for creationists only

Okay, I'm trying to understand what creationists really believe. Please assess the accuracy of the following statement (but only if you are a creationist):

Creationists usually don't state the predictions of creationism, but I'll take a stab at it here. First, though there are several different sorts of creationism, all of them agree that there should be no transitional fossils at all between "kinds". For example, if "kind" means "species", creationism apparently predicts that there should be no species-to-species transitions whatsoever in the fossil record. If "kind" means "genus" or "family" or "order", there should be no species-to-species transitions that cross genus, family, or order lines. Furthermore, creationism apparently predicts that since life did not originate by descent from a common ancestor, fossils should not appear in a temporal progression, and it should not be possible to link modern taxa to much older, very different taxa through a "general lineage" of similar and progressively older fossils.

(it is not my writing, it came from another--footnote suppressed)

just as I thought

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Okay, I'm trying to understand what creationists really believe. Please assess the accuracy of the following statement (but only if you are a creationist):

Creationists usually don't state the predictions of creationism, but I'll take a stab at it here. First, though there are several different sorts of creationism, all of them agree that there should ...[text shortened]... rogressively older fossils.

(it is not my writing, it came from another--footnote suppressed)

should the ways in which each kind operates on a cellular level be similar or should each kind have its own modus operandi in a creationist model?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Okay, I'm trying to understand what creationists really believe. Please assess the accuracy of the following statement (but only if you are a creationist):

Creationists usually don't state the predictions of creationism, but I'll take a stab at it here. First, though there are several different sorts of creationism, all of them agree that there should ...[text shortened]... rogressively older fossils.

(it is not my writing, it came from another--footnote suppressed)

Correct, there are no transitional forms, if there were the museums would be replete after over 150 years of investigation. Natural selection is a process embraced by creationism, but only within kinds. ie Canine, feline etc. There are no changes from one kind to another The fossil record shows clearly that all life appeared suddenly fully formed and functional. The age old question, which came first, The chicken or the egg? According to creation, the chicken, fully formed and functional. The supposed transitional Archaeopterx, is a bird with all the characteristics of a bird, with the capacity to fly.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Okay, I'm trying to understand what creationists really believe. Please assess the accuracy of the following statement (but only if you are a creationist):

Creationists usually don't state the predictions of creationism, but I'll take ...[text shortened]...
(it is not my writing, it came from another--footnote suppressed)

You will not see different kinds cross breeding either and have
offspring that can also reproduce if you are looking at the creation
story within the Bible. I’m of the opinion that kinds have diverged
or evolved into different types of the same kind, which is why we
have what we may call cousins of a sort in species. Meaning that
it is possible that at one point; that zebras and horses were one
kind, but through time they have separated into different species
by our definition of life, if they were of the same kind in the
beginning.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Okay, I'm trying to understand what creationists really believe. Please assess the accuracy of the following statement (but only if you are a creationist):

Creationists usually don't state the predictions of creationism, but I'll take a stab at it here. First, though there are several different sorts of creationism, all of them agree that there should ...[text shortened]... rogressively older fossils.

(it is not my writing, it came from another--footnote suppressed)

As a creationist - I assert that God created life as described in the Genesis account. I don't assert that evolution has or has not occurred since then. But I am doubtful of evolution and have not found the assertions of evolutionist compelling.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I believed that no evolution has occurred at all. Then the statement: "there should be no transitional fossils" would be begging the question. The definition of "transitional fossils" presupposes evolution has occurred. If the theory of evolution is false - there would be no "transitional fossils" by definition.

The reversed statement from an evolutionist would also be begging the question as an argument to prove evolution. The presumption of evolution requires that fossils be part of some sort of transitional form - it's not like a particular form could just instantly appear.

Originally posted by Langtree
Correct, there are no transitional forms, if there were the museums would be replete after over 150 years of investigation. Natural selection is a process embraced by creationism, but only within kinds. ie Canine, feline etc. There are no changes from one kind to another The fossil record shows clearly that all life appeared suddenly fully formed and fun ...[text shortened]... onal Archaeopterx, is a bird with all the characteristics of a bird, with the capacity to fly.

What is a kind?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
What is a kind?

Isn't that the point of the original question?

The Bible says kind, but Creationists have a difficult time expressing the meaning of kind in biological terms. If kind means species, then we should not find transitions between species in the fossil record.

But we do. Not only are there several fossils that appear to be candidates for transition species, but the vertical ordering in the geological strata points quite clearly to extinctions of simpler forms that bear enough similarities to later species--some extinct, some still living--that ancestry emerges as the likely explanation.

If kind means something other than species, then perhaps the Bible is fully consistent with evolution. Wouldn't it seem reasonable, if one wishes to defend his or her faith, to define kind in such a way that believers need not eschew science?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Isn't that the point of the original question?

The Bible says kind, but Creationists have a difficult time expressing the meaning of kind in biological terms. If kind means species, then we should not find transitions between species in the fossil record.

But we do. Not only are there several fossils that appear to be candidates f ...[text shortened]... nd his or her faith, to define kind in such a way that believers need not eschew science?

Ironically - biologist have trouble defining species! 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
Ironically - biologist have trouble defining species! 🙂

http://www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/popgen/popgen6.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Speciation, then, is integral to the evolutionary process:
Natural selection shapes most evolutionary adaptive change nearly simultaneously in genetically independent lineages as speciation is triggered by extinction in "turnover" events.
When physical environmental events that go "too far too fast" start triggering regional, species-level extinction, then evolutionary change -- predominantly via speciation -- occurs.
In times of environmental normalcy, speciation and species-wide evolutionary change are comparatively rare. ...Niles Eldredge....

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
http://www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/popgen/popgen6.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Speciation, then, is integral to the evolutionary process:
Natural selection shapes most evolutionary adaptive change ...[text shortened]... e....

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

see what I mean? 😉

Originally posted by Coletti
see what I mean? 😉

However , the definition of species remains constant:

".... A species is a group of populations through which genes can flow and whose offspring have a fitness equal to the parents. As evolution progresses, gene flow is eventually stopped between one population and the species as a whole...."

Originally posted by frogstomp
However , the definition of species remains constant:

".... A species is a group of populations through which genes can flow and whose offspring have a fitness equal to the parents. As evolution progresses, gene flow is eventually stopped between one population and the species as a whole...."

Which does not mean that creation didn't occur as scripture outlines
it. The disagreement is how far back do these lines of species really
go, do they go back to a single source of life like a single cell, or did
they start with several gene pools at the very start of life? What test
could we use to know?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which does not mean that creation didn't occur as scripture outlines
it. The disagreement is how far back do these lines of species really
go, do they go back to a single source of life like a single cell, or did
they start with severa ...[text shortened]... at the very start of life? What test
could we use to know?
Kelly

the age of the earth rocks.

Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.
Technique Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead 3.56±0.10
lead-lead 3.74±0.12
lead-lead 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20
(compiled from Dalrymple, 1991

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2010

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which does not mean that creation didn't occur as scripture outlines
it. The disagreement is how far back do these lines of species really
go, do they go back to a single source of life like a single cell, or did
they start with several gene pools at the very start of life? What test
could we use to know?
Kelly

Scripture claims a young earth! Now please, are you serious. Why not go all the way and tell us about a geocentric solar system and throw in a flat earth for good measure