ldsguy422

The population he provided is going extinct. Just a matter of time.

Great. So there must have been wide-scale genocide for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Yes, tribes and nations can struggle to grow for a period of time. But, not for 9 millenia. What evidence is there for this? Has a nation or tribe ever struggled to grow for such a long period of time? A few generations. Sure. Okay. But it sure as heck didn't last for 9,000 years. And you've yet to touch on how there was little to no progression for 190,000 years.

Great. But again, we're talking about 190,000 years of nothing. Little to no progression of any kind. Can that happen for a small tribe over a period of time? Sure. But, this is for 8,000 generations. Not 50. And how did they get to the population of 10,000? I have a hard time believing the capacity to expand came to a screeching halt. People divide into other groups all the time. People travel. People discover. They explore. They don't do the same thing for 190,000 years. Your math takes on a lot of assumptions. And again, every group that has every lived has dealt with terrible tragedies, and they've all grown in spite of them.

Okay, let's look at the simple math for a tribe of 100, with an annual birth rate of 10, that doubles every 8,950 years. Original Population: 100 Annual Birth Rate: 10 Time Elapsed: 8,950 Years Births: 89,950 Deaths: 89,750 Net Gain: 100 New Population: 200 Almost 9,000 Years later? In 6,000 years we've gone from a few individuals to almost 8 billion. Yet, a stone-age tribe needs 9,000 years to increase from 100 to 200? The duration of this alleged stable population lasts from 200,000 BC to 10,000 BC; we're talking about 190,000 years. It's hard to believe that some 8,000 Generations did practically nothing except hunt for food an die. 8,000 generations did that? Is that the simple math you're talking about? From Adam to present day we're looking at maybe 200-300 generations. Yet, 8,000 generations couldn't figure anything out? Really? That's the simple math? And these tribes would have had miles and miles and miles of free land to roam and gather food, shelter, and supplies. Every civilization in the history of ever has dealt with war, disease, and famine. That is nothing new. Yet, every documented civilization has grown in spite of all the extenuating circumstances. I mention the bubonic plague because the world quickly recovered. The population doubled within 350 years. And on top of that, the world was dealing with the Crusades, the Ottoman Wars, Byzantine Wars, Ming Dynasty Wars, and dozens of other wars and disasters. The Jaredites went from a small group, who traveled in 16 barges, into a nation of two million. And they did that within 1,600 years. Not 190,000 years. The Jaredites existed from 2200 BC to 600 BC. That's 1,600 years. Even if the numbers are horribly, horribly wrong, it still wouldn't take ANYWHERE near 9,000 years to double in size. Let's say there were 100 people on those 16 barges. And in 1,600 years they grew to only 800. That population is doubling every 533 years. Your math doesn't pass the sniff test.

And there it is? It was a question of curiosity more than anything. I've seen you post on here before. I'm more of a lurker than anything else. And you're quite knowledgeable. So, I was mostly curious as to how you see stone-age man of 100k-200k years ago fitting in with Adam and Eve? I mean, I don't talk about evolution with people at church - at all. Topic doesn't really come up. Obviously others share that belief, as we've seen many people side with your position. I've just never met anyone in church that held the belief that modern humans existed before Adam. So yes, curiosity. My biggest objection to the population paradox, as previously stated, is that those assumptions indicate there there was little to no progress in all of mankind for 190,000 years... and a population doubling every 9,000 years does not seem the least bit reasonable. Even if you take the doubling average from 10,000 B.C. to present day, you're left with an AVERAGE of almost 1,100 years before the population doubles. Still, a little high, IMO. I could accept that number if it was for a small slice of time for a paleolithic tribe. But, not the AVERAGE time it takes to double for all of modern history. And honestly, it's fine if you want to believe in evolution. I have nothing against people believing in it. The variations of different kinds is a fact. Just have issues with the evidence on the macroevolution side of things, which proves nothing and is spoken of dogmatically. There are plenty of educated people who don't believe in macroevolution. It's fun to talk about. Not a big deal, really. If it were a big deal, The Church would have taken an official position on it already.

There would be almost 10,000 acres per person available for a population of 4 million. That's the estimated population for 10,000 B.C. Is that the lack of a carrying capacity you’re talking about? It blows my mind that anyone could think it would take 9,000 years for a population to double. We lost 75-200 million from the black plague (20-40% of the world population), and the population still doubled in 350 years. Hard to imagine that in a time where women were almost exclusively confined to the home life, bearing and raising children, and where no birth control was present, that it would take nine millennia for a tribe to double. And I find it strange that you completely dismiss the numers from Lesotho. That nation is expected to double in size every 60.7 years. I’m not saying primitive cultures are expected to be anywhere near that, but Lesotho, a country with a per capita GDP of $1,300, isn’t exactly living a charmed life. Access to modern medicine and adequate health facilities is limited. Birth control is limited. Scarcity of food is high. Disease is high. Death rates are high. It’s interesting that you don’t think an African country, living in destitution, having a population growth 150 times higher than the all of the world for 190,000 years isn’t a big deal. That’s very hard to reconcile. Imagining that the world for 190,000 years was essentially 150 times worse than Lesotho. And they never progressed. They never ventured out. They never discovered. Dozens and dozens of impressive ruins were erected in between 3,000 and 4,000 BC. But, not a whole lot of progress before then. That doesn’t add up. Why were there no human advances for such an incredibly length period of time? And how do you reconcile modern humans being around that long when The Church clearly states that Adam was the first man? As far as DNA, no, I don’t know how it all came together. But, I’m 99.99% it didn’t randomly self-assemble in perfect sequence. Seems much, much more likely that God played a part in it. Agreed. And Ether 15 even mentions that two million Jaredites were slain in battle. That is significant. Perhaps that's an estimate and not an actual count. Could easily be calculated, though, seeing how the battle came down to two individuals. Just needed a census of some sort. But still, I don't know what's harder for me to believe - that for 190,000 years, the population doubled, on average, every 9000 years ... or the belief that there were practically no human advances. AT ALL. FOR 190K YEARS. How? Both assumptions are incredibly hard to reconcile.

No, I don't assume that at all. I never once said that there was a steady population growth. You're missing the point. The AVERAGE TIME it took for the world's population to double, if humans have existed for 200,000 years, would be 6,250 years. AVERAGE. I clearly did not say the population was doubling every 75 years. If the population was even doubling at a much more conservative number, say every 800 years, the global population would be 8.5 x 10 to the 37th power. So obviously not even close to be in the same ballpark. If the population doubled every 2,000 years, the worldwide count would be 2.5 x 10 to the 30th power. Still, much too large. If we go back to original number of the earth doubling every 6,250 years, we'll have a grand total of 16 people by year 18,750 (181,250 BC). That, of course, is silly. And you're going to maintain that RATE for the next 181,250 years? Let's forego an Adam and Eve example, and say that there was an initial tribe of 1,000 people. To get to 8 billion by the year 2025, you'll need to double 23 times. Over the course of 200k years, the population is doubling, ON AVERAGE, every 9,090 years.... significantly longer than the time from Adam to now. That is silly. The number is fixed. It doesn't matter if there are hundreds and millions of wars. The end number doesn't changed. It's fixed. We're talking about the AVERAGE. All of the catastrophes have already been accounted for in this calculation. Heck, the science records estimate that the population doubled in 4,000 to 3,000 BC, from 7 million to 14 million people. Those were primitive times. And for whatever reason, 7 million people can double its size much faster than a small tribe? I reject the idea that little to no human progression was made over the course of 195,000 years - and that it takes 6 to 9,000 years for primitive cultures to double in size. Not buying it. Lawrence Krauss is the one who expressed that idea, actually. And obviously what he meant is that you can't put God into the equation. He doesn't help us understand how the universe and the laws and natural processes work. And I don't believe science and God are mutually exclusive. But, the scientific community can't really account for him, because they don't know the laws by which he operates. Hence, the process for discovery becomes atheistic. T I have a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from mainstream evolution. So tell me how your views differentiate from the common beliefs of evolution. And feel free to discuss how DNA came to be. I don't know what logic is? What I said was a colloquial way of saying, "That's hard to believe." But feel free to question my intelligence.

Your assumptions on population growth are not accurate. I’d even go far as to say that of all the statements that have been made in this thread, the belief that humans have been on earth for 100k-200k years is the easiest one to dispel. My contention is not so much that an ancient tribe would go extinct (although that is a very real possibility if it takes you 6-9 millennia to double in size), but rather that the human population would be MUCH, MUCH greater than it is today if we’ve been inhabiting the planet for some 200,000 years. The scientific consensus also says that there were roughly 4 million people living in 10,000 BC. If that were the case, population would be doubling, on average, every 8,950 years. Remember, pre-1900, there was little to no birth control. And there was a multitude of wars, famine, diseases, holocausts, and natural disasters which have already been factored into the ending average of 8,950 years. So, if the average time it takes to double is almost 9,000 years – and if we’ve been doubling roughly 75 years for the past two centuries, that means there were LONGER periods where it took the population to double. Probably, some 10,000 years in certain eras, just to double. Lesotho has the highest death rate in the world at 15.1 deaths per 1,000. The birth rate is 26.63/1000. The annual growth rate would then be 1.153% (26.63-15.1)/(1,000)). When managing and projecting exponential growth, the rule of 70 is applied. Simply take 70 and divide it by the annual growth rate. So, 70 / 1.153 = 60.7 years before the country of Lesotho is projected to double. Lesotho would be the closest nation to resembling any ancient tribe. The death rate is high due to aids and other diseases - and birth control would be relatively minimal. I’m willing to grant ancient tribes may have taken longer to double in population. Maybe 300 or 400 years? Heck, let’s even say 800 years. Sure. Fine. But, that’s a far cry from 6,000 years or 9,000 years. Look at the time period between 1000 AD and 1800 AD. The population boomed from about 300 million to roughly 1 billion. So, it more than tripled in less than eight centuries. And this in an era that was dealing with the bubonic plague, which wiped out 75-200 million people, or 20-40% of the world. On top of that, wars, genocides, colonization, famine, and many other variables would have made population growth difficult. It’s hard to believe that the world could endure so much calamity in a short period, and triple in size. And yet, a small tribe of 100 or 200 individuals would take 6, 7, or 10,000 years to double? Please. ... And mentioning DNA doesn't really help your organic evolution argument. The genetic code for DNA is amazingly complex. The human genome contains some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Bill Gates has said, “The code in the chromosomes is more complex and holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by man combined.” So, the notion that DNA could evolve, or self-assemble on the primitive sea floor of the earth, with the enormous tides, with huge currents, and with boiling hot seas, defies logic and comprehension. How about the foundation for schools, universities, and hospitals? And obviously the separation of church and state has made it very difficult for religion to get its foot in the door. Evolution is tax supported. Science is an atheistic enterprise. I get it. Lawrence Krauss mentioned that all scientists should be militant atheists. And it makes sense why. They're wired and trained to question everything; they're trying to understand the workings of the universe and of nature. And you can’t simplify any explanation or theory with simply, “God made it that way.” Appeal to authority is anathema in the scientific community. Just seems strange that many believers of science tend to form their own canonized dogma.

The limits have already been defined. Variation within a kind. Kind meaning every species that can be traced back to the original ancestor of a group. Thousands of species can come from the same kind. But, not all species share a common ancestor. And yes, most animal life dates back to the Cambrian Period when there was an explosion of complex animals. And fossil records don't prove anything. If you find a fossil the dirt, all you know is, it died. You don’t know that it had offspring. And you sure as heck don’t know that it had any different types of offspring. There are no missing links - the whole chain is missing. Where is the missing link for a woodpecker? A woodpecker’s tongue goes all the way around the back of its head and comes on top of its left eyebrow. What fossils or intermediate species have been found with its tongue going all the way around its head? What evidence is there for this type of evolution? In regards to the Big Bang, if all the particles and matter contained within a dot were expelled from a spinning dot, they would spin out in the same direction. This is consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Yet, Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backwards around their planets. 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. The Big Bang, by itself, appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics. You have to take on A LOT of assumptions to justify it otherwise. If the Big Bang were true, matter would be evenly distributed. There are clusters of stars – and there are great voids. In regards to stellar evolution, which I alluded to earlier, astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into supernova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 dead stars (supernovas)? There should be several hundred million of them.

Right! I mean, no one here is denying that evolution exists. Simply that there are limits to how much variation can occur within each kind (i.e. original ancestor of a group). A common ancestor for all living beings blows my mind. Just look at insects. Scientists say they've been around for 350 million years - and with very minimal changes. So how far back do we have to go back before they share a common ancestor with a dinosaur?

I previously asked you all of those very broad evolution questions, because I had a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from mainstream evolution. I mean, I assumed you believed God played a part in it somewhere. But, you're losing me a bit when you say modern humans have been around for 100-200k years. That is wildly inconsistent with any statistical model. Did you have any response to the population pardox that I presented? Also, I still can't fathom the idea that all living creatures share a common ancestor. From my perspective, it defies logic that a tiny insect and a blue whale could possibly share a common ancestor. And, of course, there's no evidence for this either. And how about something like a termite? Termites chew on wood, and swallow it. But, they can’t digest it. There are tiny critters inside the intestines of termites that digest the cellulose. The critters can’t live without those termites. And the termites can’t live without those critters. So, which one evolved first?

Certainly the divisions among the people was part of it. But, it seems possible that a catastrophic event like a great flood could have completely changed the landscape of the earth and accelerated the division (and again, almost every ancient culture in the world has its own version of a great flood). It's not like this scripture is discussing plate tectonics or any complex principle. It's speaking in simple terms - the earth divided. A 10-year old could write that. I don't know that this happened. I'm simply speculating. But, in Genesis 11 we see the story of the Tower of Babel. In the book of Jasher, it's stated that Nimrod sought to build a tower because he didn't trust in the Lord's covenant that he would never again flood the earth. Shortly after, the people were dispersed all around the world. So, perhaps the lands were already divided. But the displacement had a wide range in geographic relocation. I'm guessing at least Far East Asia, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Seems like dividing the lands would be an easier way to separate people, as opposed to physically transplanting someone to another land. I guess you could argue that they simply wandered off in the wilderness and traveled for many miles and many years... This is just a thought. Not going to bet the farm against this idea, but it seems somewhat sensible. Let me just touch on one of the issues which I believe can reasonably be challenged. Humans haven't been around for 100,000 years or 200,000 years. No way. Basically all of progression in human history has happened in the past 2-4 thousand years. What were they doing the previous 100-195k years? The real issue, however, is a population paradox. No sensible statistical model could support the data that humans have been around for 200,00 years. This would mean that the human population was doubling, on average, every 6,250 years (at the current rate, we’re doubling every 75 years). That sort of population increase is simply not sustainable – you can’t have your population double every couple thousand years without the threat of imminent extinction. Remember that 99% of all species have gone extinct. Imagine if you had a moderate tribe of 100 early humans nearly 200,000 years ago. 6,250 years later that tribe would then have a population of 200. The balance that would be necessary to sustain that kind of razor sharp growth is unimaginable. If our imaginary tribe had, say, an annual birth rate of 10 newborns, or 62,250 in 6,250 years, the deaths would have to number 62,050. The death rate for that 6,250 year times span would have to be 99.7% of the birthrate. Lesotho has the highest death rate in the world at 14.9 per 1000. That is not even close to being in the same ballpark.

It's estimated that 99% of all species that have ever lived, have died out. Seems much more likely that a giant flood would be responsible for mass extinction, more so than anything else. Especially when you consider that these ancient, primitive animals wouldn't have been sharing the earth with humans, often considered the greatest threat to animal life. There are well over 200 accounts of a great flood in just about every culture and nation under the sun. Seems a little too big to simply be a coincidence. And you know what else coincides with the flood? The continents and the people dividing. In Genesis 10:25 we find, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided." Science tells us that this super continent broke apart 175 million years ago. Yet, a document only a couple thousand years old suggests that it happened in their days.

Do you have any distinctions from mainstream evolutionary beliefs? Evolution is such a broad concept. I mean, do you believe all animals, for example, descended from a common ancestor? Do they all essentially evolve from a rock? Do you believe modern humans have been around for 200,000 years? Take religion out of it, and I could still enumerate a filthy long laundry list of objections I have with mainstream evolution. Religion only helps to strengthen the argument.

Also, how many different species do you suppose Noah had on the Ark? A thousand? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? Whatever the number was, it would seem that evolution has played a pretty big hand in just the past 4,400 years - seeing how there are close to 9 million species in the world today. That's obviously on a microevolutionary scale, as 4,400 years couldn't even allow enough time for macroevolutionary processes to occur.

Well, whatever kind is meant to be, we can be certain that we're talking about a group that shares similar characteristics, right? And I would say that every kind shares a common ancestor. There are wide ranges of variation within each kind. There's no question about that. I think a HUGE distinction between mainstream evolutionary beliefs and my own, is I don't believe all animals are linked together. They don't all have common ancestors. I believe Heavenly Father created a certain number of animals at some point. That is what should be meant by kind. And heck, it's even stated in Genesis 1. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." So what are the primitive animals that He created in the beginning? I don't know exactly, but there are clearly different classes. And I don't think it was just a couple things. The Cambrian explosion details how the vast majority of animal life started showing up in fossils. That to me sounds like a creation period. So these complex animals that suddenly appear - they can't be linked to other animals that were around in the Cambrian Period. They were separate creations. And each kind branches off and has hundreds of variations. There is no crossing over into others kinds. ... Chemical and Stellar Evolution seem like a bit of a stretch to me. 93 other natural elements derived from hydrogen? How did the chemicals evolve? And stars are formed from gas clouds? Nobody has ever observed the formation of a star. And yet there are enough stars in the Milky Way where every person on earth could own over a trillion stars each. Certainly evolution has played a part in the world we see today, but I think God played a heavy part, too.

And I have no idea how old the earth. But there's a lot of documented evidence that carbon dating is flawed. I don't think anyone could reasonably track that when the rate of decay isn't constant. Here are a couple of snap shots.

There absolutely is not equal time given to young earth creationism. I don't believe in that either. And the manual actually tends to show little credence towards an earth that is 6,000 years old. Here is the only paragraph in that section regarding young earth creationism: The first theory says that the word day is understood as it is used currently and therefore means a period of 24 hours. According to this theory, the earth was created in one week, or 168 hours. Thus, the earth would be approximately six thousand years old. (Many scholars agree that there were approximately four thousand years from Adam to Christ and that there have been nearly two thousand years since Christ was born.) Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial. When I read the manual, it sounds like the authors are in favor of the belief that God created/formed the animals. And over time, those animals often evolved into other species. They are explicitly endorsing microevolution. Of course everyone should believe in evolution to a certain degree, because the Ark couldn't possibly contain 8 million+ species. The word evolution, by itself, is such a broad term. So what do you mean by evolution? Do you believe in cosmic evolution, where origin of time and space came from a Big Bang? Do you believe in chemical evolution, where all of the natural elements of the world derive from hydrogen? Do you believe in stellar evolution, where all of the stars evolve from gas clouds? Do you believe in organic evolution, where the genetic composition of populations of organisms occur because of environmental changes? Do you believe in evolution by natural selection? Do you believe that animals can evolve into different orders? Do you believe there are natural limits to evolution? I think there's merit to some parts of evolution, yes, absolutely. I believe God created (formed from living matter) a certain number of animals. And over the course of time, those animals have evolved into millions of different kinds of species. But again, I believe there are limits to how far something can evolve.

Sure I have. Look at my previous posts. I mentioned that zebras, donkey, and horses all derive from the equidae family. And I said that none of their offspring will ever change families. What I have stated I believe is consistent with the statements found in the Old Testament Institute Manual. Here are a few notable excerpts. “Scientists who study fossils have discovered another interesting piece of information. Not only did complicated animals appear suddenly in the lower Cambrian rocks, but the basic forms of animals have not changed much since then. … To put it more plainly, this is the problem of the missing links. It is not a case of one missing link. It is not even a case of many missing links. Evolutionists are confronted with the problem of whole sections of the chain of life missing. … “G. G. Simpson, quite aware of this problem also, says, ‘It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution.’ [The Evolution of Life, p. 149.] “Thus we see that not only is the sudden appearance of complete and intricate animals a problem for evolution, but the absence of change from one major type into another is equally serious. Again we can say that this is no new problem. Soon after collectors started accumulating fossils, it became obvious that fossils belong in the same major categories as do modern animals and plants. A number of scientists have commented in recent years about the lack of change and the absence of connecting links for specific kinds of animals. …" And one more excerpt from that creation chapter: “The word itself merely means ‘change,’ and on the basis of this definition, evolution is a fact. However, most people understand evolution to mean progressive change in time from simplicity to complexity, from primitive to advanced. This definition of evolution is not based on fact. The study of inheritance has revealed principles and facts that can prove evolution—if we understand the word evolution to mean ‘change.’ But the obvious minor changes occurring to living things today give no basis for concluding that limitless change has happened in the past. … “Yes, new species of plants and animals are forming today. The almost endless intergradations of animals and plants in the world, the fantastic degeneration among parasites, and the adaptations of offense and defense, lead to the inevitable conclusion that change has occurred. However, the problem of major changes from one fundamental kind to another is still a most pressing unanswered question facing the evolutionist. Modern animals and plants can change, but the amount of change is limited. The laboratories of science have been unable to demonstrate change from one major kind to another, neither has such change happened in the past history of the earth if we take the fossil record at face value.” (Coffin, Creation, pp. [13, 15].)

The issue for me with macroevolution is it's not observable, it's not repeatable, it's not testable. It also defies logic and reason, for me at least, that a fish could ever evolve into a mammal. We descended from humans, right? No other species was ever involved. And we can create new races, such at Latinos, a mixture of European and Native American blood. But, our ancestors and descendants will always be humans. The same goes for canines. Dogs and wolves can have a wide range of variation between them - and inevitably we'll see more breeds over time. But, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population can only vary so much. This is consistent with Mendel's Laws. And there really aren't any positive mutations that can form into complex entities, is there? At least I'm not aware of any that have been observed.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution. I believe there's a wide range of variation within each family. Hence, new species are created all the time. That's a fact. But, I believe there are natural limits to genetic change; an organism can only vary so much. The microevolutionary variations are horizontal. The macroevolutionary variations would be vertical, completing crossing over into different taxonomic groups altogether. That's the part I have trouble accepting. Another thing to consider, is Moses 4:1 4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore alook, and I will show thee the bworkmanship of mine chands; but not all, for my dworks are without eend, and also my fwords, for they never cease. I've always assumed this meant works and creations on other planets. But, part of me feels like some of the creations were formed and organized after Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden.

So, when I mentioned zebras, donkeys, and horses, they all come from equidae family. None of their offspring, IMO, will ever change taxonomic families. Can you create new breeds? Sure, of course. That is a part of microevolution. It happens all the time. But, all of those new breeds are confined to the equidae family. Macroevolution is something wildly different. It is crossing over from one taxonomic group to another. Although, I'm not on board with all of the classifications for taxonomic families. Humans, for example, are considered to be a part of the same family as gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and apes. I don't believe in the least bit that we share a common ancestor with the other species in the hominidae family. So yes, I believe in evolution. But there are restraints to how far a species can evolve. A fish, for example, will never evolve into a monkey, or anything like unto it.

Macroevolution, the idea that essentially one animal can change into another kind. That's much, much different than microevolution, which is something like horses, and donkeys, and zebras all deriving from the same common ancestor. But, that's where the evolution stops. You don't cross over into other kinds. At least we don't have any evidence for this. Some like to argue that it takes millions and millions of years to see the results of macroevolution; they'll say it's basically microevolution + microevolution + microevolution... a thousand times over. Okay, I get that. But, there's still no evidence for it. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the offspring of a parent will produce something other than its own kid.

Yup. The Hebrew word for create, bara, doesn't mean to create something out of nothing. It more appropriately means to organize, the same way a man might assemble raw material to "create" a vehicle. This seems to be in alignment with the law of conservation of mass, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. God was not creating ex nihilo as you say, he was simply organizing matter that already existed. Microevolution is a scientific fact. There's no denying that. It's observable, it's repeatable, it's testable. We can see this within the canine and feline families. The macro side of evolution is the one where people have trouble wrapping their heads around. Believing that the offspring of one taxonomic group can change to another group is very difficult to reconcile. I believe in evolution in the sense that things change over time. But, I believe there are limits within each species.

There's a lot of truth to that. Missionaries were obsessed with baptizing. It's emphasized in almost every training, so it's not hard to see why this happens. And baptizing in Brazil is actually not challenging at all, IMO. We could go down any street any probably get in 50% of the homes. Some of those that let us into their home will come to church - and a few of those who come to church will get baptized. You have to be really lazy or inefficient not to be baptizing on a regular basis. But to your point, retention is incredibly difficult in South American countries. From my understanding, it was somewhere around 20-25% in Brazil. I think it's somewhat of cultural thing. South Americans tend to be on the friendly side, and they struggle saying no. It's easier for them to just avoid someone altogether. The other difficult thing to untangle is the influence of the Catholic Church. When someone gets baptized, it's not unusual for a family member to have a talking with them about essentially slapping the family faith. They don't want to upset family members, so it's natural to revert to what's comfortable and what everyone else around them is following.