ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Evolution Of The Species

Is a little belief in the evolution of the species OK?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 12/20/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Warwick- We agree! "Macro evolution" and natural selection are entirely different. There is no evidence for Macro-evolution.
Pure-breds have less genetic variety but still have as many gene pairs as others of their species. AND every gene carries some information. There are no blanks.
Do the genes for short legs contain less "information" than those for long legs? Does a dominent gene contain more information than a recessive one? Do Western Antarctic terns have less genetic information than eastern ones? (or vice versa)? No. it's just different information.

That's what I mean when I say no genetic information is "lost". An actual "loss" of information COULD mean a new species.
---Donna_Smith on 1/2/11


Cluny you are wrong as the one and only gospel is based solely upon the events of the first few chapters of Genesis. If we cannot take all of this this at face value, as historical reality, as written, then both Jesus and the apostles were wrong!

And you say it doesn't matter. Maybe you are talking about another gospel?
---Warwick on 1/2/11


Cluny: "does being committed to either side matter?"

Sure does!

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve .... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
---jerry6593 on 1/2/11


\\Cluny" "I'm not committed either way"

Neither is the Agnostic! Not exactly a strong endorsement for a Bible-believing Christian. You remind me of one of my favorite jokes:\\

Since my salvation does not depend on what I think about theistic evolution, does being committed to either side matter?
---Cluny on 1/1/11


Donna, with the small word limit some of these things are difficult to explain, simply. You are right, Daschunds have the same number of gene pairs as other dogs, but that isnt the point. Wild dogs are said to be heterozygous in that the gene pairs are different. Certain of their gene pairs could be expressed as AB, CD EF etc. This allows much variety. Conversely pure bred dogs are homozygous as many of their gene pairs are identical. This can be expressed as AA BB CC etc, which means they have almost no potential for variety. If they did they would not be called pure breeds. This is a loss of genetic information which is obviously the opposite of microbe-to-man-evolution.
---Warwick on 1/1/11




Donna, macro evolution has no connection to natural selection etc and isn't about speciation but about one kind of creature becoming a totally different kind of creature. Consider Arctic Terns. Those from the west of Antarctica cannot interbreed with those from the east. Therefore they are different species but are still Terns. No evolution has been involved. They have simply lost the ability to interbreed.

Evolutionists propose that if you go back far enough all vertibrates are descended from worms and before that single-celled creatures. This is evolution, not speciation.

As natural selection or selective breeding are not evolution at all why call it so? These terms may not confuse you but they confuse many others.
---Warwick on 1/1/11


Cluny, many are confused by the terms micro and macro evolution and imagine the variety we see in dogs (e.g. wolves to daschunds) has been caused by evolution. They do appear very different however evolution isn't involved. As I have written there has been a loss of variety of genetic information, in producing daschsunds. Not a loss of quantity, but of variety. This is obvious as when you breed daschunds you get only daschunds. That is what makes them pure breeds.

Many people have been confused by micro and macro evolution into believing that given enough time natural selection will cause a dog to become another kind, no longer a dog. After all evolutionists believe we have evolved from something like a bacteria.
---Warwick on 1/1/11


Strongaxe- You are right. People with sickle cell trait do not get malaria (interesting isn't it?) BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, sickle cell anemia can be, and often is, fatal (esp. if untreated) There is no "cure", treatment is not 100% effective, but more would die without it.
---Donna66 on 1/1/11


"Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwins ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendels conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution."-Dr Lane Lester, Biologist and Geneticist
---micha9344 on 1/1/11


Micro-evolution and macro-evolution don't confuse me. In fact, I think the terms clarify the difference between natural selection (micro) and evolution from one species to another species (macro). Natural selection is a fact. There is no solid evidence of a bacteria-to-man continuum.

//Dachshunds been bred until unwanted genetic information has been eliminated.//.Yes, unwanted TRAITS have elimininated. The number of genes has not changed. Genes for unwanted traits have merely been replaced with genes for desirable traits.
---Donna66 on 1/1/11




Cluny" "I'm not committed either way"

Neither is the Agnostic! Not exactly a strong endorsement for a Bible-believing Christian. You remind me of one of my favorite jokes:

"I think I'm ambivalent - but I'm not sure."
---jerry6593 on 1/1/11


\\ Startling though it may be to consider wolves and Dachshunds are cousins. \\

What's so startling about it?

Actually the scientific name of dogs--Canis lupus familiaris--shows that dogs and wolves are mere subspecies: siblings, not cousins.

That dogs and wolves (Canis lupus lupus) will hybridize is common knowledge.

\\A loss of information and no new information, the opposite of evolution.\\

Nobody but you has ever said this. Biologists do not.
---Cluny on 1/1/11


I've seen several TV shows trying to guess the identity of the Pison and Gihon rivers mentioned in Genesis 2.

I think the theory that they are so-called "ghost" or "fossil" rivers presently covered by the Persian Gulf is the most likely, but it's not something I stay up late worrying about.
---Cluny on 12/31/10


Donna, Jerry's question was "Is a little belief in the evolution of the species OK?" Until relatively recently we have never called the observable variation within creatures evolution, because it isn't.

Certain evolutionists introduced 'micro and macro evolution' to confuse the issue. The evoultionary belief begins with dead chemicals mysteriously becoming alive, then evolving into a myriad of creatures with increasing amounts of totally new, specific, unique genetic information.

This has not been observed to happen.

However we can see increasing variety within the created kinds due to natural selection or selective breeding. This has nothing to do with the microbe-to-man-evolution story.
---Warwick on 12/31/10


Donna, the breeding of dogs demonstrates loss of genetic information. A pure breed (e.g Dachshund) has been bred until unwanted genetic information has been eliminated. Then Dachshunds will only produce Dachshunds.

The Dachshund has not gained any new specific unique genetic information which could lead to its evolving into something no longer a dog.

All dog types can interbreed showing they originated from the original dog kind (possibly wolf) which had the genetic variety which enabled natural selection or selective breeding to produce all the present varieties of dogs. Startling though it may be to consider wolves and Dachshunds are cousins.

A loss of information and no new information, the opposite of evolution.
---Warwick on 12/31/10


Cluny, how can I provide what you would call proof that God did not use evolution if I do not know what you would accept as proof?

If you are really uncommitted either way why not committ yourself to what God has actually written?

If God had used evolutionary forces and vast periods of time to create why would He not tell us so? Is He embarassed that He does not have the power to create in 6-days, so told a more flattering story?

None of us can bind God but we are commanded to accept what He says by faith. And as Scripture says- that which is not of faith is of sin.
---Warwick on 12/31/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


micha9344:

There is a particular genenetic modifier, present primarily in people of African descent, that is responsible for sickle cell anemia. While this is often thought of as a defect, it did originally prove very useful - the same sickle-shaped cell deformation that causes the anemia (which can be debilitating) protects against malaria (which can be fatal), and which is prevalent in that part of the world. Most similar inherited genetic variations do serve some useful purpose, or did at one time.
---StrongAxe on 12/31/10


It is funny Donna mentions diseases as differences, which is one of the evidences as the genes are dispersed and specialized, they obtain 'mistakes' in which are then passed down. In no way were they there in the DNA's original form.
There is also no evidence as to any of these 'abnormalities' ever was a benefit.
It's not 'new' information, but 'missing' information.
Such is the case of specialization, a creature adapts specifically to it's environment and loses vital information to adapt elsewhere.
Adam, Eve and all creatures had the most adaptable and pure genes to produce the variety we see today.
As with any copy, some of the original is always lost, but may not be noticeable.
Such is the start of corruption.
---micha9344 on 12/31/10


Larry what makes you think the Garden of Eden was in present day Iraq? (Warwick)

I understand it's maybe reading too much, but I take it to be from Genesis 2:13-14, which lists the four rivers: I don't recognize all four, but two I know well: the Tigria and the Euphrates - the two meet very close to modern Bagdad, so does sussest somewhere in that area
---James on 12/31/10


Warwick-- What you say is essentially true. The organs are grossly the same, but there are certain conditions that are unique to different races. Sickle-cell disease and Sickle-cell trait are serious conditions confined to the black race.
People of Mediterranean descent tend to have certain metabolic disorders. And all, or at least most, who suffer with M.S. are white (most from northern climes). These are determined by genetics as well... very minute differences in the genes that have a huge impact on human lives. Just thought you might be interested.

But most of the differences we see do have to do the amount of melanin in the skin...a direct result of inheritance. These are the differences we all notice...literally skin deep.
---Donna22 on 12/31/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


\\What would you accept as proof that theistic evolution conflicts with Scripture?
---Warwick on 12/29/10
\\

Do you have any?

Actually, on the subject I'm not committed either way.

Whether through evolution or by fiat, God is the one who still did it.

But unlike others on here, I don't presume to bind God to one reading of Genesis.
---Cluny on 12/31/10


Alan scientists I know say genetic differences between the so-called races are tiny, c02% if I remember correctly. And mostly in external appearance.

A surgeon friend says there is no such thing as a Chinese heart, or an African kidney-when you open people up they are much the same.

One difference between different peoples is skin 'colour.' In reality there is only one colour, coming from a brown pigment called melanin. Albino's have none, dark people have lots.

We are the one kind and the one species because as far as scientists know all the different 'races' can interbreed.

The diferences are brought about by natural selection, combination and recombination, without the creation of any new genetic information.
---Warwick on 12/30/10


I believe in micro-evolution as it has been reproduced in the laboratory countless times.(Maco-evolution is baseless) But I don't understand how micro-evolution results in a "net loss of genetic information".Every human has 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 total. Any more or less than this results in an abnormality.(And most of these produce individuals that cannot reproduce)..e.g. Tri-somy 21 is an extra chromosome (3 instead of a pair in position 21),.. that produces Down's syndrome.

Any gene occupies a specific chromosomal position, or locus. The alternative genes at a particular locus are said to be alleles... homopzygous, if alike: heterozygous, if different...but the number remains the same within a species.
---Donna66 on 12/30/10


Cluny many evolutionary biologists use the terms micro and macro evolution. They believe micro changes over time add up to macro changes (i.e. evolution of one kind into another)over vast time periods. They are wrong as micro evolution is correclly called natural selection or variation. This perfectly describes what is occurring while micro evolution is misleading and does not describe what is occurring. Natural selection/variation is a conservative process which does not create new, unique, specific, genetic information. Actually it results in a nett loss of genetic information. Meanwhile macro evolution requires large amounts of new, unique, specific, genetic information-the opposite of what they erroneously call micro evolution.
---Warwick on 12/30/10


Shop For Christian Debt Consolidation


Warwick. I'm puzzled You say "Variation within the human kind does not involve new, specific, unique genetic information, actually the opposite. It involves the loss of genetic information. Therefore it is incorrect and misleading to call this variation evolution"

But surely the development of all the different races, which vary so markedly in shape, colour and features, from the original pair, must have involved new genetic information?

Where do you reckon the Garden of Eden was? ... I have been told what is now southern Iraq.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/30/10


Cluny that theistic evolution conflicts with God's word has been demonstrated by a number of people on quite a few occasions. The reality is that you and some other compromisers reject any Scripture which disagrees with your extraBiblical views.

So a question for you: What would you accept as proof that theistic evolution conflicts with Scripture?
---Warwick on 12/29/10


\\Variation within the human kind does not involve new, specific, unique genetic information, actually the opposite. It involves the loss of genetic information. Therefore it is incorrect and misleading to call this variation evolution.
---Warwick on 12/28/10\\

Actually, according to biologists, evolution works with BOTH mechanisms that you describe.
---Cluny on 12/29/10


Larry what makes you think the Garden of Eden was in present day Iraq?

BTW the variation we see within the human kind is not evolution at all. Evolution is the name used to describe the imagined process by which a so-called simple life-form evolved into the great variety of totally different creatures we see today. This idea requires that massive amounts of specific, totally unique and new genetic information would arise by naturalistic (not supernatural) causes.

Variation within the human kind does not involve new, specific, unique genetic information, actually the opposite. It involves the loss of genetic information. Therefore it is incorrect and misleading to call this variation evolution.
---Warwick on 12/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


\\Back to the topic, how do some of you justify your belief in theistic evolution? Doesn't it bother you that it conflicts with the Bible? \\

And can you explain how it does?

You've not done so yet, jerry.
---Cluny on 12/28/10


steveng, When you foolishly blaspheme a saint from God, do not be so feeble as to ask the Christian which you have intentionally mocked why they are addressing your sin: "Blessed be you all when that malign you, and will persecute and say all evil word against you, lying falsely, on account of me."
---Eloy on 12/29/10


larry: "Obviously we started with two in Africa"

Not obvious at all. According to the Bible, we started with eight (Noah and his family) in Turkey (Ararat).
---jerry6593 on 12/29/10


If its micro-evolution in terms of the races the answer is yes.
Obviously we started with two in Africa who were placed in Eden (Iraq) by God and ended up with Asians, Caucasians, etc in all parts of the world.
We,re related whether we like it or not.
---larry on 12/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Eloy: "Steveng, "Enough that the disciple the person be as one's Master, and the servant as one's Lord. If they called the Lord of the house beelzebub, how much more them of his household?""

And your point?
---Steveng on 12/28/10


Steveng, "Enough that the disciple the person be as one's Master, and the servant as one's Lord. If they called the Lord of the house beelzebub, how much more them of his household?"
---Eloy on 12/28/10


Hopefully not 'preys' God...
---micha9344 on 12/28/10


\\alan, when you have Christ's mind, then you will understand perfectly the words I speak from Christ.
---Eloy on 12/27/10\\

Eloy, you were not born in a stable and laid in a manger for my salvation.

Nor did you die on a cross, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven, where you live to make intercession for me.

I've known our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ long enough to recognize that you do NOT speak for or from Him.
---Cluny on 12/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Eloy: "strongax, Sinners swallow camels and choke. Prays God! Praiz God, praze God? praisen God. Praises God!"

Satan has surely caused a little crazy thinking, eh?
---Steveng on 12/27/10


alan, when you have Christ's mind, then you will understand perfectly the words I speak from Christ.
---Eloy on 12/27/10


Eloy:

Languages are conventions that allow people to communicate with each other. These only work when both people use the same conventions. If someone who speaks only English tries to communicate with someone who know only Swahili, neither one will understand the other.

The same thing happens whenever two people are speaking the "same" language, but either use different spellings, different grammar, different vocabulary, or use different meanings for the same word.

So, if you are trying to speak English, but are using different spellings or grammar than everyone else, and which only you understand, you are not communicating at all - just speaking to yourself alone.
---StrongAxe on 12/28/10


Back to the topic, how do some of you justify your belief in theistic evolution? Doesn't it bother you that it conflicts with the Bible? Do you really believe that college professors' opinions trump the Word of God?
---jerry6593 on 12/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


There's an amusing Christian blog by Elizabeth Esther. She's full of marvellous quotes.

Here's one of them: "There's nobody so irrational as a person who believes his opinions come directly from God."
---Cluny on 12/27/10


Eloy ... the problem is that by not using the language that God gave us the brains to develop, you can end up by saying the opposite of what you mean.

For example, the double negative. And plural persons becoming a sigular person.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/27/10


strongax, Sinners swallow camels and choke. Prays God! Praiz God, praze God? praisen God. Praises God!
---Eloy on 12/27/10


In poetry (and scripture), sometimes authors bend the rules of language in order to make specific points. They do not do so capriciously or sloppily.

When you say things like "Punctuation and diction is made by man", using the word "is" (rather than "are") is just being sloppy. This is not the Word of God, but rather the Word of Eloy, who is making a mistake.
---StrongAxe on 12/27/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


alan, the Spirit from God in which his words flow do not follow any rules from clay. Punctuation and diction is made by man, but God the Creator's omnipotent and ominscient and eternal words are not ruled by any creature nor regulated by them. Respectable English professors will acknowledge that holy scripture, and Inspiration- which is God breathed or God spoken words, and poetry do not follow scholarly or secular rules of communication, for that would be trying to quench the Spirit: and the almighty Spirit cannot be quenched, for in trying to do so then even the rocks would give mouth to God.
---Eloy on 12/26/10


alan, Inspiration, God-breathed or God spoken words, is not dictated by clay nor their conventional rules.
---Eloy on 12/26/10


Eloy:

If you cannot accept correction when it comes to matters of spelling and grammar (things of little consequence), how can you ever have the humility to accept correction about the weightier things that REALLY matter? Even the great luminaries of the Bible (Peter, Paul, Moses, David) were not above making mistakes, and being chastised for them, and accepting such chastisement.
---StrongAxe on 12/26/10


\\Cluny, more lies.
---Eloy on 12/25/10\\

Please tell me what I said in this case that's a lie, Eloy.
---Cluny on 12/26/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Eloy youi say ... "I have absolute rule of the words I preach, and not you nor any other person can add nor take away from that what I preach, else they be found a liar and be condemned."

Eloy, in that short sentence alone, you have created several grammatical rules which are contrary to the generally accepted.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/26/10


Cluny, more lies.
---Eloy on 12/25/10


\\I have absolute rule of the words I preach, and not you nor any other person can add nor take away from that what I preach, else they be found a liar and be condemned.\\

The only one who can say this about his words is Jesus.
---Cluny on 12/25/10


alan, again, I have absolute rule of the words I preach, and not you nor any other person can add nor take away from that what I preach, else they be found a liar and be condemned.
---Eloy on 12/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


\\You must understand that Eloy makes the rules regarding the use of words.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/24/10\\

Humpty Dumpty said much the same thing, but then, he was a mere imaginary character in a children's book.

If one uses language like some from the Looking-glass world, then he THINKS like someone from the Looking-glass world.

And we know what the Bible says about perverse speech.
---Cluny on 12/24/10


Cluny ... You must understand that Eloy makes the rules regarding the use of words.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/24/10


There is variation with a species.

For example, parakeets that are bred in captivity are bigger than those in the wild.

\\Each specie is created after its kind.\\

Eloy, "species" in a discussion about biology is both singular and plural, like the word "sheep" or "deer."

Only when discussing money can you use the word "specie."
---Cluny on 12/24/10


Most of what people call "micro-evolution" today is nothing but a demonstration of mendelian genetics. As Warwick points out, it is simply the expression of the variability within the gene pool, selective breeding, etc. with no increase in genetic information. Without new genetic information, there is no evolution of the species.

As for man's alleged ascent, I agree with Alan that Darwin and Hitler were wrong - man is not improving. His strength, stature, lifespan and moral character are mere miniatures of the ancient noble men described in the Bible.
---jerry6593 on 12/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


No. Species do not evolve, species are created, and species grow and procreate and then die: Each specie is created after its kind. History records that the first man, Adam, was created after God's shape, and did not evolve from any ape or other animal specie. Believing in evolution is believing lie. Back to the Bible people. Your ancestors and forefathers were humans, not animals.
---Eloy on 12/24/10


Although men has gained an incredible strehouse of knowledge, his morality has de-evolved. More scientists and academics have been born within the last hundred years than the whole history of the world before then.

As man grows in knowledge, man becomes more evil (2 Timothy 3: 1-6) until the world is filled with evil.
---Steveng on 12/23/10


Allan

I think we are in agreement in some circular way.
God Bless, Paul
---paul on 12/23/10


Paul ... Man's physique and his knowledge has advanced ... and perhaps is some little way towards a state of perfection.

That of course is what Hitler was trying to do with his programme of eugenics and racial purity.

But how can man be perfect, or even move towards that state, when his morals don't move forward?

I thought my penultimate paragraph threw sufficient cold water on the idea that we are moving towards perfection.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


"Str8talk ... Man is becoming more perfect and efficient ... look at the tecnical stuff that we now have."

Alan

This is what I was answering.
I have previously said man was still imperfect and your answer indicated, to me, that technical advances was what declared him into a state of perfection.

I also saw where you stated he was lacking the equivalence of advancement in morals.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I was referring to being primordial and sub standard and evolving into ,so called, superior beings.

And if so why did we stop advancing.
God Bless, Paul- str8talk
---paul on 12/22/10


Maybe a specialist in the field can help us but I believe the word 'species' is being incorrectly used here. As I understand it species is applied to certain creatures which are of the one kind, can no longer interbreed. For example, seaguls have spread around the world but some cannot interbreed though they are identical in appearance. And definitely still birds. This is not any kind of evolution, in fact the opposite of evolution as genetic information has been lost. And no new genetic information gained.
---Warwick on 12/22/10


Paul ... I think if you read my post carefully, you will see that was what I was saying
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/22/10


Alan
You are right, knowledge has increased, but that has nothing to do with mans inperfections that evolution of a species should combat. theoretically of coarse.
Im talking about genetic flaws and disease and imorality and such.
Why is it still prevalint if we are in a evolutionary state of improvement ?
Its ironic that the same state of perfection that man is attempting to disprove God with is the same state God gave in the garden. perfection through evolution or through God, which is it. God Bless, Paul
---paul on 12/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


\\Why haven't they cross breed-ed or whatever and adapted to getting chewed up on the ground?
\\

Like ostriches? They seem to do well without being able to fly.

I'm not saying they're invincible--no creature is--but have you ever tried chasing one down? They are pretty tough and don't tolerate it.
---Cluny on 12/21/10


Evolution of the species: no

Evolution within a particular species (as in people getting taller over time, as we have more food) seems OK. But there it is not the creation of a new species, just small changes

I don't see a good reason to think that such little changes can lead to anything as large as the differences we see in nature, and so I consider that God did all that
---peter on 12/21/10


Pharisee ... You ask why we have seen no evolution in our lifetime.

The Evolunist will say that evolution occurs over millions of years, so in our lifetime there would be no observable changes. The lack of such short term changes does not conflict with the E theory.

Str8talk ... Man is becoming more perfect and efficient ... look at the tecnical stuff that we now have.

Sadly, there does not seem to be any improvement in morals to match the technical developments. We just become more efficient at using weapons.

That's an argument against theistic evolution.
---alan8566_of_uk on 12/21/10


If Micro evolution is truth then why are there still flightless birds in the world? Why haven't they cross breed-ed or whatever and adapted to getting chewed up on the ground?

Further why are there no birds adapting and in a transitional state? Natural selection is real, that's a tiny piece of evolutionary theory however. The fact is there have been no major break throughs since Darwin's Galapagos finches that I've seen.

This is Garbage can science just like the extremes they like to take global warming to.
---Pharisee on 12/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


I see there is another Paul so I will go by str8talk.

I am the Paul of Blog etiquette and can Christians be liberals and so on.

No, Christians cant believe in evolution,I don't see how evolutionist have gotten by as long as they have.
They cant ever answer one question for me, and that is.

If we evolved from a primordial being into a more efficient and superior species, then why did we stop at this level of such imperfection?
Why don't we EVOLVE further.
So that is that in my mind, and not to mention the Biblical aspect that says we were created male and female.

As far as believing it a little bit, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
God Bless, Paul
---str8talk on 12/20/10


Micro-evolution is used to describe changes within a kind or species which has nothing to do with kind to kind evolution. My scientist friends say adaptation or natural selection are the correct terms.

Consider the dog kind which has amazing variety both from natural selection and selective breeding. Nonetheless dogs are still dogs, not on the way to becoming something other than dogs.

God created each of the kinds to reproduce after their own kind-Genesis 1:25. He gave them great potential variability and we see the results of this today. Genesis 1 says God created life to reproduce after its own kind, which what we see. So God did not use any form of evolution.
---Warwick on 12/20/10


Micro v Macro Evolution. Dogs, for example, adapt or evolve into many sizes and forms, but never into cats. this is Micro and it IS true and perfectly in line with scripture. (much larger people occupying the promised land)

Macro does not happen naturally, but who are we to say that God did not create the world "by numerous, successive, slight modifications"?? This obervation could be an explanation of the order of HOW God created everything.
---Paul on 12/20/10


NO, belief in evolution is NOT okay with God (unless you want to go AGAINST the Bible and God), because the Bible says He created it, NOT evolved it. Just as a building is proof of a builder, and a painting is proof of a painter, the world is proof of a creator.
---Leslie on 12/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


No because it's absolutely impossible that our species evolved from another life form, or that even one single cell was ever accidentally formed.

I quote Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Two words for ya Charlie: bacterial flagellum
---Pharisee on 12/20/10


is a little belief in the evolution of the species ok?
the human race is not evolving,it has never evolved,never will evolve.there is a reson why,we are created in Gods image,created by God from dust.I would concentrate on a whole bunch of belief in Gods word.
---tom2 on 12/20/10


Is your question taking us from apes to man evolution? If it is, consider the Scripture declaration -

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21

Evolution of apes to man kind is the most wicked teaching from the heart of Satan. It rejects and denies the glory that God Almighty created everything (without exceptions). Why call yourself a Christian if you belief in such a thing?
---christan on 12/20/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.