- Fri, Mar 19, 2010
- Creation/Evolution
How can you state that macro-evolution does not exist, when you have also stated that micro-evolution does?
In the article “Ten Major Flaws of Evolution” you argue that “spontaneous generation” and “chemical evolution” are one in the same, however is DNA not made of the same basic “non-living” elements such as oxygen and phospherous, that you claim could not have “evolved” into living material? How can you state that macro-evolution does not exist, when you have also stated that micro-evolution does exist and has been observed? Would the first not be directly related to the latter?
You asked about the relationship of “micro-evolution” to “macro-evolution.” As you may be aware, there are several different competing evolutionary models ...






If I had only Scripture to judge by I would assume it is a young Earth. If I had only science to judge by I would assume it is an old Earth. I know that the two can be reconciled but I'm not entirely convinced either way. I probably lean toward the young Earth in the belief that the assumptions guiding the testing of the Earth's age may be faulty (e.g. uniform rate of decay).




