Microevolution and Biblical Apologetics

While many creationists use the word microevolution, it is conspicuously absent from this site. That is because this word is misleading, and believers in minerals-to-microbiologist use it to imply that if there is a little evolution, then that leads to much (or macro) evolution. It does not work that way, and many biblical creationists advise against using the words micro- and macroevolution.

What is considered microevolution is actually variation and speciation. Creationists don't get on the prod with those terms because they are not only observed in nature, but they support biblical creation science models (see "How Do Evolutionists Hijack Real Science?" for an example). Evolutionists see variations as evidence for evolution, such as in antibiotic resistance.

Variations are essentially horizontal changes, but you must remember this, a fish is still a fish, a fly is still a fly, and so on, even though time goes by. They're pulling the ol' bait 'n' switch, conflating small changes with full-blown evolution where a fish evolves into a fool. These variations do not involve the addition of new genetic information. It may be shuffled a bit, but nowhere near the amount needed to make Darwin's dreams come true.

The article linked below has two parts, and I've already given some thoughts about the first section. Later, the author discusses biblical apologetics. Although the term presuppositional apologetics is not used, several examples of it are given. Presuppositionalists are none to keen on letting scoffers take control of the discussion, and we want to keep them on the subject. Ask them key questions. Avoid the mythological "neutral ground". More importantly, we do not cede authority to naturalism or their opinions because God's Word is our ultimate authority. The Bible is also supported by observed evidence.
Bible-believers get confused with the terms “micro-evolution” versus “macro-evolution.”  They are misleading, at least the phrase “micro-evolution” is, because it is being misused.
Evolutionists are fond of citing things that can happen without evolution being true, and then citing those very same things as “proofs” of evolution being true. Darwin speculated endlessly, starting most of his arguments with the phrase, “Let us now suppose.”
This still happens.
This is self-deception at best, and lying at worst. Evolutionists will say that since you look different from your grandparents, then that’s “proof” of evolution. And who can deny there are over 200 breeds of dogs? That’s “evolution” too, they’ll say. If these observable things were all that they are asking us to believe, if that’s all there is to “evolution,” then we could believe in “evolution.”
But that’s not all they mean by “evolution.” Evolution doesn’t just say that humans have changed or that Collies and Dachshunds are cousins. It says that worms became bald eagles, and that fish became dinosaurs, Collies, and people; and that people were once monkeys! The gross misrepresentation they say about “micro-evolution” is this: if you just “stretch this process out over billions of years, then you can easily see how this makes all the rest of the evolutionary model true, too.”
No. It doesn’t.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of this article by Dr. Charles Jackson. To do so, click on "Micro 'Evolution' or, How to Use Jesus’ Apologetics".