HOME | DD

Description
"Please, Excuse the Crudity of this Model"

Bit of a vent. I like to follow Christian apologetics on Twitter, but there is no shortage of evolutionists or atheists under the threads who want to rope you into a debate to flex their intellect.
The most recent, an oddball going by "Creationist Translator" (more like a re-interpreter, if you ask me) was insistent that I was on board the entirety of the evolutionary model after I quipped on a similarity between both worldviews. That being to reproduce and continue life, something readily derived from Genesis 1, barring the dominion of the earth purpose.

While, yes, micro-evolution is observable (creationists like to interpret evidence for micro-evolution as "Variations within Kinds [species]"; macro-evolution is where I get very skeptical as it is not something observed, but speculated.

Anyhow, Mr. Translator kept pressing questions, to which I tried to answer politely only to be met with dismissal and perhaps some snideness. Rather than retaliate with remarks I might regret, I went ahead and put together this crude model. Just as a glance explanation why I don't subscribe to macro-evolution in my convictions.

I won't claim this is a professional model, just one I wanted to put together on a whim from my understandings about genetics and how they fit alongside of the Biblical account of creation. Genesis 1 KJV

That being, God created living things according to their kinds. These kinds reproduce after themselves with rich genetic data from their Genesis creation and have reasonable limitations that prevent the introduction of new kinds of creatures (i.e. macro-evolution), whilst remaining diverse enough for variation (micro-evolution) to occur.

Description
"Please, Excuse the Crudity of this Model"

Bit of a vent. I like to follow Christian apologetics on Twitter, but there is no shortage of evolutionists or atheists under the threads who want to rope you into a debate to flex their intellect.
The most recent, an oddball going by "Creationist Translator" (more like a re-interpreter, if you ask me) was insistent that I was on board the entirety of the evolutionary model after I quipped on a similarity between both worldviews. That being to reproduce and continue life, something readily derived from Genesis 1, barring the dominion of the earth purpose.

While, yes, micro-evolution is observable (creationists like to interpret evidence for micro-evolution as "Variations within Kinds [species]"; macro-evolution is where I get very skeptical as it is not something observed, but speculated.

Anyhow, Mr. Translator kept pressing questions, to which I tried to answer politely only to be met with dismissal and perhaps some snideness. Rather than retaliate with remarks I might regret, I went ahead and put together this crude model. Just as a glance explanation why I don't subscribe to macro-evolution in my convictions.

I won't claim this is a professional model, just one I wanted to put together on a whim from my understandings about genetics and how they fit alongside of the Biblical account of creation. Genesis 1 KJV

That being, God created living things according to their kinds. These kinds reproduce after themselves with rich genetic data from their Genesis creation and have reasonable limitations that prevent the introduction of new kinds of creatures (i.e. macro-evolution), whilst remaining diverse enough for variation (micro-evolution) to occur.