|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2009 : 05:46:06
|
I post this without comment beyond that it is from AiG and is rather nicely done, from a certain point of view.
Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place.
Prior to the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species especially, some Christians did claim that species were immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did not mean the same thing then as it does now—nor was there ever any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution—they remind us that God put enough information in the genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed world.
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 09:29:55 [Permalink]
|
Ha!
"Such changes are not evolution..." Yes they are. Even if God is responsible for the mechanism, change over time is evolution.
Morons.
As for the "kind" bullshit, nothing new there.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2009 : 10:14:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by filthy
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago. |
Ha! So, since man and apes share a family, Creationists might agree that man is a modified ape.
Actually, I'd guess that they'd claim that apes are "devolved" humans. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2009 : 10:51:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally quoted by filthy
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago. |
Ha! So, since man and apes share a family, Creationists might agree that man is a modified ape.
Actually, I'd guess that they'd claim that apes are "devolved" humans.
|
Good catch! But you know how it goes. Whoever wrote that, if called on it, will just send out the ground crew to move the goal posts, slimy bastards that they are. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 12:37:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Good catch! But you know how it goes. Whoever wrote that, if called on it, will just send out the ground crew to move the goal posts, slimy bastards that they are. |
Indeed, whenever the creationists have been given examples at whatever taxonomic level they claim evolution doesn't occur, they shift their definition of "kinds" to a higher level, to the point of ludicrous uselessness of their "kinds" concept. If, for example, everything with a backbone is one "kind," then Noah's ark could have been a dinghy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 14:01:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Indeed, whenever the creationists have been given examples at whatever taxonomic level they claim evolution doesn't occur, they shift their definition of "kinds" to a higher level, to the point of ludicrous uselessness of their "kinds" concept. If, for example, everything with a backbone is one "kind," then Noah's ark could have been a dinghy.
|
Yep. And the more basic a body plan the creationists consider one "kind," the faster evolution would need to operate to explain the present distribution of biological diversity. That's why the Creationist Museum ultimately ends up promoting super evolution. Got to love the irony.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 14:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Indeed, whenever the creationists have been given examples at whatever taxonomic level they claim evolution doesn't occur, they shift their definition of "kinds" to a higher level, to the point of ludicrous uselessness of their "kinds" concept. If, for example, everything with a backbone is one "kind," then Noah's ark could have been a dinghy. |
Lovely bit of propaganda, ain't it? Hell, taken to it's logical conclusion, Noah's Ark could have been a thimble and that's in line with common descent. Therefore, AiG supports the Theory of Evolution. 
I visit their website often -- it's ever good for a laugh. However, it's really not all that funny. As much as they deny it, their sole ambition is the sectarian conversion of the country, and all that they do is toward that end, including (especally) brainwashing children. What with their funky "museum," they do a better job of it than most of the ilk.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2009 : 01:05:50 [Permalink]
|
Oi. These (other "myths" on their list) are more what you'd expect from AiG, but it's always worth a laugh(?) to see what they're claiming:
Myth 8: The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook | The Bible isn’t a science textbook in the sense that it describes exactly how the laws of the universe function, but it does make a number of statements that touch upon scientific principles. And what it does touch on is factually accurate. |
Myth 7: Creationists Have a Narrow/Literal View of the Bible
Myth 6: Creation Has Been Disproven | We would say, instead, that evolution was disproven long before Charles Darwin came on the scene. How? The One who spoke everything into existence told us how He created—and it wasn’t over billions of years though natural processes. |
Myth 5: Creationists Are Anti-Science | The truth is that many creationists love science because they love God. |
I did learn one new thing from "Myth 10" as quoted in the OP: the word "fixity", which I'd never heard before. (I assumed they'd made it up, but *nope* it's in the dictionary.)
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Top Ten Myths About Creation
