in the past as the theory of evolution proposes. I see no reason to believe this stuff just because the evolutionists are proclaiming it to be true.
As far as rejecting micro evolution, let's see, you'd have to deny the "hybrid" shark that was found earlier this year, you'd have to deny the concept of mixing different breeds of dogs. And on the note of dogs, if micro evolution were false, then you'd have to believe that Noah somehow had over 300 pairs of different species of dogs on the ark, and that's just for dogs, not counting all the other animals he had to have.
Evolution is a big bag that needs to be unpacked. It's foolish to reject the entire thing, that's why you have to look at the evidence. And if you don't think evolution and creation are at odds with each other, you must not have run into any of the evolutionists that hide behind the theory of evolution to deny creation. The historical claims of evolution is used as a means to deny the Bible as well.
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [
sic]
Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“ … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
15 questions responses 3 | Feedback 2011 |
Feedback