Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,579 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 141,634 of 142,579    |
|    jillery to All    |
|    Re: Who funds the ID perp's bait and swi    |
|    27 Oct 25 04:30:16    |
      [continued from previous message]              >>> evolve, but were created a little differently on each island. This       >>> means that recreations can interbreed and may still be considered to be       >>> the same species. Darwin's finches are recreations. The YEC actually       >>> claim that Darwin's finches evolved after the flood. That is how       >>> whacked creationism is.       >>        >>        >> Point of Order: Ken Ham's Ark Encounter and Creation Museum both       >> recognize and teach modification within kinds. So even Creationists       >> recognize biological modification. There isn't a dime's worth of       >> functional difference between Behe's ID and Creationism.       >       >My recollection is that Ham believes in the single original creation as        >described in the Bible. He is not a recreationist like the Reason to        >Believe creationist. That is why he has animals like ambulocetus (the        >walking whale) on his Ark. All extant animals with the breath of life        >evolved from the pairs of kinds on the Ark. That is what they claim in        >their Museum when I visited it. They were claiming that all cat kinds        >(from Tabby to the sabertoothed monsters of the ice age that occurred        >after the flood) and dog kinds (from foxes to wolves) evolved from the        >same pair of cat kind and dog kind on the Ark. Some of them are more        >divergent than humans are to orangutans.                     Your recollection shows that Creationists like Ken Ham accept       modification *within* kinds. An irony to that acceptance is it       requires hyper-fast evolution since the Flood in order to account for       the diversity of life that we observe today.               "Recreationists" might also accept modifications within kinds, but       they also apply IC, and that's what puts them into the *not*       biological and *not* science Creationist camp.              --        To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca