The naughty things creationists at AiG accept.

[PsychoSarah]

Basically, creationist speciation is evolution on steroids.

 

[EternalDragon]

Basically, creationist speciation is evolution on steroids.

I'm pretty sure creationists don't consider speciation after the flood to be "evolution" at all.

 

[lasthero]

I'm pretty sure creationists don't consider speciation after the flood to be "evolution" at all.

And they're wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Life, which is a million times more complex and self operating than the computer you are typing on now.

Do you imagine that your computer came about by evolution? Because if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, then it did.

The Inner Life of the Cell - YouTube

Thanks for the video. Very impressive.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm pretty sure creationists don't consider speciation after the flood to be "evolution" at all.

They don't consider it evolution, but you fail to realize that speciation occurs through the same principles that have humans evolving from a shared ancestor with chimps. In fact, if the kind of speciation creationists suggest could occur, humans could still evolve from a past ape ancestor, because if you drop this whole "humans aren't animals for some non defined reason", and were to compare humans with other apes, you would probably consider them to be the same "kind". Just for one moment, don't think of humans as not being animals, and tell me if you would guess what the clade of humanity would be, and tell me you wouldn't guess some ape.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, you know, once upon a time dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil, and evolution didn't happen.

Then dinosaurs coexisted with humans, but evolution still didn't happen.

Next, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, micro evolution happened, but speciation didn't happen.

Now it would seem that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, micro-evolution happens and speciation happens.

Other than redating the dinosaurs to 65 million years ago, that doesn't leave too much, does it?
It's like drawing teeth without anesthetic.

 

[EternalDragon]

They don't consider it evolution, but you fail to realize that speciation occurs through the same principles that have humans evolving from a shared ancestor with chimps. In fact, if the kind of speciation creationists suggest could occur, humans could still evolve from a past ape ancestor, because if you drop this whole "humans aren't animals for some non defined reason", and were to compare humans with other apes, you would probably consider them to be the same "kind". Just for one moment, don't think of humans as not being animals, and tell me if you would guess what the clade of humanity would be, and tell me you wouldn't guess some ape.

You don't have to have a degree in anything to look at apes and then look at mankind and conclude that if tested, they would be very much similar in many ways. That doesn't mean we evolved from an ape ancestor or ever were apes at one time.

 

[lasthero]

You don't have to have a degree in anything to look at apes and then look at mankind and conclude that if tested, they would be very much similar in many ways. That doesn't mean we evolved from an ape ancestor or ever were apes at one time.

There's more to it than that.

If you looked at a sugar glider and a squirrel, you'd probably make the same conclusion - they look similar, they act similar. But sugar gliders are not classified as squirrels, or anywhere near them - they're marsupials.

The same thing with a Tasmanian Tiger - it looked like dog, and you would classify it as such just going off superficial looks...but it wasn't.

Just because two things LOOK similar doesn't mean they're closely related.

 

[biggles53]

You don't have to have a degree in anything to look at apes and then look at mankind and conclude that if tested, they would be very much similar in many ways. That doesn't mean we evolved from an ape ancestor or ever were apes at one time.

No you're dead right.....we have waaaay more evidence than just appearance to show that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor....!

Those pesky ERVs for example, that just keep insisting to bust your myths....

 

[EternalDragon]

No you're dead right.....we have waaaay more evidence than just appearance to show that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor....!

Those pesky ERVs for example, that just keep insisting to bust your myths....

You mean the kind that tend to target specific locations?

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/does_genome_evi083181.html

 

[lasthero]

You mean the kind that tend to target specific locations?

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

The key word is 'tend'.

You've been corrected on this argument many times. I've seen it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi All,We get a lot of handwaving from YECs over the reality of such things as random mutation, natural selection, speciation, gene duplication, microevolution and the rest.

I can't find your comparisons in your post.

 

[EternalDragon]

The key word is 'tend'.

You've been corrected on this argument many times. I've seen it.

No. They just keep repeating some scientists conclusions and ignore other valid conclusions.

 

[mzungu]

No. They just keep repeating some scientists conclusions and ignore other valid conclusions.

You mean like talking snakes, Adam and Eve, etc?

 

[lasthero]

No. They just keep repeating some scientists conclusions and ignore other valid conclusions.

Again with the 'some'.

You ignore how long the base pairs are.