DNA Evidence for Special Creation

Creationists themselves admit that evolution is a genuine process that produces new species. (CreationWiki, " speciation"😉. The argument is no longer about whether evolution happens. It does. The argument is about whether it happens fast or slowly, on a small scale or a large scale. Try to keep up.

Originally posted by catstorm
Do you want one?

We have two dogs already. A cat would be in trouble in our house I think🙂

Originally posted by catstorm
Creationists themselves admit that evolution is a genuine process that produces new species. (CreationWiki, " speciation"😉. The argument is no longer about whether evolution happens. It does. The argument is about whether it happens fast or slowly, on a small scale or a large scale. Try to keep up.

He is not trying to 'keep up'. He knows full well evolution has been proven a hundred times over. His MO is to keep knocking down evolution in the vain hope creationism will win out, something which will never happen.

He doesn't do his own thinking, only parroting the OTHER idiots who try to present the same tired arguments, which has nothing to do with science, and has everything to do with politics.

They just want to convince enough simple minded folks who also can't think for themselves of the correctness of creationism, gathering enough of those people for a democratic takeover of the entire scientific process.

Which would of course, #1, make us even more of a laughing stock in the world and #2 put the US on a road to scientific ruin which we would be unable to recover for a long time, thus putting countries like Brazil, China, Japan, maybe even Russia ahead of us in the area of scientific progress. We used to be # 1 at that game but if creationists win, we would be lucky to place #30.

Yes, and which brand of creationists are we talking about? The Taliban are also creationists.

Originally posted by catstorm
Yes, and which brand of creationists are we talking about? The Taliban are also creationists.

His brand, well actually, someone else's brand which he bandies about, is the 6000 year old Earth literal 6 day creation myth, which was copped from an even more ancient Egyptian 6 day creation myth, which, BTW, I know is absolute fact, having lived in Israel for 4 years and visited the Cairo museum where there was a cartouche about 4,000 years old showing the whole 6 day creation myth, which the Hebrew slaves took and made it over into a Jewish thing.

So the bible god 6 day creation myth isn't even Jewish.

Originally posted by sonhouse
His brand, well actually, someone else's brand which he bandies about, is the 6000 year old Earth literal 6 day creation myth, which was copped from an even more ancient Egyptian 6 day creation myth, which, BTW, I know is absolute fact, having lived in Israel for 4 years and visited the Cairo museum where there was a cartouche about 4,000 years old showing ...[text shortened]... nd made it over into a Jewish thing.

So the bible god 6 day creation myth isn't even Jewish.

You see sonhouse, the problem you have is that you have tunnel vision. Everyone in the world new about the creation of the universe long before Moses wrote about it. Thing is though is that Moses got the story strait from the creator.

You're confused about the sequencing, which is why you think it's all a myth. The real myth is that the universe wasn't created.

I for one do believe the universe was created by God. I do not however accept the authority of RJHinds to determine what the details were. Christians who accept the reality of evolution are not rejecting God's Word. They are rejecting the opinions of the creationists.

Originally posted by catstorm
Creationists themselves admit that evolution is a genuine process that produces new species. (CreationWiki, " speciation"😉. The argument is no longer about whether evolution happens. It does. The argument is about whether it happens fast or slowly, on a small scale or a large scale. Try to keep up.

This depends on if one is willing to call the reproduction process, with adaption, selective breeding, natural selection, and mutations by the name evolution. However, no young earth creationists believes the theory of evolution all the way from molecule to man.

But they do accept much of it and should be honest about this. Darwin did valuable scientific work and should be given credit for it. Also, Creation Science should not claim to be the clear teaching of Genesis when its ideas sometimes change. I was pushed out of my church for believing things that everyone accepts now.

Originally posted by catstorm
But they do accept much of it and should be honest about this. Darwin did valuable scientific work and should be given credit for it. Also, Creation Science should not claim to be the clear teaching of Genesis when its ideas sometimes change. I was pushed out of my church for believing things that everyone accepts now.

Not really. What Darwin discovered and called natural selection was already known by breeders of dogs, horses, etc. His other theories have not been proven to be true and many people, like me, believe they have been proven false.

Darwin said that Nature does the same work as an animal or plant breeder, selecting which individual will survive and pass its genes to the next generation. Creation Science agrees that this produces new species. They once denied this, and to their credit they admitted that they were wrong.

Before we go any further, have you read 'On the Origin of Species'?

Originally posted by catstorm
Darwin said that Nature does the same work as an animal or plant breeder, selecting which individual will survive and pass its genes to the next generation. Creation Science agrees that this produces new species. They once denied this, and to their credit they admitted that they were wrong.

Intelligent breeders can be much more selective than nature. If different breeds of dogs are defined as different species, then it is true that a different species can arise by natural selective breeding too. But most creationists have defined species as a variety within a kind. That is, we all acknowledge that there are different varieties of dogs, but they remain a dog species and have not changed to a different kind of animal.

Different breeds of dog are not different species. Genuine evolution resulting in the production of new species (which breed successfully only within their species) has been observed and is now accepted as fact by all biologists, including creationists. Go to CreationWiki, speciation. The word 'kind' is not a.word used as a classification by biologists. Creationists themselves do not agree on what it means.

Have you read 'On the Origin of Species'?