[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> because their god is recreating lifeforms just a little bit different   
   >>> >from the original creations over time.  They claim that recreations are   
   >>>> still happening to make it look like evolution is a fact of nature.  One   
   >>>> of their examples are the Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.  They didn't   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   No one claimed that Behe's tweeking was scientific.  Behe is just one   
   type of theistic evolutionist.  He accepts that humans had an ape like   
   ancestor.  He just claims that his designer had something to do with it.   
     His views are just as unscientific as the recreationists.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)