Comments on: For The One Life We Have

By: Stephen Thomas

Stephen Thomas — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:59:40 +0000

Wow. What a beautiful story — the ability to live. Well said.

By: sal

sal — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:58:00 +0000

thank you for defining the majesty of God’s creation by the uncreated first cause.

By: burredbrain

burredbrain — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:03:47 +0000

Yurka:

Exactly what mechanism is in place that prevents “micro-evolution” from becoming “macro-evolution”? And under what circumstances does this mechanism act? Please be as precise as possible.

By: LeoPardus

LeoPardus — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:43:57 +0000

Yurka:

Had to look up Lewis and inclusivism. It appears that you must be “exclusivist” in a Doug Wilson mode too. I.e. everybody goes to hell unless they heard the gospel of Christ and accepted Jesus explicitly as savior.

By: LeoPardus

LeoPardus — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:37:10 +0000

Yurka:

Go read the last chapter of “Mere Christianity”. Nothing equivocal there.

Inclusivism? Of whom?

And his views on inerrancy were far left? … Oh yes. You’re a Doug Wilson reformed sort. That puts you a long ways beyond the right wing tip. Baptists must look at least moderate to you.

By: Yurka

Yurka — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:46:12 +0000

LP: he mentioned it as a possibility in Problem of Pain, but AFAIK he wasn’t a committed evolutionist. I will admit he did hold some far left views on things (inerrancy, inclusivism), but given his environment that’s probably excusable.

By: LeoPardus

LeoPardus — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:58:02 +0000

Yurka:

Uhm… I hate to have to break this to you, but…. C.S. Lewis was an evolutionist. You really ought to read his stuff.

By: evanescent

evanescent — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:58:15 +0000

Yurka, there is no dichotomy between micro evolution and macro evolution. I don’t feel inclined to explain this in detail to you, since evolution is a readily and easily researchable topic and we both know the reason you don’t bother to study it is because of your religious prejudices, but evolution is change of gene frequencies in a population over time. When these gene frequencies occur within species the result is “micro evolution.” Over time however, gene frequencies do change to the point where a creature is no longer the same breed or even species as its ancestors were. The gene “makeup” (genotype) presents itself by how a creature looks (phenotype). Creatures that look similar tend to have a common ancestor (horses, donkeys, camels etc), but not always.

All counter arguments to evolution basically boil down to this: “wow this creature doesn’t look anything like that one! I cannot possibly see how that could ever happen, therefore it didn’t!” It’s an argument from incredulity, and usually a strawman anyway.

Since we both know you’re not open to reason, only faith, I leave you with two articles I’ve written which should help you understand evolution a lot better should you ever decide to learn:

http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/my-evolution-elucidation-wed-1st-aug-07/
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/common-descent-uncommon-knowledge/

By: Yurka

Yurka — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:12:39 +0000

Only micro-evolution (evolution dependent on pre-existing information) continues to occur.

By: evanescent

evanescent — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:49:56 +0000

Yurka, evolution isn’t a miracle.

No matter how unlikely you personally think evolution is, doesn’t change the fact that has and continues to happen.

No matter how unlikely you personally feel evolution is, you still reject it on a notion that everything so incredibly complex had to have a cause – yet the most complex being of all that started it all apparently had no cause. BANG. That is the cosmological argument imploding.