As if that would happen.
DPimpJ3di, there is a creature in existance right now which is not a mammal that can (for brief periods) live on land, though it is native to water. It is called a lungfish (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html) and it has the ability to breathe air for a short period of time while still maintaining its gills. Beyond that, frogs and other such amphibians live happily either in or out of water. The thing about evolutionary theories is that all of them state that these biological shifts take millions of years to achieve. No creature (you or I included) will wake up one morning to find they have developed gills/grown wings/etc.
To whit, are you a perfect copy of your father or mother? Probably not. Though you may superficially resemble one more than the other, you are not the identical replica of that parent. Your parents, when creating you, each contributed half of their DNA. Depending on who you pick as your eventual spouse, your children will share traits from both you and that future mate of yours. Over time and owing to natural selection, your decentdents may become negroids or caucasoids, even to the extremes of (for example) the blackness of a Nubian (a person from Sudan) or the whiteness of a Scandanavian. Those are adaptions. Granted, it is probably not possible for humans to grow wings, and so your descendants will not have those, but we have our ancestors to thank for that… and also for our abilities to walk on our hind limbs without stooping over, and to use our forelimbs for other tasks, such as typing.
Firstly, evolution doesn’t happen to individual organisms; it is a statistical thing that happens to populations of individuals.
Also; consider that there are ecological niches currently exploited by creatures such as the lungfish and the mudskipper; I’m not suggesting that these animals are the ‘missing link’, just that they live half in and half out of the water and they do just fine; the assumption that the transition from water to land must have been a sudden one is quite false.
To clarify, so as not to offend:
I am by no means attempting to imply a genetic basis for “race” as it is my belief that, no matter where one originally hails from, we are all one race. Science defines us as “homo sapiens” and from Lima to Moscow to New York to Johannesburg to Addis Ababa we are all one race. What I am simply talking about (in my negroid/caucasoid reference) is that I believe there is a genetic basis for the color of your skin.
Hope this clears any questions up.
Creationism (not the literal 6-day sense but the allegorical sense) does not contradict evolution, for one. It is the belief of several denominations of Christianity (and the Jesuits, IIRC, though I dearly hope tomndebb or someone else who knows will be able to elucidate this with a bit more scholarship) that the creation stories of the Bible are meant to be taken not as a literal tale but as a general “this is how things came to be”. Once separated from the requirement that it be taken literally, the accounts in the Bible are able to be (and without strain, IMO) reconciled with a scientific viewpoint such as that of evolution. It was specifically my believe (as a Catholic) that while the Bible did not specifically detail evolution (as it doesn’t specifically detail any number of things), there was nothing in it that, not taken literally, disagreed with it.
I believe the OP wanted to discuss whether the evidence supports evolution or god creating the different spcecies. If so it’s irrelevant whether:
- The big bang (if it happened) was caused by God.
- God created the universe fairly recently, but planted evidence for the big bang or evolution or etc…
and I’d be happy to debate them in a different thread 
Ben hope I didn’t misread you. If I’m right, the people Ben wants to argue with are those who think that there is scientific evidence for God creating the species separately (without evolution), which is what I mean by ‘scientific creationism’
I’ve never heard any, but who knows. For that matter, evidence that evolution is impossible, while relevant, only goes halfway, since you still have to show God is the next most likely outcome.
More on the shrinking sun here:
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n11/sunshrink.html
Which was written by SDStaff David. He links to the article from this SDStaff report:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbigbangmyth.html
To make a long story short, some scientists observed that the sun seemed to be shrinking. More scientists did more research and observed that the sun has a regular expansion/contraction cycle, and the shrinking observation was part of the contraction phase. Then, creation “scientists” came along, ignored the latter findings, but disingenously used the former findings.
The shrinking sun thing is just another example of creationists taking a relatively small data set and extrapolating as the observed phenomenon is and has always been constant; same thing as they do with population growth, lunar recession, erosion, sediment deposition, magnetic field decay and probably a lot of other things too.
But Shade is right; I think *Ben wanted to see some evidence for creation of a fixed range of ‘kinds’.
I’m not aware that any creationists, even the somewhat more sophisticated ones like Behe, have ever really tried to formulate a formal theory of special creation. All they do is try to poke holes in evolution.
**
So? What does your religion have to do with anything?
And as usual, WITHOUT FAIL, a creationist tries to hijack the thread even when I asked specifically that they not do so.
Look, if you want to ask easy questions about the eye, start your own thread. But please, don’t hijack this one.
I obviously wasn’t trying to “hi-jack” your thread.
And stop trying to portray me as a creationist with the intent of manipulating the subject. I said I was Christian meaning that I know what know only because it was taught to me. Not because I’m some scientist studying it.
I think you’re overreacting. As you note, you can almost write the script to these threads, however I suspect you are missing the dynamics of what happens.
First, there aren’t that many “creation scientists” wandering around, and the few trhat exist have already established their own web sites. So the people who will be lured into these threads are those who see the title, but tend to not have the experience to attempt a serious discussion. This does not indicate malice on their part. We get lots of “innocents” stumbling into threads on economics, crime, national and international politics, Islam, Christianity, scripture, race, sexuality, or any of the myriad topics on which all people have some opinion while rather fewer have serious education. It simply strikes you more abruptly because this is your hot button issue. The people you accuse of “hijacking” are simply wandering in without understanding that you are attempting to impose rules on the discussion. Yes, I realize that you put your request in the OP, but such requests are ignored more than followed–when they are even understood–just about any time some poster tries to have a narrowly focused discussion. The board is open. We do not have “private rooms” for focused discussions; there is no way to bar posters attracted by the topic from participating.
Given that this is your nth attempt to have such a thread (and given that you understood, going in to it, that you would encounter folks without the background to engage you at your level), I suspect that it would do your blood pressure more good to simply view such “hijacks” as opportunities to spread some knowledge rather than deliberate insults and either engage them at their level or stop working yourself up by initiating these threads.
Advice: worth every dime you paid for it.
**
My apologies. As tomndebb has pointed out, I was being too touchy.
Let me clarify again what this thread is about:
It’s not about creation vs. evolution.
It’s about special creation of individual kinds, vs. common descent. A number of people (i.e. “designologists”) believe in common descent, but disagree with the mainstream theory of evolution.
I’m asking you to present evidence for special creation. Not evidence against natural selection. Not evidence against macroevolution. Not evidence against common descent. Evidence for special creation.
I guess I don’t understand. Isn’t being a scientist a different issue from being a Christian?
**
What pro-evolution videos have you watched?
**
That’s irrelevant. The times when dinosaurs and humans existed doesn’t have anything to do with how they came into being. Plenty of creationists believe that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist. Some cryptozoologists believe that dinosaurs exist even today in remote areas, and so far as I know some of those cryptozoologists are evolutionists.
**
Again, that’s irrelevant. The age of the earth is a completely different subject. Old-earth creationists believe in an old earth, but reject common descent. Similarly, someone could believe in a young earth, and still believe in common descent.
Again, completely irrelevant. Plenty of people believe that God created the first lifeform, and then used common descent to shape that lifeform into modern species.
NF124, if I may put Ben’s request in simpler terms:
He’s asking for a narrow discussion about special creation of “kinds” vesus common descent. What that means is that he is asking for specific evidence that different kinds of animals were created seperately rather than all evolving from a common biological origin. This request also includes a request for a definition of “kinds,” as this is the term used in Genesis. Is a “kind” a species as we know it it in our modern taxonomic system or is it something else? If so what?
I meant that I’m only trying to give my input, which is not exactly anything you should take my word for. I only know bits and pieces of things I’ve seen or heard in the past. My words don’t actually represent the words of an actual “creationist”.
I have no idea what the title of the video was.
I didn’t mean to stray off topic. The way I saw it was that if I disproved evolution in any way, it would help support the theory of creationists (which is that God created every species). Now I’m not sure how much you know about the theory of a creationist, but it’s not as simple as the fact that God created all the different “kinds” of species. Awhile back someone said that creationists only seem to knock theories of evolution but don’t have anything to say about their own. Hopefully what I’m about to explain will clear things up and help further this discussion. If not, then sorry, I’ll save my input for somewhere else next time. Remember that the following is from my memory and should only give you a general idea of the topic.
Creationists believe that God created everything - not just the dot that made the Big Bang. They believe that things occured as it was said in the Bible. The world was created as it was said in Genesis, and things continued to occur as it went throughout the rest of the book. To them this means that the world is not the millions of years old scientists claim it to be. Instead it’s roughly around 6000 to 10000 years old. If the earth is supposedly as young as I just stated, there wouldn’t have been time for the evolution of any species at all. That is why I made references to the Sun’s size, as well as the dinosaur co-existing with man. If evolutionists are wrong about the earth’s age, then evolution itself is basically disproved.
Now according to evolution, a comet or something similar hit the earth and killed the dinosaurs. According to the Bible, there was a global flood that wiped out every being on land save for those that were in the boat of Noah (the story of Noah and the ark). To quickly give you evidence to support this, fossils of sea creatures have been found in the most remote places of deserts hundreds of miles from any body of water. Thus, only a global flood could have landed those creatures there long ago to leave their fossils imprinted. This is relevant because evolutionists do not believe in a global flood at all. By proving this, I’m helping to prove the theory of a creationist which believes in the creation of all kinds of species.
Now quickly backtracking before the flood. Creationists believe that the earth used to be surrounded by a canopy of water, similar to the atmostphere right now. I cannot explain how this is possible right now because there WERE details, but just listen to the rest of it for now. This canopy of water created a paradise on earth by filtering UV rays and so forth, while the earth’s air was also concentrated with more oxygen than it is today. This they explain is how dinosaurs breathed. Since dinosaurs are so enormous, many of them couldn’t have lived with their lung size and capacity. Not unless the air was rich in oxygen. Altogether, the environment is what allowed Adam, Eve, and their early decendants to live for so long (living at an average of more than 900 years).
Sorry that this is not specific evidence of how different kinds of animals were created seperately rather than all evolving from a common biological origin. Though I do not believe there is any: not unless you count simple questions as “why isn’t anything else evolving right now?” The most I think creationists can do is either try to find flaws in evolution right now or use evidence to support their own theory, which would disprove all of evolution in itself.
One more thing, and this HAS to be relevant to your topic. It’s popping in my mind for some reason in the back of my head, meaning it’s possible that I’m just creating this memory out of no where. Check out snakes and if there is anything that could suggest they had wings in the past. According to the Bible, “serpents” used to have wings until the devil tempted Adamn and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. After that, God cursed serpents to be as they are today. Once again, this is from the back of my head. So if you don’t find evidence, don’t hold it against the theory of Creation.
Go easy on him, Ben. He’s just a naive kid. 
**
That wasn’t the question. The question was, what evolutionist videos have you watched?
**
No problem on straying off topic- it’s clear to me now that you just misunderstand the issues involved.
The problem is that you’re viewing it as an all-or-nothing, us vs. them thing. On the one side you have a set of beliefs that you believe, and which you think all creationists believe. On the other side you have mainstream science. So you’ve assumed that if you can prove mainstream science wrong on any one point, then you’ve proved yourself right on all the points where you disagree. But it doesn’t really work that way. It could well be the case that in half those issues you’re right, and in the other half mainstream science is right.
**
Given your errors in your description of creationism, I think I probably know more about creationism than you do. I’ve read Darwin on Trial, as much of Darwin’s Black Box as I could stomach before I got tired of Behe’s dishonesty, and the molecular biology section of Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis. I’ve also read some papers from the journals that form the primary literature of creation science.
**
And yet, your entire argument style is to just try to disprove some point of evolution, and then claim that if “evolution” (by which you mean mainstream biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, etc.) is wrong on that one point, then it must be wrong about everything you disagree over. You haven’t offered a lot of positive proof of your own position; you mostly seem to be using the fallacy of “argument from ignorance.” (i.e., “If I can prove that your argument is unsupported, that means I’m right.” For example, “It’s not snowing outside- so it must be raining!”)
**
Some creationists, called “young earth creationists,” believe in a 6,000-10,000 year old earth. Others, called “old earth creationists,” “day-age creationists,” or “gap creationists” believe in an Earth that is billions of years old.
**
An omnipotent God could make new species arise from old ones as quickly as he likes. It’s your job to provide scientific proof that he didn’t do it.
**
But coexistence of dinosaurs and humans has nothing to do with the age of the earth!
**
No, according to evolution new species arise out of old ones as a result of natural selection.
According to geology and paleontology, an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.
**
And yet, even if there were a global flood, that says nothing about common descent. God could have made evolution run along for billions of years, and then 4,000 years ago he sent a flood which killed everything that wasn’t on the ark.
Conversely, I’ve met at least one creationist who rejects common descent and the global flood.
**
And this is the problem with believing creationist videos. Geology can explain those fossils very easily. In fact, it can explain them better than creationism can. That’s why the creationists don’t want you to hear the geologists’ side of the story.
Those fossils are on mountaintops because the mountaintops used to be below sea level. When continental drift slams continents together, it pushes shallow seafloors up until they become mountains. It also creates folds in rock strata, like folds in a scrunched carpet. That’s why mountains, folded strata, and the movements of continents all correlate with each other, exactly as mainstream geology (not evolution) predicts.
If you want to read more about the other side of the argument, check out my FAQ:
http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/ben/GeologyFAQ.htm
Here’s a list of problems with a global flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
**
Actually, that kind of vapor canopy would make the earth an unlivable furnace, thanks to the greenhouse effect. A “vapor canopy” is why Venus’s surface is hot enough to melt lead.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
**
Actually, evolutionists also believe that the air was richer in oxygen then.
But ancient rock strata also show that billions of years ago, there was no oxygen at all. How do you explain that?
**
How so? How does an oxygen-rich, UV-free environment keep your telomeres from getting worn down?
**
But things are evolving right now. Bacteria, for example, or numerous species of insect. Numerous instances of speciation have been observed, too:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
**
But again, what’s the point here? To score points by dragging evolution through the mud, or to gain a better understanding of science?
Suppose evolution never existed. What would creationists do all day? If you cut out all the arguments about evolution, there’s hardly anything left to creationism.
I hate to break it to you, but it’s your job to provide evidence for your arguments, not mine.
NF124, I’m afraid that you have still not quite grasped the point of the OP. The intent is not to go over the whole “Is creation (or evolution) a valid proposition?” Rather, within the framework of people who assert that Creationism is a valid science, there is a much more tightly focused question. That is, among some Creationists, there is a grudging acknowldgement that “microevolution” ccurs, with some species changing color or getting larger or experiencing some other small change. Howevr, these people deny the proposition that “macroevolution” occurs, because they calim that no speies has ever evolved into a different species.
Now one of the terms that these Creationists employ is to use the word “kinds” (taken from the King James Version of the bible) to identify the animals and plants that were “created.”
The fairly narrow questions of the OP would include, “What is a kind?” (Is it a species? and genus? something different than either?) The specific question, however, is that, once one has identified a “kind,” What scientific evidence can be provided that any “kind” was created? After all the clarifications and definitions and whatever, Ben is looking for a specific response to the question that I have bolded.
I’m not trying to argue, only inform. It’s not my job to do anything. If you started this debate because you wanted to learn from more from the knowledge of others, then you’ll search it yourself. If you started it just to argue your points, then good job. I just learned a counter-theory to the fossils found in the desert, which I have you to thank. The only thing I have left to say is concerning your quick answer against the theory of a water canopy and how it all could affect the lifespan of humans. Like I said, I watched this video a long time ago. It took several hours to explain their theories. They’re not so stupid to produce a theory that could so easily be destroyed by one concerning the “greenhouse effect.” Understand when I say I’m only trying to give a general idea of their theory.