['In essence, they claim that genetic change can happen from generation to generation, but that such changes are always within the context of a species, and that such chages can never result in speciation.']
That is not actually what creationists believe. Creationists definitely believe in speciation, but not change from one kind of animal to another (e.g. chimp to man).
There is plenty of evidence for speciation, which both creationists and evolutionists believe in. Short-haired dogs in tropical climates and long-haired dogs in cold climates can be different species (they may no longer be able to interbreed for various reasons and are therefore considered different species), but they are still both dogs.
The burden of proof is on the evolutionist for anything further than that.
28 comments
He says he believes in speciation, just not changes from one "kind" of animal into another -- and, of course, avoids defining what he means by "kind."
All canines, including wolves, coyotes and dogs can and do interbreed.
Speciation vs Noahs ark.
He says he believes in speciation, just not changes from one "kind" of animal into another -- and, of course, avoids defining what he means by "kind."
First it was "evolution can't create a new species". Then when it looked like they might be proved wrong, they changed it to "evolution can't create a new kind ". That way, since "kind" has no concrete definition that they can be held to, they can just change the definition every time science gives them an example.
Yet another fundy missing 'kind' again.
DAMN!! DAMN IT ALL! NO!! Came so close to unknowingly refuting himself.
He had a vagueish understanding of speciation. He had the pieces and started putting them together. Then, right as the puzzle is almost finished, he sees that if he puts in that last piece, he'll have helped evolution. Then he took his Bible and swept the whole puzzle onto the floor, and asked us to clean it up for him.
I need a drink so bad right now.
Sigh, here we go again; "refuting" evolution using the Undefined Kind argument. Keneikirk, here's your homework:
chimp to man never claimed that men came from chimps?
The burden of proof is on the evolutionist for anything further than that.
Of course, in case biologists are unable to present definite proof for evolution the only alternative is to accept an Omnipotent, Omniscient Man In The Sky that loves rape, war, burnt offerings and now and then kills almost every single living thing in the world, riiight.
Look at any farm - each and every animal on a farm is the result of generations of cross-breeding within similar species.
Drilling through thick skulls in progress.
And yes, all dogs can breed, or they wouldn't be dogs.
"There is plenty of evidence for speciation, which both creationists and evolutionists believe in. Short-haired dogs in tropical climates and long-haired dogs in cold climates can be different species (they may no longer be able to interbreed for various reasons and are therefore considered different species), but they are still both dogs.
The burden of proof is on the evolutionist for anything further than that."
The Labradoodle:
image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labradoodle
A breed - and therefore species - of dog that not only originated in the extremely hot country of Australia, it didn't even exist until 1988 . As in CE .
...oh, and what about the Chinese Crested Dog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Crested_Dog
Long hair on it's head & tail, but otherwise, completely naked.
Not only is your argument - but is Creationism as a whole (not taking into account Kitzmiller vs. Dover) - blasted out of the space-time continuum.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
