Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

Sonic, I would be careful about calling people ignorant. We have already shown that you didn't know what you were talking about when you started (that is you were 'ignorant'). You said new species didn't arise because that was macro-evolution which doesn't happen and now you have moved to agreeing that new species do arise.We are getting back to where you started. We still don't know what the barrier is that stops this so called macro evolution from happening. We still don't know what you think it is. When is a change "vertical", what is "more" complexity? Now you have introduced "new abilities", what are they?It appears that you are ignorant of what you are saying (to say nothing of evolutionary science). Could you clarify all that?

No, we do not. Theory has a very definite meaning in the context of science. It maybe unfortunate that the same word is used for other things but that happens a lot.It is NOT a guess.We can describe exactly how a theory is constituted and then invent a new word for it if you want. The definition game isn't going to get us anywhere.

Oh, this is news to me. I didn't know the issue had come up that far back.Could you offer some references and more details on this? LOL, of course they would be the same as species. There isn't anything BUT species (although there is fuzz in when something is a new species and when it isn't). All higher taxa are just groupings of species for convenience. So we have this big argument about variation "within kinds" but creationists don't know what they are? When you have a bit more detail sorted out then you can make statments about what has and has not happened. So if there is only a "little reshuffling" between existing species then they have come from one created kind? Is that what this means? Can you put some quantitative values on "little reshuffling"?How much reshuffling is needed before it is not "little" anymore? What causes the reshuffling? What evidence for it is there? What consitutes "reshuffling"? Is it just the recombination of genomes? What part do new mutations play in this "reshuffling"?Gee, sorry about all the questions but since it turns out creationists don't know what "kinds" are I thought I would see if they have a clue about what "reshuffling" is.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-15-2003]

It is possible that the support is for the bare fact that he changed his mind at all not why he changed it. I'm sure it is obvious to all why he may have changed his mind.

This is off topic for this thread I suggest you take it to the flood and date and dating fora. But quickly the answer is no. You are free to propose a reasonable mechanism whereby it could have. If you go over the existing threads you will probably find that anything you can make up or have read about has already been refuted. This is closer to on topic. The question here is 'hyperevolution'. How much evolution/adaptation do you think has taken place in how much time?Since the flood was supposed to have happened about 4500 years ago (correct?) and there is no hint of further rapid evolution well before we reach the first century CE you have at most 2500 years to play with. How much of that can you support has haveing unrecorded hyperevolution taking place?How many "kinds" were on the ark? What is a kind? If all "cats" are a kind did the evolution of the ark-cat into tigers and house cats all occur in less than 2500 years? That is did new species and genera arise hyper-fast?

---

Common sense isn't

You pointed to the whole site and didn't offer any of your own discussion. That is not kosher here.However, I did find this tidbit: [quote]For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, ...[/qs] at Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis So it seems that AIG has accepted, finally, that humans, chimps and gorillas are one kind. Thanks for that information.

---

Common sense isn't

I moved the issue to here as that is where it belongs.Oh? But I think that we just need to do a little more research and will find that AIG agrees that it is. They suggest the horses and zebra are one kind. Therefore if we find through DNA sequencing that humans and chimps are closer than horses and zebras we have settled that issue in a way that both sides will finally agree on.Well, in fact, we don't need to wait for the zebra/horse comparison. AIG already says that "kinds" are at the genus/family level --- odd that they are so very fuzzy on something that is supposed to be so fixed ---and chimps and humans are closer than the members of some genera I think.So AIG must conclude that the hyperevoluion includes humans, chimps etc. from, I guess, Australopithicus as the ark "kind".If they can't agree to that it shows that they make things up to fit what the want to have happened.

---

Common sense isn't

Ah, just as I suspected. They make it up as they go along. -- crapNow is truthdetector going to tell us what this part means: and how distinct they are compared to others within the same holobaramin

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-18-2004]

Wasn't it you that referred to AIG? They disagree with the above statement.
fromL
Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).

---

and

quote:

---

...so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family.

---

So they disagree with you statment about "inter-species" evolution.Since humans and chimps are close enough based on all observable evidence they are the same kind. I await your actual evidence that they are not.It might help you to know what your own sources say, btw.

---

Common sense isn't

But the evidence shows that they are not an exception. Or is this God the deceiver again?

---

Common sense isn't

No, you are the one heading in that direction. Most Christians have more sense than that. They also have a much greater respect for the powers of their God than you do.We aren't the ones saying that the earth is young, that it was under a global flood and that all living forms were created in one week. Those who say things that are directly contraticted by what we see in the world around us and then say that we are being fooled because God made it that way are the ones who are saying God is a deceiver.It is those who say that, if the earth is old, if there was no flood and if it took many millions of years for life to reach it's current forms, then God doesn't exist that are trying to make every thinking, rational person believe that He doesn't.It seems that the creationists must be in secret league with that militant atheist Dawkins. They are trying so hard to make it easier and easier to disprove the existance of God. No wonder I've had more than one Christian tell me: "They aren't Christians, they are cultists."

---

Common sense isn't

What evidence? Actually I don't know until you tell me what you believe He is telling us in the only other clues he left us (the Bible according to believers). Since it is not very complete on all topics of science, not very precise in what it is saying and has been subject to some mishandling by humans it seems reasonable to have a look at the rest of his handiwork where a great deal of detail is included even if it is not complete.If you say that the earth is only 6,000 years old you are calling God a liar.If you say that there was a world wide flood after that you are calling God a liar.But perhaps you aren't so blasphemous as that. It is just that some are and when their arguments are pushed far enough they end up with God the liar as their only way out.

---

Common sense isn't

You are mixing up two rather distinct things. The "flawed design" is a part of what has to be considered if you are making an argument for intelligent design. Of course, ID'ers don't claim that it has to be God. Space aliens are also considered by at least some of them. However, looking at the nature of the design would then be necessary to conclude something about the designer. That is not what we are talking about here.The lying part is what we are discussing. I'm not sure that you have reached that point yet. I don't recall. I did say you might be heading in the direction.Here is why:
The earth appears to be old. It either is old or has been made to seem that way. If someone claims that the earth is actually 6,000 years old and that all the data makes it appear old because "God made it that way" then that someone is calling God a liar.If you aren't saying that then there is not a problem. As noted it doesn't in any way say that God does or does not exist. It simple says that if a person uses the "God fools you" argument to argue against scientific findings then they are saying a certain thing about that god. Even many of those who do believe that God exists recognize that this doesn't automatically make all the Bible true. It is very possible for part of a document to be right and others to be wrong. Though I would have to agree that if God did exist that would lend more credibility to more of the Bible. If I believed in God I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that Genesis is meant to be literally true. That is what leads to a God the liar problem and if I was a believer I certainly wouldn't want to believe that.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-29-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-29-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-29-2004]