Wow, that is an excellent and astute question and one I don't think I've ever gotten before. It's not often someone makes me stop and think on an academic level, so thanks for that. The answer is actually kind of simple. What we've left out of this conversation so far is that there is a possibility in addition to an allele persisting or being lost, and this is an allele being damaged. A great example is human blood types which has three possible allele's (A, B, and O) that produce four different blood types (A, B, AB, O). The intriguing thing is that the O allele is, functionally, a damaged A allele that will not allow production of A traits on the outside of cells. This might sound a little bit odd, but denying evolution via a gain of genetic information through mutation does not necessarily mean we should deny that mutation never happens. Indeed, it happens all of the time, but it is deleterious or damaging. If a damaged allele is copied and propagated, it results in a different gene expressions, but that does not make it a new allele and it certainly does not add information to the genome.
In short, you're correct. This is a very simplistic example of how loss of information leads to a certain expression of traits. In reality, there would be several letters with various levels of dominance. Human eye color, for example, has three different alleles (B - brown, G - green, b - blue). It's chart would look something like this:
As you can see, even adding 1 allele variation gets a little cumbersome to look at which is why I used such a simplistic chart for the beaks. What should be immediately clear, though, is that blue eyes can only result from a complete absence of both B and G allele because they are dominant. This brings me to the answer for your first statement. Variation does not only come through a loss of information, but also through allele combination. This will sound a little backward, but in truth lack of variation is what comes from a loss of information. Take, for example two parents, one with blue eyes and one with brown: BbBBBBbbBbbbThey will be capable of producing both brown- and blue-eyed children and you will see variation within the population. Since both brown and blue alleles are present, there is variation. However, if you have two blue-eyed parents, the only possible outcome is blue because there is only one allele at play: bbbbbbbbbbbbIf you extrapolate this to a larger population, you'll see that a group of people that only have blue eyes, you know that there has been a complete loss of both the brown and green alleles. This is the same process that is at play in Darwin's finches that started this line of discussion. There likely existed the capability of variation at one point, but as the populations were isolated, the variation within each population was truncated and resulted in static speciation even though they are all of the same created kind. The point is, that the speciation did not occur through random mutations (which is what both micro- and macro-evolution assert). Organisms don't adapt and change through a gain of information, they simply lose the ability create varied offspring and so only one possible trait becomes expressed.
On micro-evolution, not exactly. The variation is never due to added genetic information. What you see with finches is more of a sorting and subsequent loss of genetic information. When a species becomes isolated in a particular environment, the genes most effective for survival are the ones that end up becoming expressed. Rather than gaining a mutation to survive in a particular environment, less effective genes are essentially bred out. Consider the attached graphic of finch beak alleles where "T" (large/thick beak) is the dominant trait and "t" is recessive. If the available food supply cannot be collected or eaten with a small beak, the "t" will ultimately die out and "T" will eventually be the only available trait to be expressed. This is an example of how the loss of genetic information is what produces variation and not the addition of it. Speciation occurs when enough genetic material is lost from a population so as to be distinct from another previously identical population. You don't need a compromise with evolutionary theory to explain the variation in kinds or the diversity of species.
In addition to UM's excellent points, here's a fantastic article on a Noah's Ark feasibility study that should answer most questions you have on that one: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark Additionally, I would caution against the use of micro-evolution because it still implies evolution is a real phenomenon. Evolution (be it micro or macro) assert a gaining of genetic information through mutation. Rather, what we see with speciation within the created kinds is a loss of genetic information that differentiates between species we know of today.
Whaaat? I asked an honest question trying to understand why you find something so irrelevant to be so "unholy" that you need to label it "anti-Christ." Seriously, I just wanted to know what your issue is with Looney Toons of all things. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with any of it. I just don't understand why you're making such an issue about something that very few people even think about anymore, much less actively care about. Are you always this combative?
Help me out here, because I am truly confused about why you're making such a big deal about Bugs Bunny, of all things. Why such a disdain for a set of cartoons and tv shows that have pretty much fallen off the air? Surely there are more important, more influential, and more ungodly things to take issue with right?
My wife and I are contemplating a cross-country road trip next May. One of the states we're talking about driving through on the way back is West Virginia. Is there anyone from there (or has been there)? What is there to do that's kid-friendly (small kids, 1-4 yrs)? What the best route through there from Virginia toward Cincinnati while pulling a travel trailer?
I'm not at all saying they're the same thing, merely that, humanly speaking, adultery carries a physical aspect to it. I doubt even if we attempted to hash it out from the references you say you have that we'd arrive at a consensus and you're certainly free to believe as you choose; so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps this is a topic to take up in a separate thread, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I'll state up front that I believe fornication is any deviation from God's plan for marriage (1 man and 1 woman for 1 lifetime) and adultery is specific type of fornication. I'm not sure how exactly you're drawing the conclusion that adultery as strictly a turning away of the heart without any physical aspect. Strictly defined, adultery is unlawful intercourse with another man's wife. Just before you example in Matt 5:32 in vv. 27-28 Jesus directly links adultery of the heart to physical lust. In essence, you're guilty of committing the physical act of adultery if you set your physical desires upon another. This tells me that the "act" of adultery is a physical thing. If there is adultery both inside and outside of the heart, then it absolutely carries a meaning of physical intercourse. I understand that the Old Testament often depicts Israel as an adulteress for turning to idols, but I don't think this is cause for dismissing the plainly understood physical aspect of adultery. Adultery does not speak of love in an emotional sense, but of breaking a covenant of devotion: physically and emotionally to a spouse and spiritually to God.
I know I said I was out, but given the way this topic has gone, I thought this article would be a good read for anyone wondering why Genesis 1-11 should be read as history and not taken allegorically like poetry or prophecy: http://creation.com/genesis-is-history Out again.
1 Cor 5 is the guidepost for such a case, particularly vv. 1-5 from the church perspective. It parallels this situation remarkably well. In such a case, Paul exhorts the church to remove the person from fellowship so that God may deal with him/her and so that the sin doesn't infect and tear down the church. Keep in mind that it should be done with love and a mind toward restoration and not a hateful shunning that drives the person away from Christ for the rest of his/her life (see 2 Cor 2:6-11 which seems to indicate the man in 1 Cor 5 ultimately repented and was restored to the church fellowship). From the perspective of the wronged spouse, adultery is the only reason ever given any valid grounds for divorce (Matt 5:32) because the unfaithful spouse has already broken the marriage covenant. However, reconciliation should always be sought first. While divorce may be permissible or even justifiable, it is never a great option. Principles of love and forgiveness should be the rule. If the spouse is willing to repent and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, all effort should be made to give it to him/her. As a child of divorced parents, I can attest to the devastation all of this causes on the family; not just the immediate pain it causes, but the lifelong confusion and mixed message that can cause great spiritual harm in the end. My wife's parents battled through an affair, and while it was incredibly hard on the family for a while, they're still together and the family as a whole is better for it.
Ok, I think I read that sentence wrong the first time, so I apologize for that. However I stand by the final part of my post: I've explained it to you in plain English backed by plain Hebrew and then plain old common sense. There is no way to get what you're asserting directly from the text. You see it in there because you want to see it. Since you won't accept the truth as it is plainly written, and I certainly can't and won't force you to accept it, then there is nothing left to do here.
I'll say it one last time... You can't conflate prophecy with historical narrative. "Day" in Gen 1 has always meant a regular day as we understand it not matter how much you try to read into it. Gen 1:5 gives a very clear description and delimiter for the definition of that day and how it was reckoned. That is how the original audience took it. That is how it has always been taken until people compromised with atheistic Darwinism. Those are facts you can't get around. I'm out.
A "firmament" is an expanse or extended solid surface. It is the land between the oceans/seas on the earth's surface (Gen 1:10) those underground (Gen 7:11). A firmament can also be a non-solid expanse such as the sky (Gen 1:8). It is likely that the firmament is the sky between land and seas below and the cloud/vapor canopy above it. Either way, it's still pretty plain. What does that have to do with anything? At one moment there was no such thing as light and in the next moment there was. Where it emanated from is inconsequential to the point of the statement was that God made light.
Here's the problem and it explains everything else you've said on the subject. I accept no error and always seek the truth no matter how dangerous it may be. This is not a church issue. This is a Bible truth issue. If you willfully accept error over truth then you're making God in your image and not conforming yourself to His. I've explained it to you in plain English backed by plain Hebrew and then plain old common sense. There is no way to get what you're asserting directly from the text. You see it in there because you want to see it. Since you won't accept the truth as it is plainly written, and I certainly can't and won't force you to accept it, then there is nothing left to do here.